mission of St. Pete Beach to order. It is 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026. Will you please rise and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much. City Clerk, will you please do a roll call? >> Commissioner Marriott. >> Here. >> Vice Mayor Robinson. >> Here. >> Commissioner Cozzi. >> Here. >> Commissioner Maldonado. >> Here. >> And Mayor Tate.
>> Here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you very much. Uh, are there any proposed changes to the agenda? >> [snorts] >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to add hyperscale data centers to the discussions. >> I'm sorry. I I heard that data centers, but height and scale?
>> Hyperscale. >> Hyperscale. >> Data centers. >> Thank you. Other thoughts? >> Mayor, we have a proposed amendment on consent item 3C based on commission feedback to the city manager. If we
could just pull that from consent and consider it separately. >> Okay. Thank you very much. We'll pull that out. All right. Make sure that there's no other changes before I entertain a motion to approve the agenda amended
amended agenda. Sorry. >> I'll move to approve the amended agenda. >> Second. The clerk, please. >> Commissioner Marriott? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Robinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cozzi? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado? >> Yes. >> Mayor Tate? >> Yes.
>> Motion carries. >> Thank you. I see there are no presentations, so next we're on to audience comments. Are there any general audience comments? >> Amanda San Yego. >> Good evening. Will you Would you please state your name and address for us,
please? >> My name is Amanda San Yego. I reside on St. Pete Beach. And I hereby assert my right to the customary use of St. Pete Beach. I know my rights, and I know that under Florida law, no private landowner or local government can revoke my right to
the customary use of St. Pete Beach. The public is the largest stakeholder on this beach, and the engine behind every commercial investment property doing business here. Our numbers are not constrained. As a resident and frequent public user of St. Pete Beach for more than a
decade, I demand that you codify the public right to a free, open, customer use of St. Pete Beach. Thank you. >> Thank you. Vincent Tuminia. >> Hi, Vincent Tuminia. Uh 3514 Casablanca Avenue. Uh there was
a couple of things I was going to speak about tonight. Um one is about Publix, which I wanted to know about. And what's happening there with Brixmor and Publix, cuz we need our supermarket back. That's number one. The second thing was the state
uh passed today, it went through the state, the Senate today, about these corporations coming in and buying properties and turning them into certain things. So, it was just passed today through the Senate. So, you might want to look into that. Because we're having
a problem in our area, especially, with these Airbnbs. They're not paying the bed tax, they're not we and they're doing weekly rentals. So, this is another problem that's been happening with that. And that's all I
came about what to say and everything else I spoke about already. Okay? All right, thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Deborah Shechner. >> Good evening. Deborah Shechner, 4000 Eagle Isle Drive. I will have to agree with what Amanda said, so I'd like to put that out there.
Um I've been doing like casual surveys over the years of visitors. First year, I probably spoke to about 40. And every year, I just talk to visitors. They like our beach. They like the way
it looks. They don't want high buildings. They say that specifically. They say that's why they come here. That's why they don't go to Clearwater Beach. That's why they don't go to other beaches. It's too oppressive for them. My favorite story is an
English couple who came here 18 years in a row. And one year she said to me, "I'm going to try California." So, they went to California and said, "We're not ever going any other beach but St. Pete Beach." Well, unfortunately, we're losing some of those travelers. Europeans are not
coming here. My fear is they're going to find another beach to stay at. One of the other issues, um, several tourists brought up are the street lights. They don't feel safe crossing. They don't feel safe driving. They don't feel
like it's, um, a bright shine onto the road. And I have to say, I've heard that several times from many people. We still have not heard from Florida Wildlife about the mothball situation. And I don't know if there's
an update on the mothball situation. I would hope that there is. And I think it's, you know, very important for us to always be open with the public, transparent with the public. That's how trust is built. And
I don't know where we are with the mothballs. If anybody else knows. And honestly, we have a right to walk on the beach. Hotels here, maybe they own how many feet here. The rest of it belongs to the public. And they cannot continue to stop
us from walking on our God-given right to walk on the sandy part of our beach. The dry sand, not the wet sand. Thank you. Thank you. >> Phyllis Parker. >> This is an inopportune time that my name comes up.
>> [laughter] >> Rose Parker. I live at 3611 Casablanca Avenue. Now you have a face that goes with the emails I've sent you. Um I proposed a um Well, I sent you a proposal based on
property rights and neighborhood protection and funding for community resilience. Does involve uh changing the minimum rental slightly lower than it is now. But 14
days and 30 days, basically you attract the same mindset of people, the people that want to be included in the community. They're not here for parties or they, you know, rowdiness. Um and I know that the city
manager uh thought that there was a legal pathway forward for municipal cost recovery, but I wanted to emphasize that the two core pillars of the proposal I gave go
together. If you take away the minimal stay, then people won't I I won't want to rent my home because I'm going to have to pay to have the right to rent for 30 days.
So you'll have less people renting. And if you And you need the $1,000 to bring in income. A million five is a lot of income and it's also um a tax savings
for all of us residents. Um So I would just like to implore that you keep an open mind to both sides of that uh proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Cathy Garceau. >> Good evening, commissioners, mayor, city
staff. Um I just want Cathy Garceau, 3607 Casablanca. Um so I just wanted to talk briefly about two things. One, community development is just a passion for me um to see what we can do with that and um we actually kicked off some
250th discussions um this year. It's a whole year, so I will say just because the fourth is happening um next week, hooray. Um and I know the city's got some great plans around that. Um and so does a lot of our community um have individual plans. Um so just saying
wonderful seeing that and love the Corey Avenue um Business Association investing. But I want to put out there that um I think had we maybe um found a way to collaborate with the community uh on just planning, we might even be able
to do more. So as we think about and you know, talking with the uh Parks and Recs team and Mandy and and folks, um as we think about the future, how do we maybe think we could integrate some of the community conversations early enough and with the with the business partners to
collaborate so that we could potentially really dress this city up in different ways. So I just want to put that out there and encourage us to I know Lisa, you've been a big um and sorry, I should say Commissioner Robinson, you've been a big proponent in building volunteer efforts and um I think we've got some uh
very able-bodied interested folks in doing that. So if the next round is the holiday season um or we think there's anything else going on, let's please just like lean in on that and feel free to use me um as a conduit to to to building some of that. So, that's just
one thing. Um the other thing is uh speaking of community, um if I can just put this up for a second. It's >> [clears throat] >> kind of It's my phone, but uh that doesn't really show it very well. Anyways, there's a community listening session happening on Thursday.
It's all about flooding. You guys That's never been my topic, right? >> [laughter] >> But um I know that that's um that's just on the hearts and minds of so many, and I know that um Mayor Tate and Commissioner Kasi, you ran on resiliency and addressing these
challenges that we have. So, um thank you to the communication staff here at the city. They've made awareness of this. Um it is happening Thursday. Maybe you all will be talking about it. I didn't see it on the agenda, so I just wanted to highlight that. I know I'm encouraging my my neighbors and friends
to speak there. Um I don't know what the impact is of Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and Tampa Bay Coastal Master Plan. Um I believe it's critical, but I don't know if they have influence. I don't know what they can do for us, but it's happening Thursday. So, if the community shows up and wants to speak
out, I hope that this is a listening session that maybe all of you will be listening to as well, but I'm also um requesting, could this be recorded because I think whoever does show up, I hope will have um a voice that could help perpetuate what are the needs cuz
we certainly are going to have needs, and this is going to need to go up to state and federal levels probably over the coming year. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Dana Richardson. Dana Richardson, 5830 Bahama Way South. Um hello Mayor and Commissioners.
Just flew in and got dropped off, and I have been really busy, so I it's hard for me to talk about what's going on here because I'm not an attorney. Um I don't understand a lot of things, but what I do know is that
residents and the public have already been proven in the court of law that we have rights to both dry and wet sand. I have come to the beach many times in last 40 years. My husband's born and
raised in Clearwater and used the beach. This we all know it. I don't understand. Maybe it's some slick attorney from uh hotels, but why is this sign thing happening now? Is it because the 2018 law that gave them a
little something got repealed and now they're trying this way? I ask you to if there has to be signs or anything that dirties our beach, makes it look terrible, these armed guards.
Ha- put it up by the above the CCL line. Not west. Don't have the visitors, the tourists, and the residents have to see it when they're on the beach and enjoying it. Um it's really concerning with everything we've gone through that
we could literally have a really ugly looking beach. And coming off of the hurricanes, don't we want to get back to enjoying life and have a beautiful beach so tourism will be Well, it's it was strong this last year, but would we lose it? Do people I know when you go to
Mexico, you see armed guards everywhere and everything's very regimented. I don't think that's what we want for this town. So as a resident of St. Pete Beach, I just want to put it on record here that I am asserting my rights
of customary use on St. Pete Beach. I know my [clears throat] rights and I know that under Florida law no private land owner or local government can take away my right of customary use. And I hope and pray that you all understand
and think and everything you do of what consequences that can be because what may be decided today or in the future could take away our customary use rights that we do have. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
>> Thank you. >> There are no more general audience comments. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um We are on to the consent agenda minus item C. Um
And uh I believe we've already approved it as such. Um Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> I move to approve the amended consent agenda. >> I second. >> [clears throat] >> Vice Mayor Robinson?
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Cozzi? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Marriott? >> Yes. >> Mayor Tate? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. And now I think it is time to talk about 3C. Correct, please. Um
>> Yeah, I was I was the one that pulled that and and spoke with that. Um my only concern on this is that if we're going down to three members, that it would need to be either have a opportunity to appeal because if it's a if it's not unanimous, then as a
five if it was five members, it could go it could swing either way. So, um that we do have this now with it rewritten so that it does say that uh should any request be denied by the board at a vote of two in support to one oppose when only three board members are
present or otherwise eligible to conduct the vote, the request shall automatically be scheduled for an appeal hearing at the next regular board meeting with four or more members present. And that kind of just hit the target.
Thank you. >> Sorry, I I believe this was just passed out to us, so I just need to read it real quick for myself. Um I don't know if others have any comments, but I'll just acknowledge up front I'm trying to reread it, so. >> So while you're reading that, uh Mr. Mayor, maybe the um city attorney can
just clarify um the appeal process. We have an appeal process under 3. I believe 14. And I don't know how this strengthens or changes that. Um could you comment on that?
>> Yep, this uh actually is for variances from flood plain management regulations. And it would require four uh members to give a variance to the flood plain regulation. This is not an appeal. >> Okay. >> So if you don't if have a four people at a meeting,
um you can have a a meeting. And we've had trouble getting a quorum uh of four um at the HPB meetings. Most items are non-controversial and are approved unanimously. Once in a while there's one that's
controversial or divided, and this would be um the case where if there was two to one to approve, and then it automatically go to the next meeting where four people are present, so that four out of five could vote to approve a variance. It's a heightened standard for
variances to flood plain regulations for our CRS rating from FEMA. They review all our variances from flood plain management regulations. We want to have a very strict standard there. We receive additional points from the CRS
rating system, which lowers all of our flood insurance. >> So, just to clarify, so no change or impact to the variances under 3.14. >> 3.14 is appeals. >> Appeals. >> There's no changes to that section. >> Okay. Okay.
Perfect. Thank you. Uh I I just want to clarify. I think you said it, but I just want to make sure I I got it. Just reading it, it says uh should any request be denied by the board at a vote of two denied by a vote of two in support to one opposed. So, like denied and support feels You're saying two are two are denying it. If
two are denying it and one is approving it, then it automatically goes to >> There's another section of our code that says for flood plain management variances, you need a four out of five vote. So, just having two would be a denial. So, this would automatically go to the
next meeting for four so you can have a potential vote of four. If you only have three, you can't get four. So, this would allow it to continue. Most most cases, you know, are not controversial. And those could be approved.
