[d. Approval to piggyback Sourcewell Contract #010521-LTS to purchase playground equipment for the Coach Fenn Park Project, in an amount not to exceed $174,469.79, from Miracle Recreation Equip Co., Monett, MO.]

>> ITEM 11D IS APPROVAL TO PIGGY BACK SOURCE WHILE CONTRACT NUMBER 010521LTS TO PURCHASE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR THE COACH FEN PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF NOT TO EXCEED 174,169.79 FOR MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT COMPANY.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

IS THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT IS THIS PART OF THE WATER -- IS IT A PART OF IT OR IS IT JUST A PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT?

>> MIMS. >> MADAM MAYOR, AND COMMISSIONER MAYOR, I WOULD RATHER THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ANSWER THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. HE IS ON HIS WAY.

>> I KNOW THERE WAS TALK. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE.

>> MR. RIOS. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. THAT IS JUST FOR THE PLAYGROUND AMENITIES THEMSELVES, JUST THE PLAY SETS.

THERE WILL BE 1 FOR 2 TO 5, AND AGES 5-12 AS WELL AND SINGULAR AMENITIES AROUND THAT PLAY SET. WE ARE DOING THIS PROJECT INTERNALLY SO WE DON'T HAVE A FIRM THAT IS DOING THIS ENTIRE PROJECT. PERIODICALLY YOU WILL SEE THINGS COME BEFORE YOU AS WE BUILD THIS PARK OUT, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST ITEMS THAT WE'RE PLACING IN THERE.

>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT JUST A LITTLE MAKEOVER THAT WE'RE DOING TO THAT PARK. WE'RE ACTUALLY MAKING THAT PARK A PARK THAT EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY WILL BE PROUD OF.

I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHERE WE WERE.

>> IT'S JUST THE START. >> IT'S THE START.

>> OKAY, GREAT, THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT CONSENT YOU ITEM D.

>> A SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND, CALL

THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> SECRETARY:

[a. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 22-020 levying and collecting taxes for Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2022 and ending September 30, 2023, adopting final millage rate. SECOND READING]

>> OKAY, NEXT WE MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THIS IS GOING TO BE ORDINANCE 22020, THIS IS ONE I NEED TO REA READ IN FULL. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE LEVYING AND COLLECTING OF TAXES FOR THE CITY OF FOR THE PIECE FLORIDA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH 2023.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF RAISING SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO CARRY ON THE GOVERNMENT OF SAID CITY DURING SAID FISCAL YEAR AND TO PAY FUNDS SO COLLECTED INTO THE ACCOUNTS PROVIDED THEREFORE, ADOPTING THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, 2022, 2023, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW BEING OR DADE DAWNED BY THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. 2022, TO 2023, IS LEVIED THE 6.9 PER THOUSAND DOLLAR VALUATION. SAID RATE BEING IN SECTION ESOF ROLL BACK RATE BY 9.73%. SECTION 2, THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FOR THE PIECE FLORIDA LEVIES A TAX OF 6.9 PER 1,000 VALUATION ON ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF SAID CITY SUBJECT TO TAX ON THE FIRST DAVE JANUARY 2022. PROVIDED THAT SUCH 6.9, SHALL NOT BE LEVIED UPON PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, EXEMPT UNDER STATE STATUE OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

THE CITY OF IS CERTIFIED, AND APPRAISER THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING ENUMERATED MILEAGE TO BE LEVIED FOR ALL PURPOSES 2022, AND 2023, IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE CHARTER OF CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

SECTION 4, THIS ORDINANCE SHALL AND BECOME EFFECTIVE OCTOBER FIST 2022.

>> THIS IS A SECOND READING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEE NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 22-020.

>> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL.

[b. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 22-021 Adopting a Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2023, beginning October 1, 2022 and ending September 30, 2023. SECOND READING]

>> SECRETARY: NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE, 22-021. ORDINANCE.

CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2021, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 20, 23.

AND PROVIDING FOR AN EVERYBODY TIVE DATE.

BEING ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION E SECTION ONE, THE CITY COMMISSION OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AFTER HAVING HELD A HEARING, HERE BY ADOPTS AS FINAL BUDGET FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF SAID CITY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2021, AND ENDING

[00:15:01]

SEPTEMBER 30, 2023, THE ESTIMATES MADE BY THE CITY MANAGER OF SAID CITY PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2022, WHICH DETAILED AMENDED ESTIMATES ARE NOW ON FILE ON CITY CLERK AND THE DIRECTION OF FINANCE.

SECTION 2 IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE CITY MANAGER TO SET UP THE AFORESAID A P A APPROPRIATS AND AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. SECTION 3, THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE AND BECOME EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 20, 22.

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING ANYONE INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THIS BEFORE THE COMMISSION, COME BARRED. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN' MOTION.

>> MADAM, I WILL MOVE TO THE APPROVAL OF.

>> THERE'S A MOTION AND I SECOND, C CALL A THE ROLL.

[c. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 22-019 amending Chapter 103, Article IX, Section 103-343 "Clean and Safe Community Initiative". SECOND READING]

>> SECRETARY: 22-019 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COMMISSION OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BY AMENDING CHAPTER 103 ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER, 3 UNCOMMUNITY SAVE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE, PROVIDING OR APPEALING ORDINANCE AND PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING, ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE ECONOMIES ON THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE -- I JUST LOST MY SCREEN. I JUST MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND

CAL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> SECRETARY:

[d. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 22-022 - Review and approval of an application of a Future Land Use Map Amendment submitted by property owner Brent Moody of the Freedom Roads Property Company, LLC and applicant Alejandro Toro of the Engineering Design & Construction, Inc, to change the Future Land Use from General Commercial, GC to High Density Residential, RH at 2101 and 2151 S Jenkins Road Fort Pierce, fl 34947. Parcel IDs: 2313-800-0002-000-7 and 2313-800-0004-000-1. SECOND READING]

>> SO NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 22-022, THIS WILL BE A LEGISLATIVE HEARING. AN ORDINANCE BY CITY COMMISSION OF CITY OF PORT FEES FLORIDA AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO AMEND DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY NEAR TWIN 01, AND 2151, FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH RESIDENCY RESIDENTIAL, RH, AND PROVIDED FOR ORDINANCE THEREOF AND PARTS IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> THIS IS THE SECOND READING, ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE

COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> SECRETARY: NO MORE, OH, IT IS

THE SECOND READING, I'M SORRY. >> I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING

AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MADAM MAYOR I MOVE FOR AN

APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> SECRETARY:

[e. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 22-023 - Review and approval of an application of a Zoning Atlas Map Amendment submitted by property owner Brent Moody of the Freedom Roads Property Company, LLC and applicant Alejandro Toro of the Engineering Design & Construction, Inc, to change the Zoning from General Commercial, C-3, to High Density Residential, R-5, at 2101 and 2151 S Jenkins Road Fort Pierce, FL 34947. Parcel IDs: 2313-800-0002-000-7 and 2313-800-0004-000-1. SECOND READING]

>> THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER SECOND READING ORDINANCES 22-023.

AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA REZONING THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 2101 AND 2151 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3 TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R5, PROVIDING FOR SEVERITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE AND CONFLICT THERE TO, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECT STIFF DATE N THIS IS SECOND READING, ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MADAM, WE MOVE APPROVAL. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND I A

SECOND, C CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> SECRETARY:

[f. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 22-024 - Review and approval of a Future Land Use Map Amendment by the City of Fort Pierce to change the future land use from Residential Medium Density, RM, to General Commercial, GC, at 2900 S Jenkins Road Fort Pierce, FL 34981. Parcel ID: 2419-333-0001-000-2. FIRST READING]

>> SECRETARY: THEN WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON ORDINANCE 22-024. AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF COMMISSION, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE OF MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE MAP TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AROR NEAR 2900 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD FOR MEDIAN DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RM TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL GC.

PROVIDED FOR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN

EFFECTIVE DATE. >> ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN, WHO IS

GOING FIRST. >> ME.

>> WELCOME. >> GOOD EVENING, CITY COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR, LET ME GET THIS.

>> STATE YOUR NAME SO ALL THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW WHO ARE YOU.

>> I'M RYAN ALTICER. >> WE HAVE MET YOU BETTER, BUT

IT'S BEEN A WHILE. >> IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

ALL RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHTY, TODAY I AM PRESENTING THE SAINT PETERS CHURCH FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT.

HERE IS THE LOCATION OF THE PARCEL.

IT IS APPROXIMATELY 11.51 ACRES. IT'S CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS

[00:20:07]

RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY. AND THE CITY IS LOOKING TO CHANGE THAT TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

THE REQUEST IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT CHANGE ONE PARCEL FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE, CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND, AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVINCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.

THE PLANNING BOARD AFTER MEETING ON JULY 13, 2022.

UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

TODAY THE CITY COMMISSIONERS ACTIONS ARE CONSISTENT FOLLOWING, THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL FLUMA WITH IN CHANGES, WHICH IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVAL OF THE FLUM OR THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE FLUMA.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHTY.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MADAM, MAYOR, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF 220-24.

>> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> SECRETARY:

[g. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Ordinance 22-025 - Review and approval of an application of a Zoning Atlas Map Amendment submitted by the City of Fort Pierce to change the zoning from Single Family Intermediate Density, R-2, to General Commercial, C-3, at 2900 S Jenkins Road Fort Pierce, FL 34981. Parcel ID: 2419-333-0001-000-2 FIRST READING]

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT WE HAVE A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING FOR ORDINANCE 22-025 AN ORDINANCE BY CITY COMMISSION OF CITY OF FOR PIECE FLORIDA REZONING THE PROPERTY, SOUTH JENKINS ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY INTERMEDIATE DENSITY, R TWO. TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3.

AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF THAT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. A THIS FIST READING.

>> ALL RIGHTY, WE HAVE 3 QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS TONIGHT.

OUR CITY ATTORNEY WILL READ THE GROUND RULES FOR THIS ONE, AND IF EVERYBODY WILL PAY ATTENTION, SHE WON'T HAVE TO READ IT AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE CITY COMMISSION SERVICE BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI JUDICIAL ROLE WHEN ACT AGO AS A JUDICIAL. BYPASSING LAWS AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES. WHEN ACTING AS A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY. COMMISSION APPLIES TOES LAWS AND POLICIES IS HELD TO STRICTER JUDICIAL STANDARDS, QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDS ARE LESS FORMAL THAN A PROCEEDING IN COURT BUT ARE MORE FORMAL THAN THE NORMAL COMMISSION HEARING.

THEY MUST FOLLOW STANDARDS OF DUE PROCESS AND DECISIONS MUST BE MADE ON COMPETENCE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

THEREFORE THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE THE DUTY TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS MORE LIKE JUDGES THAN LEGISLATURES.

FINALLY NO ONE SHOULD APPROACH ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION ON THE DIOCESE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY CLERK DURING THE HEARING. IF DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY CLERK, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WHICH IS ONE OF THE UNIFORM POLICE OFFICER INSIDE THE CHAMBER.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE CALLED TO ORDER. WILL THE CITY CLERK PLEASE CONFIRM COMPLIANCE WITH THE ADVERTISING AND NOTICE

REQUIREMENT. >> ADVERTISING FOR THIS ITEM HAS

BEEN MET. >> WILL THE CITY CLERK PLEASE ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT EXPAR AT A COMMUNICATION.

>>> , COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> NO MORE.

>> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON, NO MORE.

>> COMMISSIONER PER ON A. >> NO MORE.

>> MAYOR HUDSON. >> NO MA'AM.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES.

>> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, STAND AND RAISE YOUR

HAND. >> SECRETARY: (SWORN).

>> COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR, TONIGHT I AM PRESENTING THE SAINT PETER'S REZONING. THIS GOES ALONG WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY JUST STATED.

AGAIN THE LOCATION MAP IS SHOWN BEFORE YOU, AND THE APPROXIMATE ACREAGE IS 11.51. THE CURRENT ZONING MAP IS R2.

AND THE PROPOSED ZONING THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3. THE REQUEST FOR THE SOHN JIE-AEING MAP AMENDMENT CHANGE FROM ONE PARCEL TO R2 SINGLE FAMILY, TO C3 COMMERCIAL. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING ZONING, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 125-136 OF THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THIS DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVINCE AND GENERAL

WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. >>> THE PLANNING BOARD AT THE MEETING ON JULY 13, 2022, UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. AND TONIGHT, THE CITY COMMISSION'S ACTIONS ARE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED

[00:25:02]

REZONING WITH NO CHANGES, WHICH IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING WITH CHANGES OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONING.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS OF

>> IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS THE APPLICANT HERE.

ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR

DISCUSSION. >> MAYOR, I MOVE FOR THE

APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> SECRETARY:

[h. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval of an application for a Conditional Use submitted by Tillman Infrastucture, Inc and applicant Telsula Morgan to build a 160-foot monopole communication tower at 1601 N. 25TH Street Fort Pierce FL 34957. Parcel ID: 2404-608-0095-050-9]

>> NEXT WE HAVE A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, FOR THE APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE, SUBMITTED BY TILGHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE INC., APPLICANT, FAULA MORGAN TO BUILD A 160-FOOT MONEY POLL TOWER AT 1604121ST STREET. AT FOR TH FORT PIERCE FLORIDA.

>> HAS THE ADVERTISING BEEN MET, COMPLIANCE.

>> THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MET. >> AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, TOO.

>> YES AND HOW ABOUT EXPAR AT A EXCOMMUNICATIONS.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINS HAVE YOU HAD EXPAR AT A COMMUNICATIONS.

>> YES, MA'AM, I HAVE HAD AN EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT AND SEVERAL EMAILS AND CALLS FROM THE PUBLIC.

>> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON.

>> YES, MA'AM, I HAVE HAD PHONE CALLS AND ONE EMAIL FROM THE

APPLICANT. >> COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON.

>> NO MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER PER ON A.

>> NO MA'AM. >> I HAD AN EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING I HAVE.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES.

>> SECRETARY: ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND, RAISING YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. (SWORN).

THANK YOU WHEN YOU COME DOWN, I WILL ASK YOU TO CONFIRM THAT YOU

WERE SWORN IN. >> ALL RIGHTY, YOU MAY PROCEED.

>> MAYOR, MS.COX I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL.

I HAD TO SEARCH MY EMAIL BOX HERE BUT I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU. PROCEED, PLEASE.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS AND MAYOR, TONIGHT I AM PROVIDING THE APPLICATIONS FOR THE PROVISIONAL USE OF THE TELECOMMUNICATION STREET, AT THE LOCATION MAP IS SHOWN AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY 1.05 ACRES. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, AND THE ZONING IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3. THIS IS A SITE PLAN PROVIDED OF THE 160-FOOT MONO POLL TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AND THE PROPOSED AND GENERATOR CABINETS. THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AFTER A MEETING ON AUGUST 8TH, 2022.

THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT TRY TO FIND A WAY A DESIGN THAT CAMOUFLAGES THE POLL.

>> THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED USE OFFERS A PROVISION OF A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TOWER REPRESENTING A LIMITED COMMERCIAL USE THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSIST WENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH APPROPRIATE RESTRICTIONSMENT THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT TRY TO FIND A WAY THAT CAMOUFLAGES SAID POLE.

THE CITY COMMISSION'S ACTION CAN BE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED NOT CAN WITH NO CHANGES, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WITH CHANGES, AND THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> YES, SIR.

>> I NOTICED THERE WAS A CONDITION OF OPTION FOR CAMOUFLAGE OR JUST OPTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSED THAT THERE WERE OPTIONS ON TABLE TO NOT BUILD A POLE LIKE THIS, BUT

SOMETHING ELSE IN LIEU OF THAT? >> THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND I WILL LET THEM DISCUSS THAT. BUT AS FOR TALKING TO THE PLAINTIFF DEPARTMENT ABOUT A CAMOUFLAGE FOR IT, NO THEY HAVE

NOT. >> DO THEY MENTION IT IN THE

PLANNING BOARD MEETING. >> THE APPLICANT.

>> NO, NOT THE APPLICANT, JUST THE PLANNING BOARD.

>> THAT IS WHAT I NEEDED. >> MADAM MAYOR.

>> THANK YOU STAFF FOR THAT. ALONG THOSE SAME LINES TO STAFF HAVE YOU SEEN OR REVIEWED ANY OF LANDSCAPING AND/OR CONDITIONS AROUND LANDSCAPING AROUND THIS TOWER?

>> YES, THEY HAVE PROVIDED LANDSCAPING, AND IT IS GOING TO

[00:30:01]

BE PRESENTED IN THE PRESENTATION.

>> IN PRESENTATION. > THAT THEY WILL GIVE.

>> AND I NOTICED IN STAFF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PAGE 12 THERE, WAS A LIST OF QUESTIONS TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

AND THERE WERE NUMBERS THAT I LOOKED AT, WAS THAT ALSO INCLUDED. DID YOU RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION THAT YOU WERE SEEKING ON THAT DOCUMENT?

>> YES. >> ALL 12 QUESTIONS WERE

ANSWERED. >> I BELIEVE SO; YES, SIR.

>> I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SEE THAT, I SAW THE QUESTIONS, BUT I GUESS WE WILL HAVE THE APPLICANT UP AND GO THROUGH THAT.

>> YES, THOSE QUESTIONS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE PRESENTATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. >> I WOULD LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

>> WELCOME, YOU WERE SWORN THIS, I SAW, AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR

ME, PLEASE. >> MS. TEL, IS ALA MORGAN.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

>> I DO NOT. >> OKAY.

SO YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE -- TO TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR PROJECT, I WOULD. I ACTUALLY HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT I PROVIDED TO RYAN. I BELIEVE IT'S UP ON THE SCREENS. AGAIN MY NAME IS TESLA MORGAN, I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF TILGHMAN INFRASTRUCTURE ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUE TERA DEWEY, WE ARE PROPOSING OR APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD A 160-FOOT TOWER ON THE PARCEL LOCATED AT 1601, NORTH 25TH STREET IN FORT PIERCE FLORIDA.

AS YOU ALL ARELY AWARE THERE'S BEEN AN INCREAING DEMAND IN COMMUNICATION, WHETHER IT BE CELL PHONES, WATCHES, DRONES, ALL KIND OF DEMANDS FOR INCREASED COMMUNICATIONS ALL OVER THE WORLD. AND JUST TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, I HAVE A COUPLE OF STATISTICS HERE.

THEY ARE APPROXIMATELY 4,608.9 MILLION MOBILE DEVICES HERE IN AMERICA. 91% OF U.S. ADULTS HAVE A SMART PHONE OR SOME KIND OF HOME BROAD BAND, THERE'S 80% OF AN ESTIMATED 240 MILLION, 911 CALLS MADE FROM WIRELESS DEVICES.

85% OF PHOTOS TAKEN IN 2017 WERE CAPTURED ON A SMART PHONE.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOW HERE IN 2022, SO IT'S -- I'M SURE IT'S MANY MORE SINCE THEN. HAD IS CAUSING, LIKE I SAID, A DEMAND IN RICHER, HIGH-SPEED WIRELESS EXPERIENCE WHICH IS WHY MY CLIENT IS BASICALLY HERE TODAY.

MY CLIENT TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE HAS ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH T-MOBILE TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER.

TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BE OWNER OF THAT TOWER.

IF YOU COULD MOVE TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE. AND WHO IS TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE? IT'S A RAPIDLY GROWING TRUSTED TOWER DEVELOPER WHO IS BASED OUT OF NEW YORK.

TILLMAN HAS OVER 1,000 OWNED AND MANAGED SITES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND HAS A AN ADDITIONAL, APPROXIMATELY 2500 IN DEVELOPMENT. T-MOBILE CURRENTLY HOLDS A LICENSE WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.

THAT LICENSE BASICALLY REQUIRES THEM TO PROVIDE SEAM LESS SERVICE THROUGHOUT. MEANING THERE SHOULD BE NO GAPS OR POCKETS OF AREAS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT IS NOT ABLE TO GET RELIABLE MOBILE SERVICE OR ANY KIND OF DROPPED CALLS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. CURRENTLY, T AUTOMOBILE PROVIDES MOBILE PROVIDES 4G SERVICE BY A TOWER THAT IS LOCATED AT 910 NORTH 25TH STREET. THAT TOWER IS CURRENTLY WHAT THEY CALL A FLAG POLE DESIGN TOWER THAT SITS AT 150 FEET, AND THAT TOWER IS DESIGNED WITH CA CANISSTERS THAT CLOSE THE A ANTENNAS WHAT T-MOBILE IS PROPOSING IS WHAT THEY CALL 5G TECHNOLOGY. AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN, WHAT IS 5G TECHNOLOGY? T-MOBILE IS ROLLING OUT THE 5G TECHNOLOGY ACROSS COUNTRY. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? BASICALLY 5G IT WILL BE 100 TIMES FASTER CONNECT, CONNECT 100 TIMES MORE DEVICES, 5 TIMES MORE RESPONSIVE.

