To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Clerk, will you take a role, please? >> I will.
>> Member Thompson >> here. >> Vice Chair Kurszman >> here. Member Looney >> here. >> Member Rothenberger >> here. >> Chair Stevens >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Great. >> Moving right along. We're due to go to item number one on presentation, the
beach activity report. >> Okay. Again, uh this I'm taking over for Camden. Brian Pekkins, assistant director of public services. I'm happy to be here and willing to support in any way that I can. Ju just a few notes. uh
weddings uh nine in July, eight in August, and 13 in September. Uh a series of public meetings. I'm not going to read all of those. Special events. In July, there was a
a couple of volleyball tournaments and a and a and a concert. In August, another concert and another volleyball tournament. September, a volleyball tournament, concert, a surfing event, and a trade winds event on Keep Penellis
beautiful cleanup front. Uh, seven events, 112 volunteers, 236 volunteer hours, and two 211 pounds of trash removed from the beach. Uh, the Penllis County Sheriff violations
in July, one citation, 96 verbal warnings. In August, three citations, 75 verbal warnings, and in September, no citations, but 76 verbal warnings. So, that's a brief summary of the of the beach activities. Uh, any questions?
>> Yeah, I have I have a couple of questions and comments. First off, the Thank you very much. Welcome aboard. Um, weddings very useful. Good to know the kind of revenue that's coming in, the kind of activity that's coming in. public meetings. I I don't know that we I don't understand the significance of
these meetings versus other public meetings. Uh I don't think we need to I mean this is on our this is >> Yeah. >> The schedule of meetings is on the website. So a history of meetings. I don't unless you were attending or something. Is that the significance? >> No. No. Okay. >> Yeah. I I I have no
>> I I think that >> I think for public meetings that's not really as important special events. Here we are mid November and these special events end in September. I'd be much more interested to know the events that are going on for instance of the quarter we're in. Not just look a look back.
>> Yeah. >> But also a little bit of a look forward, especially looking forward because that's where we might have something to say. Um so >> good points. >> Uh and and then uh keep penelis beautiful. Terrific. uh Penelis County
Sheriff's Office in the past, I don't know if it's this document or a different document, we normally see not just the number of verbal warnings to some patients, but it's a grid that shows the type of activity it was. Um sometimes it would be a little confusing because they'd include things that
didn't happen on the beach. Nice to know. Um but the main focus being the the type of violation was the dogs. Do we have a dog problem? Do we have a littering problem? You know, what what other things are going on? Yeah, good comments and and we can try to incorporate that for the next meeting. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Any other >> So he I had two comments. One he picked up is we usually get the details of the Penelis report >> and then in that um could you ask them
if there was any trespass on the beach that th those are included in that report? Okay, we'll do. Thank you. >> If I go over a dune, >> there we go. >> Actually, well, trespassing was something else where a private property owner was saying, "Hey, you're on my property. Get off." That's what I meant
by trespass. A dune violation of someone in this too. >> That's that I remember seeing that at least once in the past. They usually do that >> as a separate as a separate line. >> Good call. >> Okay.
Um All right. Uh we'll move forward to um approval of the agenda. Is there any um comments or additions for the agenda? >> I I have one. Um,
I read in the in the mayor's uh newsletter or the city's newsletter that there was a meeting on August, I'm sorry, November 13th about one of the uh issues on the beach with signage being placed out there and the beach being
called private. Um, I'd like to e either either about that issue in particular or at least now that the city attorney has more update on what might have been because this meeting was supposedly to get an idea of what's on the mind of the
the the property owner, I think it would be helpful for us to understand the concerns uh that came out of that meeting or other ways before we even discuss our ordinance right after that. So I'm asked my suggestion is to insert before our review of the two ordinances
to understand a little more about what the private property owners uh are after or what we think that they rights are not are so that we can make sure we're including the appropriate things in our in our ordinance. >> City attorney are you >> uh we can do that. We can make it number
uh C or letter C I guess for between D and C. We can move it to 4 B and C. >> I don't know that we have to add anything. I can just uh talk about it after the meeting dates and before the ordinance.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other items for the agenda? Can I have a motion to approve the modified agenda? >> Move to approve the modified agenda. >> I second it. >> Roll call. Vice Chairman. >> Yes.
>> Member Looney. >> Yes. >> Member Rothenberger. >> Yes. >> Member Thompson. >> Yes. >> Chair Stevens. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. Uh we'll go to the first action item is
the approval of the minutes of our last three meetings, August 20th, September 16th, and October 23rd. Any comments? >> One at a time. audience comments. >> Oh, I cut right ahead, didn't I?
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh, any general audience comments? >> Please state your name for the record. And >> my name is Christopher Hollands and uh I live down in Pasigrow on the Castle Hotel.