>> First day. And I And I thought at one point there was some dialogue that that there was a particular case, I think it's a flood plain case, but correct me if I'm wrong, where it would remain a four out of five type vote or in this case possibly an amended version of that, but there were
other cases that weren't flood plain associated with where we were thinking about just three A simple majority was sufficient. Is that still >> Let me call um Brandon up if he's here. Is he not here? Nope. Um I wasn't at the HPB more board
meeting. Um so, I'm not sure uh If you could tell me again your question. I don't think it affects other non-flood plain. >> Okay. >> Is if that's your question. >> That is essentially my question. So, yeah. Okay. So, only in regards to flood plain, if we only have three people
and theoretically if two are opposed to allowing the variance and one is, you know, uh allows it. Then it will automatically go to the next uh next session where we have four or more available. >> Correct. >> Okay.
Okay. Thank you. That's That's my question. >> So, it would not apply to certificate of appropriateness or any of those other items? And why would it not? >> This is just for flood plain management. >> Anything else at historic preservation
is a a major three-two vote. So, this was this modification was only to address the supermajority requirement for flood plain regulation items. >> But why wouldn't we apply that as well
then to any of the other items being that normally there's five people supposed to be there on a for the board. And if somebody gets denied something based on a two-one,
um it if there was five people there, that may not have been the outcome. >> We can bring that back to you if you'd like for a review, but right now we want to try to get this flood plain one addressed cuz we have applications that are pending and it's important to get this through. If we want to go for other
aspects of historic preservation board, we certainly can, including appeals. >> Yeah, we'd like to see it apply across the board for anything else that would be a vote at when there's only three people. >> Okay, let if we approve this, we'll bring that one then back next meeting. >> Okay, great. Thank you.
>> Okay. Looking for the questions, any a motion to approve the amended uh ordinance item here? >> Make the motion to approve the amended resolution number 2026-20.
>> A second? Commissioner Cazi? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Marriott? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Robinson? >> Yes. >> Mayor Tate? >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you.
All right. Here's the interesting one. I believe we're into ordinances now. Uh City Attorney, will you please read the ordinance? >> Ordinance 2026-11. An ordinance of the City of St. Pete Beach, Florida, amending the Land Development Code relating to signs by
creating subsection 26.14W to prohibit signs, posts, and poles within 50 ft of the mean high or visible waterline of the Gulf, requiring a permit for the installation of signs on the beach, providing for recitals,
codification, conflicts, severability, correction of scrivener's errors, construction, publication, and an effective date. I'll introduce the ordinance uh if you will. This is the second reading
of an ordinance that will codify the emergency ordinance that was adopted on April 28th. So, if this ordinance is not approved tonight in some form or fashion, the emergency ordinance will expire
Saturday, June 27th. And these signs that you've seen in the agenda packet that are within this 50 ft will no longer be prohibited. So, it's important that if you want to maintain this 50 ft
sign-free zone along the Gulf, that we adopt something tonight. Um there has been some discussions um and I've distributed um some staff-approved changes.
Um These were brought to staff's attention um by members of the commission. Um the first was a and and instead of or by Commissioner Causey. I think that's a good add. And there was a distinction about
whichever is more landward at the time. Um the mayor had approached us about we about adding which is greater landward clarifies because greater or not greater may be something different than distance. This is expressly distance.
And then um after hearing from members of the public as we did tonight and others, Lisa Robinson proposed that we have something in the sign ordinance that says nothing in this sign code shall supersede, negate, or infringe upon Florida's
customary use doctrine. So that that we're not inadvertently um taking away anyone's customary use doctrine rights and this will preserve it here. Um it's important to remember that today's ordinance is about a limited area. I think of the basically as posts
in the beach. A prohibition um from a post-free zone from that first 50 ft which is important for a public safety where people are walking at night where people are playing football, catch, frisbee, um frolicking
in the waves if you will um during the day, and also sea turtles are nesting. Um in the agenda packet, there are some science um journal articles including one that has um described a 40% reduction in sea turtle
nesting where there are posts sticking out in the beach. It's important to remember that tonight's meeting is not just about a few signs. It's about the proliferation of such signs across the entire beach. So you might imagine that only a couple signs may have a less
impact, but if you had this on every every zoning lot, they would have more of an impact to safety, public health, and the environment. Um With that, we've also looked at saying, if you have a sign in this prohibited
area, you need to relocate that sign. That sign needs to be relocated outside the prohibited area, and you have to apply for a permit. And when you apply for a permit for a sign on the beach, and the beach is defined it elsewhere in the code as the area
between the dune and the water. That you submit a survey, uh which shows your mean high water line, where the sign will be placed in relation to the rest of the property. That way, we can measure not just only from the water, but we can measure from
nearby structures, or seawalls, or anything that might appear on the survey. Um we're also asking for additional information regarding the deeds, title history, um property boundaries, and the locations of the signs, so we'll
know of any permitted signs where they will be allowed to go. Uh what has been suggested by staff is to have only portable A-frame sandwich board signs on the beach between the 50-ft prohibited area and the dunes. They not be eliminated
illuminated with lighting. They should be removed at sunset, not replaced till sunrise. Um have 300 ft between such signs. And have four four signs per zoning lot. So, if you have a development
that's approved that contains, say, three or four parcels, that's considered a zoning lot as defined in the code. So, you would be allowed four signs per zoning lot on the beach part. You'd still be allowed other signs elsewhere. Um There is an exemption for sign stakes,
poster poles that are official government signs. Um they were at the direction of the government or placed by government entity, that would cover the marine turtle permit holders when they stake out the turtle
nest if they happen to be within 50 ft, those could still be placed as well as other government signs. So with that, I think I've distributed those changes earlier. I talked about the and and more landward at any time and nothing in the sign code shall supersede, negate, or infringe upon
Florida's customary use doctrine so that you can have that in front of you as you deliberate and discuss what you would like to see and approve for second reading. Thank you. >> And thank you. Um is there just ask city manager is there any staff report
anything that goes along with this, sir? Okay. Uh any audience comments? >> Dominic Iscaro. >> Good evening, Mayor Titan Commissioners. My name is Dominic Iscaro. I reside at St. Pete Beach in 46th Ave. And I hereby assert my right of
customary use on St. Pete Beach. Like Amanda and Deborah and Dana, I know my rights. I know that since the Ton-A-Rama case in '74, the Supreme Court of Florida and several courts since have pronounced that no private landowner can revoke my rights.
Government can regulate them but cannot revoke them. And we have those rights and we insist on them. I'm requesting certain changes to ordinance 2026-11. I'll use my time tonight to tell you what I'd like to see and why I think it's necessary. The sign ordinance, frankly, doesn't go
far enough. It still allows private landowners to interfere with and obstruct public lawful public rights of access, intimidate beach goers, and fill our beach with signs. The following changes should be made. The restriction on types of signs should
include cones. The prohibited signs should be prohibited anywhere seaward of the coastal construction control line. We need to move this up. Any offending signs should be removed and should only be allowed to be relocated landward of the CC CL if
permitting requirements and other applicable laws are satisfied. Finally, there should be no more than one sign per lot. Else the beach will become quickly filled with signs. These changes are necessary because private property owners have already attempted to use signage to attack our
customary use rights collaterally. In fact, that at the community workshop several weeks ago, several of them flat out told you in person that that's what they intend to do. They want to criminally trespass us if we refuse to move off their property when we're sitting on a beach towel as we have for decades.
Customary use exists when four things are true. The public has used the beach in question for a long time. The use has been reasonable. It's been free from dispute and without interruption. The law is clear as I said before that the property owners can't take this right away from us directly, but they can attack it collaterally and that is
exactly what they are doing. They can't change the fact that we've used it since ancient times. They can't change the fact that our use has been reasonable. They can't change the fact that during that entire time, our use has been free from dispute. But you know what they can do and what they're trying to do?
They're trying to interrupt us. We are not abandoning our lawful rights to use this beach. Do not allow private owners to interrupt the exercise of our rights or threaten us with criminal prosecution. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Deborah Shackleton
>> Now, Deborah Shackleton will be I'm in St. Pete Beach. I have concerns that you might be putting the cart before the horse with the signage, and believe me, I want that done. I just want to make sure that once we make this change
that customer use is protected. I guess that's what I'm worried about. Before St. Pete Beach even became St. Pete Beach, residents have walked, sat, and enjoyed the dry sand. We all have, with the exception of one neighborhood that I don't know how they
lost their access at the TradeWinds. We all have access points where we can go to the beach. Every neighborhood has one. We need to be careful what we define here.
So, I understand you're going to be asking for hotels' deeds. Um do they pay real estate taxes on the dry sand? I don't think so. Not the dry sand that we have walked on forever.
I did not know, and I'm glad our attorney brought it up, that 40% fewer turtles nesting due to signs on our beach. Now, the sign that started all of this was egregious.
It was uncomfortable. It was threatening. And telling people we can search your bags? Nobody has police powers, nor should anybody up there suggest that they do. I think if the the sign is illegal, give them one day to take it down. You
take down election signs pretty easily, so why not take those signs down as well? They want to collect the sign, they can come up to City Hall and get it. What we have here are hotels trying to take over our right
to walk on the beach. And going back to tourists, they love to walk on the beach. That's their exercise. They love to look for shells. That's part of their exercise. They call it the bend. And you start taking that away from
tourists, I'm going to tell you right now you won't have any more. The minute you limit the access to this dry sand beach, you are not going to have tourists come visit. And not all Not all all the hotels are on beachfront.
People come here for the beach, really. That's it. They love it. You start taking away their right to walk, pick up a shell, put down a towel, put down a chair, bring their children to enjoy the sandy
beach. They should have to sit in wet water all day long? There's something wrong here. It stinks, and we need to fix it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Robert says on. >> Robert says on. 4506 [clears throat]
Gulf Boulevard, property owner of the Plaza Beach Hotel on St. Pete Beach. As a resident of 38 years, as an American citizen of this great country, the United States of America, on our 250th anniversary of this great nation,
this is absolutely unconstitutional. I can assure you of that. So, we have the right as property owners to mark up our property and put no trespassing signs, private property signs. You all do it at your own homes. You all do it at your own businesses. So, we also have that
right. That beach is our backyard, and we have the right to protect our beach. We are not telling anybody that they cannot walk the beach, as Deborah Schechner just said. You are allowed to walk the beach. You are allowed to go through the beach. We just don't want you parking on the beach and staying on a private property. You're allowed to
pass through freely. The signs we have right now are perfectly legible. You can bring that up for me, please. Turn it the other way so everybody can see it. Clearly states all the way to the hotels a private
beach. Pass through is allowed. And then the 50 ft to the water is also private beach. These signs are as clear as can be. It doesn't get any clearer. When we installed these signs about a month ago now, I want you guys to guess how many calls
we had to the sheriff's department in this last month. Can someone take a guess? Anybody? Zero. Boom. The signs are working. >> Hey, excuse me. >> The signs are working. So, people now
understand that without signage, people don't understand where the property lines are. >> Hey, excuse me. Be respectful, please. >> People don't understand where the lines are, where the boundaries are. Signs are required. So, temporary signs don't work because what if somebody comes on my property at 11:00 in the p.m. and starts
smoking marijuana on my property while this private sign was removed at sunset? That doesn't work. How am I going to remove that person at 11:00 at night smoking dope on my property at a family resort? Doesn't work. So, these this ordinance you're going to pass tonight does not work. I encourage you not to
pass this ordinance. If you pass this ordinance, there will be consequences, unfortunately. I don't want to say there's going to be a lawsuit, but there most likely will be a lawsuit. And I'm just being honest. So, I said that I don't want that because that is also my taxpayer dollars, everyone's tax tax payer dollars. So, I want you guys to
consider making permanent signs. It doesn't have to be a sign. And we've talked about this. We've had negotiations. We've talked back and forth. It could be a flamingo. Let's just put a flamingo as a marker. Let's put a a pelican as a marker. As long as there's a marker so that the sheriff knows where the point is. And I have no
problem having it 50 ft from the water. That's like we have it right now. So, there's no issue with that whatsoever. But, there needs to be a clear marker for the sheriff department to be able to do their job as well. So, you have to look at it from everyone's angle, not just the residents' angle, but also from law enforcement's angle. So, law enforcement has to be able to enforce
the law, and they need to be able to understand where the markers are. Thank you. >> Thank you. Alyssa Gagnon. >> Good evening, commissioners. I have a lot to cover, so please excuse my pace. I may go a little fast. My name is Alyssa Gagnon. I'm an attorney at Weber,
Crabb, and Wein. I was here for the emergency reading of this ordinance. At that emergency reading, I warned this commission that the ordinance as written was unconstitutional. The version before you tonight does not fix those problems, and it makes them worse. This is not a narrow safety regulation. It is an
outright speech ban. The ordinance prohibits private citizens and private property owners from placing devices, signs, stakes, posts within 50 ft of the mean high waterline or visible waterline, whichever is landward, and de facto, the whole beach because past the
waterline only A-frames are allowed. But, it expressly allows governmental signs and posts in that same restricted area. That is constitutional issue in plain language. The government gets to speak, but private citizens do not. And the safety justification does not withstand scrutiny. If one pole holding
a no trespassing sign is such a serious safety hazard that it must be banned, then so are umbrellas, chairs, tents, cabanas, and every other common beach item that can obstruct access, injure someone in the dark, or become windborne in a storm. The permitting process does not save the ordinance, either. It makes it worse. A
property owner who wants to post a beach sign must submit a deed, title history, insurance, and a survey for speech, for a sign, to protect their own property. A speech permit must have narrow, objective, and definite standards and
prompt decision. This ordinance does not include that. So, let's be honest about what this ordinance is. This is not really about a singular poll holding the sign. This is about the message on the sign. And based on prior commission discussion and comment, it seems like that it is also impermissibly about
aesthetics because this is an emergency ordinance. But the government cannot violate the First Amendment because it doesn't like how property owners use signs to protect their property or because they don't like how it looks. The ordinance is also vague and overbroad. It uses both a mean high
waterline and visible waterline, whichever's greater or whichever's landward. Those are not the same thing. The mean high waterline has legal significance. Visible waterline has no legal significance. The city does not have jurisdiction over private property landward of the mean high waterline.