4 EXAMPLE, 4G CAN TAKE UP TO 6 MINUTES TO DOWNLOAD A VIDEO OR A MOVIE, AND THAT MOVIE USING THE 5G TECHNOLOGY WILL TAKE MORE LIKE 15 SECONDS. IT WILL BE ABLE TO LIKE, I SAID,

[00:35:01]

CONNECT CATCHES, DRONES, CREATE MORE JOBS, IMPROVE SAFETY.

AS I SAID, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE USING THOSE WIRELESS PHONES IN ORDER TO CONTACT 911. SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE BENEFITS THAT THE 5G SERVICE WILL PROVIDE WITHIN THIS AREA.

THE FLAG POLE TOWER THAT T-MOBILE CURRENTLY OCCUPIES IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEPLOYMENT OF TIME.

G SERVICE DUE TO SPACE AND OPERATIONAL CONSTRAINTS.

THE CANISTER THAT ENCLOSES THOSE ANTENNAS ON THAT TOWER THAT THEY CURRENTLY OCCUPY 5G NETWORK IS NOT THOSE ANTENNAS AREN'T ABLE TO BE ENCLOSED WITHIN THE CANISTER.

THERE'S NO ACTIVE OR PASSING COOLING WITHIN CANISTER.

IT'S MORE OF A SAFETY CONCERN THAN ANYTHING, AND THOSE ANTENNAS WON'T FIT WITHIN THAT CANISTER.

IT'S SUSCEPTIBLE TO OVER HEATING AND ANY KIND OF UNI POLL OR FLAG TOWER OR FLAG POLE TOWER. ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S NO OTHER EXISTING TOWERS OF SUFFICIENT HEIGHT THAT CAN BE UPGRADED TO MEET THE NETWORK 5G REQUIREMENTS WITHIN T-MOBILE SEARCH RADIUS.

AS YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN, HERE IS A SEARCH RING.

APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A PROPAGATION STUDY PREPARED BY A PROFESSIONAL RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEER TO JUSTIFY THE NEED TO CONSTRUCT THE FOUR, AND AN ENGINEERING STUDY WAS CONDUCTED CONSIDERING MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES TO DETERMINE THE APPROXIMATELY SITE, LOCATION, AND ANTENNA HEIGHT REQUIRED TO BEST FULFILL T-MOBILE'S NOTED 5G OBJECTIVES. CURRENTLY, WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN IS WHAT -- GO BACK ONE, PLEASE.

CURRENTLY WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN BASICALLY, WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. SO, THE TURQUOIS DOT THAT YOU SEE THAT IS WHERE T-MOBILE CURRENTLY OCCUPIES THE TOWER.

AS I SAID, IT'S 150-FOOT TOWER, THERE'S ONLY CURRENTLY ONE PROVIDER ON THAT TOWER AND THAT IS CURRENTLY T-MOBILE.

THERE ARE NO OTHER PROVIDE TEARS ARE CURRENTLY ON THE TOWER.

AND THEN HERE ARE -- IN GREEN IS WHERE ALL OF THE OTHER TOWER RIGHT SIDE CURRENTLY LOCATED AND THEN THE PINK DOT IS WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT THE TOWER. THE BLUE POLYGON REPRESENTS THE SEARCH AREA. THE LITTLE BLUE CIRCLE REPRESENTS THE SEARCH AREA THAT RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS BASICALLY FOUND IN WHICH THEY TOLD T-MOBILE, BASICALLY YOU NEED TO PUT SOME KIND OF TOWER WITHIN THIS CIRCLE SOMEWHERE.

SO LOOKING AT THE ZONING WITHIN THE CITY, AND RESIDENCES AND EVERYTHING THAT -- I MEAN, BASE A LARGE ENOUGH PARCEL OF LAND IN ORDER TO PUT THE TOWER, PUT THE NECESSARY EQUIPMENT, THIS IS BASICALLY WHERE THE RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED THAT T-MOBILE PLACE THAT PARTICULAR SITE.

WHILE THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNICATION FACILITIES NEARBY, THE EXPANSION OF THE THESE FACILITIES ARE LIMITED BY GROUND SPACE, AND TOWER CAPACITY. GO TO NEXT, THANK YOU.

CURRENTLY WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN IS THE EXISTING 5G COVERAGE NEEDS. IF T-MOBILE ATTEMPT TODDY EMPLOY, 5G SERVICE ON THE FLAG POLL TOWER THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD -- POLE TOWER THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AND THE YELLOW IS HOW RELIABLE THE SERVICE WOULD BE.

THE GREEN, SO GREEN IS THE MOST RELIABLE CURRENTLY YOU HAVE MODERATE, RELIABILITY WITHIN THE AREA AND YOU SEE SOME OF THE POOR POCKETS AS IN TERMS OF RELIABILITY OF SERVICE WITHIN THAT AREA. AND THEN IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT MAP? WITH THE 5G SERVICE, DEPLOYED WITHIN THIS AREA AT THE SITE, CAN YOU SEE THE RELIABILITY IN THE TYPE OF COVERAGE IS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED.

THE RF ENGINEER ESTIMATES THAT MORE THAN 6,000 RESIDENTS WILL HAVE BETTER SERVICE COMPARED TO THE MARGINAL SERVICE THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE. THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. >> AS FAR AS TOWER SITE LOCATIONS IN SELECTING THIS PARTICULAR SITE WITHIN THE POLL GONE, TILLMAN DID NOT SELECT THE SITE AT RANDOM.

AS I STATED BEFORE. THIS SLIDE SHOWS WHAT CARRIES ARE LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF WHEN THEY SELECT A SITE, THEY ARE LOOKING TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR AREAS THAT DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE COVERAGE. THEY ARE LOOKING TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY FOR THE CARRIER TO HANDLE MORE CALLS IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING TOWERS ARE OVERLOADED.

AND SUCH AS THIS PARTICULAR SITE IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF SERVICE BY FILLING A HOLE IN THE AREA WHERE CUSTOMERS ARE FREQUENTLY EXPERIENCING DROPPED CALLS OR THEIR CALL SERVICE IS POOR.

[00:40:01]

THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. HERE ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS, SO HERE TILGHMAN AND T-MOBILE RELIED ON -- YOU KNOW, A WHOLE BUNCH OF FACTORS TO BASICALLY CONSIDER WHERE THEY PLACED THE TOWERS, TOPOGRAPHY, FORECASTING CLIENT USAGE, THE DIFFERENCE TO EXISTING TOWERS, OBSTRUCTION OF OBJECTS FROM ONE TOWER TO ANOTHER. ABILITY TO LEASE LAND WITHIN POTENTIAL LAND OWNERS, AND THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.

HERE IS BASICALLY A VICINITY MAP SHOWING YOU WHERE MY CLIENT IS PROPOSING TO LOCATE THE TOWER. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONE COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE PROPOSED TOWER NOT ONLY MEETS BUT EXCEEDS ALL THE REQUIREMENT SET FORTH IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THE TOWER WILL HAVE AN 80-FOOT -- 5-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.

THE CODE REQUIRES A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 25 FEET.

A 60-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND A 525-FOOT RIGHT YARD SETBACK.

AND THE CODE REQUIRES 15 FEET IN AREAS THAT ARE BUTTED RIGHT AWAY OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. HERE IS YOU HAVE THE SITE PLAN WHICH RYAN SHOWED YOU EARLIER. OUR LEASED AREA WITHIN THIS PROPERTY CONSISTS OF A 60 BY 60-FOOT LEASE AREA.

THE LEASE WILL PROVIDE AN 8-FOOT TALL WOODEN FENCE TO SHIELD THE SITE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES AND TILLMAN WILL ALSO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING TO THE SITE.

HERE I KNOW, YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING.

THE NEXT THREE SLIDES, LIKE I SAID A SITE PLAN, REALLY DOESN'T SHOW PEOPLE EXACTLY WHAT THIS TOWER WOULD LOOK LIKE.

WE HAD LANDSCAPE RENDERING DONE OF THE PROPERTY OF WHAT WE PROPOSE LANDSCAPE TO LOOK LIKE ON THE PROPERTY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED OUR BEST, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT NOT APPEAR TO CAMOUFLAGE THE TOWER AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

THE TOWER WILL BE A GALVANIZED STEEL GRAY COLOR.

WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SITE. HE IS A PERSON WHO HAS FORMALLY WORKED WITH THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

HE HAS TOLD US THAT THE CORE USES THIS GAL AN ICED GRAY COLOR, USUALLY TO BLEND IN WITH THE ENVIRONMENT THAT IS AROUND IT. IF WE WERE TO PAINT IT A SPECIFIC COLOR, IT WILL REQUIRE A LOT OF MAINTENANCE WITH THE CHIPPING AND STUFF AND WITH WEATHERING AROUND THE PROPERTY.

IT WAS HIS SUGGESTION THAT WE KEEP THE STEEL GRAY COLOR, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE A MAINTENANCE NIGHTMARE.

THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

SO LIKE I SAID, AS THE CLIENT IS HERE BASICALLY ASKING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE SAYS THAT CONDITIONAL USES ARE ALLOWED IF CONTROLLED AS TO THE NUMBER, AREA, LOCATION OR RELATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE AMONGST OTHER THINGS.

THEN WE GO TO THE STANDARD OF REVIEW.

BASICALLY PULLED AGAIN, STRAIGHT FROM YOUR CODE WHICH SAYS, PER SECTION 125361D OF THE CITY CODE.

THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE A COMMUNICATION'S TOWER.

AS YOU CAN SEE, HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED TOWER, PROXIMITY OF THE STRUCTURE TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARIES, NATURE OF USES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES, SURROUNDING POP GRAPHY, TREE COVERAGE, AND FOLIAGE, DESIGN OF THE ANTENNA DESIGN STRUCTURE AND PROPOSED EGRESS, AND REGRESS, THE AVAILABILITY OF ANY OTHER TOWER OR STRUCTURE AROUND IT, AND IT MAY CONSIST OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS.

YOU CAN GO ON, RYAN, THANKS. WE HAVE PROVIDED A LETTER FROM A ENGINEER CERTIFYING THAT THE TOWER WAS DESIGNED TO COLLAPSE UPON ITSELF IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT THAT THIS STRUCTURE SHOULD CAUSE, SHOULD FALL AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

THE TOWER WILL BE BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST THREE PROVIDERS, ONE OF WHICH WILL BE T-MOBILE.

WE DID SEND OUT CODE LOCATION LETTERS TO OTHER PROVIDERS WITHIN THE AREA ASKING THEM IF THEY WANTED TO LOCATE ON THE TOWER. AND TO DATED, CLIENT HASN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM ANY OF THE TOWER PROVIDERS, BUT THAT IS AN OPTION. IF THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT TOWERS POPPING UP ALL OVER THE PLACE,

[00:45:04]

THAT OPTION HAS BEEN PROVIDED. IN TERMS OF AESTHETICS WHICH WE UNDERSTAND IS A MAJOR CONCERN AMONGST MANY OF THE RESIDENTS, MON POLL TOWERS ARE ONE OF THE INTRUSIVE AND EASIEST COMMUNICATION TOWERS TO ERECT. IT'S ONE THE MOST POPULAR STRUCTURES IN THE TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY.

AS YOU SAW, FROM THE PICTURES, IT'S A SLICK, TUBULAR TOWER WITH ANTENNAS MOUNTED TO THE EXTERIOR AT THE TOP OF THE TOWER.

THEY HAVE SMALLER FOOTPRINT, SMALLER FOUNDATIONS, ALL FAA REGULATION HAVES BEEN MET. THIS TOWER WILL NOT A TER ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS IN THE AREA SINCE THE TOWER IS CONSIDERED A LOW TRAFFIC TYPE OF USE.

THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE REALLY TRAVELING ON SITE IS TO DO MAINTENANCE FOR LANDSCAPING OR JUST TO MAINTAIN THE TOWER.

THE TOWER WILL NOT CREATOR EMMITT ANY SMOKE, DUST OR AIR CONTAMINANTS, NOISE,ED ONORS OR ANY KIND OF VIBRATIONS, AND SO IN OUR OPINION, YOU KNOW, THIS PROPOSED SITE AND THIS -- IN THIS CITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF PROVIDING COVERAGE TO AN AREA THAT IS UNDER SERVED. AND THEN I HAVE ON SOME THE SLIDES, SOME OF THE FEDERAL STANDARDS, IN 1996, COULD BE GRES BASICALLY PASSED THE TELECOMMUNICATION ACT, AND IT WAS TO PROMOTE COMMUNICATION, AND COMPETITION WITHIN TELECOMMUNICATION INDUSTRY. SECTION 47USC, 3732.

SUBSECTION C7, PRESERVES LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY BUT IT REQUIRES THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AMONGST PROVIDERS OR PROHIBIT OR HAVE THE EFFECT OF PROHIBITING PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE.

FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE CITY FROM CONSIDERING AESTHETICS AND LOCATION UNDER REASONABLE OBJECTIVE, AND PUBLISHED CRITERIA. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE WRITTEN DECISIONS ON SIGSIGHTING APPLICATIONS THAT AE BASED ON EVIDENCE AND NOT ON SPECULATION, BECAUSE OF FEDERAL PREEMPTIVE REASONS, SUCH AS CONCERNS OF RADIO FREQUENCY.

SPECIFICALLY AS YOU CAN SEE, ON ONE THE RADIO FREQUENCY SLIDE -- OTHER WAY. OTHER WAY.

SPECIFICALLY AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS RADIO FREQUENCY SLIDE, IT'S EXCLUSIVELY REGULATED BY FEDERAL STANDARDS, NO STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY REGULATE FACILITIES ON THE BASIS OF PERCEIVED HEALTH EFFECTS OF RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS.

AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE. THANK YOU.

ON AUGUST 8TH, AS RYAN STATED THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT WE HAVE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOWER BY THE PLANNING BOARD.

THE PLANNING BOARD DID ASK US TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT WE COULD DO TO CAMOUFLAGE THE TOWER AS I STATED EARLIER.

WE DID SPEAK WITH OUR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER TO SEE, IS THERE ANYWAY OR WHAT COULD WE DO IN ORDER TO CAMOUFLAGE THE TOWER GIVEN THE 5G TECHNOLOGY. IT'S KIND OF ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO PUT A 5G ANTENNA WITHIN A CANISTER AS I SAID.

IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN AS FAR AS OVER HEATING AND IT'S NOT ACTIVE OR PASSIVE COOLING WITHIN THOSE CANISTERS.

ADDITIONALLY, IT'S NOT ONE OF THE TOWERS THAT CAN BE LIKE ONE THE TREES THAT YOU SEE, THAT PEOPLE KIND OF CAMOUFLAGE IN SOME KIND WAY, DIFFERENT TYPE OF TOWER, DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGY AND IT WON'T WORK. THE MOST WE DID, WAS WHAT IF WE PAINTED IT A COLOR AND DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THE RECOMMENDATION FOR US TO REMAIN THE GALVANIZED STEEL COLOR, WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN OUR LANDSCAPE DEPICTIONS THAT WE SHOWED EARLIER. OUR CLIENT, THERE WAS ALSO CONCERN ABOUT LANDSCAPING, I HEARD THAT SOME OTHER TOWERS DEVELOPERS HAVE COME INTO AREA AND BUILT TOWERS AND LEFT THE LANDSCAPING TO DO WHAT IT DOES, AND THE CITY WAS WORRIED ABOUT CONSTANTLY HAVING CODE ENFORCEMENT COME TOUT TO THE PROPERTY AND CITING THE OWNER REPEATEDLY TO COME OUT.

WE DO HAVE A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN THAT I WILL PROVIDE TO THE CITY TONIGHT TO SHOW THAT THE CLIENT HAS ALL INTENTIONS OF MAINTAINING AND HAS A SCHEDULE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THAT LANDSCAPING ON THE REPORT TO MAKE SURE THIS ISN'T ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES IN WHICH YOU HAVE TO CONSISTENTLY COME OUT AND DO ANY TYPE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON.

[00:50:04]

IN SUMMARY, THERE ARE, WE'RE SEEKING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER. IT MEETS ALL OF THE CITING CRITERIA WITHIN THE CITY AND IT'S REQUIRED TO CLOSE A SUBSTANTIAL COVERAGE GAP WITHIN THIS AREA.

THE PROPOSED TOWER REPRESENTS THE ONLY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO CLOSING THIS COVERAGE GAP THAT IS WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

I HAVE TO SAY, AND I SAID THIS WHEN I CAME BEFORE, THE PLANNING BOARD, I HAD A MEETING WITH SOME OF THE STAFF PRIOR TO COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, AND I WENT INTO ONE OF YOUR RESTAURANTS THAT WERE DOWNTOWN. I BROUGHT ONE OF MY INTERNS WITH ME. AS WE WERE SITTING AROUND, HAVING LUNCH, I LOOKED AROUND WITHIN THIS RESTAURANT AND I SAID, SARAH, LOOK AROUND AND TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE? SHE WAS LIKE, LOOKED AROUND IN THE RESTAURANT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I SAID, THERE'S LITERALLY NOBODY IN HERE ON THEIR CELL PHONE.

NOBODY WITHIN THE ENTIRE RESTAURANT WHICH I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY YOU HAVE, BUT ANY PLACE THAT I GO, THERE'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY THAT IS LOOKING DOWN AT THEIR CELL PHONE.

SHE SAID, LET ME PULL OUT MY CELL PHONE.

AND IT'S RIGHT HERE IN DOWNTOWN. LET ME PULL OUT MY CELL PHONE AND SEE IF I CAN GET SERVICE. LIKE WHAT IS PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE. SHE HAD A HARD TIME GETTING SERVICE WITHIN THIS AREA. THIS PARTICULAR SITE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THIS AREA, WHICH I UNDERSTAND, PEOPLE WITHIN THIS AREA WHO I'VE TALKED TO AFTER THIS MEETING HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING SERVICE AND SO THAT IS WHAT TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE IS LOOKING TO DO.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BUT MAYBE ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE IN THE

RETURN WERE BEING POLITE. >> [LAUGHTER]

>> I DID HEAR THAT, TOO. SO I AM OPEN TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF THE

APPLICANT. >> YES, SIR.

>> HOW LONG DO WE HAVE FOR QUESTIONS? NOT THAT WE NEED, A LOT OF US HAVE QUESTIONS, PROBABLY.

>> RIGHT, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE A TIME LIMIT ON OUR

QUESTIONS. >> SHE HAD A TIME LIMIT ON HER

PRESENTATION. >> THAT IS GOOD TO HEAR.

>> NOT THAT I WANT TO BE LONG WINDED.

>> GO AHEAD AND BE LONG WINDED. >> SO CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP WHERE YOU SHOWED THE POLYGON AND THE SERVICE TERRITORY AND EXPLAIN TO ME THE BLUE CIRCUMSTANCELE AND WHAT YOU SAID, WAS THE ZONE OF INFLUENCE OR THAT IS WHERE YOUR IDEAL LOCATION WOULD BE WITHIN THE ZONE; CORRECT.

>> THE RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS DID A STUDY AND DID WHAT THEY DID AND THEY SAID WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF FORT PIERCE THERE'S A GAP IN SERVICE, A GAP IN COVERAGE.

MEANING THERE'S PEOPLE THAT ARE EXPERIENCING DROPPED CALLS, MISSED CALLS, ALL KINDS OF PROBLEMS BASICALLY WITH THEIR SERVICE TRYING TO CONNECT. AND THE FCC REQUIRES T-MOBILE WHO MY CLIENT IS BASICALLY BUILDING THIS TOWER FOR THEM IS REQUIRING THEM TO PROVIDE SEAM LESS COVERAGE.

SO THAT IS WHY THEY HIRED THE ENGINEER.

THEY NOTICED THAT THIS AREA WAS NOT GETTING THE MOST IDEAL

SERVICE. >> AND THAT BLUE POLYGON, REPRESENTS, PLEASE LOCATE OR LOCATE THE TOWER WITHIN THIS

ZONE. >> CORRECT.

>> TO CREATE THE COVERAGE. SO THE NEXT MAP OR SLIDE WAS A -- YEAH, THROUGH GO. THE YELLOW BEING THE MORE MODERATE OR POORER RECEPTION QUALITY, THERE'S A LOT OF GREEN.

WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES WITHIN OUR CITY.

WE HAVE FLAG POLES AND THERE ARE POLES WITHIN THE CITY.

>> RIGHT. >> SO WERE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS BESIDE THIS PARCEL?

>> WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOUR FORMER, I BELIEVE, PLANNING

DIRECTOR. >> OKAY.

>> WHEN WE WERE INITIALLY THINKING ABOUT COMING INTO THIS

AREA. >> I'M SORRY -- WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOUR FORMER PLANNING DIRECTOR, GENERAL HOFF, HOFF MICESTER, REGARDING OTHER LOCATIONS FL WHICH TO LOCATE THE TOWER. WE COULD NOT FIND A LOCATION IN WHICH THE SIZE WAS BIG ENOUGH TO LOCATE THE EQUIPMENT AND THE TOWER AND TO ADDRESS ZONING ISSUES WITHIN THE CITY.