>> Welcome. Hi. And uh I normally get up uh and talk about history stuff and about private property rights, but I think you guys are going to run into some of that coming up here pretty soon. And good luck with that because I mean after 100
years or so. Uh but that'll bring me to some of the wisdom of uh Warren Webster. You can't get into any of this stuff of your dunes without the generosity and the wisdom of him transferring a private ownership
deed to the town of Pasigril back in the day which was the law and statutory law. And I think that those issues of those of those days will come before you.
Okay. Or or somebody legally. Good luck with that. I'm here to help. I got a lot of history and knowledge which uh kind of uh I was going to come and talk about some technical stuff but
about uh shaping the dunes and about a potential weir or out here. Uh but the uh the property rights is going to come forward. And the second issue, it came across my computer this morning.
The uh in a federal courts of appeal up in the panhandle, okay? And you guys are familiar with all the stuff that goes up in Walton County and blah blah blah blah. Um they they have decided that closing the
beach for three months in a federal appeals court uh was a taking and uh you know there's some technicalities of who owned the beach and what parts of the beach and their condo association
but it it just seems to me like it I mean it may have been yesterday or recently and then also So, we'll uh start to shape some stuff coming forward. I'd like to thank you for your work and your time. Thank you guys.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Any other comments? I apologize for missing that. I was going right to action items. If everyone's okay, we'll move to action items.
approval of the minutes of August 20th, September 16th, and October 23rd, 2025. Um, any comments on any of those? >> I have a comment on August 20th. >> Okay. Um, on page 12 of 99, there was
mention of using customary use as a shield and I found it confusing. So, I watched the video again and I read the transcript and actually I would suggest that it should say use the shield for a trespass case because it was unclear who
was trying to use the shield as a shield. You know, sometimes it's a shield. The whole point was sometimes you have a shield and sometimes it's a sword. And where it said where the attorney mentioned that it was uh could be his shield, he also had the context
shield in a trespass case. >> It's because there's other times when it would be a sword or a shield for the other side. So this is a scenario. I would just add the words in a trespass case after the word shield to clarify. That's fine.
Okay. Any other comments from members? Um, I'd like to say as I read through them that compliment the clerk, it there was a lot of content in those three meetings
>> and uh you guys did a fantastic job in summarizing those. Uh they were well done. Uh, can I have a motion to approve the modified minute of August as well as
the September and October meeting? >> I move to do them one at a time and I have to discuss August 20th first. >> Oh, you had comments on all three? >> Well, no, because I can't vote on the other two. >> I was I have to abstain. I wasn't even here.
>> No, you can vote. You can have to vote. >> Okay. >> You have to vote. We've had this in We've done this before. I know. >> I fell into that trap early on. >> We've we've >> Yeah. >> Yes. We've we've >> You can only abstain if it if something in yours to your special private gain or
loss if it's has a monetary impact on you that the Florida statutes require you because you're on a board or elected advisory board that you have to vote on every other item. >> But I I >> there's no abstaining even though if you're not there. So >> I didn't read
>> you could vote last and see if everyone else has any questions. I think you made a motion about >> I watched the videos and read the transcripts. I actually didn't read the minutes of those other two. >> That wasn't gerine to what I was doing. So uh okay. So I'm not prepared to vote on those. >> Didn't get a chance. It doesn't matter.
You got to vote yes or no or skin it real quick or >> uh >> unfortunately you have to vote one way or the other. You can vote no. That's okay. >> Okay. All right. That's fine then. Thank you. Sometimes an explanation of why you're voting though could include I wasn't
there again. See this didn't have time. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Why don't we do this? Um I'm going to amend my request. Can we have a motion to approve the modified August 20th 20th 2025 meeting.
>> Motion to uh approve the minutes of the August 20 2025 meeting >> as modified. >> As modified. Thank you. I second that motion. >> Roll call. >> Member Looney. >> Yes. >> Member Rothenberger. >> Yes. >> Member Thompson? >> Yes.
>> Vice Chair Kursman? >> Yes. >> Chair Stevens? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Now I'm going to group the other two together. And that gives you however you would like to handle that. >> Can I have a motion to approve the September 16th and October 23rd of 2025
uh meeting minutes? I make a motion to approve the September 16th and the October 23rd meeting minutes. Do >> second. >> Roll call. >> Member Rothenberger? >> Yes. >> Member Thompson? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Kurszman?
>> No, because I relied on the video and transcript rather than reading that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Member Looney, >> yes. >> Chair Stevens, >> yes. >> Motion carries. Next is the review and approval of the 2026 meeting
dates. >> Oh yeah. >> Does anybody have uh a comment? >> February date is Didn't print it. Was it the eight? It's the 18th and just to
pref as I did this year, I asked or I did last year, I asked us to move it later one week to February 20. I'm I'm going to respectfully request we move it from February 18th to February 25th if that works for everyone.