There's also serious preemption problem. The ordinance is preempted by Florida's trespass statute. Section 810.09 recognizes notice must be posted in order to enforce trespass. Section 810.10 makes it a first-degree misdemeanor to remove those signs. And this is already happening on the beach.
So, this ordinance puts property owners in impossible situation. Florida law tells them posted notice matters, but then they can't post that notice to get people off their property. Any individual who owns beachfront property should be concerned and many will be looking to have this ordinance struck down so they can protect their
land and protect their homes. I'm also concerned for municipal workers tasked with enforcing it. As written, they will be sent up and down the beach to remove essentially every private sign they see, even may be constitutionally protected, all based on an invisible line or a legally irrelevant line.
These property owners are not trying to harm the beach. They're trying to protect it. I respectfully urge this commission not to adopt the ordinance as written. Passing this ordinance as written would cause the city to expose themselves to legal challenge. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Dana Richardson.
Dana Richardson, 5830 Bahama Way South. Those last two speakers are exactly what I am highly concerned about. How dare somebody try to think that they can supersede a law that was placed for
customary use back in 1974? It's already been tried in court and has won. We have the rights to dry sand. When in the history have we ever seen a bunch of people laying their towels on wet sand?
When? When do you see people doing that? Maybe a kid. It doesn't happen. Who wants to have that? The things they're talking about as I was at that sign ordinance meeting, it's behavioral issues. That's what the Sheriff's Department does. That's what
some of the beach ordinance is going to do. If somebody's smoking pot, somebody's drunk, if somebody's doing anything that's against the law or a trouble to our city, that's when you call the Sheriff. We don't need signs. We've got to change the language on
this. I get that we need to do something because then it would revert back to the emergency ordinance. But we need to change it because we need to put it up by the CCA line because we can't tell them what to put on their signs. I mean, we know they're going to
put no trespassing on their signs. How can they sit there and put signs out and that talk about the cart before the horse before we've even discussed our rights as a customary use ordinance here for St. Pete Beach. We've been working on this. This has been something that
we've been wanting to do. We've always had to wait for hearing about what Redington Beach is going to happen. What is what's the law going to get changed? Well, we're at the point now where we get to put that into an ordinance. We've got that workshop July 23rd to start the
ball and here they want to push these signs so they can make them no trespassing. So that now that's kind of setting a precedent. You are approving signs so that they can say these are my boundaries. That's not good. That's not going to help us.
This has been tried in the court of law. We have won. The courts have already made their claim and stated the fact. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Melanie Grant Vandegrift >> Hi there. Melanie Vandegrift, I'm
representing One Pass Grillway, better known as Island End Resort. Um we're kind of no man's land down there right now. We are not a no longer a public beach, but we are a public beach and people do whatever they want down there and the sheriff won't enforce it because we're not allowed to have sign.
They won't enforce our property boundaries. We have people running back and forth all day, every day causing ruckus, dogs, liability issues. I've been bit from the dog beach, personally. We have to be able to enforce our beach
and we do not have customary use on our property because the beach did not exist a few years ago. It has just I've worked there for 14 years. The beach did not exist when I started. Therefore, there is no customary use on our beach. We have to enforce the law for enforce
our boundaries in order to establish the customary use and keep our property rights. Otherwise, we could potentially lose them. And if somebody gets injured on our property, a guest or a tourist, guess what? They're going to sue the property owner because this is a litigious uh continent right now. Everyone wants
to sue everybody. So my boss is at in liability issues if anybody gets hurt. And unless they are registered guests with us, our commercial insurance don't cover us. So, he is personally responsible if anything happens. All we want to
sign. You want to put up an A-frame sign? Okay. Our Our zoning is literally prohibited from A-frame signs. I put up an A-frame sign, code enforcement told me to take it down immediately. So, are you going to allow them now? Our office closes at 4:30 in in the
afternoon. So, we're going to have to take that in or pay somebody to come and take it in at sunset. And then what happens at night? People come all night every night. They have come up to my boss's house and tried to get into his house at 3:00 in the morning.
Is the sheriff going to be able to to enforce it when there's no sign out there at night? That it's not safe. People come out there and start bonfires on the beach. And it takes the sheriff at least 20 to 30 minutes to get out there. So, if no one knows that it's private
property, how are we even going to enforce it? We just want our property to be safe. We want our backyard to be safe. This is our backyard. This is the property owner's backyard. It literally his house overlooks his beach that he has owned for 40 years.
All he wants to do is be able to keep it safe and keep himself from being sued. That's all. >> Thank you. >> I have no more comments on this topic. >> Okay. Um Any commission comments? Commissioner Robinson.
>> I'll go ahead and start. Um I just start with the sign ordinance in general for its purpose and intent. And its purpose and intent is to preserve and enhance the city as a desirable community in which to live,
vacation, do business. A pleasing, visually attractive environment is of the foremost importance. So, I have to question whether the proliferation of signs up and down the
beach actually meets that. In addition to that phrase, we also have these sign regulations have been prepared with the intent of mitigating the impact signs have on traffic, pedestrian safety,
enhancing the visual environment of the city. Further, it says maintain and enhance the aesthetic environment and the city's ability to attract sources of economic development and growth.
Lessen the visual clutter that may otherwise be caused by proliferation. To curtail the size and number of signs and sign messages to the minimal reasonably necessary.
To preserve, conserve, protect, and enhance the aesthetic quality and scenic beauty of all districts of this city. To protect property values by ensuring that sign types, as well as the number
of signs, are in harmony with buildings, neighborhoods, and conforming signs in the area. Promote and enhance the beautification of the city. Complements the natural surroundings and recognition of the city's reliance on
its natural surroundings. I have to question if any of these signs do this. And the more we have of these signs, the more visual clutter we get,
the more it's not in harmony, the more it's it's not even even near what we've stated we want here. Let alone the safety. I have I have concerns about that. I
know people moved here because of access to the beach, the beauty of the beach. People come here for that. And I just see the proliferation of these signs being an issue. And I understand the property owners have rights
and they are having issues to deal with that I don't think they've had to deal with before because of COVID, because of growth in other areas that come to our area. But it's
in blatant disregard for what the beauty of this area is. And that's a shame. It's a shame that we would have to resort to something to to to be able to keep our beauty of our beach.
To stop the proliferation of more and more signs being put out. I have big concerns with that. And I have concerns with any of these signs staying. And to a umbrella and a chair or
whatever flying or whatever, those are temporary. What your client is asking for is permanent. Okay, big difference. Okay? So, I have big concerns on
not doing something to to stop the proliferation of the designs. It's just visually ugly. It's unsafe.
And it uh is against basically what our sign ordinance says. We can debate how many feet and whether it needs to be uh adding cones and markers. But it can be measured
once you get a survey in. It can be measured from the building that doesn't move. So, it is measurable. Um I don't know if four signs should be allowed. I I mean, if if you want to assemble the
whole beach into one, does that mean you get unlimited number of signs? Is that fair to other properties who have less frontage? It's not fair. So, I I I would take that into question. The portable signs
are um the A-frames. Um I believe there's clarification that we received cuz I had a question in regards to that. So, per reading through the code, they are allowed commercial uh license commercial properties are allowed one sign, but I read through this and it says that
what Brandon replied back was that that was just for frontage in the front. Not in the back. So, I just don't want to keep adding signs on top of signs on top of signs and the next thing you know, you know, we look like a third world country.
And I don't want St. Pete Beach and I don't think any resident I don't think a property owners want to uh whether you're a hotel or not to look like that either. You know, it's it's a shame there can't be a way to help the property owners to help their battles with what they're
going through. Um but, you know, as I was told, you know, I if I bought a house next to a bar, expect music. Well, if I bought a hotel next to a to a um public beach that doesn't have
concession stands or bathrooms Well, barely it's bathrooms. Doesn't have a concession stand. Um I might be thinking that people would naturally migrate. So. Um I have concerns with the
what we want to do as far as keeping keeping what the what is out there currently. I mean, we have to do something now, otherwise this emergency ordinance expires on Saturday. And the signs that are currently there
remain and they become legal. So, this is critical. So, I think the debate might need to be about the footage and if there's any other changes. >> Thank you. Uh
Mr. Maldonado. >> Uh thank you, Commissioner Robinson, for re-emphasizing those things. I think that they're important to the discussion because it sets the pace for what it is that we're going to be talking about. And I'm also happy to see that the emphasis here and to the residents'
concerns is that we are making sure that we don't do anything unintentionally that can affect or impact customary use doctrine. So, two common things that I heard not only today, but also during the previous workshop, result they revolves around two
different things. And the first being behavioral issues. We heard a couple examples here tonight. The smoking marijuana, bonfires, attempting to break into people's bosses' homes. At a previous commission or community meeting, we talked about drunk and
disorderly behavior and things like that. I've also heard about liability concerns, and those are very valid concerns. Both the behavioral issues and the liabilities. And I do think that there are ways to address that. I think that
one of the things is that we can and should discuss the coastal construction control line. I think that that is part of the way to address the concerns that have been expressed regarding putting people on notice when
they come onto the private property. It's not going to be a a fix-all. I do acknowledge that the sheriff will have a difficult time establishing boundaries when it comes to property lines and private property.