SO SHE GAVE US A LIST OF PROPERTIES WITHIN FORT PIERCE, AND CITY OWNED PROPERTIES AND TOLD US, HERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF PROPERTIES. IS THERE ANYWAY YOU CAN LOCATE IT WITHIN THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY? I BELIEVE THERE'S A PIONEER PARK PROPERTY THAT WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT MY CLIENT DID CONSIDER RELOCATING THE TOWER TO, BUT WE WERE TOLD THAT THAT LOCATION WAS UNACCEPTABLE, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ON THE LIST. AND THEN I THINK, IT WAS ANOTHER PROPERTY AND I DON'T NOTE NAME OF THE PROPERTY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT KIND OF MET THE PERIMETERS THAT WAS IN A PARK, AND FROM WHAT MY CLIENT SAID, IS THAT THERE ARE PLENTY OF TOWERS THAT ARE IN PARKS THAT ARE BASICALLY CAMOUFLAGED TO BE DIFFERENT THINGS. WE OFFERED TO POSSIBLY CONSIDER, HAVE A DISCUSSION REGARDING LOCATING THE TOWER WITHIN ONE OF THE PARKS. THAT PROPERTY I WAI CITY OWNED

[00:55:08]

PROPERTY WAS ALSO FOUND UNACCEPTABLE.

AND THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO PROPERTIES THAT WERE WITHIN THE

LIST PROVIDED TO US. >> THAT EXPLAINS IT.

YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH PROPERTY SEARCHES, YOU REVIEWED.

I BELIEVE DOWN BY ENGEL ROAD WOULD BE ANOTHER GOOD OPTION.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OWNS SOME PROPERTY OVER THERE AS AN OPTION. THERE'S A VERY LARGE YELLOW, PURPLE AREA IN THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER.

BUT THAT IS ALL RIGHT. THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT IT TONIGHT. WHAT ABOUT BACKUP POWER? WHAT DO YOU DO FOR BACKING UP THE POWER NEED IF THERE WAS A

POWER OUTAGE. >> THERE'S A GENERATOR THAT WILL

BE LOCATED ON SITE. >> OKAY.

SO ALL RIGHT. EXISTING TREES.

IF YOU GO TO THE SITE MAP WHERE YOU SHOW THE CONDITION AN AERIAL VIEW OF THIS PARCEL. HAVING A PROBLEM AND A CHALLENGE ACCEPTING WHERE THIS HAS BEEN LOCATED BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING FOLIAGE, TREES, SURROUNDING THERE.

AND YOU HAVE, SLASH PINES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THIS AREA, AND YOU PICKED THE SPOT TO TEAR THE TREES DOWN TO PUT THE TOWER. TALK TO ME ABOUT WHY THIS

CORNER. >> AS I STATED, MY CLIENT AS ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH A PROPERTY OWNER.

I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER IN SOME WAYS DICTATED WHERE HE WAS WILLING TO LEASE, YOU KNOW, WHAT PART OF THE PROPERTY HE WAS WILLING TO LEASE TO MY PARTICULAR CLIENT AND SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE LOCATED WHERE WE ARE LOCATED.

>> ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE GOING TO TEAR DOWN SOME TREES WHAT. ARE WE GOING TO MITIGATE THE TREES OUTSIDE OF SMALL VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING? WHAT ARE WE DOING TO MITIGATE

THE TREES. >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN MY JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT.

>> I KNOW ALL TREES ARE GOOD TREES, AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE

CUT DOWN. >> WE ARE TREE CITY, USA.

>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT I DON'T -- I BELIEVE.

>> YOU HAVE A STATEMENT WITHIN THE APPLICATION PACKET, IS THAT WHAT I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR.

>> THERE'S A JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO

THE CITY WHEN WE INITIALLY. >> IS THAT IN OUR PACKET.

SHEET 5 OF 67, FROM WHAT I SEE COMMISSIONER.

I JUST PULLED IT UP IN THE APPLICATION.

YOU I'M NOT SURE WHERE SHE GOING TO TAKE US FROM THERE.

>> NO, IT DOESN'T SAY HOW MANY, IT JUST SAYS THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT PLAN TO KEEP THE TREES WITHIN THE LEASE AREA.

>> OKAY. SO THERE'S A CHALLENGE WITHIN THAT. SO THERE'S A CHALLENGE WITHIN THE SITE SPECIFIC. HOW ABOUT STORM WATER MITIGATION? SO WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A 60 BY 60 SQUARE I SAW THAT ON APPLICATION.

>> RIGHT. >> IT'S PROBABLY -- WELL THAT THE IMPACT ZONE 60 BY 60. YOU GOT FENCING, LANDSCAPING.

HOW MUCH OF THAT IS CONCRETE IMPERIOUS AREA, AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH RAIN WATER AS IT FALLS.

HERE IS WHAT I LEARNED IN THE PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS ARE.

I'M NOT SAYING YOU DO EVERYTHING RIGHT THE FIRST TIME SO YOU TRY, TRY AGAIN. I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT YESTERDAY. YOU KNOW WHAT? I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE STORM WATER.

WHAT HAPPENS WITH ALL THE RAIN THAT HITS THE SITE WHERE DOES IT GO AND HOW ARE YOU TREATING THAT AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH IT?

>> I BELIEVE THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED, HOLD ON.

>> FOR THE RECORD, TARA DEWEY, ON BEHALF TILLMAN INDUSTRIES, WE WILL HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN ALL STORM WATER ON SITE. THAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE TO DO. WE COULD LIVE WITH THE CONDITION

-- >> I'M SORRY, I'M TRYING NOT TO

LEAN. >> I SAID WE CAN LIVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO MAINTAIN STORM WATER AS THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY IN ANY EVENT. IF THAT IS A CONCERN, THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS IF A CONDITION.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

STOP FOR A MINUTE. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE POINT YOU WERE MAKING ABOUT THE CURRENT 4G TOWER AT 910, 25TH STREET.

>> RIGHT. >> THAT WOULD BE INADD THE QUESTIONED TO MODIFY FOR 5G TECHNOLOGY; CORRECT.

>> CORRECT. >> ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN, BECAUSE 5G IS A HIGHER FREQUENCY TECHNOLOGY COMING IN.

>> YES. >> I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO SEE

[01:00:01]

WHAT IMPACT WOULD BE IF YOU REPLACED THAT 4G WITH A 5G TOWER AT THAT PARTICULAR SITE, WHAT WOULD BE THE GAP COVERAGE AT THAT POINT? IS THERE ANY DATA TO SHOW ME

THAT. >> BECAUSE YOU'RE CURRENT AS I LOOK AT IT, SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU PUT IT THERE ON THAT SITE TO ADDRESS THE GAP. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND YOU CAN MODIFY.

CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD. SO MY CONCERN, OR MY QUESTION IS, WAS ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO REPLACING THE 4G, BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE A CURRENT LEASE WITH THAT CURRENT CLIENT.

>> RIGHT. >> TO REPLACE THE 4G TOWER IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH A NEW 5G TECHNOLOGY AT THAT SITE?

>> WELL THAT TOWER IS NOT OWNED BY TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT TOWER IS OWNED BY ANOTHER TOWER PROVIDER, I BELIEVE IT'S

AMERICAN TOWER OR SOMEONE ELSE. >> OKAY.

BUT THEY'RE PROVIDING T-MOBILE SERVICE AT THAT 4G; CORRECT.

>> T-MOBILE IS LEASING SPACE ON THAT TOWER TO PROVIDE THAT TYPE

OF SERVICE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, SO I GUESS, T-MOBILE ULTIMATELY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE GAP COVERAGE IN OUR AREA, WHICH I CLEARLY GET.

FOR TECHNOLOGY AND WANTING PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE PHONE CALLS AND GET ACCESS, AND IF T-MOBILE WAS LOOKING AT THAT SERVICE, WHAT THEY LOOK AT THAT, JUST TO TALK TO AMERICAN TOWER OR WHOEVER IT IS, TO SAY, WHAT IF WE TOOK THIS DOWN WITH THE CURRENT LEASEY AND PUT A 4G. I WAS CURIOUS AS TO HAD A.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF THOSE DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN HAD IF T-MOBILE HAS HAD THAT DISCUSSION.

I HAVE ONLY HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE CLIENT TILLMAN INFRASTRUCTURE. I WASN'T A PART OF THE CONVERSATION, I I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CONVERSATION WAS HAD WITH

THE AMERICA TOWER OR NOT. >> THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE MOBILE, IF THAT WAS A VIABLE OPTION, THEY WOULD HAVE EXPLORED THAT WITH THE EXISTING TOWER, BUYING A WHOLE NEW PROPERTY AND GETTING ZONED AND GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS NO SMALL ORDEAL. THEY ARE PRECISE IN WHERE THESE THINGS NEED TO BE AND THAT SEEMS OUT OF THE RANGE.

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT IS WHY THIS LOCATION WAS CHOSEN LOOKING

AT THAT PARTICULAR SIGHTED. >> I SAW TWO TUR COLUMBUS DOTS HERE. SO ONE IS WHERE THE -- TURQUOISE DOTS. AND WHAT IS THIS OTHER, FLAG POLE WITH OTHER THE TURQUOISE. THOSE ARE TWO EXISTING TOWERS;

CORRECT. >> TWO EXISTING TOWERS.

>> 4G'S. >> RIGHT.

>> AND THE ONE THAT IS -- A2P03M THAT IS ONE ON 910, 25TH

STREET; CORRECT. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THE OTHER ONE MUST BE ORANGE

AVENUE. >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT

WHERE THE OTHER ONE IS. >> 22ND.

>> OH, YES. >> GOT T21ST, AND 22ND.

>> I GOT IT NOW. AND SO YEAH, THAT STRUCK ME, RIGHT WHEN I SAW THESE TWO. I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND 5G TECHNOLOGY, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT RETROFIT. YOU CAN'T MODIFY WHAT IS THERE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A NEW TOWER. AND SO, THE CALL WENT OUT, AND THIS COMPANY CONTACTED IT LAND OWNER THAT HAS IDEAL PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE AGREED THAT THIS WOULD.

PERSON THAT THE LAND HAS AGREED TO ALLOW THEM TO PUT THAT HERE

BASED UPON THAT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. I THOUGHT I READ IN THE APPLICATION. I APOLOGIZE COMMISSIONER.

WE'RE TALKING 160 FEET, RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND THE CURRENT FLAG POLE THAT IS AT, HERE IS 150 FEET.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 11, 12

STORIES IN THE AIR, RIGHT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DOES THIS FLAG POLE HAS AN EMMITTING SIGNAL FOR FCC OR FAA TRANSACTION BECAUSE OF APPROXIMATING TO OUR LOCAL AIRPORT. IS THAT GOING TO EMMITT A SIGNAL SO THAT PLANES IN THE FLIGHT PATH WOULD KNOW IT'S THERE,

RIGHT. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

YES. IT IS ALREADY, WHAT I'M SAYING, IT'S ALREADY GOTTEN ALL FCC A PROSTYLES, FAA APPROVALS.

>> FAA APPROVALS? RIGHT SO, THAT IS ON RECORD AND

WE HAVE THAT, OKAY. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> MR. GAINS AND THEN COMMISSIONER PERONA.

>> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> I'M GOING TO FOLLOW-UP ON SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER JER MY JOHNSON SAID IN THIS CIRCLE -- JEREMIAH SAID IN THIS CIRCLE AND THE GAP COVERAGE. GO BACK TO GAP COVERAGE.

I HEARD YOU TESTIFY THAT AREAS IN YELLOW.

[01:05:05]

YOU WERE GIVING CITY OWNED PROPERTIES TO LOOK AT FROM THE FORMER DIRECTOR. CITY OWNED PROPERTIES THAT YOU

WERE TRYING TO LOOK AT. >> CORRECT, WESTBOUND THAT

POLYGON. >> CORRECT.

>> MY QUESTION IS A PRIVATELY OWNED PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT

YOU'RE IN CONTRACT WITH. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> DID WE LOOK FOR ANY TYPE OF PRIVATELY OWNED LAND OUT IN THE AREAS LIKE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SAID BY ENGEL ROAD OR ANY AREAS OUT THERE LIKE WHERE WE SEE THIS YELLOW? DID WE LOOK ANYWHERE OUT THERE TO TRY FOR PRIVATELY OWNED LAND

THAT WOULD FIT THIS PROJECT? >> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM MY CLIENT THAT THEY LOOKED THROUGH EVERY AREA THAT WAS AVAILABLE WITHIN THAT BLUE CIRCLE.

IT APPROACHED PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS LOOKING FOR WHATEVER AVAILABLE LAND THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO FIT THIS TOWER AND TO FIT THE EQUIPMENT. AND WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND ANOTHER SPACE. WHETHER THAT BE LAND OWNERS WOULD NOT AGREE TO LEASE THE PROPERTY OR THE PROPERTIES DID NOT FIT, YOU KNOW, THE SIZE FOR THE EQUIPMENT, AND WITH US GOING THROUGH A WHOLE BUNCH OF DIFFERENT WAIVERS AND VARIANCES

IN ORDER TO OCCUPY PROPERTY. >> I WAS GOING TO ADD, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT WE'RE NOT PROPERLY ZONED.

WE'RE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR ZONING AND OTHER REASONS ON YOUR CODE.

>> ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LOCAL RESIDENTS THAT THIS PROPERTY THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING? HE ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH

RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA? >> THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PUBLIC OUT REACH. WE HAVE NOT HAD A COMMUNITY

MEETING WITHIN THIS AREA, NO. >> SO AGAIN, OUT OF THIS ENTIRE BLUE CIRCLE, OCTOBER GONE, OCTYR YOU TERM YOU OTHERS.

THE ONLY AREA THAT IS CAPABLE FOR OR WHERE THIS POLE CAN BE LOCATED IS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS AREA RIGHT IN FORT PIERCE, THAT IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS BASED ON THE CRITERIA IN WHICH THE RF ENGINEERS GO BY, SUCH AS THE SIZE OF THE PROPER, TREE COVERAGE, THE LIST, I DON'T KNOW, THE LIST THAT I HAD UP BEFORE, THOSE ARE SOME THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT WHEN THEY WENT OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS.

WE PERSONALLY ASKED THE CLIENT, IS THERE ANYWHERE ELSE, WHEN WE HAD THE DISCU DISCUSSIONS WITH MS. HOFF MICESTER, IS ANYONE ELSE WITHIN THAT THE CITY OR BLUE POLYGON THAT WE CAN PUT A TOWER. THEY RELAYED TO US, WE APPROACHED DIFFERENT LAND OWNERS, PRIVATE LAND OWNERS, AND THERE IS NONE WILLING TO LEASE THE LAND.

WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AND IT DID NOT FIT A PLACE FOR TOWER BECAUSE OF LIST OF REASONS THAT A TOWER WOULD BE

ABLE TO BE LOCATED. >> OKAY.

>> AND JUST IN RESPONSE TO YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION ABOUT PUBLIC OUT REACH. WE DID POST AS REQUIRED ARE POST THE SITE AND NOTIFY SITE AND WE HAVE BEEN CHECKING IN WITH STAFF TO SEE IF THEY RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO RESPOND TO IT.

WE DID DO THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HEARD THAT THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT COMING IN, WE DID NOT HAVE A COMMUNITY OUT REACH.

>> LAST QUESTION, FOR RIGHT NOW. >> SURE.

>> I GOT MY COMMISSIONER, UNTIL I HEAR SOMETHING ELSE.

>> SURE. >> I HEARD YOU SAY TONIGHT THAT THE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE WITH CURRENT LAND OWNER.

>> RIGHT. >> HE GAVE YOU A CERTAIN PART OF -- I GUESS HE IS LEASING A CERTAIN PART OF HIS LAND AND THAT IS WHERE HE WANTS YOU TO PUT THIS TOWER?

>> YES. THE CLIENT BASICALLY CAME TO US WITH A PARCEL -- THEY HAD ALREADY APPROACHED THE LAND OWNER. WE KIND OF RECEIVED IT HOW WE RECEIVED IT WHEN IT CAME US TO. THEY HAD ALREADY ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE LAND OWNER FOR THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF THAT PROPERTY FOR THIS TOWER TO BE LOCATED.

I WASN'T A PART OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, BUT YES.

>> AND REASON I ASK THE QUESTION, BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THE PROPERTY. I GROUP UP BY THE PROPERTY.

I'VE DRIVEN BY THE PROPERTY DAYS, AND I AM CURIOUS, DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS FOR IT, CONSIDERED ANY OTHER PARTS OF THAT PROPERTY?

>> I DO NOT. I HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE CLIENT REGARDING WHETHER YOU KNOW, IT WAS A POSSIBLE FOR THE POLE TO BE RELOCATED TO ANOTHER PIECE THE PROPERTY.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS NOT ABLE TO BE MOVED BECAUSE OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE LAND OWNER.

[01:10:02]

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. PERONA.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO, ACCORDING TO TESTIMONY, ENGINEER HAS A REPORT THAT SAYS THAT IN SOME FORM OF A DEFAULT, THE TOWER WILL COLLAPSE UPON ITSELF?

>> YES. WE PROVIDED A REPORT.

>> DOES THAT -- LIKE -- SO WHAT IS IT RATED IN WIND FOR WIND?

>> I'D HAVE TO -- >> WE HAPPEN TO BE LIVING ON HURRICANE -- AM I ALLOWED TO SAY TA WORD.

NO. ON A WINDY COAST.

WINDY COAST, AND I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT IT AS FAR AS IT MEETS TO REACHES OUT TO THE SAFETY AND WELFARE.

I'M THINKING OF MYSELF, THAT KIND OF AN IMPORTANT POINT, AND I DON THINK THE TOWER WOULD COLLAPSE UPON ITSELF IN A

150-MILE PER HOUR WIND. >> I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THAT REPORT. I BELIEVE IT'S IN ALL THE MATERIALS THAT WE SUBMITTED. I KNOW FOR SURE IT'S IN ALL OF THE MATERIALS THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS PART OF OUR APPLICATION PACKET, BUT UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE IT IN

FRONT OF US TODAY. >> YOU CAN TELL ME THAT.

>> JUST TELL US. >> ADDRESS.

>> WHAT IS THE HIGH WIND THAT IT CAN WITHSTAND?

>> DO YOU REMEMBER? >> I BELIEVE IN OUR PRESENTATION TO PLANNING BOARD BUT I WOULD ASK THAT WE WOULD ADD TO THE RECORD, BECAUSE THAT WAS OUR ACTUAL TESTIMONY OF HAVING IN FRONT OF US THAT IT WAS UP TO CATEGORY 4 LEVEL, AND THEN AFTER THAT, OR IF IT DID COME DOWN, IT WOULD BE COLLAPSIBLE UPON ITSELF IN SUCH A WAY. I APOLOGIZE, THAT IS I AM NOT THE ENGINEER BUT THIS THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION OF THE BEST TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> WE HAVE TO HEAR TESTIMONY ON THING THAT ARE -- AFFECT OUR COMMUNITY. WE NEED TO BE -- I'LL JUST GO ON WITH THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOWED US A PICTURE OF THIS SILLERY LOOKING TOWER WALL THE -- SILVERY LOOKING TOWER WITH ALL THE FLOWERS AROUND IT.

THE GALVANIZED MATERIAL THAT YOU ARE TALKIN ABOUT, IS THAT LIKE THAT OR IS IT THAT A PAINTED TOWER.

>> IT'S A GALVANIZED MATERIAL. >> THE ONE YOU HAVE IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION. YOU HAVE THAT ONE.

PULL THAT ONE UP. I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID A LOT OF MAINTENANCE, AND I'M ALL ABOUT AVOIDING MAINTENANCE.

GOOD LUCK ON A COASTAL, FLORIDA CITY BY THE WAY.

OKAY. NO, NO.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE -- AND I'M TELL YOU WHAT I DON'T LIKE THE TREE THING. IT DOESN'T WORK FOR ME.

IT'S NEVER WORKED FOR ME. THERE'S ONE UP THERE ON PALM COAST. IT'S SOMETHING THAT I LOOK AT AND LAUGH EVERY TIME I PASS BY IT.

OKAY. THAT IS IT.

THAT IS THE GALVANIZED MATERIAL, IS THAT WHAT THE TOWER IS GOING

TO LOOK LIKE? >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT WILL

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE STICKING OUT OF SIDE, BUT I THINK IT'S A GRAY-KIND OF -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY HIGHER

RESOLUTION. >> THAT IS NOT OUR PHOTO.

SO WE CANNOT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>>I'M TELLING YOU, IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAINTAIN.

YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE GAL ENADVISED.

WE EXPECT THAT SILVERY NICE POLE, RATHER THAN THIS RIGHT HERE. WOULD IT BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING IF IT DID START TO CORRODE OR OX DAIS, AS MATERIAL DOES HERE ON THE COAST THAT, THEY WILL BE SENDING NASTY NOTICES TO YOUR

COMPANY. >> THAT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR TO OUR CLIENT AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING.

WHAT WAS EXPECTED IF THIS TOWER WAS TO BE APPROVED.

>> YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE USAGE OF CELL PHONES AND ALL THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT I HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT ALL THE THINGS TO DO YET, BUT I KNOW IT'S PART OF OUR FUTURE.

SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE, LET'S NOT MAKE THEM UNSITE WILL

UNSIGHTLYWITH THAT. >> WITH THAT, WE DID MAKE IT CLEAR, OUR CLIENT UNDERSTANDS, THEY WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

THE MAINTENANCE AND WE WANT TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE THAT STAYS NICE FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE WANT TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS WITH TOWN AND THE CITY, AND WE UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, AND WANT TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE TO DO THAT.

>> I KNOW, 5G IS THE BIG THING AND EVERYBODY WANTS IT.

THEY JUST DON'T WANT IT NEXT TO THEM.

HAS THERE BEEN A -- IS THIS ONLY TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE IS TO GO

[01:15:02]

160 FEET IN THE AIR AND PUT THIS PYRAMID OF ANTENNAS? IS THAT ONLY TECHNOLOGY THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US.

>> YES, IT IS. >> WE'RE SETTING UP 50 SATELLITES EVERY OTHER WEEK, IT SEEMS LIKE.

COME ON, I GUARANTEE THAT IN 10 YEARS THEY WON'T BE HERE ANYMORE. WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING

THOSE QUESTIONS. >> SO, THIS PICTURE THAT I SEE HERE WITH THE TRIANGLE OF ANTENNAS, THAT IS WHAT THE TOP

OF THIS THING WILL LOOK LIKE. >> IT WILL BE SIMILAR TO THIS.

>> YES, THAT ARE NOT AN ENCLOSED CANISTER.

>> SO TO ME, I SEE THAT. SO I GUESS THAT BECONS THE DESIGN QUESTION. AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THATHAT. IT APPEARS TO BE SITTING ON TOP OF THAT STRUCTURE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE.

WE'RE IN A JUDICIAL HEARING RIGHT NOW.

I WILL NOT READ INTO THAT. BUT THAT IS WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. THAT FOR THE RECORD, CANNOT BE RETROFIT TO SIT ON TOP OF THE CURRENT TOWER ON 25TH

STREET. >> CORRECT.

>> MR. JAY JOHNSON, YOU READY FOR MORE QUESTIONS.

>> IF YOU COULD, EXPLAIN TO US BE OR EXPLAIN TO ME, I SHOULD SAY, THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITIES THAT AT THE TOP.

ARE THEY MAINTAINED VIA A ONE PERSON TECHNICIAN OR DO THEY HAVE TO BRING SOME KIND OF A CRANE TO BRING THOSE TOWERS OR THOSE ANTENNAS UP TO THE TOP? WHAT DO THEY DO.

>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WILL BE ONE TRUCK THAT VISITS THE PROPERTY, I BELIEVE IT'S QUARTERLY TA WILL JUST BE ONE TRUCK THAT ENTERS THE PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN THOSE PARTICULAR AN

AANTENNAS. >> WHAT IS DESIGN LIFE OF THE POLE AND THE ANTENNAS, HOW OFTEN DO THEY GET CHANGED AND WHAT THE

MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE IF ANY. >> POLES WILL STAY UP.

THE POLE WILL STAY UP UNTIL WE FILE AN APPLICATION TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO REMOVE THIS PARTICULAR TOWER AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK BEFORE THE CITY, AND ASK TO FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK AND KIND OF GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WISH TO REMOVE THE TOWER. AS FAR AS THE ANTENNAS A ARE CONCERNED, IT DEPENDS ON THE CARRIER.

RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY T-MOBILE ON THE TOWER, BUT AS MORE PROVIDERS, UP TO 3, END UP ENTERING THE SITE OR GOING INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MY CLIENT, THEN THEY WILL HAVE A TRUCK THAT COMES OUT TO SERVICE THEIR PARTICULAR AN AT THE NAS

ANTENNAS ASWELL. >> THERE COULD BE A MORE FREQUENT NOT A NANCE. IT WILL BE A 3 TOTAL.

EACH INDIVIDUAL PROVIDER HAVING THEIR OWN MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE.

>> CORRECT. >> AND SO THE PHOTO THAT IS SHOWN HERE, HAS THREE TRIANGULAR SECTIONS A THE TOP.

>> CORRECT. >> WOULD THAT PRESENT THREE

CARRIES. >> CORRECT.

>> I'M STILL CHALLENGED BY THE SITE OR SITE LEX.

YOU HAVEN'T TOLD ME OR CONVINCED IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE MITIGATED FOR. I DIDN'T SHOW AN ADDITIONAL.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THAT. >> IF THERE'S MITIGATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE. YOU CAN SUGGEST THAT AS

CONDITION OF APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU.

ONE MORE, SORRY. >> FOUNDATION.

SO HOW DEEP IS FOUNDATION? WE HAVE 160 160-FOOT TOWER.

TELL ME ABOUT HOW DEEP WE GO WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS GOING TO HOLDUP THIS UNIT VERTICALLY.

I IMAGINE IT'S FAIRLY DEEP WITH VERY LARGE FOOTERS CONCRETE FOOTERS, I IMAGINE.

>> ONCE AGAIN, I DON'T RECALL THAT ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THAT WOULD BE IN THE YEAR'S REPORT.

-- ENGINEER'S REPORT.

>> WHICH WOULD BE ATTACHED TO THE DOCUMENT AND SUPPORTING

DOCUMENT. >> CORRECT.

[01:20:20]

>> YOU HAVE ALL THE 67 SHEETS IN FRONT OF YOU.

I WANT TO VERIFY. DO YOU HAVE THE PACKET IN FRONT OF YOU, WHICH IN OUR PACKET IS 67.

>> I LEFT MY IPAD, I CAN GO GRAB IT IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO

DO THAT. >> DO WE HAVE THE APPLICATION PACKET. WE CAN PULL IT UP ONLINE.

>> ARE YOU LOOKING AT PAGE 67 OR 35 OF 67?

>> YES. >> AM I IN THE RIGHT SPOT.

>> YES. I AM SCROLLING.

YES, THIS IS SPECIFICATION DATA THAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE 6-FOOT DEEP FROM GRADE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ON SCREEN.

I WOULD LIKE EVERYBODY TO SEE IT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> YOU SAID SLOW.

>> IRONICALLY TALKING ABOUT -- >> [LAUGHTER]

>> CONNECTION IS SLOWER. SEE THE HARD WIRE CONNECTION IS SLOWER THAN THE HARD WIRE. JUST SO YOU KNOW.

I'M RUNNING OFF CELLULAR. >> IF THERE'S QUESTIONS THAT WE CANNOT ANSWER, AS WE ARE ATTORNEYS AND NOT ENGINEERS, WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO BRING THEM BACK TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE ARE NOT ANSWERING IN THE GREAT GREATESTF DETAIL THAT WE ARE NOT ANSWERING THEM.

>> ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO ASK OF THEM LATER.

>> FOR OUR PROCEDURES. >> WE WILL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

>> AND THEN WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS.

>> WE WILL BRING THEM BACK. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES FORECLOSING.

>> TO CLOSING. >> I DON'T THINK YOU GET TO DO

QUESTIONS AGAIN. >> NO, NOT UNLESS THE MAYOR

REOPENS IT FOR QUESTIONS. >> YOU CAN ASK THE MAYOR.

>> WE WILL ALWAYS ANSWER WHATEVER YOU ASK.

>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOOD.

I CAN WAIT. >> SO ARE WE AT PROPER PAGE?

>> MAYBE ONE MORE. 35.

YEAH. THAT IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING A

THE. >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING

AT. >> SO IT'S VERY DECEIVING BUT THE FOUNDATION IS 30 FEET 6 INCHES IN WIDTH AND I IMAGINE

THAT IS A SQUARE. >> I WOULD IMAGINE THE SAME.

>> AND IT'S 6-FOOT DEEP. I'M NOT GOING TO SPECULATE.

I'M GOING TO LET YOU ANSWER. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. IT GOES BACK TO -- IN CONSTRUCTION, WHEN YOU GO ON SUBSURFACE LIKE THAT, YOU HAVE TO HANDLE STORM WATER, RIGHT. IS THAT ACCURATE.

>> YES. >> AND THERE WOULD BE A PLAN TO

HANDLE STORM WATER. >> THERE WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE A

PLAN. >> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IF IN YOUR PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS WITH OTHER CITIES AND IN OTHER AREAS, AND WHEN YOU COME BEFORE, DO YOU -- DO YOU HAVE ANY MEETINGS WITH SURROUNDINGS

NEIGHBORS. >> IF REQUESTED, AGAIN, WE FULLY, INTENDED TO DO THAT AND OFFER TO DO THAT, BUT WE DID NOT RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT THROUGH STAFFMENT WE DID NOT RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT. WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT BEFORE THIS MEETING. WE HAD BEEN ASKING, BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS MY ADVICE TO CLIENTS TO TWO THAT IF THERE'S QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED. WE WERE UNAWARE THAT THERE WERE

QUESTIONS. >> OKAY.

>> BUT IN PREVIOUS TIMES YOU HAVE DONE THAT WHEN YOU --

>> WE DO IT BASED ON THE REQUEST OF THE JURIES JURISDICTION, ANR UNDERSTANDING, IF THERE'S ISSUES, AND PEOPLE HAVE RAISED ISSUES, OFTEN WE DON'T DO IT AS A MATTER IT OF COURSE.

>> I'M ASKING YOU, YOU HAVE DONE IT.

>> YES. >> THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING, YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE --

[01:25:02]

THIS IS APPARENTLY OUR LAST CHANCE FOR QUESTIONS UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING UNUSUAL IN PROCEDURE.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO I IT UP FOR THE OTHER PUBLIC AND I WANT YOU TO BE PAYING ATTENTION. SO WHEN YOU COME BACK UP HERE TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, YOU CAN ADDRESS WHATEVER CONCERNS ASK WHATEVER CONCERNS YOU HAVE HEARD TONIGHT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, I'M GOING TO LET THEM GO. RIGHT FOR NOW.

BUT YOU WILL COME BACK UP AFTER AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> ALL RIGHTY, THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >>> SO NOW IT'S TIME FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ARE WE 3 MINUTES, MS.COX.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> YOU HAVE GIVE US A 3 SECOND WARNING STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

SO ANYONE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS MICHAEL LAD MOTHER, AND I OWNMEE PROPERTY JUST ADJACENT.

>> MR. LAD MIR YOU WERE SWORN IN.

>> YES, SIR. >> I JUST NEEDED TO VERIFY.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> I OWN THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE ONE THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

TO TELL YOU THE DRUG, IT SEEMED TO ME THEY CAME OUT AND PUT OUT STAKES. THE WAY THESE STAKES LOOKED IS NOT THAT BIG OF AN AREA WHERE THIS THING IS GOING.

SO OUR QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT IT COULD GO. THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF PLACES. I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. I OWN THE PROPERTY AND I WAS RAISED RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT.

I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS GOING ON THERE.

NOW WHAT IS GOING ON? I DON'T KNOW IT SEEMED TO BE BETTER FOR THESE PEOPLE. BUT I DOUBT IF IT'S BETTER FOR THE COMMUNE. WE DON'T KNOW.

WE RISK LOSING OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF THINGS, 5G.

SHE MENTIONED THERE'S MORE HEAT COMING OUT.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO US? IF YOU COME IN OUR AREA AND YOU PUT THIS THING DOWN? I'M JUST CONCERNED AND I SPOKE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ABOUT, AND HOPEFULLY, I'M WISHING THAT YOU

GUYS WILL NOT VOTE THIS THROUGH. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE

COME FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, I'M LAURA, JOHNSON SCOTT, I DO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DO HAVE CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATEMENT IN THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT. BEING THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS SURROUND BY COMMERCIAL USES. I LIVE ON THE CORNER OF 25TH AND AVENUE O. ALL ALONG O, ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS EXCEPT FOR ONE APARTMENT BUILDING.

ON AVENUE P, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET ARE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS. NOW FACING 25TH STREET, YOU DO HAVE A BUSINESS, A STORE, THEN FURTHER DOWN ON P, YOU DO HAVE A RESTAURANT THAT FACES P NOT 25TH STREET.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN THE PARTICULAR AREA THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

SECONDLY, WE HEARD A LOT OF ABOUT WHAT THIS TOWER WILL DO FOR MOBILE DEVICES. BUT WHAT DOES IT DO FOR COMMUNITY? FIRST OF ALL, CELL PHONE TOWERS USE RADIO FREQUENCY WAVES, NOW IT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN THAT THESE WAVES CAUSE ANY DIRECTOR SPECIFIC HEALTH DEFECTS, BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN THAT THEY DON'T CAUSE HEALTH CONDITIONS. MR. LAD MYRRH SPOKE OF THE HEAT THAT COMES FROM THESE TOWERS THAT, THAT'S A CONCERN.

WITH RADIO FREQUENCY SIGNALS ARE TRANSMITTED BACK AND FORTH TO THE BASE STATION DURING CALLS, THE RADIO FREQUENCY WAVES

[01:30:01]

PRODUCE AT THE BASE STATION A GIVEN OFF AND TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND WHEN THEY ARE GIVEN OFF INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE CAN BE EXPOSED. WE DON'T KNOW HOW SEVERE THAT EXPOSURE IS, BECAUSE IN MY RESEARCH, THE RESEARCHERS ARE STATING THAT MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE.

IF WE'RE GOING TO ERR, LET'S ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND PROTECT THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.

I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT A FALL RADIUS FOR THE TOWER.

THIS IS 160-FOOT TOWER. AND AS, I THINK IT WAS MR. JOHN SO MENTIONED ABOUT HURRICANES, HE DIDN'T THINK A TOWER WOULD BE KNOCKED OVER BY A HURRICANE. BUT WE NEVER KNOW.

WE HAVING SOME VERY DIFFERENT TYPES OF WEATHER CONDITIONS NOW.

SO WHAT IS THE FALL RADIUS OF THE TOWER IF SOMETHING --

>> I'M SORRY, YOUR TIME IS UP. YOUR TIME IS UP.

YOUR 3 MINUTES ARE UP. >> ONE THING, MAYOR, PLEASE.

>> YOU WERE SWORN IN. >> OKAY, I SAW THE BEAUTIFUL FLOWERS AROUND THE TOWER IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT IS NOT THE CASE. WE LOOK AT THE ONE ON 910, 24TH STREET, THERE'S NO BEAUTY THERE.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> MY NAME IS DONALD SCOTT.

>> WERE YOU SWORN MR. SCOTT. WERE YOU SWORN IN.

>> SCOTT, YES. >> YOU WERE SWORN IN.

>> YES. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> I'M LOOKING AT IT, THEY ARE SHOWING WHERE THE PROPOSAL IS, AND I LISTENED TO ALL OF THE COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT WAS PLANNED FOR THE TOWER BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU GOT AN ADDRESS OF 1601, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME. I'M 1511 ON 25TH STREET.

1601 IS THE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME FACING SOUTH ON AVENUE O.

BUT WE BOTH ARE ON THE CORNER OF 25TH STREET.

YOU'RE ASKING IS ASKING FOR CONDITIONAL USE.

THAT PROPERTY FROM 26 TO 27TH STREET, CONDITIONAL USE, IS IT JUST FOR THAT SPOT. THAT TAKES IN THE WHOLE TRACK OF LAND. WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM ME.

WE TALKED ABOUT DOING TOWN HOUSES THERE AND HOW WE COULD BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THIS COMES AS A SHOCK TO ME WHAT WAS BEING PLANNED, AND THEY HAVE GONE FORWARD AND HAVE ALMOST GIVEN HIM THE GO AHEAD. ALL HE NEEDS IS A CONDITIONAL USE. WELL, ARE YOU GIVING HIM THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR JUST THAT PORTION WHERE HE PLANS TO PUT THAT? AND THEN, RIGHT THERE WOULD BE A PLACE BECAUSE IT'S DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH.

AND LOOKING AT THE OTHER TOWERS THAT ARE PLACED IN OUR AREA, THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINED LIKE THIS BEAUTIFUL PICTURE I SEE UP THERE ON THE WALL, YOU KNOW, WITH THE PINK FLOWERS AND WHATNOT. WE PASSED BY ONE, YES, DEDICATED, IF GO UP 24TH STREET AND LOOK AT ONE THAT IS DEDICATED TO -- I THINK, AND WHO ELSE? IT DOESN'T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND I'M AFRAID THAT IF YOU PERMIT, THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME

SITUATION THAT MY WIFE SPOKE OF. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, ANYONE ELSE?

>> MICHELLE, ADDRESS CONFIDENTIAL.

>> EXCUSE ME, WERE YOU SWORN IN. >> NO, I AM SORRY.

[01:35:05]

>> >> SECRETARY: DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT TRUTH.

>> I DO. THIS LADY TALKING IN THE BLUE SWEATER WAS VERY INFORMATIVE. SHE DID MENTION TO ME THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT DIDN'T GET NOTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION. I'M NOT ON THAT SIDE SO I CAN'T SAY THAT WE WERE NOTIFIED EITHER.

I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT FORT PIERCE BEING AFFECTED, LIKE THE CHILDREN. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW.

I WAS LOOKING THIS UP ONLINE, IT DOESN'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT IT'S GOING TO CAUSE CANCER. HOW CLOSE IS IT TO THE RESIDENT ASK ST AND STUFF LIKE. THAT 5G IS FAIRLY NEW AS FAR AS THE TECHNOLOGY GOES. IF WE HAVE 4G AND IT'S WORKING, I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE TO PUT 5G RADIOACTIVE TOWER.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE -- NEXT TO US, WE HAVE ON TOP OF CONDOMINIUMS LIKE THE TOWERS AND I DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH THAT, EITHER. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DAMAGE IT'S DOING TO THE HUMAN BODY. EVEN THOUGH JE JEREMIAH IS AN ENGINEER, TO CONSIDER THE LOCAL NEIGHBORS AND WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THEIR HEALTH, WELL-BEING AND ALSO YOUNG CHILDREN.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> HE CAN HEAR. >> [LAUGHTER]

>> I HAD PREPARED THIS BEFORE HEARING ALL OF THIS NEW DISCUSSION TONIGHT SO I'M GOING TO GET.

>> WOULD YOU STATE YOUR FAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> DANIEL GAINS, RESIDENT ALL MY LIFE.

>> YOU WERE SWORN IN. >> YES, I WAS.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> TO MAYOR HUDSON AND FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, AND OUR BELOVED CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

MY COMING FORWARD IN A PUBLIC SETTING IS OUT OF MY LEAGUE.

I WOULD PREFER TO MEET WITH YOU IN ANOTHER SETTING, THOUGH I HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. I STAND TO SHOW A NONSUPPORT FOR THIS ITEM THAT IN NOW IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS 160-FOOT MOBILE TOWER AS 160525TH STREET, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROPERTY IN THAT AREA IS IN OUR COMMUNITY IS LISTED AS RM, BUT I FOUND OUT LATER IT HAS BEEN -- TO SOME YEARS.

THAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DO SO, BUT DOES THAT SAY THAT YOU MUST? I DO NOT KNOW WHAT EACH OF -- WHERE EACH OF YOU LIVE BUT THINK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD YOU HAVE LIVED IN FOR YEARS AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH EACH OTHER IS VERY TIGHT. ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEONE COMES ALONG AND WANT TO PUT THAT TYPE OF TOWER IN YOUR BACKYARD.

WOULD YOU BE HAPPY? AS A MEMBER OF THE OLDEST BLACK CHURCH IN THE CITY, I STAND TO SUPPORT THEM, FOR WE ALSO HAVE PROPERTY THAT WOULD BORDER WITH THIS TOWER ON THE NORTH SIDE.

WE ARE ONE HOUSE THAT SITS ON THE WESTERN END AND THE REST.

AND NO ONE PROPERTY WOULD WANT IT IF THE TOWER WAS PLACED THERE. WE PLEAD TO YOU THAT YOU DO NOT DO THIS TO US. THERE'S ALREADY MUCH, THERE'S ALWAYS ONE OF THESE TOWER THAT IS SITTING BEHIND THE PROPERTY ON 25TH STREET SOUTH OF THIS LOCATION.

WE ARE NOW HEARING THE HEARING WHY THIS TOWER NOW IS BEING RECOMMENDED, BECAUSE THOSE TWO ARE CLOSE FRIENDS, SO I'M SURE THAT FRIEND TOLD THIS FRIEND, THAT THEREFORE THIS IS WHY.

>> I PLEAD TO YOU THAT TO DO NOT DO THIS TO US, PLEASE, PLEASE, WE HAVE CHURCHES IN THE AREA, WE ALSO FEEL THAT THEY WOULD BE

AFFECTED BIT TOWER. >> BUT WE DON'T WANT IT IN THE AREA, I KNOW THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE LANDSCAPE, EVEN DOWN THE PLANNING SOME MORE TREES, BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE THE TOP.