>> Yes, I think that works. Yeah. >> Yeah. 18th is rash Wednesday also. >> Yeah. >> Is that everyone? >> February February >> 25th. 25th. Thank you. >> 25th. >> Do we need a motion in a
>> Did they check about availability? >> Yes, we do need a motion and a second. >> Can I have a motion to approve the modified beach stewardship committee notice of meetings? >> Uh, I'll make a motion to approve the modified beach stewardship committee meeting schedule. >> Second.
>> Roll call. >> Member Thompson? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Kursman? Yes. >> Member Looney. >> Yes. >> Member Rothenberger. >> Yes. >> Chair Stevens. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Great. >> So, um, as we discussed, we're going to,
um, do the discussion of the matter of, uh, beach signs posted on the beach. city attorney. >> As you may have seen, um there are some
signs at the undertoe. Um there's three signs on the north end of the property and three signs on the south side of the property located in Sandy Beach. One of the signs uh on occasion is underwater
within the wet sand and sometimes underwater. Um, we have held meetings with the owner and the owner's attorney. Um, and the sheriff's department. Um, most recently,
uh, we had a meeting with the with this group, including, I think it was five or six deputy sheriffs, uh, who patrol this part of the beach. I think the desire for the signs by this particular property owner arose,
um, and granted be aware these are the only such signs in place in St. Pete Beach along the beach, at least in in my term here. Um the owner and his wife called the
sheriffs to trespass someone who was on their property uh on the beach side um that had become unruly. And the sheriff's um came out. Um there's a little bit of um dispute about
what happened. Um they were not trespassed. Um but I believe they were asked to leave and I believe they did leave. Um but that led to the undertoe calling their attorneys. Um their attorneys saying that they need to post
their property in order to enforce trespass. There's a Florida statute about trespass and posting properties that are large properties. Say you might see them when you go out driving across the state and you see these big properties where people hunt. It said no
hunting, no bitching, no trespassing. Um the owner was under the impression that the sheriff would only trespass someone if signs were posted at four all four corners of the property. Um the sheriff said that their current
policy is not to require signs at all four corners of the property in order to trespass someone. Um that they would make a judgment call. Um in this particular area of the beach
um the sheriff asserted that there were not that many public beachgoers. Most of the beachgoers were from adjoining properties. Um the property owner asserted that there is a beach access point that people get dropped off at and then walk
to the beach and spread out. Um, I think the main concern from the property owner were people um who would come and set up uh tents, beach tents with the four posts and then
the uh overhang awning and set up uh set up camp there on their private property. uh with more than just walking, more than just sitting on the beach or sitting on a towel, but establishing
uh picnic under umbrellas, under tents, that kind of thing. Um after prolonged discussions, um the uh sheriff said that they did not have
to have a sign in the corner at the Mhigh water line. um that they could triangulate down the property um to see where the approximate property lines were and that if it was a close call, they wouldn't trespass someone.
But if it appeared that they were in the middle, they they could trespass someone and that there is a way to register your property with the sheriff's department to have the sheriff's uh trespass people um to give owner authorization for them.
Um the sheriff's did ask that they call if someone um is unruly or they desire to trespass someone to call the sheriff and they would go out there and promise to be uh timely in their response and
that they would first ask people um if they're clearly in the private property area of dry sand further up by the dunes that to to move north or south back to where their units were or to the public beach if there from the public.
It seemed uh well, we also uh inquired as to what the property owners um uh parameters were and uh property owners seemed clear that he was not opposed to
people walking the beach, walking up and down, walking not up and down, I guess I should say, um parallel to the mean high water line. um and walking in what would traditionally be the customary use doctrine area where people always
walked. He seemed he was not opposed to people sitting down on the beach um bathing or sunbathing in the area that's closer to the to the water. Um
but still possibly in dry sand as long as they were not setting up camp or bringing coolers. Uh the owner was very concerned that pe he had found people were bringing coolers to the beach with alcohol in the cooler and he did not
want to endanger his alcohol >> uh license. >> There was some discussion about u whether the undertoe had where the undertoe's area was for cabana alcohol sales if they had such authority
or not or permits. Um, and there was some discussion about what some ordinances apparently happened after COVID is what the owner alleged. Um, I haven't had a chance to talk to Brandon about the status of their actual permits. Um, but they were concerned
about people bringing alcohol illegally onto their property. Um, people who become unruly. Um, also, um, again, people setting up camp, uh, with more than just walking
the beach and sitting on a towel or, uh, um, doing those type of activities, but actually um, setting up tents and things like I mentioned. So, um I guess the upshot of it was is we came to u
a potential at least temporary solution asking the owners to remove the two signs that were in the mean high water uh line area. um with the idea that the sheriff said
that they could look at the other two signs and visually triangulate the rest of the line. They didn't need to have a sign down at the at the water. Um the concern is we didn't want signs and water to proliferate um because of public safety issues but
also aesthetics. Um, the D has said that the single metal post is exempt from their permitting and they were powerless to do anything and they said it would rely on a local sign
ordinance for the local government to enforce. Um so with the pilot program if the owner the owner's been contacted but has not responded back
uh subsequently to my knowledge. I think they just sent a request out um Friday um as to whether they wanted to proceed with the pilot program. The pilot program would be that they take out these two signs and that the sheriffs um
are available for calls for trespass and they would go to the property if a press trespass request was made and they would examine the facts and circumstances of each individual uh trespass request. Um the
property owner asked for a more blanket sheriff's policy and they said no they can't do that because of prosecutotorial discretion because of the very many types and myriad of things that could arise. Um there's no oneizefits-all.