But again, if you're talking about behavioral issues, it doesn't matter. I've said this before, whether you're on private property or public property, our law enforcement partners have a responsibility to act and to respond to that. And to Melanie's uh
frustration, I think that we do have to look at that individually. I think that District 4 down in the South end has unique circumstances, which I think that we could go back and look at in addition to what it is that we're trying to do today to keep uh, you know, both the residents
and our tourists safe in a very unique uh, design that's going on down there. Mr. Sizzone, uh, this evening you stated that you have no issue with the sign being 50 ft from the water. I think that you've seen pictures, we've all received emails
with pictures where those signs that you're very proud of that are uh, very well written and articulated are 5 10 ft in the water. So, the question then becomes, will you be moving those signs back and forth depending on where the water is, depending on the tide, depending on
the time of the day? I don't see that as being a very practical approach for you or your business to move a permanently fixed sign depending on where that water is. Those are my initial thoughts. I'd like to hear what the rest of the commission has, then I have a few follow-up
comments. Thank you. >> Thank you. Commissioner Causey. >> I think that the purpose tonight is purely safety. Uh, we haven't had the briefing from our attorney on common use, and I think everyone knows that we are going to spend a lot of time in the
next few weeks as a city thinking about common use, and I think everyone should be uh, putting that first on the burner because beaches are most traditional asset here in our city. So, it's very important to
get it get it right. But, my concern is someone walking on the beach at night and bumping into a sign, or I think it's true that you can be on your skimboard or playing football in the surf and and be seriously injured by running into a solid post. So, I think the absolute
most important thing is for us to uh, keep a zone clear for safety of people who are walking on the beach. So, we all agree that people should be allowed to walk on the beach along the water. So, I would suggest that we stick with that
simply and say no signs within 50 ft of the water. That's what we're all trying to really do and it doesn't need any version of legal references. It's just purely for public safety here.
And if we could all agree on that tonight, I would be pretty happy. Um, I totally agree with the, uh, concept of some of the other other things that are listed here and I would vote for those, but I I
think the most important thing is safety piece tonight. >> Thank you, uh, Commissioner Mayor. >> Thank you. Um, thank you. Uh, I think uh, the things that my fellow commissioners have said here tonight are all um,
kind of kind of right on target and um, and I appreciate Commissioner Causey's framing of the issue for us as as what we're trying to do here tonight and and that we we want to solve what could be a safety issue. We
certainly don't want to make it worse. Um, I do have a question for the city attorney or the city manager. Currently with without this ordinance, um, I know that there are signs on the beach currently that are much further
back from the water. I know that in front of the Silver Sands condo, there's a whole area that's roped off and there are signs that say private property, no trespassing. And so, wh- where is it on the beach where somebody could put signs on posts today?
Because clearly that happens. So, is it the coastal construction line? Is it >> So, currently there's an exemption for what they call warning signs. Anywhere on the property, unlimited number. Each warning sign of 4 square feet face
area. So, that is why they were not able to site signs on the beach previously uh for code enforcement because there was an exemption
for warning signs. Um there's a couple problems with with the warning signs. One, it's possibly not content neutral. Although warning is a pretty broad uh category, it still requires I think you to read the
sign to see if it's a warning. So, we don't want to rely on an unconstitutional provision. Um there's an exemption there, but would allow and did allow signs to go in without receiving code enforcement. So, we adopted the emergency sign ordinance after a few signs were
placed at the waterline to clearly and expressly prohibit signs within 50 feet um based on public safety and based on content neutrality. So, it doesn't matter what words are on the sign for
tonight. Tonight is just a sign ordinance, and it's only for a limited area that prohibits signs in that area. And would allow uh four portable A-frame signs upland on the beach 50 feet to the dune.
So, you would now be allowed four if that if this is how the ordinance is adopted. Um but currently, there's an unlimited number of warning signs. Now, a warning sign might say no trespassing. I'm trying to tonight
stay away from content, content neutral. But conceivably, you could have an unlimited number of such warning signs on the beach leading to a proliferation all through the dry sand area between the dune and the water.
>> So, if if we pass this ordinance as written, what happens from the dune to 50 ft from the water? >> There's two parts of this ordinance. The most important part, I think, is the 50 ft. Nothing 50 ft from the water. From 50 ft to the to the beach,
you have to get a permit. And because you have to get a permit, we require a survey so we can show that you're not 50 ft from the water, at least the mean high water line, and we have the mean high water line on the survey. And then it's up to you what would be
allowed. Staff is suggesting um portable A-frame sandwich board signs, four of them per zoning lot, so you could have two signs and triangulate a property line if that was required. Um that they'd be no more than 5 ft in
height, and that is similar to the sandwich board signs elsewhere in the city. Um 8 sq ft in total sign face area, so there would be 4 sq ft per side. Remember, there were 4 sq ft of warning
sign allowed because the sandwich board A-frames have two sides, it'd be 4 ft and 4 ft. Um and they have to be at least 300 ft apart. >> So, I have two I I have a
a couple of comments. Um I I think that so so if somebody if if we pass this ordinance and someone wants a permanently affixed sign on their property line, it could be land it could be east of the dunes. >> Yes, and we're landward of the beach.
The defined beach is elsewhere in the code, but anywhere of the code >> landward of the beach, they can still have a sign. >> Still have as many warning signs as they want. >> Okay. Um the the 300 ft apart, is that any Is that 300 ft from any
>> [laughter] >> any other sign? Or is that 300 ft from another sign on their own property? >> From another beach sign. >> So, if you have two people trying to mark their property line, they can't do it. One one property owner or the other could mark their property line with an A-frame sign, but not both
of them. >> From any other sign, correct. >> Okay. >> They've got to come in for a permit and show that they're with they're not within 300 ft. That way, there's a separation for public safety. >> Okay. So, a separation 300 ft >> going in >> regardless regardless of of of whose
property it's on. If somebody else has come in first and gotten a permit, the next person who comes in for a permit, their sign has to be 300 ft from the first person's. >> The way it's currently written is 300 ft from any other sign. >> Okay. Um so, I think
I think that we are potentially I I I I I I take Commissioner Causey's point very seriously that that this is about safety and we need to do something here today to solve the problem of there
being permanently affixed signs 50 ft from the water. I I'm a little bit concerned that what we're doing here is is something that's just going to make everybody mad. >> [laughter] >> Because the the private property owners are going to have signs that
that don't necessarily do the job that they that they're intending for them to do. Um and the public isn't going to like them because they're still signs on the beach. And and that's not to say that we shouldn't still do it. That that [snorts] this is that this is perhaps our best option of all the options.
Um and so I'm just acknowledging that potentially the best thing we can do here tonight is not the ideal thing that could be done. Um not that I know what that is. Um so I think that
you know, I I I I could be fine with it as written. Um I think that there is absolutely no doubt that customary use is something that we're all going to be talking about going forward.
Um I appreciate the the the adding in of the clause that Commissioner Robinson suggested where we're where we add in a line that we're not trying to supersede, negate, or infringe upon customary use. Um
I I I I think the best we're going to do here today is going to be to try to do something that gets rid of permanently placed signs within 50 ft of the water. And I think that's the best we're going to I think that that's as good as we're going to get right now.
Um and I and I don't think that that means that that's the final answer forever. Um but I but I do think that that today right now it might be the best as good as we're going to get right now. >> I want a clarification cuz it does say
per zoning lot. >> I have three. >> It says shall be placed at least 300 ft from any other sign and at no time shall exceed four signs per zoning lot. >> Okay. >> And a zoning lot is a development parcel. So some of our development projects have more than one parcel
within within them underlying them. So you could think of a zoning lot as a development. >> Right. No, I'm just >> Or a condominium or a hotel. >> You want to issue as the 300 ft isn't also per zoning lot the 300 ft is 300 ft. >> Right.
>> I did I wanted to make sure it wasn't per zoning lot. >> 300 ft for any other sign. >> That would be if it's per zoning lot then everybody's allowed at least one if you have less than 300 ft.
And if you're over 300 ft then you're allowed you know four is what it says. But I just wanted to make sure because as the answer was to Karen no that's not really correct it's 300 ft from anybody's sign meaning your neighbors yours not on not on your
property. Just want clarification. >> And you could do either way that you'd like on that. You could say 300 ft from any other sign on that zoning lot or 300 ft from any other sign. If you want to allow 300 ft
from any other sign on that zoning lot you can do that. You can also change 300 to 200 or 100 but you can and then you could also change or leave the number four per zoning lot. Four seemed to triangulate the four corners of a property. So in an interest of
allowing some sign for the trespass 81009 you would have the ability to put four signs out. Two on each side of your property line so you could triangulate the >> I know I'm still stuck at one. Sorry I'm still stuck at one
for that per zoning lot. >> Okay. >> Cuz four wouldn't exactly there's only two sides on that. I don't know where the two other ones would come to make triangulate a four. You don't really need to. You're talking the beach side so to me it'd be max two.
>> I think it would just be that if there's a zoning lot that's 1,200 ft. >> Right. And then you get >> Then you get four. >> four of them. Right. But if you're 200 ft, you get one. Or less than 300. Let me say it just Let me correct less than 300. >> You're less than 300 and your neighbor
already got one, you don't get any. I think is what this means. >> Yeah, that's the problem I have. >> I I have I mean, I have concerns about the legality of that, but our city attorney thinks >> You would say um 300 ft from any other sign on the same zoning lot.
>> That works. >> would add the words on the same zoning lot to address that concern? How do we feel about the number? >> I'm still at zero. >> [laughter] >> Okay. >> Yeah, let me I I So, I I want to throw in a few thoughts here as
well. Listen, I I I'm sympathetic to you know, the concerns that we've heard with regards to um you know, um what I call abuse, uh public abuse. And and I I mean, uh
you know, you expect some common decency out of people when they come to the beach, uh whether they're on a public beach or a private beach, to Commissioner Maldonado's, you know, point earlier. Um and I and I fear that we're taking uh measures that that kind of erode the
certainly the historical character of our beach um in in in the in the name of trying to regulate the abusers who you know uh for some reason lack the common courtesy
to to be good neighbors on the beach. And so I I will tell you I'm not a fan of signs on our beach. I don't want to see something long-term that we're just the the beach of signs. Uh it's not where I certainly want us to head. Um and I guess a very
I'm I'm I'm pleased that you know we've overtly stated we're not trying to alter customary use here. That is not our intent. It is in fact it's it's in fact our explicitly overt assertion that we are not doing that, right? So that we can then come challenge that later if we need to and
and and move forward. So I like that that's at least in there. Um I I I agree with you know all the sentiments of my fellow commissioners. Um I fear frankly that uh Commissioner Mary may be right. We we may not be able to get the
right answer here, but what we've got to do is something. Um but I do I do have a a series of questions for you city attorney if you don't mind, please. I know you you opined earlier on what kind of signs are currently now allowed on the beach. Right? Um
and I'll I'll ask just a very direct question. Uh this this emergency ordinance expires in the coming week or two. >> The 27th of June. >> Okay. So 3 days 4 days from now, right? And in lieu of anything we pass this
evening, if we do not pass something and we defer hypothetically. Um are there are the issues that that we've historically been opining about over the last month or two about these signs, are they just going to be right allowed right back in, right? I mean have we are
are we basically going to be right back where we started that that got us right before the emergency ordinance? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I I think there's a phrase I hear sometimes that says, "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good." So, we might want to do something and we
can always come back and make some changes or adjustments if we need to. And you can you can adopt something less restrictive if this turns out to be too restrictive on the area between 50 ft and the dune, you could adopt something less restrictive.
>> Yeah, I I personally I feel like we don't have this right yet to be frank with you. And uh but I'm I'm worried of the alternative to your point. Don't let uh good great be the enemy of good. I think that's what you said. Something >> Perfect be the enemy of good, yeah. >> And so, I I fear not moving forward puts
us in an extremely untenable position that is even less popular, I think, frankly than than where we would be if we move forward with something this evening. Um although I I I I don't think that uh again, I'll I'll restate it. I am I am
not the beach of of signs in my head. This is not what I personally chose to come here for. Um you know, I want to keep working. I want to find a way to address the concerns that uh that our
private property owners have. Which is uh you know, ideally they're solved by current you know, uh laws and regulations that exist somewhere else and then we look for the ones that you know, the the the abuses that aren't covered in other areas is maybe where we
try and target this and and essentially give them a means to re- to to enforce their uh the the abusive visitors onto their property. Um So, I don't love where we're headed. I'll be frank with you. I'll just just I don't love where we're headed this
evening, but I'm I'm more fearful that where that if we don't do this that that we end up with a in a more untenable situation. Um Let's let me see if I got any more questions for you here. Um Uh
let me see. I I I uh I I I'm There was a a comment. This This is probably my last question for you. City attorney, please. There was a comment raised earlier about uh you know, liability. Um somebody without a posted sign gets injured and then and then there's
some liability concerns and I I I also not only from a private property right, but from a city's liability perspective, I'm concerned with, you know, what liability we get into and we've we've had some some notes in here about uh requiring insurance and those kind of
things, but how is the city protected uh if you can opine on that, please, in some of these with with this at least temporary ordinance or this ordinance as we go forward. >> Yeah, uh maybe um a couple comments too that relate to that.