YOU UNDERSTAND IT WILL BE A T-MOBILE, AND YOU SAID IT WILL ENHANCE OUR TELEPHONE OPERATION. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY, POLICE, AND OTHER PUBLIC COULD USE TO FIND HELP SOLVE CRIMES, BUT FOR THIS AREA, IN OUR COMMUNITY, WHY DO WE HAVE TO LOOK A NORTH WE HAVE SECTION TO FIND SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE HELPFUL? WE HAVE LIVED HERE, WE HAVE HOMES HERE. WE HAVE RAISED OUR CHILDREN HERE, AND FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO COME IN AND WE JUST DO NOT WANT IT IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU.

[01:40:01]

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> [APPLAUSE]

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. ANYONE ELSE.

ANYONE ELSE, GOING ONCE. >> SO NOW I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE, AND WHAT IS OUR TIME PERIOD? 5 MINUTES.

>> 5 MINUTES. >> ALL RIGHTY.

TO ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS

>> YES, PRELIMINARILY, WE ARE VERY SORRY THAT THERE WASN'T A

COMMUNITY OUT REACH. >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR

THE RECORD. >> TERRY DEWEY ON BEHALF OF TILLMAN, INDUSTRIES, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IS OF CONCERN, WE WOULD BE WILLING TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO DO THAT OUT REACH AND TO COME BEFORE YOU AND BRING OUR RF ENGINEERS, BECAUSE YOU HAD SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE ADEQUATELY COVERED IN OUR MATERIALS, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WERE THE PEOPLE BEST SERVED TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU PREFER, WE ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT. AS THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED ONE OF THEM WAS ABOUT THE FALL ZONE. THE FALL ZONE AS WE SAID IS DESIGNED TO FALL IN AND OF ITSELF WITHIN 60 FEET BOX.

WITHIN A 60-FOOT BOX. WE FOUND, THE SUSTAINED WINDS IS 158. I WAS CLOSE REMEMBERING FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATION.

AND AS TO CONCERNS REGARDING RF EXPOSURE LIMITS, AGAIN, THE FEDERAL -- WHAT IS THE -- FEDERAL STANDARDS PREVENT THAT FROM BEING CONSIDERED AT THIS PARTICULAR HEARING.

SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE. >> I THINK WHAT WAS TRYING TO SAY, IS THAT BASICALLY THE FEDERAL STANDARDS SAY THAT NO STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY REGULATE FACILITIES ON THE BASIS OF PERCEIVED HEALTH THREATS. I THINK THAT IS WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE PEOPLE IN -- THE CITIZENS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO DECIDED TO LEASE HIS PROPERTY TO TILLMAN ENTERPRISES IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TOWER.

YOU KNOW, I KNOW THEY TALKED ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING, AND SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS TA ARE ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT ARE OTHER PLACES THAT ARE AROUND THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IN WHICH TOWERS HAVE NOT BEEN KEPT UP. AS WE STATED BEFORE, AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING WE WENT TO THE CLIENT AND REALLY HONED IN ON THEM. IF THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO DO IN THIS COMMUNITY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND KEEP UP THIS TOWER. WE EXPLAINED TO THEM THE CONCERNS REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING AND KEEPING UP THE APPEARANCE THE PROPERTY ASK THE CITY NOT WANTING TO HAVE SOMEBODY OR THEIR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS COMING OUT A CONSISTENT BASIS IN ORDER TO CITE THEM FOR THE PROPERTY.

THEY DID AFTER THAT TELEPHONE CALL AND THOSE CONVERSATIONS GO OUT, AND DEVELOP TO ENSURE THAT REPORT WILL BE KEPT UP.

I DID HEAR A RESIDENT OF HEARING OF CITIZENS WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE LETTER STATED BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THE HORSE OF THAT PARTICULAR LETTER WHAT WERE THE NEARBY USES OF THE PROPERTY.

I PERSONALLY VISITED THE PROPERTY.

S I RODE AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND I WILL TELL YOU WHERE ARE WE GOING TO PUT THIS TOWER. I KNOW THERE'S CONCERNS FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE'RE WILLING TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO REACH OUT TO THE CITIZENS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TRY TO APPEASE SOME OF THEIR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE US TO DO PRIOR TO MAKING A DECISION ON THIS.

SO WE'RE FULLY OPEN TO HAVING THAT DONE AND ALSO BRINGING BACK OR BRINGING IN THE RADIO FREQUENCY ENGINEERS TO ANSWER SOME OF QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO

ANSWER THIS EVENING. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO

ADD? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THAT'S IT. >> ALL RIGHT, WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. FREEMAN.

>> IF I MAY, MAYOR. CAN STAFF JUST -- PUSH FORWARD SOME QUESTIONS THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD ASSIST THE COMMISSION IN MAKING A DECISION TO THE APPLICANT.

>> I WILL ASK THE CITY OF ATTORNEY.

>> MADAM MAYOR. >> STAFF DOES GET SOME TIME FOR REBUTTAL AS WELL, I THINK ANSWER IS YES.

>> VERY MUCH. >> KEVIN FREEMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. I GOT FOUR ITEMS REALLY THAT I THINK WOULD ASSIST COMMISSION IN THEIR DETERMINATION OF THIS APPLICATION. MY FIRST QUESTION RELATES TO

[01:45:01]

TILLMAN, AND THE NUMBER OF INSTALLATIONS THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH TOUT THRO THE COUNTRY THROUGHOUT FLORIDA.

AND REALLY, TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CAMOUFLAGE THAT COULD BE AND HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH SIMILAR CELL TOWER INSTALLATIONS. I DOUBT THAT YOU CAN DO THAT HERE ARE BUT THAT WOULD BE ONE QUESTION.

SECOND QUESTION, WOULD BE TO CONFIRM THAT 5G ANTENNA CANNOT BE SHIELDED AS YOU ARE EXPLAINED DUE TO HEATING, AND VENTILATION CONSTRAINTS. I THINK THERE ARE OTHER INSTALLATION HAS HAVE MONEY TO ENCAPSULATE 5G ANTENNA.

WILL THE EXISTING. 4G THAT IS TRANSMIT 4G, WILL THAT BECOME OBSOLETE, AND WILL THAT BE REMOVED AND 5, CAN YOU CONFIRM IF THE TOWER WAS TO OCCUPY MORE THAN THE ONE CARRIER, THAT THE INSTALLATION AT GROUND LEVEL WOULD NOT NEED TO BE EXPANDED THROUGH ADDITIONAL GROUND BASE CABINETS?

THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

AND SO RIGHT, YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR THESE RESPONSES NOW.

>> I DON'T THINK SOME OF THESE THINGS CAN BE ANSWERED RIGHT NOW. BUT IF THEY ARE TO COME BACK, I THINK THE COMMISSION WOULD BENEFIT FROM HAVING THESE

ANSWERS. >> SO YOU DON'T NEED TO ANSWER THEM RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> OKAY. NOW, AT THIS TIME, WE COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION ACCORDING TO MY SCRIPT.

IS THAT RIGHT, MS. EARLY. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. I WILL ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION.

>> YOU WANT TO START. >> I WILL START, MADAM.

>> OKAY. >> AS I SIT HERE, MADAM MAYOR, THERE ARE A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.

AS AN ATTORNEY, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER ENGINEERING CLASS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI IN-LAW SCHOOL. SO I WOULD WANT YOU TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, EITHER. I WON'T HOLD YOU TO THAT.

MADAM, MAYOR, I FEEL THAT FOR THE CONCERNS OF OUR CITIZENS, CONCERNS THAT I'VE HEARD FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, FROM THE CONCERNS I'VE HEARD FROM THE BOARD DIRECTOR HIMSELF THAT A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING OR SOMETHING THAT WE CONTINUE THIS HEARING WHERE WE CAN COULD GET THE ENGINEERS.

THEY COULD HAVE TIME TO TALK TO THE PUBLIC, TO GET THEIR CONCERNS, AND THE QUESTIONS THAT I KNOW THAT THE COMMISSIONER RIGHT NEXT TO ME JEREMIAH REALLY WANT TO ANSWER, GO HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH THE ENGINEER. I SAY FOR HIM, I TAKE THAT HIT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER POSITION TO PUT ALL OF US IN.

THE RECORD WILL BE CLEAR. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING. SO ALL TESTIMONY WILL BE EVIDENCE, AND AT THAT TIME WHEN WE MAKE OUR DECISION, WE WILL HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, ALL ANSWERS, ALL QUESTIONS ANSWERED. SO MADAM, ATTORNEY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR A MOTION OR HOW DO I PUT THAT OUT THERE.

I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE A CONTINUATION, THIS HEARING NEEDS TO BE CONTINUED UNTIL QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED THE 5 FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE COMMISSIONERS IF WE DO HAVE THE QUESTIONS THAT WE DIDN'T ASK, THAT WE TRY TO GET IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD SO THEY CAN PUT IT ON THEIR LIST OF 5 QUESTIONS. SO WHEN THE ENGINEER COMES BACK, OR, WHEN THE COMPANY COMES BACK, THEY KNOW WHAT ENGINEERS TO BRING SO WE CAN ASK THE QUESTIONS.

I DON'T WANT THEM TO COME BACK WITH THE WRONG ENGINEER AND WE ASK ANOTHER ENGINEER, YOU KNOW. IF THEY HAVE THE QUESTIONS, WE WILL HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON.

THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC.

SO I DON'T -- AGAIN, I DON'T ANY IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ASK FOR A CONTINUOUS LIKE IN COURT OR MAYBE THAT IS JUST MY -- MAYBE THE REST OF THE BOARD MAY WANT TO VOTE AND WE GO FROM THERE.

>> MS. EARLY. >> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER GAINS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, THERE'S TWO LEVELS OF ANALYSIS THAT I WOULD A APPLY HERE TO THE EXTENT THERE'S ANY FEDERAL RULES OR REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE US TO MAKE A DECISION WITHIN A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME.

[01:50:02]

THE TERM IS SHOT CLOCK FOR THIS PARTICULAR DECISION THAT HAVE YOU TO MAKE UNDER COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996.

I AM HEARING ESSENTIALLY BY THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE THROUGH COUNCIL. I'M HEARING A WAIVER OF ANY OF THOSE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. SECONDARY TO THAT, OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS DO PERMIT A CONTINUANCE TO A DATE CERTAIN, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE POSED AS A MOTION AND VOTED ON UPON BY THE COMMISSION.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANT

TO DISCUSS. >> NO.

SO, I WANT TO FOLLOW-UP WITH THAT.

THAT IS THE PART I NEEDED TO HEAR FROM THE ATTORNEY.

IS THE DATE CERTAIN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT WE WANT TO HEAR BACK WHICH WOULD ALLOW ADEQUATE TIME FOR THE ENGINEERS TO COME BACK WITH THE PROP INFORMATI INFORMATION.

ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE INFORMATION, THAT THE CLIENT HAS POSED THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO INTERACT WITH THE PUBLIC AND HOLD THAT TOWN HALL COMMUNITY MEETING TO HEAR THOSE CONCERNS ALONG WITH THOSE 5 QUESTIONS THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS PROPOSED HERE. I THINK ARE WELL WITHIN ORDER OF THAT. I THINK BASED ON CALENDARING, I WITH HAVE TO ASK MY CLERK TO BEGIN TO LOOK AT, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IN TIMEFRAME BASED ON THAT AND PENDING UPCOMING ELECTIONS, ET CETERA THAT ARE COMING INTO PLAY IN NOVEMBER.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT -- BECAUSE THIS COMMISSION IS NOW 5 OF US HERE, AND WOULD I THINK THAT THE 5 OF US WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. YOU'RE NOT, SO WE'RE ON A TIGHT FRAME ON COMMISSIONER PERONA, HE IS CLICKING OFF DATES AND MEETING AS WE GO. IF WE START, I DON'T KNOW.

DO WE HAVE TO FINISH WITH THAT PLEASE EARLY OR DOES THAT --

>> I THINK TO EXTENT YOU ALL HAVE HEARD HALF OF THE EVIDENCE AS A COMMISSION IT WOULD BE CLEANER.

>> YES. >> CERTAINLY ON RESCHEDULE FOR A DATE WHEN COMMISSIONER PER OCKER NA WOULD BE HERE.

>> AS A COMMISSIONER AND NOT A RETIRED COMMISSIONER.

THAT IS MY CONCERN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE AWARE FOR A CONTINUOUS DAY THAT WE REALIZE THAT, AND WITH THE APPLICANT THE SENSE OF URGENCY TO MEET WITH THE COMMUNITY WHICH THEY VOLUNTEERED TO DO AND TO HOLD THOSE MEETINGS MANY WE ARE IN A TIGHT WINDOW TO MAKE SURE AND THEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT IS LISTENING. YOU KNOW, WE USE SOME TERMS HERE WHEN WE FIRST GOT ON THE COMMISSION.

ALL I HEARD WAS COMPETENCE, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

AND WE NEED IT MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND UP HERE, IT'S NOT FOR US, IT'S FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND.

AND ABSOLUTELY, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL HEARING OF INFORMATION AND THAT HAS TO COME FROM YOU.

AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ADVICE MY COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN? WHAT DOES THAT EVIDENCE LEVEL LOOK LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION. I'M SITTING IN A JUDICIAL ASPECT WEIGHING EVIDENCE AND A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON. AND THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT AS A TOTAL COMMUNITY.

BECAUSE THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT PUTS US IN CHALLENGE BOTH IN LEGAL SYSTEM, AND IN FINANCIAL JUDICIAL AREAS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY FIND OURSELVES IN. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I PROTECT ALL OF FORT PIERCE. THAT WE AREN'T FINDING OURSELVES IN A FINANCIAL SITUATION AS A RESULT OF SOMETHING THAT IS NOT WEIGHTED ON COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ANY TYPE OF APPLICATION FINDING THAT WE MAY HAVE.

SO IF I CAN MEET WITH MY CONSTITUENTS, I WELCOME THAT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS WEIGHING ON ME THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE A THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS AND I WOULD RATHER HAVE THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. YOU'RE TAX PAYING CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY. I HAVE TO DO RIGHT BY TAX PAYING CITIZENS TO NOT PUT US IN A SITUATION THAT OVERBURDENS TAX PAYING CITIZENS WHEN IT COMES TO DECISIONS THAT I MAKE SITTING UP HERE IN THIS TYPE OF DECISION. THAT IS WHAT IS WEIGHING ON ME.

I'M A NON-ATTORNEY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

I UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, I UNDERSTAND HOW TO WEIGHT EVIDENCE TO RENDER A DECISION.

SO I WANTED TO AT LEAST PUBLICLY STATE THAT, AND I THINK IF COMMISSIONER GAINS OR SOMEBODY IS READY, I THINK YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO FROM THERE, I AM DONE, THANK YOU.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE, COMMISSIONERS JAY JOHNSON.

[01:55:02]

>> A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. I JUST APPRECIATE STAFF FOR BRINGING FORWARD IN QUESTIONS OR AT LEAST SOME STATEMENTS THAT WOULD HELP THIS COMMISSION. THANK YOU FOR OBSERVING THAT IN MAKING AND PUTTING THOSE ON RECORD, BECAUSE IT WOULD HELP, I THINK THE APPLICANT HEARD IT LOUD AND CLEAR.

SO THANK YOU FOR BEING ELOQUENT IN YOUR STATEMENTS THERE.

IN ADDITION, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE WITH THE SHOT CLOCK WHICH A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DAYS HAVE PASSED.

I HE I DON'T HOW LONG WE HAVE SEEN IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE IN THE SHOT CLOCK.

I DON'T SEE THE TICKER IN THE BACK ROOM TELLING ME TO SHOOT

THE 3. >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW PRECISELY WHEN THE COMPLICATION CAME IN.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME PRIOR TO US GETTING SOMETHING BEFORE PLANNING BOARD IN AUGUST. SO.

>> SO, WITH TIME BEING OF THE ESSENCE AS COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON SAID ANYWAY. MAYBE WE CAN JUST HAVE DIALOGUE WITH APPLICANT, THEY UNDERSTAND IT.

THEY KNOW WHERE THEY ARE PROBABLY IN THAT SYSTEM AND IF THERE'S A OPPORTUNITY FOR A WAIVER, KNOWING THAT WE'RE UNDER A TIMEFRAME ANYWAY, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS THROUGH COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE END OF NOVEMBER, RIGHT? BECAUSE OF OUR FELLOW COMMISSIONER OVER HERE.

WE WANT TO HAVE DIALOGUE WITH HIM WHILE UP HERE --

>> SUCH A PROBLEM ALL OF A SUDDEN.

>> AND TO BE CLEAR, COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY TO JUMP IN AND INTERRUPT MADAM, MAYOR. TO THE EXTENT THAT PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO THAT TYPE OF TOWER OR THE TYPE OF STRUCTURE THAT IS PROPOSED HERE. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

>> I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT SOME DATE MYSELF, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF MS.COX WANT TO GO? I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MS.COX?

>> IF WE DID IT FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN OCTOBER, WHICH WOULD GIVE NOT QUITE 30 DAYS. IT WOULD BE OCTOBER THE 17.

BUT FIRST MEETING IN NOVEMBER, WHICH IS PROBABLY GOING TO PROVIDE A LOT OF TIME FOR EVERYONE WOULD BE NOVEMBER THE 7TH BECAUSE THAT WE HAVE THE 5 MONDAYS IN OCTOBER.

SO THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE COULDN'T POSTPONE UNTIL NOVEMBED THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET COMMUNITY MEETING ACCOMPLISHED AND EVERYBODY ON SCHEDULE.

>> IS THAT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME?

COULD GO TO THE SECOND MEETING. >> WE WOULD HAVE THE NOVEMBER THE 7TH AND THE LAST POTENTIAL DATE WOULD BE NOVEMBER

THE 21ST. >> THAT'S THE LAST MEETING.

>> LAST MEETING. >> SO NOVEMBER 7TH MAKES SENSE BE BECAUSE THERE'S 5 MONDAY INSIDE OCTOBER.

>> RIGHT. >> THAT GIVES US ONE EXTRA MEETING IN WE NEED IT, JUST SAYING.

>> MADAM MAYOR, AND MADAM ATTORNEY, STILL LEARNING THE -- I MEAN, WE HAVE THE ATTORNEYS FROM THE APPLICANT HERE.

WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY FROM THE APPLICANTS HERE AND I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CLOSED, BUT WE CAN PUT FOR THE RECORD THAT WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT. OR IF THEY HAVE ANY OBJECTION FOR NOVEMBER THE 7TH, YOU KNOW, CONTINUANCE.

SHE HAS WALKED UP. >> YES.

>> MS. EARLY. >> THIS IS PROCEDURAL AT THIS POINT. IT'S NOT PART OF THE TESTIMONY FOR MAKING YOUR DECISION. SO THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH COUNSEL

COMING BACK UP. >> THIS IS PROCEDURAL, AND THIS

IS NOT TESTIMONY; CORRECT? >> I MERELY WANTED TO SAY THAT NOVEMBER 7TH WOULD BE PREFERRED.

WE WANT TO MOVE THIS AS LONG AS WE CAN, THAT IS REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO MEET WITH COMMUNITY AND GET THE INFORMATION FOR YOU TO PRESENT AT THAT MEETING.

NOVEMBER 7 WOULD BE A FINE TIME FOR US.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT OR THE REPRESENTATIVES TO SAY THAT REACH OUT TO COMMISSION. TOO.

WE HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS, WE DON HAVE TO DIALOGUE.

WE ARE GOING TO SAY HAD A WE HAD DIALOGUE IN A QUASI JUDICIAL FORMAT. REACH OUT TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. WE WILL TALK.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SAY AND YES, I THINK THAT WHAT COMMISSION -- EVERYBODY UP HERE IS KIND OF MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON EVIDENCE THAT -- AND CANNOT BE SPECULATION OR WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, BUT ALSO FOR THE APPLICANT, I THINK THE -- I JUST WANT TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT YOUR PRESENTATION WAS WHAT WAS GOOD FOR YOU.

AND YOU MIGHT AT LEAST CONSIDER WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOOKING A THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TOO. SO, SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A

[02:00:03]

MOTION? >> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE, WHICH ONE IS IT, THIS JUDICIAL HEARING TO

NOVEMBER THE 7TH. >> SECOND.

>> NOVEMBER 7TH. >> NOVEMBER THE 7TH.

>> I SAID THE SECOND IN THE MOTION.

>> 7 IN THE MOTION. >> OKAY.

>> WHO IS ON FIRST. >> I DON'T KNOW.

[LAUGHTER] >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> SECRETARY:

>>> SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EVERYONE AND WE HAVE HAD THIS -- WE HAVE HAD A CONTINUE YAPS ONCE BEFORE.

WE DO -- CONTINUANCE ONCE BEFORE.

[i. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval of an application for a Site Plan (Development and Design Review) approval to construct a 324-unit multi-family development with eight (8) multi-family buildings, a clubhouse with a pool and associated site improvements to construct a 324-unit multi-family development with eight (8) multi-family buildings, a clubhouse with a pool and associated site improvements at or near the southeast corner of S Jenkins Road and Graham Road, more specifically located at Parcel Control Numbers: 2418-322-0002-0000-2, 2418-331-0001-000-3 and 2418-343-0001-000-0.]