One, we have a dogs on leash ordinance in a separate part of the code that dogs must be on leashes anywhere within the municipal bound municipal boundaries of St. Pete Beach unless it's in a designated dog park or dog off-leash area.
So, the area where one of the speakers was talking about is within the city municipal boundary and dogs are not permitted off leash in that area. So, that's someone violating one of the behavioral ordinances we have elsewhere in in the code.
Um In terms of liability, um if someone were to become injured on a sign within the 50 ft, um the liability would be on the landowner.
Um the city's responsible and liable and has insurance for our own city beaches and city parking lots and things. And uh this ordinance um primarily regulates these signs that are in a safety area. For public safety, it's dangerous to
have signs at the waterline, especially at night, not illuminated. Who would they sue? Um someone that's injured, they would sue the private property owner. Um I think having this prohibition in the city's code helps the city cuz we
can't be sued for a violation of our our codes. So, it it's safer for us to have a prohibition in this area than not have a prohibition. Um I think if there's a defense attorney in a personal injury case about an injury and a sign on the beach, they
would say, "Well, signs on the beach are prohibited by the city, so it's not negligence per se, so this actually helps people that are injured." It'd be negligence per se if they crash into a sign that's prohibited. Um and this sign ordinance is drafted with the
intent of preventing such injuries for safety. Um it actually um benefits those that are injured. They don't have as much to prove in a negligence case against a private property owner. And then again, we we have immunity for most things that we do. We have
insurance as well. I think this this helps our liability concerns to have a safety prohibited sign area 50 ft of the water. >> Yeah, I mean I I Thanks, sir. I appreciate it. I I You know, my my concern is I it's the abusers, I think,
that is causing all of this, right? And and and uh and uh you know, I I'd rather frankly regulate the abusers than than go to a measure that that uh that doesn't that isn't tenable for most
uh uh I'm not quite sure how to get there. I I I'll I'll say again, uh, I'm not sure where where where we want to be, but I fear that that not moving forward with something this evening puts us in a worse shape. So, that's my initial, uh, tone. I will remind my fellow commissioners that as general our policy
is to go around, uh, you know, once at 10 minutes per person and then and then you get a second crack. So, happy to just let's say let's go back around one more time and and gather the feedback. Um, then if we need something emergency wise we can do that, but but as a general let's try to try to go forward with that. Um, and uh, if we can't,
please. Um, I'm not quite sure frankly who is next. So, I'll I'll just >> Yeah, somewhere down there. >> Okay. >> So, second crack. So, uh, let me let me first kind of just address the uh, the abuser's concern, uh, Mr. Mayor. We all get the uh, weekly uh, data that
comes from the sheriff's report and I can tell you that over the past I would say year or two or year and a half, there's been very few instances that I can recall off the top of my head beyond just warnings, uh, regarding alcohol
use, sleeping on the beach, and mostly it's dogs off leash. So, I don't think that we have the rampant problem that some would like to paint, uh, especially with the prohibitions of alcohol on the beach. So, I don't think that that's a concern. I do acknowledge and
agree with liabilities. However, after hearing attorney Brooks' argument that not having signs actually favors, if I understood that correctly, it favors the businesses not to have signs cuz it minimizes liabilities cuz
we're telling you you can't have them. So, therefore, I'm flying with one sign. If I have to have a sign, I'm really at zero. I'm a no sign guy. But if I have to compromise, I'm going to move over to one sign. Thank you.
>> Mr. Cozzi. >> Well, moving on from the first point I made uh it brings us to item uh one on the list here, portable A-frame sandwich
board signs no more than five, etc. Uh no illumination, and then you have the spacing, and bottom line is it requires a permit by the city. And then we get into details of the permit. But the whole thing is precluded
by uh where it says any sign, stake, post, etc. So, we're not saying you can have signs. We're saying if if there is a sign, then we're just saying what would be the safest kind of sign.
Plus, I'm also not happy looking at these wooden posts that I see marking the cabana areas. They're also in the middle of the sandy beach, and some of the properties, those signposts were in the water at the king tides.
So, and that's the cabana service area marking posts that we're talking about. Once again, there's no reason why those can't be uh a temporary sign and be moved every night, so people aren't even tripping over them in the dark. And we're trying to keep the beach dark for
the wildlife. So, it just um seems like we would want to have this things that people aren't going to trip over or be injured by running into a solid wooden sign on the sandy beach. So, that's that is a safety issue still
as far as I'm concerned. I I like the idea of no permanent signs on the beach, the sandy beach. So, uh I'm indifferent on whether we vote on that tonight or not. I think
it's also safer to say that, so I would say yes on no permanent signs on the beach. If if we're not saying you should have signs, we're not saying signs are a good idea, we're only saying
no permanent signs. We don't want posts on the beach. And generally if water is gets near one of those posts, it it tends to wash out an area near the post. It doesn't seem ideal at all.
Commissioner Marion. >> Thank you. Um so, I just have two other comments. My first one is regarding the um I I guess I just want to check with the city attorney that we're on solid ground if we're saying you can't have any signs within 50 ft of the water for safety
purposes, but if a turtle lays a nest, we rope it off. Is that just a Is that just a the turtles we're we're we're willing to sacrifice people's safety for the turtles or or is there some
is there some you know, is there is there some uh legal you you know, legal grounds for for calling it a safety issue for one kind of sign, but not another kind of sign. I just don't want to get us into a spot where this is immediately going to get
challenged and you know, >> So, Austin versus Reagan National Advertising, a US Supreme Court case that was decided after Reed versus Gilbert, which was the content neutral case, allows um government signs. Um so,
these beach turtle nesting signs are issued um at the direction of the FWC to the Florida marine turtle permit holder. Um so, because they are government signs, there may be other government signs that wind up being posted uh or
placed uh and then we have to we're creating an exemption or allowance just for those government kind of locational signs. >> Okay. >> It might be an It's not specifically for sea turtles, but they're one example of what might qualify.
>> Okay. And then And then I also just want to want to make sure we don't lose sight of the fact also that, you know, the that part of the permit process is is to make sure that we're not letting somebody put a sign somewhere that they
don't own, right? So, um you know, the the the concern about how many signs we're going to end up with on the beach, and I don't think any of us want a a beach full of signs, right? There's There's places in the world that look like that. I don't think any of us want to look
like that. Um but also I think it's worth worth remembering that every private property owner along the beach doesn't own all the way down to the mean high water line. And so, um
you know, for those that don't the sign, if any, would be much further back because the sign can only be on their property. And And that that's the That's the purpose of the permit require permit application requiring
a survey and a deed and and that sort of thing to make sure that that, you know, it's it's not that bypassing this we're allowing sandwich boards exactly 50 ft from the water down the entire beach because not everybody owns that far down. So, I think we're um
you know, the the worst-case scenario that we're picturing um is is probably not possible. Um so, I did just want to point that out. I think we're not we're we're maybe not going quite quite as far down the the road of bad decisions as we might think we are.
>> Thank you, uh Commissioner Robinson. >> I have a question. We said we, you know, uh if whatever decision we make, we can always revisit it. So, my question would be would it be better to be a little bit more restrictive
because then we can be more lenient versus if we're more lenient, then we have uh you know, non-conforming and grandfathering and all these other things that can happen. >> That's true. >> So, I'm uh of the mindset that if we're
going to look at and we think we probably might be revisiting this, um would being being a little bit more restrictive on the um footage. And perfect example, too, is the fact that with the uh
actual property um survey, um for some people. So, with that >> about the square footage or the footage between signs on the zoning line? >> the 50 ft. Um and then I do want to bring up that we did not put rebar in a couple places.
We carried it to It's in the front on the list of items, sign, stake, post, rebar, but it's missing in the second and third ones. Um oh >> We can add that there. >> Yeah, it's We've got little fix to do on that for I think it's actually three
other places. So, with that being said about being more restrictive, um question is, do we want to consider seaward of the CC uh coastal construction line? >> Um I'd probably advise against that
because it's a um a less defensible area. >> Okay. >> It's It can be much broader. And the CCCL is really um an elevated line of uh construction standards and >> Got you. >> We're We're better off saying 50 ft here. >> Okay. Well, and and I'm just figuring if
somebody's going to put one in somebody's walking by and how far is it for you to be able to see, you know, a sign. So, um with that being said, uh looking at 100 ft
and we're 50. I just don't want to be under this, you know, we're 40 ft right now with our with the beach concessions. That's only 10 more feet, I think. Um Commissioner Maldonado showed us what 10 ft really is. Nothing.
Um in the scheme of things, right? >> I brought I brought it. >> Oh. So, um you know, so we're already used on that, 40. And now we've got the 50. I I I just to me thinking that that 50 ft should be a little bit greater
than that. >> So, your your 50 ft becoming 100 ft where we're basically just saying for safety reasons we need that extra space. >> Correct. >> Okay.
Because of people playing in that area or >> There >> Whatever. >> Right. I don't know that I'm on board with that. I think, you know, at some point if you if you want to say there's no signs, we should just say there's no signs. Like saying saying you can
>> We want we want to be careful saying no signs because freedom of expression >> Sure. >> and first amendment. Um >> But if But >> I I know that signs will be allowed off the beach, so that that is a defense there, but to say no signs anywhere on the beach would be hard much harder to
defend. >> If they have to be 100 ft back, I mean, you might as well, you know, like at some at some point it gets silly, you know, like >> And then the festival, I'm not sure there's 100 ft. >> This the signs have to be 100 ft back. Let's make them 3 in by 3 in and they have to have a bush in front of them, you know, like if if you're going to say
we don't want there to be signs, we should just say we don't want there to be signs instead of making them um you know, untenable. You you know, it gets it gets silly. >> I I think we're going to end up with uh common use
of that sandy beach coming up soon. And sticking with what's going to keep people from getting injured right now is the primary focus. So, that to me that feels like no post fixed into the ground on the
beach, period. So, that that means the safety zone and then it means in the sandy beach temporary signs if if sign if people are using signs. But, we're not saying use signs. We're We're just not going to
talk about that. We're just going to say no permanent signs on the sandy beach. >> What this one says is it must be a portable A-frame sandwich sign. >> Okay. Yeah, I mean >> That's a little bit different than the the terminology of temporary or permanent. Those are defined elsewhere
in the sign code. >> I I like what we have here. >> So, I'm sorry. Uh City Attorney, you're saying if there's a sign, it must be a portable sign. If it will be on the beach, is that what you're alluding to? With this change? >> With the ordinance that's in front of
you, um from 0 to 50 ft, uh no sign stake, post, rebar, or pole. Um from 50 ft to the dune, uh you can have signs, but they must be portable A-frame [clears throat] or sandwich board signs.
>> Okay. I didn't mean to interrupt you, sir. Please. >> And the difference that temporary signs are defined in the code is a period of time. Uh say before and after an election. Those That's how they're defined there. It's It's different.