WE DO HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THIS. THANK YOU MR. FREE MA.

>>THE NEXT ITEM IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING FOR APPROVAL APPLICATION PLAN FOR A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A 324 M MULTIUNITE WITH A CLUBHOUSE, A POOL AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO CONSTRUCT A 324 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH 8 MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, CLUBHOUSE AND WHICH POOL AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENT AT OR NEAR THE SOUTH JENKINS ROAD

AND GRAHAM ROAD. >> THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING AND HAS THE ADVERTISING AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BEEN

MET. >> THE ADVERTISING HAS BEEN MET

FOR THE SITE. >> AND WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT EXPAR TAI COMMUNICATIONS.

>> YES, COMMISSIONER, EXPAR AT A COMMUNICATIONS.

>> NO MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON.

>> I'M GOING TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF, YES, I THINK I MET WITH DEVELOPERS EARLY ON IN MY TENURE.

I'M GOING TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF YES.

>> COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON. >> I'M GOING IT SAY YES, ALSO,

ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. >> COMMISSIONER PER ON A.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> A MEETING.

>> YES. >> MAYOR HUDSON.

>> NOM. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN

THE WITNESSES. >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, STAND AND RAISE YOUR HAND.

>> SECRETARY: (SWORN). >> PROCEED.

>> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS BEFORE YOU WE HAVE A REVIEW DESIGN APPLICATION FOR J POINT JENKINS, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH JENKINS ROAD AND GRAHAM ROAD.

SUBJECT PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A USE OF RH WHICH IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 32.85 ACRES.

FOR YOU IS THE SITE PLAN ALONG WITH THE APPLICANT'S -- SUBMITTED, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY TABLE, SHOWING THE SETBACKS, A LOT COVER SITE AND DENSITY. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF NINE STRUCTURES, 8 MULTIFAMILY, ONE CLUBHOUSE, TOTALING 324 UNITS, BUILDING TYPE ONE IS 5 BUILDINGS.

IT'S 36 UNITS EACH. BUILDING TYPE 2, IS 3 BUILDINGS, 48 UNITS EACH. IT WILL BE 587 PARKING SPACES WITH 18 HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE. THE LANDSCAPING WILL INCLUDE, GUMBO LIMBO, EAGLETON HOLLY, AND SPLASH PINE, LIVE OAK, SHRUBS GROUND COVER AND IRRIGATION. THIS IS THE CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS.

BUILDING TYPE ONE ELEVATIONS, BUILDING TYPE 2 ELEVATIONS.

PLANNING BOARD AT THE AUGUST 8TH, 2022 MING VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH FOUR CONDITIONS.

NUMBER ONE, A COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, LANDSCAPE BOND PURSUANT CODE SECTION 1236, SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS APPROVED FOR THE SITE. NEWER TWO, PRIOR TUITION OF ANY SITE CLEARING PERMITS. APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE A TREE MITIGATING SURVEY, AND FOR A REQUIRED OF CITY'S REGULATED TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION OR ACTIVITY. AND THE NUMBER THREE, A UNITY TITLE AND A PARCEL COMBINATION WITH THE ST. LUCIE PROPERTY APPRAISAL SHALL BE CONDUCTED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT. AND NUMBER 4, I THINK I REPEATED. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE UNITY OF

[02:05:02]

TITLE LOT COMBINATION, PLEASE SUBMIT A GENERAL ADDRESS REQUEST FORM FOR THE NEWLY CREATED PARCEL ID IN EACH PROPOSED BUILDING AND RESIDENTIAL UNIT. THANK YOU.

THESE ARE THE POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN, APPROVAL THE SITE PLAN WITH CHANGES OR DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> MAYOR.

>> YES, SIR. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO OVERALL

SITE PLAN JUST THE LAYOUT. >> AND CAN YOU HELP ME, MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ALSO HEAR AND ANSWER.

SO I SEE A ROAD CONNECTION TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, A

PROPOSAL. >> CORRECT.

>> AND THEN I SEE ONE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH.

NOT ON THIS PARCEL. ARE THEY CONNECTED, OR NOT INTERCONNECTED AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO THE FUTURE IN THE PROPOSAL OF CONNECTING THIS PARCEL.

>> DO YOU MEAN THIS CONNECTION AND THIS ONE? , NO. SO GO TO THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. NO TO THE LEFT.

THAT IS NOT THE PROPERTY. >> RIGHT THERE.

>> TO THE RIGHT NOW. >> OH THAT,.

>> WHAT IS THAT? >> THAT IS, I THINK, A CROSS ACCESS, BUT I WILL HAVE TO DEFER THAT TO THE APPLICANT.

>> NOW GO TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. SO WE PLANNED ON CONNECTING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT CONNECTING.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? >> THIS A PD, THAT IS

CELEBRATION POINT TO THE NORTH. >> I UNDERSTAND, BUT WHAT IS THE ROAD? IS THE ROAD NOT GOING TO CONNECT

TO THIS PARCEL. >> THAT IS A PRIVATE ROAD.

>> OKAY. AND NEAR -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE -- I DON BELIEVE THAT -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE RESIDENT FOR THAT HOA WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO BE CONNECTED.

>> I'M NOT ASKING THAT CONNECTION.

IT LOOKS THAT WAS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION.

>> NO. >> OTHERWISE IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A CUL-DE-SAC IN MY MIND. IT PROVIDES LOT ACCESS TO FINE LOT ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE. SO THAT SOMEONE CAN HAVE A

DRIVEWAY. >> YES.

>> THIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CUL-DE-SAC.

IT'S CONFUSIG. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO

CONNECT TO THIS PARCEL. >> IT IS.

>> AND YOU CAN'T TURN AROUND. >> YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING.

>> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> I DON'T WANT TO CREATE THAT IN SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. AND OVER HERE YOU SAY THE NEXT PARCEL. THE APPLICANT IS CLAMORING, THEY'RE GOING TO ANSWER SOMETHING.

ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE, WE'RE GOING TO SAY WE HAVE A CROSS ACCESS CONNECTION POINT. WE DON'T WANT TO PLAN FOR A CROSS ACCESS, AND CUT IT OFF LATER.

LEARN FROM THE PAST, RIGHT. >> YES.

>> I WILL ADD THAT CELEBRATION POINT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN THE COUNTY AND THEN IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.

SO IT WASN'T US. >> ALL RIGHT.

OKAY, AND THEN YOU TALKED ABOUT -- WELL, I'M GOING ASK THE APPLICANT, NEVERMIND. THANK YOU.

>> AND MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON PROVOKED THIS, THE SOUTH ACCESS TO THIS POINT IS THAT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE -- THERE'S A STREET THERE. THAT GOES.

>> YEAH? OVER THE -- NOT THAT THE OTHER

STREET, GRAHAM. >> YEAH, THIS IS GRAHAM RIGHT

HERE. >> THAT IS GRAHAM.

THERE IS ANOTHER STREET ON THE SOUTH.

THERE'S A HOUSE THAT SITS ON THAT CORNER, BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS A SMALL INDUSTRY THAT GOES TO THE PROPERTY THAT COLLEGE

OWNS THERE I THOUGHT. >> OH, YES.

>> THAT IS TOO FAR SOUTH. >> THAT IS FARTHER SOUTH.

>> IS IT? >> BUT YOU SPURRED.

>> IT'S ABOVE THE HOME DEPOT. >> I FORGOT TO ASK A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. THAT I ACROSS THE STREET FROM BEGANDER MOWN TAPE ENTRANCE, MAYBE.

>> OH, SO THIS IS. >> POSSIBLY, WHAT DO YOU THINK.

>> IT'S GO THE TO BE CLOSE TO THAT.

>> THIS STREET IS -- >> IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN OPENING TO LET. AND I WAS CURIOUS WHAT WAS THAT? I WAS TRYING TO GET MY BEARING ON THEIRIA.

THAT GOING TO BE CREATED RIGHT THERE, RIGHT? N YEAH. MOVE THE APPLICANT CAN HELP OUT.

I WHEN I SAW THAT I WAS CURIOUS AS TO WHAT TO -- AND THIS IS

SAMUEL GAINS SCHOOL. >> BUT THERE'S A PROPERTY OWNER

THAT ANNEXES -- IS NEXT TO IT. >> I BELIEVE IT'S A CHURCH.

>> NO. >> THERE'S A CHURCH TO THE

NORTH. >> A CHURCH TO THE NORTH.

I GOT CONFUSED. I KNOW SOMEONE APPROACHED ME ABOUT THAT PARCEL AND I KNOW I HAVE MET WITH THEM.

THIS A NEWER AREA HERE. >> IT'S OVER RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES PLANNED ARE FOR THIS AS WELL.

>> EXACTLY MY POINT. THAT IS WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GET MY HEAD RIGHT AND I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND I'M LOOKING AT THE TOTAL NOW. SO THIS A TOTAL UNIT OF HOW MANY

COMING IN HERE, PERHAPS. >> 324.

>> 324, OKAY. >> GOT IT.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? ANYBODY ELSE?

>> OKAY. ONE LAST ONE.

>> I KNOW ANSWER BUT I HAVE TO ASK IT FOR THE RECORD.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS AND SOUTH WATER

[02:10:02]

FLORIDA MANAGEMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS.

>> CORRECT. >> I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.

>> GOT IT, THANK YOU. >>> THAT IS IT.

I WOULD LIKE FOR APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD.

PLEASE.

INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR US AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS MADAM MAYOR, MY NAME IS MARK LANDSTER, I'M WITH ENGINEERING STAFF AND CONSTRUCTION ARE AND I HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

AND I SPECIFICALLY I HEAR QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCESS.

SPECIFICALLY THE CELEBRATION POINT THAT, ACTUALLY A T TURN AROUND. THERE'S A PROPERTY AT THE END OF THAT, THAT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CONNECTION TO CELEBRATION POINT. TO THE SOUTH THERE'S A CONNECTION TO THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND WE'RE OFFERING OPTIONS TO THE COUNTY.

SO, IF THAT DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH COMES IN, WE WILL BE ABLE TO OFFER A CONNECTION TO IT THROUGH OUR PROPERTY AND HAVE A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT. WE HAVE ALREADY SECURED THAT CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE PROPERTY TO NORTH WHICH IS RESURRECTION CHURCH AS YOU CAN SEE IN PLAN THERE.

THERE'S A CONTINGENCY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IF WE CAN'T SECURE ANY CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH, WE WILL HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS DIRECTLY JENKINS ROAD TO THE WEST.

>> ON THE NORTH SIDE ON OF THAT. >> THE SOUTH.

>> THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THE PROPERTY.

>> SOUTHWEST, OKAY. >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

>> MADAM MAYOR. >> THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER THAT,

IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM GANDER. >> YES.

>> YOU HAVE TRAFFIC STUDIES ALREADY LOOKING AT AND LOOKED AT THIS PARTICULAR AREA. CONCERNS THERE, I WILL LOOK AT THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ON THAT, THANK YOU.

>> MADAM MAYOR. >> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT THE BENEFIT OF THE CROSS CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PARCEL IN THE SOUTH AND YOUR PROPOSAL? WHAT THE BENEFIT IN PROPOSAL.

>> PROVIDING A FULL ACCESS. IF WE CAN GET A FULL ACCESS BY GAINING A CROSS ACTI ACCESS TO E SOUTH.

COUNTY HAS TOLD US THAT THEY HAVE RESERVATION OF PROVIDING FULL ACCESS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORN HE.

IF WE CAN SECURE A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE SOUTH FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT. WE CAN HAVE A FULL ACCESS TO THE SOUTH AND FULL ACCESS TO THE NORTH.

>> I GUESS I'M STILL MISSING WHY? WHAT WOULD BE ADVANTAGE OF THAT? WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING TO DO THAT WITH THAT CRO DRIVEWAY ON THE SH END.

>> FOR THE RECORD, BRAD CURRY. I HAVE ALSO BEEN SWORN IN.

HE WANTED MARK TO HANDLE THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO STEP IN AND PROVIDE CLARIFICATION. ON SOUTH SIDE THE PROPERTY WE HAVE OFFERED THREE OPTIONS. ONE OPTION COULD HAPPEN TODAY WHICH WOULD BE AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY, THAT YOU ARE SEEING OFF TO JENKINS ROAD. THAT WOULD BE ON OUR PROPERTY.

THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, THE BEST CASE SCENARIO, THE GANDER MOUNTAIN LINES TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

OUR PROPERTY DOES NOT LINE UP TO THE STREET OF GANDER MOUNTAIN.

THE COUNTY HAS STATED ONLY WAY TO HAVE FULL AK EGGS TO JENKINS ROAD IS ON THE PROPER TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVE A COUPLE OF DECISIONS TO MAKE AT THAT POINT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

WE'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS OF JENKINS.

WE TRIED TO GET A RIDE IN AND RIDE OUT, BUT THE COUNTY WOULDN'T GO FOR THAT. THERE WAS AN OPTION IF WE CAN GET AN EASEMENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER TO SOUTH WE COULD BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THEIR POPERTY OUT TO JENKINS.

WE BUILT TA FLEXIBILITY, IF WE WERE NEVER GOING TO GET ACCESS TO THE SOUTH, WE WON'T BUILD WHAT YOU ARE SEEING ON ACCESS TO THE SOUTH AND WE WILL HAVE EMERGENCY EXIT OFF OF JENKINS.

WE'RE STILL WORK WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER OFF TO THE SOUTH.

SO FAR IT'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL SPEAK WITHING HIM.

I BELIEVE WE WILL GET AN ACCESS EASEMENT SO WE COULD HAVE FULL ACCESS ACROSS FROM GANDE MOUNTAIN, IS THAT BETTER

CLARIFICATION. >> I WILL SAY, YES.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. MY OTHER QUESTIONS ARE REGARDING STORM WATER. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS AREA AND YOUR OUTFALL TO 5-MILE CREEK WHICH HAS BEEN INFLUENCED BY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT AND WHERE DO YOU STAND WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT AND THE CITY ENGINEER. > WE HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA MANAGEMENT YET, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO SO IN A WEEK OR TWO AFTER THE CLIENT REVIEWS THE PLANS.

OUR SOUTH WILL BE TO THE SOUTH ST. LUCIE CANAL NUMBER 8.

I HAVE REACHED OUT IT THEIR ENGINEER AND HAVE PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT TO ALLOW US TO DISCHARGE AT THAT POINT.

>> GORY CONNECT TO ST. LUCIE, WHICH IS 5-MILE CREEK.

>> EVENTUALLY THE ALTA MALL IS A 5-MILE CREEK.

>> IS THAT A CANAL ON THE SOUTH. >> IT IS A CANAL, YES.

[02:15:03]

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORICAL FLOWS IN THE AREA.

HAS SOMEONE CONVEYED THAT INFORMATION TO YOUR CLIENT.

>> I HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT. I HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH ON SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DRAINAGE IN THIS AREA, AND IT WILL DRAIN TO THAT CANAL NUMBER 8 WHICH IS NORTH ST. LUCIE CANAL. AND EVENTUALLY FLOW TOWARD THE

EAST AND HIT THE 5-MILE CREEK. >> OKAY.

>> AND THE STRUCTURES ARE HOW MANY STORIES, CAN YOU GO BACK TO

THE ELEVATION? >> IT'S GOING TO BE 3 STORY, I

BELIEVE. >> 3 STORY.

>> MAXIMUM OF 38 FEET, I BELIEVE IT IS.

>> OKAY. >> AND WHAT YOUR PLAN FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT CONNECTIONS WITH SCHOOL BUSES OR CONNECTIVITY, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE A SCHOOL BUS DROP INSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OR --

>> YES, SIR. >> OUR PLAN IS AT THE NORTHERN END YOU SEE ROUNDABOUT. THE 62 BUS WILL PICK THE STUDENT AT THE ROUNDABOUT WITHIN PROPERTY.

S HOW ARE WE ON THE SCHOOL WALKS.

>> WE ARE PROVIDING A SIDEWALK ON THE ENTIRE FRONT OF THE

PROPERTY ON JENKINS ROAD. >> ALREADY.

>> AND IS THE CUL-DE-SAC. >> THE ROUNDABOUT, IS THAT THE

MAIN ENTRANCE, RIGHT? >> YES MA'AM.

>> MADAM MAYOR. >> YES, SIDEWALK I CAN SEE IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY THE SIDEWALK.

SO WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT PARCEL THAT IS IN BETWEEN THERE?

YOU DON'T OWN THAT, RIGHT. >> OUR CLIENT DOES NOT OWN THAT PROPERTY SO WE DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD.

>> IT'S THE END OF THE SIDEWALK. >> YES, SIR.

>> THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.

>> IF THE DEVELOPMENT COMES IN THERE THEY HAVE TO BUILD THE

SIDEWALK. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING THE COMMITMENT. I PICK UP PAINER OUT THERE ALL THE TIME IN MY LITTER PATROL MADAM MAYOR.

SO I INTIMAELY KNOW THAT AREA. I WALK IT QUITE OFTEN.

WE HAVE LITTER AREA PICK UP ON THAT AREA.

IT MAKES SENSE WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

FROM US, FROM A STANDARD OF -- WE ARE STOPPING KIDS AND THEN AS GRASS, AND A DITCH, ET CETERA, AND SO THAT IS NOT YOUR CONCERN BE BUT IT'S MORE ME SPEAKING OUT OF A CONCERN HAD A I HAVE WITH THAT. SO THIS WOULD BE KIND OF A MIXED PROBABLY RENTAL-TYPE PROPERTY OF ALL AGES, PROBABLY SCHOOL AGES, A TOO, COMING INTO THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

>> THERE'S THERE'S NO AGE RESTRICTIONS THAT I'M AWARE OF.

>> THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION I SEE TWO BUILDINGS ALONG JENKINS.

IS IT THE DESIGN THAT THE FRONT DOOR WILL BE FACING INWARD AND THAT WILL BE THE BACK OF THE APARTMENTS.

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT WILL BE A TREE LINE, A BUFFER BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THAT.

SO IT WOULDN'T BE JUST SOMEONE'S BACKDOOR AS ARE YOU RIDING BY,

WHATEVER. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT WILL BE LANDSCAPED. >> OKAY, VERY WELL.

>> THESE ARE RENTALS. >> YES, THESE ARE RENTALS.

>> THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS REGARDING SIDEWALK.

SO, HISTORY HAS SHOWN US, YOU NO HE, THAT THERE ARE CHALLENGES, SOMETIMES WITHIN THE ECONOMY AND CHANGES IN THE ENVIRONMENT,

RIGHT? >> SO BECAUSE OF THE SIDEWALK TRAVERSING YOUR PROPERTY ONLY, YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP IT.

YOU'RE GOING TO IMPROVE IT, HAVE YOU TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT OR WITH COUNTY STAFF EVEN FROM YOUR PROPERTY, SOUTHWEST PROPERTY LINE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH?

HAVE YOU HAD THAT CONVERSATION. >> WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT

CONVERSATION, SIR. >> THE LAST TIME I PROMISE.

>> BRAD CURRY. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THE PROBLEM IS WE HAVE TO GIVE RIGHT OF WAY TO JENKINS ROAD.

WHEN WE HAVE RIGHT OF WAY THE SIDEWALKS DON'T LINE UP.

HE WILL HAVE TO DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY.

THE SIDEWALKS ARE NOT A STRAIGHT SHOT.

IT WILL BE DIFFICULT FOR US IF WE TORP CONSTRUCT THE SIDEWALK IF THE RIGHT OF WAY TODAY. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TORN UP WHEN THEY GO TO EXPAND JENKINS ROAD, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXPAND THE RIGHT OF WAY OUT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING SOME SIDEWALKS WAIVERS ON JENKINS ROAD. ON THIS ONE, MY CLIENT IS JUST BUILD IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO ASK FOR ANY KIND OF WAIVERS, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A CHANCE THAT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE TORN UP DURING CONSTRUCTION.

WE HAD SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT INTERNALLY AND HOW TO GET TO THE SCHOOL TO SOUTH. AND AT THAT POINT WE JUST DETERMINED IT WASN'T GOING TO BE FEASIBLE.

>> IT'S ALE CHALLENGE, RIGHT, BECAUSE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, I'M SORRY THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS THE RULE THAT IF YOU LIVE WITHIN A TWO MILE RADIUS, THEN YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR OWN WAY TO GET TO SCHOOL, RIGHT? AND SO THANK YOU FOR.

[02:20:02]

THAT I DIDN'T REALIZE, OR I HAD NOT REALIZED THAT ALL OF THE JENKINS ROAD RIGHT OF WAY HAS BEEN DEDICATED AND THAT AREA HAD NOT BEEN DEDICATED. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE

EQUATION, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE

APPLICANT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE

APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS

ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> SEEING NO ONE.

IF YOU ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY, NO. SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION.

OR A MOTION. >> MADAM MAYOR I MAKE A MOTION

TO APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND N I SECOND.