Portable would be the word versus permanent or or placed within the ground. But I just want to make sure that as soon as you attorney talked about the um not somehow impacting or prohibiting freedom
of speech. So, as it stands right now in the land development code, all legal businesses in St. Pete Beach are allowed one sandwich board sign subject to the dimensional requirements in the LDC. It must be at the entrance to the business and only displayed while the
business is open. >> Street side, I think is >> Street side, correct? >> That's street side, yeah. >> So, if we had nothing on the beach, we have the street side, do we cover that requirement? >> I think so. The court would look at it. They'd They'd look for a rational um
basis that it's a reasonably tailored to address your concerns. So, I think we've reasonably tailored this ordinance to address the public safety environment uh aesthetic concerns that are out there. >> Can I ask you uh another set of uh maybe the question for you, city attorney,
please? Um and I'll ask you just very succinctly. Without this ordinance, without what we're preparing today, and assuming the emergency expires in 4 days, is there any way that we stop those signs uh from being on the beach under our
current, you know, existing exception of the emergency? If that goes away, is there any way to stop these signs? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Commissioner Marriott City Attorney uh City Manager Yes, City Manager, please. Thank you. Thank you. >> [laughter] >> Um Um, Commissioner Marriott raised an
interesting question, which is not every property owns down to the mean high water line. I assume some own down to the dune line, and you already can't have signs presumably in the dunes, so I would love to understand, and I don't I don't I'm asking what the what the what the work would be to understand what the true impact of of
how many properties in our city go down to the mean high water line that theoretically would be a concern here. Um, because if it turns out that there's six properties, I'm not so sure that's still good. It's just a lot more
comforting to Commissioner Marriott's point than than every property. And so, I I'm wondering you know, what's our what's our effort to really understand and and understand what the impact is of of those properties that have the right to challenge this
particular thing. I'm I'll I guess I'll ask you and city attorney at the same time. You know, if we put this in place and people own down to the to the dune line anyways, and so that's they like they wouldn't have a legal challenge against, you know, 50 ft of the
of the of the mean high water line anyways, cuz it's not applicable to them. And then how many how many instances of down to the mean high water line are there? And I don't know if you know offhand or or if you can tell us how we would ascertain that. >> Yeah, no and >> And I'm not saying for tonight. I'm just
asking what it would take to to get that so that we understood as we try and get this right the next time around that we understand really the impact on our beach to these discussions. >> We'd have to undertake that analysis. I don't know how many parcels there are on the beach. We could count the
parcels. We can't totally rely on the property appraisers GIS database lines. Um, they've adjusted some of them in their um, GIS software. Um, so we would have to do an analysis. There's also a complication with beachfront land.
There's avulsion, accretion, erosion. There's some additional judicial doctrines. Customary use doctrine is established by the courts and enforced by the judiciary and people do have those rights no matter what we do as they have asserted
them. They'll those are their rights and court will enforce those if they can prove them. Um there are ways that you can actually add if your property line says to the mean high water line or has to an area and
sand has accreted or eroded over time it can adjust those property boundaries. So it's a very complex analysis. We could do it on a case-by-case basis, but there would be hundreds of that we would have to do title searches for and
it would take take quite a quite a bit of effort. >> Okay, I don't I don't know that we need to solve it tonight. I'm I'm more thinking about I've heard it a few times. I don't know that anybody's in love with what we're about to put in place, but I think the >> I can check with Camden too. We may have some
data from at least partial beach renourishments or areas where we're trying to get beach renourishment in the past. So I can I can find out what we have with regard to surveys of property boundaries along along the beach. >> Okay.
Thank you. I I I just think that would be helpful going forward not for this evening. Just as a general thought going forward. What is the true impact to Commissioner Marriott's question really. So thank you. All right. >> Just one last thing on the cost of the permits, the $25 fee.
I don't think that that's sufficient to cover the administrative fees that you know the city should reasonably impose. Not to make money. We're not looking to make money. We're really just looking to recover documented time associated with the enforcement and city's efforts to
document this. So I do think that that's that's a throwaway. We think that we need a look at that if we're going to talk about some kind of sign that we need to uh to address that before we do anything else. >> We have sign uh
permit fee schedule that we can take up, but that would be separate from this. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. It's a good point. >> All right. Well, listen, I've heard a number of proposed amendments and I'm I'm sure it's not what I'm looking at in front of in front of us. It's typed out, so I'm trying to figure out where we
landed. I I you know, I heard things such as uh >> I think Mayor, I think there's one that legal would support and suggest that I'm on the same page with, which is to say 300 ft from any other sign on the same zoning lot. That way the neighbor can't
block your sign. Um so I I mean, I'm in favor of that additional one. Again, shall be placed at least 300 ft from any other sign on the same zoning lot. That's the distance separation between signs. You could do a different
number 100 or 200 or 300, but should be about the same zoning lot. >> But from here to right now, now two neighbors, two neighboring properties could put them literally your side by side theoretically, and then go 300 ft to the next one on the other side of them, and that's just Now, we've got
you know, I think we're trying to limit signs, not a lot. So, >> [laughter] >> I'm with you. I I'm trying to trying to find a solution. I I don't love any of this, to be frank with you, but uh So, while we're here, um So, I I really would like to understand what we think are I I know you just
mentioned that one. I don't know that I'm I think we're taking a second, third, another crack at this in the future either way. So, um I'm looking for I I think you started to suggest that that might be a more tenable solution between the two of uh
of as is or on the same zoning lot. I don't know if the commission has a preference or whether you would recommend us a preference um given that. >> I like on same zoning lot. I think that was the attempt. And then the other change would be to add rebar where it's missing. So, everywhere it says sign
stake post rebar or pole. And that is in three different locations in the beginning. Each time it mentions sign stake post or pole, it would say sign stake post rebar or pole. >> I'd like to add the word cone to that as
well. >> Is there a Is there a way Let me ask you this. Rather than enumerating everything that that we Is there a way to say it? Is there a the reverse of that, which is, you know, it must Uh, you know, we're sitting here saying no sign >> Yeah, I don't recommend I don't recommend cone from a legal perspective.
>> Okay. >> It's It's much harder to defend on the public safety issues. >> What about marker? >> Marker I don't recommend either. Prohibiting markers Markers is a way that they can mark their property line. And if it's on flat on the ground, it's
not interfering with anything. You know, I'm thinking that it's likely this ordinance may get challenged, so I want our ordinance to be defensible. >> Okay. >> And I'm thinking the lines two and three on exhibit A there, where we you've added and on this line
two and more landward at any time on line three. And with those three changes in the rebar and then the nothing in the sign code shall supersede, negate, or infringe upon Florida's customary use doctrine being that third change you mentioned.
>> the most critical piece, right? We I I think we've all stated very clearly we're not trying to overturn customary use with what we're doing. We're trying to not fall back on something that's even more untenable than where we're sitting today. >> And I really don't think we are infringing at in any way here because we're not allowing anything.
>> Yeah. >> Okay, so it's and the more landward at any time, those two are bolded. The addition of the rebar where it's missing in the free sections. The item number three on the same zoning lot. >> Mhm.
>> And the last but not least the nothing in this sign code shall supersede negate or infringe upon Florida's customary use doctrine. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Did we agree on a number of signs? >> [snorts] >> Well, you said zero. I would agree with
that. >> [laughter] >> I went down to one. >> City attorney said no. >> I went down to one. >> I'm fine with one. >> [snorts] >> We said we can be restrictive and then if necessary adjust. >> Yeah. >> I like that argument.
Can you explain how the the your thoughts of how one sign might be used for for example for a property person who wants to um manage their beach property. I want to emphasize this again.
>> Again, it's content neutral so even if they were wanted to write on there uh stop the war. >> It's not about content. >> Then they could write they could write that on that one sign. So you feel like we're being too accommodating or too practical saying four is good.
>> I I think four sets us up for in fact whether we're relinquishing or not doing it by having less we're not implying that we're intending to take. So it leaves us in a neutral territory with one sign.
The ground the ground markers that the attorney talked about I do think that there's ways that properties can be marked in the sand without a sign. >> Yeah. If you do go to one you just need to consider that you would remove the distance
amendment because there would be no more than one sign. Well, it would be 300 from another sign on their property. >> change it back. Okay. >> be from uh cabana service or it could be from um you know, a beach uh concession.
>> I'm saying you get one literally on on your property. You get one. >> the beach concession signs are written in a different section of this. So, is that going to change that as well? >> So, alcohol cabana service areas are required by government. Uh so, it's a
government sign. Um There's one with the 40 ft. There's only one in the city right now. >> Section >> it's only applicable in one area. >> Section >> the Don CeSar the sandwich board within 40 ft for a
water sports. >> We've got the the 26.18. Um G and everything underneath it. But uh voter I'm >> Yeah, there's only there's only one that we know of.
>> I think we're Okay. I think we might be twisting ourselves up a little bit over number of signs when that's already controlled by the distance because there's I mean, I was [snorts] just looking at my map and I know the distance marker on Google Maps isn't perfect, but there's
hardly a beachfront property that's wider than 300 ft. So, that is the limit on the number of signs. So, I don't think we need to go too crazy trying to say we only want one sign or we only want two signs because if they have to be 300 ft apart, that's
self-limiting because of the size of the of the zoning parcels. >> I I want to say something about the practicality of the number of signs as it applies to the alcohol service areas. So, if we're going to make signage
temporary, then if we don't want to change the get into the policies regarding the alcohol service area at this point. Normally, they mark the four boundaries of the alcohol the designated service area with post in
a lot of cases. And if they're going to use a temporary sign, then they would be expecting to put a temporary sign at at the four corners of that service area where they're telling their guests, you have to stay in this area. Now, if I
could make it the way I would like it, I would just say the cabana itself is the service area in every case. And so, you wouldn't need any sign at all. And the alcohol would always stay at the cabana. So, that would be the designated area and I think it would eliminate the signs
completely if we did it that way. I would have no objections with getting rid of signs. But, um in this case, unless we're going to get into that specific use for signs that's currently used, then we might need to
That's more probably why we have four here. >> Yeah, we're trying to stay content neutral here and those other issues about alcohol service areas would be addressed in the beach behavior ordinance that we have continued for the moment. That will be coming back
>> to tell the people who are How are we going to impact the impact of what we're doing right now is what I'm concerned about. Because I would like us to have an enforceable thing. >> So, I'm not And you would stay with four. >> Right. That's what I'm getting at. And
we can we can change it later. But, right now with the current policies that we have for cabana service areas, then we either have to buy into changing that
now or else keeping the How do we designate a service area? >> Yeah, but that's one of the reasons why Stafford recommended four. >> Okay. >> It's easy to delineate a location. Sometimes you need to delineate a location.
>> Four at most, never closer than 300 ft apart. Is really what we're trying to convey, I think. You know, I'm I'm thinking of the really large resorts that have room for four. Most will not, right? It's kind of what I'm hearing. Most will will at best be allowed one.
Uh and then and then uh And then in the in the really really large wide resorts, I think we're talking uh you know, they could potentially 1,200 ft, potentially get four in there, right? Um I'm I see this is the last last question for me. Well, I keep saying that, but
then again, it's not. So, um Do we ne- Do we necessarily mean 30 300 ft uh up the coastline? Versus catty-corner towards the street kind of thing, and I can get two on there. Um Um what do we really mean when we're trying to convey this?
Cuz we didn't directionally say 300 ft. I And I know it's 300 ft from anything. So, theoretically, if I can go catty-corner across my lot and put it at 310 ft, but I'm going towards the street and towards the front, are we you know, we still Is this what we're trying to accomplish? >> We didn't make a distinction, but you
could. You could say 300 ft parallel to the shoreline, if you'd like. >> I thought it was from >> Depending on what you want. Right now, it's from any other sign. It's stronger. >> Any sign. >> From any sign, but his point is if the property
is 600 ft, they could have one in the front, then they go another one in the middle, and another one at the building. >> I don't understand that. >> about the signs that are 300 ft away from from the water.
>> All right, that's good good enough far enough. >> I'm fine with parallel from the water. That would work. If you want to do it that way. I I don't I how to it from going Keep it from going forward. I don't think we need to >> Or back. >> Yeah. >> What did we land, city attorney?
>> Do we see consensus on parallel to the water or no? >> I don't think so, do we? >> So, we have the four, we have uh the word and, and then more landward at any time, and the insertion of rebar, and the insertion of
um 300 ft from any other sign on the same zoning lot, then we have nothing in the sign code shall supersede, negate, or infringe upon Florida's customary use doctrine. Sounds like those are the ones that we have general consensus on. >> How many feet did you say?