>> FOR CLARIFICATION IS IT INCLUDES THE 4 CONDITIONS.

>> APPROVE WITH THE 4 STAFF CONDITIONS.

>> SECOND ON THE CONDITIONS. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> SECRETARY:

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[a. Resolution No. 22-R20 Amending the Rules of Procedure for Special Magistrate]

>> SECRETARY: NEXT WE HAVE A RESOLUTION 22R20 APPROVING THE AMENDMENT AND RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE PROVIDE ARE TO ALL ORDINANCE EXAMINE RESOLUTION INSIDE CONFLICT AND PROVIDING

FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>> MR. REYES.

>> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYORS AND COMMISSIONERS.

WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

THIS IS NOT, THERE'S NOT BEEN A FULL REVIEW OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURES IN MY 16 YEARS. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.

A LITTLE PIECE HERE HAS BEEN AMENDED BUT WHAT WE DID IS WENT BACK AND WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE SET OF RULES OF PROCEDURE, AND DID A FULL REWRITE OF THEM. HOW LONG IT'S BEEN? WE ACTUALLY DELETED THE RIGHT TO VIDEO TAPE, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN TELEVISING OUR MEETINGS FOR A LONG TIME.

AN INDICATOR OF HOW LONG IT'S BEEN SINCE WE HAVE DONE THIS.

I HIGHLIGHTED A FEW SECTIONS TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION OF THE REWRITE. I DON'T NEED TO GO OVER EVERY TIME WE CHANGED A WORD. CITATIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO INCORPORATE THE NEW PARKING CITATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED SINCE THE NEW REWRITE. WE INCLUDED A SECTION FOR FORECLOSURES, WHICH THE COMMISSION RECENT ASKED US TO INCLUDE IN OUR PROCESSES AND FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT WHICH IS A NEW RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE MUCH THESE ARE NEW THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED IN RECENT PAST.

I JUST WANT TO GO BACK IT THE HIGHLIGHTS.

ORDER OF BUSINESS HAS BEEN AMENDED AGAIN TO INCLUDE THE THINGS THAT ARE NEWLY ADOPTED AS PART OF OUR PROCESSES INCLUDING CITATIONS. OTHER CASES IT'S KIND OF THE CATCH ALL FOR ANYTHING THAT IS NOT EITHER A CITATION OR A VIOLATION CASE. AND THEN REDUCTION IN PENALTY WHICH I WILL GO EVERY A LITTLE BIT AS I GO DOWN.

WORK WITHING OUR CITY ATTORNEY IT WAS BEST DETERMINED THAT WE SET THE SET OF RULES FOR CITATIONS AS WELL AS THE SET OF RULES FOR VIOLATIONS. SO THEY'RE SEPARATED INTO TWO SEPARATE SECTIONS. THEY SAY ALMOST THE EXACT SAME THING WAY COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CHANGES ON PROCEDURE, BUT THIS SECTION AND THIS SECTION, ALL OF THIS CROSS OUT THAT YOU SEE HERE HAS BEEN MADE INTO TWO SECTIONS ONE FOR CITATIONS AND ONE FOR VIOLATIONS. THE PROCEDURE ITSELF HASN'T CHANGED IT'S JUST THE FORMATTING OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE HERE.

THE PROCEEDINGS CAN BE VIDEO TAPE, WE CHOSE TO REMOVE THAT SECTION. IN POSITION OF LIENS.

>> HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THIS WITHOUT BRINGING EVERYTHING BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION. AND SO WE ESTABLISHED A SET OF RULES FOR THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE TO FOLLOW, SO SHE CAN HEAR THE MAJORITY OF THEM. OF COURSE IT HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BEFORE SHE CAN HEAR A REDUCTION REQUEST.

IT HAS TO BE MADE BY THE OWNER. THESE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE WENT OUR RECENT WORKSHOPS. THERE'S A REDUCTION PROCESS FEE

[02:25:04]

FOR THE PROCESS TO BE PUT THROUGH.

BUT THAT IT CAN BE WAIVED BY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED FOR HER TO CONSIDER THAT.

I SAY HER, BECAUSE BOTH OF OUR SPECIAL MAGISTRATES NOW ARE YOU HEAR ME SAY HER THAT, IS WHY.

THERE IS SOMEWHAT WE CALL THE FAST TRACK WHERE THE STAFF AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS THE TO DO. TRACKS OF RELEASES.

WE DID ADD TWO MORE SECTIONS TO IT AND THAT IS TO ADDRESS PARTIAL RELEASES, LIENS SPREAD SO THEY IMPACT OTHER PROPERTIES IN ST. LUCIE COUNT. THERE'S A CLOUD DUE TO SOMETHING TIED UP ANOTHER PROPERTY. SO WE DID PUT A PROCESS IN THAT TO START RELEASING SOME PARTIAL RELEASES.

WE ALSO INCREASED THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS DEMOLITION LEANS, IT WOULD BE THAT THE AMOUNT PAID IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE HIGH COST AND 50% OF THE SOFT COSTS.

THAT IS OF THAT'S ABILITY. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HAS A GREATER AUTHORITY.

SO AGAIN WITH THE $250 FEE AT THE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO AMEND THAT. SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE ANY HARD COSTS. SHE MUST INCLUDE THE $250 APPLICATION FEE BUT THE INTEREST AND MENTALITIES, JUST AS IT WAS IN THE FRONT THE CITY COMMISSION, THE INTEREST ASK COSTS CAN BE AMENDED AND THE ADMINISTRATION FEES HAVE TO INCLUDE THE HARD COST TO THE CITY SUCH AS RECORDING FEES.

AND THEN SHE CAN CONSIDER THE REST OF THE ADMINISTRATION FEES.

HOWEVER, SHE ISN'T THE FINAL ANSWER.

SO IF SOMEONE IS NOT HAPPY WITH HER DECISION, THEY DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

WE ARE HOPING THAT WITH THIS PROCESS IT'S GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER THAT COME TO CITY COMMISSION.

62 SHE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO ALL OF THIS AND THEN IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME TO CITY COMMISSION. WE'RE NOT CUTTING OUT OF THE PROCESS. WE'RE HOPING TO REDUCE THE

NUMBER THAT COME TO YOU. >> IS THERE AN ADDITIONAL FEE.

>> THERE'S A $250 FEE FOR. THAT THE COMMISSION CAN WAIVE THAT IF YOU CHOOSE UPON HEARING IT.

>> WE HAVE ADDED THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS IN HERE.

AND AGAIN, WE'RE PULLING THIS FROM THE STATE.

THIS IS IN THE STATE ORDINANCES, WE ARE ESTABLISHING IT IN OUR WRITTEN RULES OF PROCEDURE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 162 AFTER 3 MONTHS FROM FILING OF THE LIEN EXAMINE IT AE MAINS UP PAID WE DO HAVE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION.

WE HAVE HAD THE FIST COUPLE OF SALES HAPPEN.

IT'S REALLY HOPEFUL THAT THAT PROCESS KEEPS MOVING AND PROPERTIES GET IN HANDS OF PEOPLE WOULD ARE READY TO REDEVELOP. WE ARE HOPING THAT PROGRAM CONTINUES AS IT IS. TO FORECLOSE WE DO HAVE TO BRING THE PROPERTY IN FRONT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

SHE REVIEWS ALL THE CRITERIA AND MAKE SURE IT'S ELIGIBLE, THEN UPON DETERMINING IT'S ELIGIBLE, SHE CAN ORDER THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INITIATE THE FORECLOSURE PROCESS.

AGAIN, WE'RE MIRRORING STATE TA STATUE.

WE ARE NOT CREATING SOMETHING NEW.

FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT APPEALS AND VARIANCES BECAUSE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARS BOTH CASE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE HEARING DEPARTMENT. WE ARE INCORPORATING BOTH OF OUR DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER HERE. SO, THE VARIANCE OF FLOOD MANAGEMENT ARE HEARD. AND THERE IS ANOTHER APPLICATION FEE WHICH IS SET BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THAT $500 FOR THE FLOOD PLAIN MANAGMANAGEMENT APPEALS.

FOR SOME REASON, EVERY AMENDMENT THAT WAS MADE IN 2004, IN OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE, ELITED THEM. THAT IS A SUMMARY.

OF THE CHANGES, IT WAS A FULL REWRITE.

2004 WAS THE LAST TIME A FULL REWRITE WAS DONE.

>> YOU MOSTLY CLEANED THINGS UP. >> WE DID.

>> YOU SAID WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW STATE LAW AND THE FEW CHANGES YOU HIGHLIGHTED. YOU AND YOU HAVE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATES THAT WE HAVE NOW, ARE THEY AWARE OF THESE CHANGES.

>> THEY KNOW THEY ARE COMING. IN THE FINAL DRAFT.

WE WERE WORKING ON THIS DRAFT UNTIL LAST WEEK.

A LOT OF CHANGES BECAUSE OF THE REFERENCING STATE STATUES.

THE STATUES HAVE CHANGED OVERTIME.

LEGAL DID A LOT OF WORK MAKING SURE THAT THE LEGAL COMPLIED

[02:30:04]

WITH THE STAT STATUES, UP TO LAST WEEK, WE WERE STILL UPDATING. THEY DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT.

>> THEY KNOW MOST OF IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT THIS

WAY. >> A LOT OF IT HAS BEEN DONE IN PRACTICE BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN PUT IN RULES OF PROCEDURE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> SO YOU SAY YOU CAN APPEAL IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION. I DON'T RECALL THE LAST TIME WE

DID ONE OF THOSE. >> IT'S BEEN A WHILE.

>> YOU KEEP SAYING IT WILL CUT DOWN THE NUMBER COMING TO THE -- AND I'M THINKING MYSELF, WHATEVER YOU HAVE DONE BEFORE, HAS ALREADY CUT DOWN THAT NUMBER.

>> AND PART OF THAT IS THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WAITING FOR THESE

RULES TO BE COMPLETED. >> ALREADY.

>> SO WE KIND OF PUT -- WE DID PROCESS SOME TO THE FAST TRACK.

AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH THE FAST TRACK PROCESS, BU THERE'S OTHER ONES TA ARE WAITING.

>> FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND I KNOW THAT SPECIAL MANAGE STRAIGHT HERE AND I REALLY FEEL THAT IT'S WORKING VERY WELL FOR COMPLIANCE. NOT EVERYTHING HAD A THE CITY -- THAT NOT EVERYTHING HAD A YOUR STAFF SAYS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, HAPPENS. I THINK IT'S VERY FAIR.

I'M ALWAYS KIND OF COMING TO CITY HALL WHEN IT'S GOING TO, AND I'VE MET SEVERAL PEOPLE GOING TO THE PARKING GARAGE, AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE HAPPY WITH, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THEIR CHECKBOOK STILL OUT AS THEY ARE WALKING OUT, BUT THEY'RE STILL HAPPY WITH THE WAY IT'S GOING ON.

I HAVE TO SAY THAT I THINK THE PROCESS REALLY WORKS WELL FOR US AND SO IF WE'RE CLEANING UP AND MAKING IT MORE EFFICIENT.

MORE LEGAL. ARE THERE DEGREES OF MORE LEGAL.

>> WE ARE GETTING TO THAT POINT. >> IT'S A VERY GOOD FUNCTION NOT ONLY FOR THE CITY, THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AS A GOVERNMENT BUT ALSO FOR THE CITIZENS OUT THERE THAT ARE DEALING WITH IT.

>> IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE. >> MY EXPERIENCES THAT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS SPECIAL MAGISTRATE PROCESS BY AND LARGE APPRECIATE THE PROCESS.

THINK IT'S FAIR EVEN WHEN IT GOES AGAINST THEM.

I THINK THEY DO A GOOD JOB OF REALLY TRYING TO DO A FAIR

THING. >> THE ONLY OTHER THING IS WHERE WE DO GET SOMETIME APPEALS AND I KNOW THAT --S POSITIONER BOTH BR GAINS AND MYTHER JOHNSON, WE'RE HERE, AND HE IT WILL PRACTICE THEIR PITCH BEFORE THEY GO TO THE MAGISTRATE TO US.

AND YOU STILL GOT TO SIT THERE AND SAY YOU GOT TO FOLLOW THE RULES. IF YOU DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES, YOU HAVE TO PAY THE PIPERS. AND GIVE THEM SOME SORT OF ASSURANCE IF THE RULES AREN'T RIGHT, WE WILL DO THAT.

I'M HAPPY THAT WE ARE DOING THAT.

IN 2004 TO NOW, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE DO IT SOONER

THAN HAD A. >> ANYBODY ELSE QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE NEED AN ACTION, IS THERE A

MOTION. >> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> SECRETARY:

[b. Resolution No. 22-R34 Adopting revisions to the City Of Fort Pierce Personnel Rules and Regulations. ]

RESOLUTION 22R24, RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISES CITY OF FORT PIERCE PERSONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PROVIDING FOR AN

EFFECTIVE DATE. >> MR. BROWNING.

>> YES, MA'AM, GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

>> GOOD EVENING. >> THIS EVENING, WE HAVE AN UPDATE TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS.

IF YOU RECALL IT WAS 2018 THE LAST TIME WE WERE IN THIS PROCESS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE CHANGES FOR RULES AND REGULATIONS.

AND THIS FIRST SCREEN SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION WILL UPDATE THE RULES AND RELATIONS ON SEPTEMBE. THEREBY APPEALING AND APPROVING THE RULES, THE RULES WILL BE POSTED TO THE WEBSITE.

THE EMPLOYEES WILL RECEIVE A COPY AND POWERPOINT THAT WILL INSTRUCT THEM AS TO WHAT THE CHANGES ARE IN THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. THERE ARE TWO NEW POLICIES.

>> JUST A LITTLE BIT. >> I'M TOO CLOSE.

>> OH, I'M SORRY. SOMETIME I'M TOO LOUD.

>> THAT USUALLY HAPPENS. >> SO THE FIRST ONE IS MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND CBD OIL. AND THEN WE HAVE THE CITY OF FORT WORTH PIERCE EMERGENCY PAY POLICIES, THOSE ARE ONLY TWO POLICIES AS OF THIS POINT. AND THEN WE UPDATED POLICIES,

[02:35:02]

12.02, WHICH LEAVE IS EARNED, VACATION ACCUMULATED AND PAID AND WE HAVE .04, THE PAYMENT OF UNUSED VACATION LEAVE.

AND 1309, SICK CONVERSION AND SMOKING OR E-CIGARETTES OR ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES SOME CALL IT.

1504 MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND CBD OIL, THE SECTION ESTABLISHES THE STANDS OF THE CITY IN REGARDS TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND CBD.

IT NOTIFIES EMPLOYEES THAT THE CDB IS OIL, BUT UNDER THE CURRENT LAW THE CITY DOES NOT ACCOMMODATE THE USE.

THEY MAY CONTAIN THC AND COULD CONTAIN ENOUGH TO BE DETECTED DURING A DRUG SCREENING WHICH COULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE DRUG POLICY RESULTING IN DISCIPLINE. SO QUITE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT INSIDE OF THE CITY, BUT EVERYWHERE STARTING TO USE THE CBD, AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

SO WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT AND ANNOUNCEMENT IN

THE POLICIES. >>> NEXT ONE, NEXT NEW POLICY, SECTION 26 CITY OF FORT PIERCE EMERGENCY PAY POLICIES.

NOW THIS POLICY IS TO BE USED TO DETERMINE HOW AND WHEN SPECIAL PAY PROVISIONS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN CASES OF A DECLARED EMERGENCY. SO AS IT ALSO NOTIFIES EMPLOYEES THAT THE CITY MARGER WILL DETERMINE WHEN -- MANAGER WILL DETERMINE WHEN THE POLICY BEGINS AND ENDS.

AS YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WAS, FIONA THAT RAVISHING NOW SOMEWHERE, PUERTO RICO AND THEN IT WAS THE DR.

>> MADAM MAYOR, MR. BROWNING. >> YES, SIR.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE. >> SO THIS NEW POLICY, OF THE CITY MANAGER POWER TO DETERMINE THAT RIGHT, DOES THAT -- I GUESS IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH COVID AND THERE AVENUES I DECORATION MADE -- A DECLARATION BY THE GOVERNOR. HOW DOES THAT WORK.

>> WITHIN THE -- IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.

>> AS WE HAVE KNOWN, THERE IS A BEGINNING AND AN ENDING.

>> RIGHT, THERE'S THE PREPARATION, THERE'S EVENT, THERE'S THE CLEAN UP AFTER THE PREPARATION AND WE'RE BACK TO NORMAL. SO WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TOY DIFFERENT PAY POLICY. PO BLOCK OUT ANY CONFUSION.

THE CITY MANAGER. MR. MIMS NEED A SIGNAL, HE DOES

NOT NEED A SIGNAL. >> A CONFLICT.

>> YES, SIR. >> THERE YOU ARE.

>> THERE ARE SEVERAL FORT PIERCE HAVE AND HAVE EXPERIENCED.

TO MOVE FORWARD. YES, DURING COVID WE WERE IN A STATE OF EMERGENCY. I THINK WE MAY STILL BE.

THERE WAS A BEGINNING AND THERE WAS AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME BUT EMERGENCY PAPER WERE NOT ENACTED DURING THAT TIME.

>> I WANTED TO BE, BECAUSE AT TIMES, THE PEOPLE THAT WORK FOR THE CITY THAT ARE EMPLOYEES, WHEN THEY HEAR A DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY, THEY ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT IS WHATEVER TIME THEY HAVE, WHATEVER THE PAY IS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU NOW WILL DETERMINE BEGINNING ALONG WITH THE DECK COLLATION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT COME FROM THE

GOVERNOR. >> AND ALSO OUR MAYOR.

>> AND OUR MAYOR. >> YEAH.

>> I MEANT TO CLARIFY. SO I BELIEF THE WAY THAT IT'S DRAFTED. YOU MADAM MAYOR WOULD MAKE THE DETERMINES AS A STATE OF EMERGENCY IT'S UP TO THE CITY

MANAGER TO DETERMINE. >> THERE'S A FLEXIBILITY, WE WILL WORK IT OUT. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE EMPLOYEE. THERE'S A CERTAIN EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED IN CERTAIN EMERGENCIES, WOULD I ASSUME.

>> IT IS CORRECT, IT'S BASED UPON THE TYPE EMERGENCY AND

[02:40:01]

WHICH EMPLOYEES WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE ESSENTIAL OR NONESSENTIAL.

AND FROM THAT DETERMINES WE WOULD IMPLEMENT THE EMERGENCY

>> CITY MANAGER RECEIVING THE SAME AMOUNT OF VACATION DAYS FER

YEAR AS YOU DID EARLIER. >> YEAH, IT'S IN YOUR BOOK NOW.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> 12.04, PAYMENT OF UNUSED VACATION LEAVE UPDATES THE VACATION OF THE UNUSED VACATION LEAVE, NOTIFIES EMPLOYEES THAT UPON TERMINATION, THE PAYMENT WILL BE MADE TO MAXIMUM OF 45 DAYS.

THAT BRINGS IT IN LINE WOULD THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS.

>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF IN THAT YOU DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT, BUT THAT IS OKAY. HAVE WE ALWAYS HAD SIX MONTHS OR MORE ONCE YOU GET THROUGH PROXIMAPROPROBABLE ACHES -- PRON AND THERE'S A MIDTERM FOR THE POLICE OFFICER AND THE FINAL FOR AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND THEN PART-TIME EMPLOYEES ARE IN A

YEAR PROXIMATE NAIR. >> AFTER THE SIX MONTH PERIOD THAT IS WHEN YOU'RE ELIGIBLE TO LEAVE.

>> AND WHY DO WE SWITCH FROM 30 TO 45 DAYS.

IT LOOKS LIKE A COMMON THEME. >> YES, IT WAS COMMON, IT WAS NOT IN THE RULES. IT WAS IN THE CB BARGAINING AGREEMENT, BUT IT WAS OVERLOOKED IN THE RULE.

>> WE'RE AT 45 DAYS IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AGREEMENTS. >> YES.

>> SO THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS ONE PARAGRAPH THAT REPEATED WHAT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH SAID.

SECTION A AND SECTION C IT LOOKED LIKE IT SAID THE EXACT SAME THING. THE OTHER PART IS I WAS WONDERING WHY THE VARIATION BETWEEN I WILL DAYS, WHICH CORRELATES TO 240 HOURS, AND 445 DAYS WHICH CORRELATES TO 260.

ARE THEY ONE IN THE SAME? 30 DAYS VERSUS 240 HOURS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE IT FLIP FLOPPED BACK AND FORTH.

SOME PARAGRAPHS SAID 30 DAYS, SOME PARAGRAPHS SAID 240 HOURS.

>> THAT IS WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO CLEAN UP AND MAKE IT CONSISTENT ALL OF THE CBA SUCCESS RULES AND REGS.

>> I'M NOT SURE. I SAW DAYS AND HOURS MIXED

WITHIN. >> YES, IT'S INTERCHANGEABLE.

>> ALL RIGHT, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

IT'S NOT US READING IT AS MUCH AS AN EMPLOY WHO COMES ON.

I WANT TO UNDERSTAND AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR.

JUST TELL ME WHAT CLEAR IS. IS IT 30 DAYS OR IS IT 240 HOURS. OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN DO THE MATH, BUT -- IF THAT IS RIGHT -- IF THAT IS RIGHT, AND YES.

>> IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE. >> READ IT AS THE 30 DAYS.

>> I DON'T THINK, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR DAYS AND

HOURS. >> MATH MACK MATHCALLY, IT'S NO.

>>> WE SHOULD USE HOURS. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE PERSONAL RULES AND REQS WERE ESTABLISHED. I BELIEVE THE MAN IN THE UNIFORM IS WORKING 11 1/2 HOUR DAYS, AND WE HAVE SOME EMPLOYEES THAT WORK 10 HOUR DAYS. SOME EMPLOYEES WORK EIGHT HOUR DAYS. SO THIS SHOULD ALWAYS BE

CONSIDERED VIA HOURS. >> I THINK HOURS IS USED IN

STATE STATUE, TOO. >> SO I'M GOOD WITH THE SECTION, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR.

I WANT TO MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE AND FOLKS COMING IN.

THEY READ IT FOR THE 5 TIME THEY GO.

I DON'T GET IT. THAT IS ALL.

>> SO MAYBE YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND MAKE IT ALL UNIFORM, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? MAKING IT ALL UNIFORM 240 HOURS.

>> IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. >> GOOD.

>> IT'S EASY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> SORRY. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT 13.09, SICK LEAVE CONVERSION CLARIFIES THE BEGINNING REQUIREMENT TO PARTICIPATE AND IDENTIFIES THE BASE PERIOD. IT NOTIFIES EMPLOYEES THAT IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SICK LEAVE CONVERSION, THEY MUST-HAVE 128 SICK HOURS TO PARTICIPATE. SMOKING AND E-CIGARETTES UPDATES THE DISTANCE FROM SMOKING TO 10. IT PROVIDES FOR CIGARETTE LITER

[02:45:01]

T AND 60 PROTECTS EMPLOYEES AROUND WORK SITES, AND ELEVATORS AS WELL AS PROVIDES PROPER DISPOSAL OF CIGARETTE BUTT AND

OTHER BY-PRODUCT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE GARAGE, THERE'S SMOKING IN THE GARAGE, AND SO, HOW DOES THIS NEW RULE AFFECT THAT.

>> THERE HAVE BEEN -- WE HAVE NOTICED EMPLOYEES THAT WERE WITHIN THAT 50 FEET, AND WE HAVE SOME EMPLOYEES THAT SUFFER FROM,

COULD BE ASTHMA OR SOME KIND. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> ASK THAT IS REASON FOR THAT. THEY HAVE TO BE FURTHER AWAY FROM ANY ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING AND AS FAR AS THE GARAGE ITSELF, WE CAN JUST DO A CONTROL WITH THE EMPLOYEES OR TRY TO CONTROL WHAT EMPLOYEES ARE DOING BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF VISITORS THAT COME THROUGH THERE AND THEY MIGHT BE DOING THE SMOKING, TOO. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE OR WHATEVER.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M ASKING. I JUST KNOW THAT THERE'S -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE EMPLOYEES OR NOT, HONESTLY.

BUT I SEE THAT THEY HAVE TO NOT -- THEY HAVE TO NOT LITTER, AND I THINK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, TOO.

SO, DOES THAT MEAN WE PROVIDE SOMETHING FOR THEM TO PUT THEIR CIGARETTES IN. OR WE ASSUME THAT THEY DON'T LEAVE THEIR CIGARETTE BUTTS THERE IN THE GARAGE.

>> I BELIEVE THE TRASH CANS HAVE A R CIGARETTE BUTT CORRECTLY.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN EVERY FLOOR IT MIGHT BE ON THE WALL.

>> IS IT BY THE ELEVATOR. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> WE DO HAVE CIGARETTE DISPOSAL LOCATION INSIDE THE COMMON AREA NEAR THE LOT, ELEVATOR LOBBY, BUT BASED ON THIS NEW RULING.

THAT WON'T FIT. >> YEAH.

>> BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING THAT IS OCCUPIED BY CITY EMPLOYEES ON THE THIRD FLOOR WHICH IS OUR PERMITTING.

ON THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE RELOCATED TO A DISTANCE AT LEAST 100 FEET FROM THAT ENTRANCE. WE WILL PLAN ON RELOCATING

THOSE. >> HOW FAR IS 100 FEET?

>> IT'S NOT THAT FAR. >> SO THAT WOULD BE MY QUESTION.

SO 100 FEET FROM THIS BUILDING, BUT THAT IS ALSO A CITY BUILDING, SO IT WOULD BE 100 FEET FROM THE EL EVALUATE OR GOING THAT WAY, AS WELL AS THAT WAY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A

NONSMOKING AREA; CORRECT. >> FROM ANY ENTRANCE TO

BUILDING. >> THE PARKING GARAGE ITSELF BUT

THE ENTRANCE TO THE BUILDING. >> NO, BUT YOU JUST SAID TO THE THIRD FLOOR YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE THIRD ELEVATOR.

>> RIGHT? SO 100 FEET FROM THERE.

>> YES, SIR. >> IS WHERE YOU WOULD BE A

NONSMOKING RADIUS. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO THERE WILL BE CLEAR SIGNS FOR EMPLOYEES THAT BASICALLY, THAT ELIMINATES THE GARAGE FOR SMOKING.

>> 'CAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW FAR 100 FEET IS FROM THAT ACTUAL ELEVATOR DOOR HEADING EAST. RIGHT?

>> UH-HUH. >> IT'S 100 FEET.

>> IT WOULD NOT ELIMINATE. I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD ELIMINATE THE GARAGE BECAUSE THE ACTUAL ENTRANCE TO THE PERMITTING OF. YOU CAN GET 100 FEET FROM THERE TO THE FURTHEST EXTENT OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

>> CAN YOU, ALL RIGHT. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO I READ IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

EMPLOYEES WHO CHOOSE TO SMOKE WHILE AT WORK, DO SO IN DESIGNATED BREAKS AND DESIGNATED OUTSIDE OF CITY BUILDINGS, AND AT LEAST 100 FEET AWAY. THAT PARKING GARAGE IS CITY

BUILDING. >> THAT IS WHY I WAS ASKING.

THE GARAGE IS A CITY BUILDING. >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM.

>> I DON'T SMOKE CIGARETTE. WE CAN COMPLETELY ELIMINATE SMOKING CIGARETTES BY CITY EMPLOYEES IN THE PARKING GARAGE.

>> I HEAR YOU AND UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT I THINK FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THEY ALSO -- CIGARETTE SMOKERS HAVE RIGHTS AS WELL.

I WANT TO CLARIFY. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IF THAT IS ILLEGAL, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM NA THAT AND GET A RULING, SO WE DON'T FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION.

WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR CIGARETTE BREAKS.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A DESIGNATED AREA.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AT CITY HALL, BECAUSE IT'S QUIET IF WE WENT AS FAR NORTH THAT OLD CITY HALL, THAT

IS STILL A CITY BUILDING. >> IT IS?

THAT IS THE FAR END TO THAT END. >> IT'S EAST COAST.

>> NOW YOU'RE ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT, AND THEN YOU CAN'T GO THIS FAR BECAUSE YOU'RE ON RAILROAD TRACKS.

I THINK WE NEED SOME CL CLARITY. IT'S A C CONVOLUTED MATTER.

I WANT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE CHALLENGES WITH LUNGS, I

[02:50:03]

THINK WE NEED TO BE CAUTIOUS WITH IT.

>> I CLEARLY UNDERSTAND. >> AND MARK IT WHERE THEY CAN

AND CAN'T GO WHICH IS UNCLEAR. >> IF WE CONSIDER THE SMOKING GARAGE A BUILDING, THEN THERE'S NO SMOKING IN THE PARKING

>> MS. EARLY. >> RECOMMENDATION ONE, WOULD BE THAT WE JUST LEAVE IT POLICY 19.09 THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW UNTIL WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS.

AND WE BRING IT BACK TO YOU FOR JUST THAT SMALL CHANGE IF YOU LIKE. AND ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO TRY TO WORK WITH THE LANGUAGE ARE.

I THINK THE INTENT OF IT IS TO SAY THAT SMOKING SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY IN DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS OR IF IT'S NOT MARKED AS SUCH, THEN THE 100-FOOT RULE KICKS IN.

I THINK THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE THERE.

SO EITHER, YOU COULD DIRECT US TO CLARIFY IT OR YOU CAN LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS, UNTIL WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MARK THE

DESIGNATED AREAS. >> MADAM MAYOR.

>> YES, SIR. >> I KNOW I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING. WE JUST NEED TO ADD A DESIGNATED AREA. JUST GIVE EMPLOYEES SOMEWHERE TO GO TO SMOKE THAT IS NOT 100 FEET FROM ELEVATOR, NOT BUILDINGS BUT ONE OF THE DOORS. ELEVATORS OR 1 OF THE DOORS IN THE BUILDING. SOMEWHERE IN THE PARKING LOT OR SOMEWHERE, GIVE EMPLOYEES THAT SMOKE A DESIGNATED AREA TO SMOKE AND LET THEM KNOW. THIS IS WHERE THE AREA THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR YOU TO GO SMOKE.

MOST SMOKERS KNOW WHERE DESIGNATED AREA IS.

AND MOST SMOKERS GO. IF YOU GO TO ANY OTHER BUILDING, YOU GO TO FOOTBALL GAMES, YOU GO TO AIRPORTS, CAN YOU WALK BY THE DESIGNATED AREA WHERE THEY ARE. I THINK THAT WE JUST GET THEM A DESIGNATED AREA AND LET THEM UNDERSTAND THAT -- THIS IS WHERE THEY HAVE TO GO TO SMOKE. IT ALSO HELPS US WITH THE TRASH CANS, ADD MA'AM MAYOR, BECAUSE WE CAN PUT IT RIGHT THERE.

IT SHOULD BE ANY CIGARETTE BUTTS ANYWHERE ELSE OR IN SES IGNATED AREA BECAUSE -- DESIGNATED AREA BECAUSE HAVE YOU A TRASH CAN FOR

THE TRASH. >> COMMISSIONER JAY JOHNSON.

>> I DON'T WANT TO DELAY IT ANYMORE BUT I THINK IT'S A CHALLENGE. WE HAVE AN ELEVATOR THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

IF THERE'S ONLY 1 SPACE LEFT AND I'M EMPLOYEE B COMING IN.

THAT IS A SMOKING AREA, I'M GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE.

YOU GOT TO COVERED IN THIS CORNER AND THAT CORNER.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FIND ANYWHERE BETWEEN BECAUSE THEN YOU ARE WITHIN 100-FOOT OF THE ENTRANCE.

WHAT IS THE STATE LAW? IS IT 50-FOOT FROM A PUBLIC

BUILDING OR 100. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> WE VOTED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, WE AS RESIDENTS THE STATE

OF FLORIDA VOTED. >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO RESEARCH

THAT FOR YOU. >> IT'S ALL RIGHT.

>> I THINK I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IF WE DON'T DEAL WITH THIS AND STAFF COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION.

UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE HAS A -- I MEAN.

>> WE TRIED TO CLEAN IT UP FROM THE PREVIOUS LANGUAGE.

>> MADAME MAYOR, FOR ME I'D LIKE A LITTLE CLARITY TO COME BACK FROM STAFF TO LET US KNOW WHAT DESIGNATED AREA BASED ON THE RULES YOUR SETTING. PARKS ? DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? THANKS NO, I DON'T WANT ANYTHING. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SECTION THERE'S NO AGREEMENT. TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND TRUTHFULLY ANYWHERE ON OUR CAMPUS IS WITHIN 50 TO 100 FEET OF AN ENTRANCE.

I WAS THINKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL PERMITTING HUB ALLOWING PEOPLE TO SMOKE IN THE PARKING GARAGE. ANYWHERE ON THE CAMPUS.

THERE IS NOWHERE TO SMOKE. >> THAT'S RIGHT WE SEE THE PARKING GARAGE IS A CITY STRUCTURE WHICH IT IS.

>> THIS IS TOUGH. WE CAN ACTUALLY DESIGNATE A

[02:55:01]

SMOKING AREA. AND MAYBE WE OUGHT TO JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. OUR CAMPUS IS REALLY, IT'S

ODDLY SHAPED. >> YEAH.

>> MADAME MAYOR, I RECOMMEND WE NOT DO ANYTHING.

LEAVE THE SECTION OF THE WEIGHT THAT WAS BEFORE IT WAS GREEN LINED AND NOT CHANGE ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE A DESIGNATED AREA. THAT WAY EMPLOYEES KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO. WHERE THE NEED TO GO.

I DON'T SEE ANY POINT IN PUTTING A CHANGE INTO A PLACE THAT WE CAN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON RIGHT NOW.

>> IF WE LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS, KEVIN, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT

THAT IS? >> NO SMOKING WITHIN 50 FEET OF ANY ENTRANCES, ELEVATORS AND AM TRYING TO GO FOR MEMORY AND I

DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. >> ALSO CITY VEHICLES.

>> NO SMOKING IN THE CITY VEHICLES.

>> WE WILL PULL IT UP IF WE NEED TO.

>> ARE WE OKAY WITH LEAVING IT LIKE IT IS UNTIL WE COME UNTIL YOU CAN COME BACK AND HAVE SOME OTHER LANGUAGE?

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? >> I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

>> I THINK OUR CURRENT POLICY COVERS CIGARETTES AT VAPING.

I'M PRETTY SURE DOES. >> YES.

CIGARETTES AND E CIGARETTES. AND VAPING.

>> RB APPROVING THESE TONIGHT? THIS IS A RESOLUTION.

WE HAVE TO ILLUMINATE THAT SECTION IF WE DO APPROVE IT.

IT'S NOT NOT RIGHT. MADAME MAYOR I WOULD NOT APPROVE WE ADVISED THIS TONIGHT.

THERE'S BEEN PREVIOUS ON THE PREVIOUS SECTION AND A QUESTION ON THE SECTION. HOPEFULLY MAYBE WE ARE CONTINUING ON WITH THIS PRESENTATION AND TO THEN AT THE NEXT MEETING WE ARE READY AND WE HAVE LEGAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. WE COME TO YOU WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE CLEARLY RESEARCHED AND WE FEEL

COMFORTABLE WITH. >> SOUNDS GOOD.

PROCEED WITH THE PRESENTATION. HAPPY HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.

>> THEMS LAST ONE. >> OKAY.

OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL. DO YOU WANT US TO POST ON THIS TO A DATE E CERTAIN. IT'S NOT WHAT THE COMMISSION

WOULD E. >> WE COULD JUST POSTPONE IT.

>> WE CAN? DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A DATE

CERTAIN? >> IS A CITY COMMISSION ITEM.

>> I WOULD RECOMMEND SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

THE EMERGENCY PAID POSITIONS ARE IN IN THERE.

>> GOOD POINT. >> DO WANT TO DO IT TO THE NEXT MEETING PLEASE? WHAT'S WITH SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? MAYOR I'M MOVE RESOLUTION ARE 34 ADOPTING REVISIONS TO NEXT MEETING.

FROM ONE:ROLL PLEASE. >> THANK YOU.

[c. Resolution No. 22-R35 appointing Edward Dillon to the Parking Committee as Commissioner J. Johnson's representative.]

>> NEXT RESOLUTION 20 2R 35 CERTIFY THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE PARKING COMMITTEE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS RESOLUTION WILL APPOINT EDWARD DILLON TO THE PARKING COMMITTEE AS COMMISSIONER JANE JOHNSON'S REPRESENTATIVE. HIS ANTON CONCEAL WAS HIS APPOINTEE WHO RESIGNED WHEN HE WAS APPOINTED TO THE PLANNING

BOARD. >> OKAY WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE

THE MOTION? >> I LIKE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION

20 2R 35. >> SECOND.

>> THERE'S A SECOND.:ROLL. (ROLL CALL).

[d. Resolution No. 22-R36 appointing members to the Communitywide Council.]

>> THE WAY OF RESOLUTION 20 2R 36 APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE COMMUNITYWIDE COUNCIL. WE ACTUALLY GOT A LATE APPLICATION AFTER OUR LAST MEETING.

WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY APPLICATIONS AS WE HAVE OPEN SEATS. THIS RESOLUTION WILL BASICALLY APPOINT ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE SEEKING APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT OF THE 2 MEMBERS THAT WANTED TO BE REAPPOINTED.

>> THAT'S WONDERFUL. >> I CAN READ YOU THINNER NAMES IF YOU LIKE IT OR YOU CAN JUST VOTE ON IT.> IT'S ALFREDO WILDING AGNEW, MICHELLE BERNARD, MCBEE, BETTY ? ?.

THERE WILL BE THAT APPOINTEES. >> MADAME MAYOR THIS IS AN APPOINTMENT BUT BERNIE MCBEE IS MY FATHER-IN-LAW.

I MEANT TO TALK TO ABOUT THAT AND I FORGOT HE HAD DONE NOT RECENTLY. WHAT IS YOUR ADVISEMENT?

[03:00:03]

>> IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GO TO A SPECIAL FINANCIAL GAIN OF YOUR RELATIVE SO YOU'RE PROBABLY OKAY.

HOWEVER THE CHAPTER 112 DOES GIVE YOU THE AUTHORITY OR TO BE THE PTION F NOT VOTING IF YOU THINK THERE IS THE APPEARANCE OR COULD BE THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT.

SO. >> CLEAR AS MUD.

THE COMMUNITYWIDE COUNCIL. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT ALL THEIR VOTING RECORD. DO THEY VOTE ON ITEMS?

>> THEY VOTE ON GRANTS THROUGH THE CBG.

>> RECOMMENDATIONS. THEY DON'T MAKE ANY FINAL.

>> THEY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO US.

YES. >> COMMISSIONER, THE SUNSHINE LAW DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO JUST DECIDE NOT TO VOTE BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE AN ISSUE.

HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT THAT SITUATION.

THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THERE MAY BE AN APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT. YOU'RE PROBABLY ON SAFER GROUND TO ABSTAINING THEN AND THAT'S ALL I WILL I WILL SAY AT THIS

POINT. >> ALL RIGHT.

PREPARE THE FORM. AS OUR MOTION?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE MADAME MAYOR.

QUICK SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION IN SECOND.

CALL THE ROLE-PLAYS. (ROLL CALL) NEXT WE HAVE

[e. Submittal of applications to serve on the Civil Service Appeals Board as Commission Appointees.]

SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS TO SERVE ON THE CIVIL SERVICE APPEALS BOARD AS COMMISSION APPOINTEES.

THIS WILL COME BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING.

IN THE FOR OF A VOTE. THEN WE MOVE ON TO ?.

>> WE HAVE THE RIGHT NUMBER? WE HAVE OPENINGS TO MATCH THE APPLICANTS? I THINK WE DO.

WE DEAL. >> OKAY, THANKS.

[14. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Mayor, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The City Commission will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Mayor, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

AND THEN WE MOVE ON TO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

>> OKAY, IF THERE'S ANY PERSON IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY THING.

COME FORWARD AND MS. COX WILL GIVE YOU A WARNING.

>> MICHELLE DE LA, ADDRESSES CONFIDENTIAL.

APPEAR TO SPEAK ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

AS USUAL. A BUNCH OF US WENT THROUGH QUASI-JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ORDER TO GO THROUGH CARD DATE JUDICIAL REVIEW WE HAD TO GO THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS PAM'S P$300. THEN WE HAD TO WAIT 30 DAYS AND GO TO TRC. WAIT ANOTHER DAY TO GO TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND GOT TO MEET WITH THIS ■AYS WE - COMMISSION. TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD BE APPROVED. ONCE IT WAS APPROVED OF THE LETTER WITH THE PARCEL ID NUMBER WAS PROVIDED WITH WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS WERE. I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM WERE PAST 8. I COULD PROBABLY LOOK AT SOME THE OTHER ONES.

THERE'S USUALLY A LIST OF THEM SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE HERE. BUT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IS LIKE, I'VE SAID THIS FROM THE GOOD BEGINNING.

NO GREATER THAN 30 DAYS, THE BTR IS 5 DOLLARS FLAT.

NO RENEWAL FEE COMPLETE.HEN YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE UNDER 30 DAYS AND THE BTR IS $39.71 PLUS RENEWAL FEE OF 5 DOLLARS.

THEN YOU GUYS HAVE THIS NEW ORDINANCE WHERE YOU WANT EVERYONE TO PAY $600 PER UNIT. I WANT TO GO BACK AND REVIEW HOTELS. HOTEL HUTCHISON ISLEY PLAZA HAS 70 UNITS. THERE BTR $67.80.

IF YOU PAID THEM PAY $600 PER UNIT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REGISTER FOR 42 THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR.

ROYAL IN, HAS 9 UNITS. THE BTR THAT YOU CHARGE THEM IS 80 SOME DOLLARS AND $0.73 ANNUAL.