>> We left it 300 ft. >> Thank you. >> So, we'd be seeking a motion for that, perhaps? >> I'll make a motion to adopt with modifications as just listed by our city attorney, ordinance number 2026-11.
>> Second. >> Commissioner Maldonado. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Marriott. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Robinson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cozzi. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Tate. >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> All right. Thank you. That was not fun,
but this is this is a All right. Uh let's see. Uh moving forward, uh action items, uh we have one action item on, which is our uh city manager's annual evaluation. Um I'm not sure if there's a staff report. I know we received a report. Uh I don't
know if there's any There's that you speaking. >> Yeah, I'll just give a quick verbal report. Um for uh the public's purposes, if you haven't read the entire packet this evening, my evaluation is included in that pack- packet as a public
document. Uh, the process included uh, 360 evaluation that had uh, staff members from all levels in the organization. A subset of those uh, asked to participate as well as the mayor and commission. Uh, the staff uh,
responses are anonymous and the mayor and commission are not for uh, Florida Sunshine Law purposes. Um, I'm happy to report overall, I believe the feedback was um, very good and um, I think uh,
I'm hearing from the organization that morale um, is continuing to uh, be good and move towards improvement. We've done a lot of uh, improvements in operational effectiveness and process improvements and documentation [clears throat]
and implementation of many new systems and policies to help the city run smoother and more efficiently. Also, um, appreciate all the feedback from the mayor and commission. Uh, and looking forward to taking that feedback
and putting it into implementation and reporting back to you on how we are making progress. I would just comment that uh, my my takeaways and I hear you loud and clear are um, infrastructure is very important uh, this year for this commission and
community as well as uh, community engagement continuing to uh, do outreach, uh, communicate and engage with our residents and hearing their concerns as well as uh, what they need in their own neighborhoods.
And then also just continuing to work with staff on staff development um, and and really process improvement and continuous improvement in the organization. So, um, want to say I've appreciated all my time um with each of you. Some it's been
longer than others, but um I'm I feel very honored to be serving this community and and all of you in my position as city manager. Um I did request a second amendment to my contract that you're considering
tonight as well. Um those uh provisions include a request for a 2-year extension of my term, which would make my total city contract uh be for a period of 5 years. I'm in the just now completing the second year of my contract.
Um the second is just to align uh future cost of living adjustments with the uh employees' regular cost of living adjustments that are um considered and approved or not during the budget process depending on the fiscal um state
of the city. And so I would just be receiving the same as the general employees. And then lastly, I'm asking for a limited post-election transition period, which in my words I'm calling a cooling-off period where if any newly elected or
appointed person um joins this team, that that gives me 90 days to uh work with the new uh appointed or elected official before any future employment decisions may be made um about my um serving you.
I did hear some feedback from uh Commissioner Robinson as well as Mayor Tate around some word clarification on uh section four on the amendment to make a change and um I asked the city attorney to
craft the language and essentially it'll be more clear that um this provision would only go into effect if the results of any city election, city commission appointment, or recall that results in any change in composition of the city commission is
what would trigger it. So, if you all are here um in March, which I hope you are, um that there this provision would not trigger because there's been no change to to the team. And that's the end of my report. I'm
happy to answer any questions or take any feedback. >> Mr. Mayor, yeah. >> Thank you. Um so, as I guess the only one still on the commission from when we hired Francis, >> [laughter] >> um I want to reiterate that I've said
multiple times to people that I'm sure when my time on the commission is done that I will firmly believe that probably the only good thing I really feel like I accomplished is hiring Francis because she's done tremendous things for the city and um I I'm so appreciative of of what
she's done to the city and the the calmness and the processes and the professionalism that um that we've gained along with her. Um and and I think that um something that that probably didn't really come out in her evaluation, but I think we all know
and I think is important for the public to know is that probably the hardest part of her job is training all of us. >> [laughter] >> And uh and I know when um when I first became a commissioner, um you know, it's
a it's a steep learning curve and there's a lot of things that you don't know about what your job is and how the city works. And having worked with a previous city manager versus working with Francis when she came on board, it is a night and day difference and and
her ability to coach all of us through the processes and what our job is and and how to best represent our constituents and be effective. And she's able to do that really well without um steering us any policy direction, right?
She's been able to do that in a in a really professional way so that we all can do our jobs well. Um and and still have the freedom to make the policy decisions we need to make. And so I I think that that's something that's really important that everybody be cognizant of. And so, um thank you so
much. I think you're doing a great job and I am I'm completely on board with uh with your proposed um contract changes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I um completely agree with Commissioner Marriott. Even though I've only been
here for a few months, I can tell that our city manager is very uh she's discerning and she's also capable. And very important for us, she understands customer service. And I have the impression that it's been
a work in progress to bring the city to a better place. I think she's been doing that. I see a lot of new people in the city. Uh it takes those new people time to get up to speed. So, but I think we have the
right people here that we can uh just be truly positively outrageous customer service for our city. And so, thank you, Frances. I think you're doing a great job on that. Yep. Um and I'm very pleased that you want to extend your contract. I'm happy
with the cola idea and the uh sounds like the post-election 90-day period is good as amended. >> Thank you. >> Make sure you turn your light off for me. Just Didn't want Didn't want to know if you had more thoughts. >> That's all good. [laughter] All good. >> All is good. Uh
Mr. Maldonado, please. >> He's still thinking. So, uh first of all, let me uh start by saying thank you. Uh thank you for adapting to a new commission. Uh when the elected officials are brought into the fold, it's not easy. I know that we
often seem that we're putting a lot on your plate and in turn on these city staffs plate. But, you've been an impact player. You've been able to as one of the commissioners said um push back when necessary, but with the strategic intent of the city's needs
before any particular district. I applaud you for bringing in talent. We talked about that. I think that you know you're steering the ship in the right direction. Uh you came in at a very turbulent and challenging time. I think that you've had time to recover as we have and get your balance
and get your feet on. I would say that I do like the strategic approach that you've uh started to instill with this commission when it comes to seeing the city as an enterprise vice individual districts. Uh and we need to all start to think uh like that.
I also enjoy your availability. I would say that 24/7 um Ms. Robison has been available. Uh unfortunately, a lot of times that comes on weekends and evenings. As a salary employee, it's taken for granted often. I often forget that. So,
mea culpa. I admit that I send emails at 3:00 a.m. I don't expect you to answer them. But, your sense of urgency um within manners that you can't control is appreciated. I do understand that St. Pete Beach, even though we're a small municipality
and city, that things don't happen at the pace that we would expect. Um not making excuses. I'm just saying that it's one thing that does cause consternation and frustration. You're able to push and leverage those to the extent
you can. But, as I started to say, you do push back at times and say it's not a high priority, even though it's important to the district. We have a prioritization uh system which I do rely on. And then lastly, I just want to say that
it has been a pleasure to work with someone who's not um often times challenged by the emotions of things. You remain very strategically neutral. And I do appreciate that. So, thank you. And I do agree with uh
your terms and the adjustments. >> Thank you, sir. Mr. Robinson. >> I just wanted to say thank you as well. Um it's been a pleasure working with you. I appreciate your calmness under under storm and non-storm. Um and being just very even killed on
stuff. Um I know we've uh there's some trying times. And uh appreciate your um your efforts and everything. Um and thank you for the improvement in the processes. Um do you feel that uh that's going
much smoother than we have been. So, it's it's nice to see. Again, thank you. And um I have no problems with ask. >> So, make sure to don't don't like step on anybody's uh anybody's time. So, um similar to Commissioner Calise, my my
time with you has been brief, but uh listen, I've been I've been very um impressed with the fact that you have a sense of community. We're not just a city of residents and a city of, you know, businesses and a city of whatever. We are community. I think you used the
term one island one once before and I I kind of appreciate that. Um we are a shared community. I I've seen um uh um an emphasis on teamwork uh from you as I've worked with you. I think um your leadership style impresses me and and uh and and aligns
with kind of how I think about how uh I've run businesses in the past. And I I will say, you know, I know that it's tough dealing with not only the commission's perspectives, the staff's perspectives, the community's perspectives. Uh and through it all I've seen you remain calm. It's not always easy.
Um each of us I'm sure has gotten some emails or something that uh or some communique that is that is difficult and and I know when you get involved, I can I can expect professionalism and calm at all times. And that is uh that is impressive. Um
and and necessary. So, thank you for that. Um I love your your thoughts on continuous improvement. Uh we can make to Commissioner Maldonado's uh comment that things may not happen as quickly as paces we'd all like, but as we continuously improve, we find
opportunities. We saw a little bit of it tonight. I don't think we got where we wanted to be, but we said, "Look, we'll get somewhere, take a step. We'll we'll we'll keep working on these things." And so, your spirit of continuous improvement is uh is inspirational. And uh and lastly, I just thank you. I thank you for helping me get up to speed. And
uh thank you for your leadership. And as others have has have conveyed, I echo I'm I'm happy to to approve these pieces. >> Thank you so much. >> So, uh with that,
is there a motion? >> Do What what is our official action? Approving the amendment? Is that >> Yes, the second amendment to the city manager agreement that's before you with the change. >> I'll make a motion to approve the second
amendment to the city manager's employment agreement with the change as was presented tonight. >> I'll second. >> Vice Mayor Marriott. Or I'm sorry, Commissioner Marriott. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Robinson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Cozzi.
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado. >> Yes. >> Mayor Tate. >> Yes. >> The motion carries. >> Okay, thank you. Uh next topic is items for discussion. I believe the only one I heard was hyperscale data centers from Commissioner Maldonado.
>> Yeah, I would uh thank you Mr. Aina. I would imagine that the mayor is actually an expert in this given his background. To me, it's a new era. Uh an arena is something that I've just stepped into, but something that I have been following um and it's starting to get a lot of attention, and I'm getting more and more
educated on it daily, but I just think that strategically, it's something that we should look at even though the possibility that one of these is going to land in our backyard overnight. Uh there certainly is a desire to bring these into
municipalities and to basically uh invade our our boundaries. So, let me let me start by saying uh you know, a little bit about uh what a hyperscale data center is. It's a massive, highly scalable computing facility designed to support robust cloud services and AI workloads.
What I'm talking about is a typically um something that houses over 5,000 servers and occupies more than 10,000 square feet. I did discuss this with our city attorney. What we don't want to do is somehow unintentionally impact the small businesses that rely on
small-scale data centers to operate. Uh what I would like to do and discuss is the possibility of adopting an ordinance to reject hyperscale data center development in St. Pete Beach to include its municipal boundaries,
which also include water. So, there's also an emerging um desire to bury these things underwater. It helps with the cooling. So, these things uh I mean, if you read about them, they require extraordinary amounts of electricity and millions of
gallons of water per day for cooling. So, it threatens the aquifers, especially during drought conditions, which we're currently under, and it destabilizes local power grids. So, in addition to a resolution uh
banning that hyperscale data centers in St. Pete Beach and its city's municipality boundaries, I would also like to propose that we create a resolution showing support for legislative action signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, specifically Senate Bill 484,
an AI data center regulation that protects ratepayers, preserves local authority, and the environment and local communities from harm harm caused by hyperscale data centers. Thank you. >> I don't know if there's uh comments or thoughts. I mean, I >> Is there Is there an appetite to adopt
such an ordinance? I guess is the question. >> Oh, I'm looking at others first, and then I'll I'll opine afterwards. Uh You win the race. >> Thank you. So, I don't um I'm certainly not opposed to that sort
of ordinance. I um It's possible I don't know enough about it to make this statement. It seems like this would be a very unlikely place for anyone to want to put one starting with the lack of anywhere that's that size,
um continuing on to the the danger of flooding and the the susceptibility to storms. um So, I I I don't feel like it's likely necessary
to have that kind of an ordinance. So, I sure wouldn't want to devote a lot of staff time to something as though we're in an emergency when I feel like it's pretty unlikely to happen regardless of any ordinance we might have. um but you know,
I'm not out there trying to get people to come here and build one, either, so, you know, whatever. >> Thank you. Mr. Robinson. >> I kind of second that. I mean, I it I it's unlikely to happen, but in the event it would it's not bad to to have
it out there. I don't perceive it as a high priority on anything with staff. Um but um you never know who's going to come knocking at the door. Although, I thought Pinellas County banned data centers. Was that correct or not?
>> Or unincorporated. >> Unincorporated, yeah. >> Only unincorporated. Incorporated cities are protected currently. >> Okay. Thank you. So, um yeah, I would be good with that. Again, not not a just not a high priority. >> Mr. Causse, sir.
>> Well, I wonder if a smaller scale data center might be nice for but I'm particularly interested in increased economic development here. Uh not at the cost of abnormally trading off our water supply
or increasing our electric rates. So, um a hyper-scale data center, I don't think fits this town very well for the reasons mentioned. But, I wouldn't want to rule out or discourage high-tech investment in the
area or corporate headquarters moving here or even the idea of a small-scale data center if there were such a thing as that. >> Um you know, my opinion, I certainly don't want to lose our local control to make these decisions. I think we've we found
that even in the last month or so, we've been able to quickly enact an emergency ordinance on signs per se which is you know, more of a clear and present issue if you will for me. So, you know, when I think about um what we focus our our time on and and what ordinances and
this is a general comment not specific to, you know, hyper-scale data centers. Um it's more general to me. I I think about all the things that we could do and and might do and a contemplate. Um you know, the the question is more
pervasively coming into my head every time I think about something that we're considering, is this a clear and present issue? You know, is it is it happening now? Is it in our midst? Is it Is it happening frequently enough that we need to somehow put an ordinance in?
And is it is it not already covered by some other ordinance? And I'm not suggesting that Hyperscale Data Centers is covered by some other ordinance. I'm more speaking along the lines of any change we we enact um, should should be something that we are not already covered by under some
other ordinance, right? I asked I asked the city attorney earlier, you know, uh, are we already covered by some other ordinance on these signs? And his essentially his answer was no, right? We we we've got to do something to to stop that, right? And so for me, I'm thinking about let's make sure it's an issue that is
that is prevalent or or or persistent um, or imminent uh, that is not covered by another ordinance that we have and um, and is and is worthy of our investment. And I'm not suggesting Commissioner Moulton that I I I can assure you we probably don't have anything that would
per se stop this other than what might be at the county or the state or some other level, but I don't know to to the other commissioner's comments that it's that it's worth the investment right now, personally. >> So I I I would just say that I I hear you and that these are all great uh,
discussion points and that's why I wanted to bring it up. It's not a 5-m target as what we would consider very strategic 100-m target. I will tell you that my concern is that because Pinellas County has already protected most of its unincorporated municipalities,
that those interested in building these infrastructures will start to look elsewhere. We do have parcels of land that can be used in St. Pete Beach and that there is likely going to be at some point uh, a reduction of size and
requirements. Think of this as a USB of 20, 25 years ago or your cell phone when it was, you know, a computer the size of this building, you know, so it's a very long-term, very strategic thing that I need that I I think that we do need to at least consider it. Uh my
question to the city attorney would be how much of a heavy lift this would be. Is this something symbolic and in a uh very short, you know, ordinance that we declare our intention and a resolution again some showing support to the governor for taking the first
initial steps. Uh I don't want to put a burden. We just talked about this during the city manager's feedback of being the um the idea fairies, coming up with things just because it is something that is starting to hit my
algorithms now and I think that it's going to start to hit yours and anyone listening just cuz we said hyper data, data centers multiple times. So, city attorney, if you have just a uh a quick comment, uh maybe just to wrap up on your position, how much effort
and how much uh of a distraction would this be, sir? >> Oh, well, the consensus is to um research it, we would research it and bring something back to you. I can't tell you just from preliminary research there are many kinds of data centers and some of them cover racks of servers.
You might have um 500 to 2,000 servers within an area of 5,000 to 20,000 square feet. So, your Publix is say 50,000 square feet. So, in a regular storefront, you could have a data center that has racks of servers that would could fall under the
definition and might be actually something we would want to promote or may not want to promote in the city. So, we'd have to take a look at that and then the hyperscale ones um there's midsize midsize data centers that go from 20,000 to 100,000 square feet
where the hyperscale AI campuses go hundreds of acres. And then many of the interior counties are addressing moratoriums and uh looking at what kinds of zoning criteria they want to have. Um some places want to encourage them
some and bring them there other places want to prohibit and ban them. Um so we'd have to take a look at uh all the different ranges of sizes and ranges of all opportunities and alternatives for you to look at. So we spend as little or as much time on
this as as you want it. >> Minimal and all effort but uh certainly something that you know we and I do agree with uh District 3's position that we don't want to discourage economic development. If one of these were to come to be I would say
let's put it in District 3. >> [laughter] >> Happy to accommodate you sir but uh Yeah that's a perfect place. >> [laughter] >> Uh uh just again I I do know that there there are various sizes and scales uh to
Attorney Brooks' point we don't want to have unintended consequences but I I would like to have at least uh a look to some initial information. No hurry to the finish line. We put it out there. I hope that no one hears this and
puts a permit in tomorrow. As there is like I said some suitable areas that could be converted but um Thank you. >> Yeah I think that's what I worry about is we we speak it into existence right and so now someone's going to come just challenge it so as I'm I'm not opposed
to it I just uh I'm minimal investment I think as you alluded to um is is maybe prudent but I wouldn't go too far with it personally. I I don't think it's uh something I would want to look back and go God I wish we could have spent that time and money elsewhere. >> Yeah.
>> So the second part of that was a a resolution. Uh I think that that might be a quick turn Uh and burn just to acknowledge the governor's work on this. As far I think that it would serve our interest and show support.
And that should not be a a heavy lifted at all. So >> Yeah, the process for that would we would work with our state lobbyist to make sure we're aligned with the bill and the governor and then bring it to you typically on consent and these are pretty
boilerplate. So that that's an easy one. If it's just a show of support. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm not opposed to that unless it causes you concern with your way of business or potential a data center in your backyard. >> [laughter] >> I think we could change our minds on that if we needed to.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> So I think that's a something possibly might want to take that one forward then. >> Sounds good, sir. >> Um okay, that was was quite interesting. Thank you. Um All right. Um Reports uh city clerk, please.
>> I have nothing to report this evening. >> Thank you. City manager. >> Thank you, Mayor. I just have a quick update on Publix. Um staff discussed next steps for the Publix redevelopment with representation for its shopping center owner the week of June 14th. As a large commercial
development redevelopment on the Dolphin Village property where Publix is located is subject to additional public input and can be subject to additional public hearings than smaller single-use commercial development projects. Regardless of the form the redevelopment
takes, a public community community meeting hosted by the development applicant is required prior to submission of a site plan to the city. If the redevelopment is the same or less square footage than the former grocery store and the redeveloped building is elevated
only high enough to remove its first floor from the flood plane. The project does not require additional public hearings and is permitted to proceed to site and building permitting after the community meeting. The reason this is important is if they
decide to build in the same footprint within the height limitations, it would not require a hearing in front of the commission. Um if the building is proposed to be redeveloped larger in square footage or taller than a minimumly compliant elevation
would permit a new conditional use permit with public hearing before the city commission would be required. Both forms of the project will require compliance with building, fire, design, parking, and landscaping requirements applicable based on the building and
project site. The owner of the shopping center has not committed to next steps or a specific development proposal for the grocery store and staff will share additional details once we know. >> Thank you. That's quite interesting.
Uh city attorney. >> Nothing this evening. >> Thank you. Uh Commissioner Maldonado. >> Yeah, I'd like to thank the Vina Del Mar Island Association for decorating the bridge onto Vina. It looks wonderful. Thank you for your efforts.
>> Uh Commissioner Causey. >> Um I would like to say that for the next 3 weeks again, I think we need to think about the beach and everyone should focus on that. I have put a blog online that you can find. You can always email me and I'll
send you a link to it. It's just my current thoughts and I'm taking feedback from everyone that wants to communicate with me. Probably except for you guys on the commission. >> [laughter] >> Absolutely except for us guys on the commission, right? Yeah. >> free to read it.
>> Our city clerk would say absolutely with with with the of the of those of us on the commission. I'm not quite sure she would say that. Yeah. >> So, um I think we're going the right track with the safety side of things tonight. And the um
I want to say that I'm continuing my weekly neighborhood visits. They're And I am changing my schedule. I From now on, I'm going to try doing uh the meeting uh that I go to in each neighborhood on the same day of the week. So, in other words, I'm going to
do um the three neighborhoods that I normally visit on Mondays. So, you can check again on the website that I have for the exact times, but I'll try to be consistent with that and um I'll be in your park on Mondays.
That's all I've got. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> I have my library hours. Uh they are July 8th. That's a Wednesday. I'm been trying to do Mondays, but the Monday was not available. Um so, it's the It'll be the first Wednesday.
Um from 5:00 to 5:45 at the library. And look forward to seeing everybody there. Thank you. >> Thank you. Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you. Um so, I just want to uh thank the um community development and the building department. I've anecdotally heard from a number of
people in my neighborhood that um all kinds of parts of the building permitting process seems to be going better for people. Um we've all of a sudden have several houses in District 1 that are 12 ft off the ground, and we have new construction
starting on almost every block, and more houses have been torn down, which is sad to see, but also hopeful cuz it means things are being rebuilt, and uh more people are in the neighborhood, and so good things are happening. Um I want to remind everybody that the Sunday market is still happening. Um and even though
it's hot, if you get there early, there's still fantastic things to get, and the produce stand is amazing, and the beach theater is open, and lots of really good things are happening in our community, and it's really thriving, and it's a beautiful place, and we're all
happy we live here. So, um, thank you guys for helping make it that way. >> Thank you. That was very nice. Um, yeah, it for closing from my perspective, listen, these are hard things that we deal with on an ongoing basis. I know there's
lots of passion on on, I'd say, both sides, but there's probably multiple sides to each thing that we actually come across, and different perspectives, and I I just wanted to, um, thank the entire community. You know, we're we're trying to solve difficult problems that are real,
and, uh, and these aren't, uh, these aren't easy discussions, and I know that there's a lot of effort from, uh, from the commission, the community, uh, as at large on these topics. So, I just want to acknowledge that and say thank you, and and the city staff, and the city manager and her team, there's a lot of work that goes into these things.
So, thank you, number one. Um, from a community perspective, I echo Commissioner Marriott's, uh, you know, uh, sentiments. I think I see some good community kind of spirit going on. I, you know, we're getting, uh, we're getting closer to the 4th of July
celebration, but as was, uh, as was noted earlier, it's not just a 4th of July thing. This is the, uh, let me see if I can get this right. This is our country's semi- quincentennial? No, semi- bicentennial? I'm not quite sure. Um, semi-quincentennial, I think is is the
right phrase, but, uh, I could be wrong. But, I've seen I've seen decorations going up all over the city, you know, as I drive around, I see them hanging off the dawn, I see them hanging off the Vina, I see them, you know, hanging up on the poles and and entrance to Bell Vista, where I live, and I see just lots of, uh, really good community engagement.
Um, I I was just double-checking my calendar, and, uh, and we will not be meeting as a commission until after the 4th of July festivities, which is between now and then. Um I went on record last time that saying I will be sitting in a dunk tank
if anybody dislikes my decisions this evening or my input. I I hope my fellow commissioners will join me in that in that spirit as well. >> I was planning to be throwing. >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> I throw back, so it's all good. Yeah. Yeah. So anyways, I I just wanted to I I
invite everybody to come out and enjoy our festivities, not just you know, for July 4th, but ongoing. I I like the community spirit that I'm seeing a lot of these things, so let's keep that going. So thank you. Uh with that, there being no further business, we are adjourned.