So the pilot program is to take out the signs and see if the enforcement with the sheriff's uh for the private property rights side of it is can work. Um, if that uh works, that would remove the two signs that are closest to the water. Um, the city's still looking at
potential uh sign ordinance revisions. Um, things u under consideration are prohibiting all signs uh within x number of feet um from the mean high water line. And
that should um encompass areas where the public walks parallel with with the uh wet sand. Even in the dry sand by walking in that area, we want to make sure that there is a public access through there. Um close to the wet sand
area, you can see um where the sheriff's vehicles drive and the tracks that are are there. Um so it does appear that has it is used for that purpose too. Um and which the owner doesn't object to. Um so we're trying to reach um a reasonable
approach to removing those signs. >> Can I just ask did you say that they're trying to define a number of feet from the wet sand for that particular >> that's one potential idea um that the city attorney's office is looking at. There may be other potential generations
>> because that's that's what got the Walton war started when they try to as I understand it say hey this many feet is going to be for the public and then everybody went oh my god no >> the distinction there and what you want to be careful of with the Walton case
is uh they said in that ordinance it was about not about signs it was about saying the public can walk here. >> Exactly. That number is >> this would not say the public can walk here. This would just say this like any other sign ordinance. Here's here's construction and location and materials
that you put your signs on. Sign ordinances have to be content neutral. >> Um they're only addressing signs and they're not addressing public access. >> So I heard a couple things here um that might help us for for later today. One
is it this case reminded me or not this case because it's not a case this situation uh reminded me that we originally in this draft of the of the ordinance the beach ordinance had signage warning. Then there was then it was removed because it was we were told
that it would be in the actual sign ordinance that was being worked on. Um but what's happened since then is I read the sign ordinance. First off, I did see some interesting things. But one of the things I think it doesn't reflect and it was maybe a mistake or maybe it's old when I wasn't even there. The entire
beach is in what the city calls the P zone, the preservation zone. Um, and yet the sign ordinance talks about signs on the beach. In fact, the only signs on the beach that are allowed was in the resort zone. And but they say, "But even
there, you don't put it on the beach. you put them on your hard land and then it says, "But remove them from the beach each night." Um, which I don't understand what that meant, but none of it none of it really lines up because since 2008 or so, it's been a
preservation zone. So, there are no there's no beach in any of our zones other than the preservation zone. Um, the other thing is post to trespass um or the reason to trespass that comes up a lot. Um, and we could really be
helping our citizens and our our private property owners if we could do help guide people a little better. For instance, I view it as etiquette that if a business is selling food,
don't have a picnic on their on their property um or in front of their restaurant, you know, and if they're selling, you know, drinks, don't ostensibly bring a cooler. Um, and
you know, I'll talk later about this whole concept of private versus public, but you know, if if someone has a business, they have they have a license for that business. And if we could help guide the the public to not be obnoxious
and you know you're rubbing in the face of someone who's just staying in a hotel and and you're going to wheel out a chair or or pay a company to deliver a chair and and you know some of that we're preventing now um because they're in the business. They they got their BTR
to have chairs. So you know don't make their guests feel bad. So, the rules of when you could trespass someone, >> you know, for doing these bad behaviors, I think would be helpful. Um, >> that's one thing that the owner um asked for in the negotiations, too.
>> Better guidance to the public that some areas of the beach are public or private, maybe at the public beach access areas. Um, be mindful of private property, something to that effect. >> And actually, just remind me the other thing I think is really important is you mentioned customary use.
and and and they mentioned in in in some of their public documents that because the mean high water line is a 19-year average, they were asserting that the 19-year average is out in the water. So I went and looked at ArcJess and some
other historical doc uh maps and documents and in general except for like Uppam and Passagril I I did observe that our beach has gotten smaller over the years and so if one takes the 19 year
old 19-year average and puts a a post in the sand it's g it moves. But then I said, "Ah, but that's only one of the rights. The the mean high water line out, you know, over that 19-year period is, you know, a sovereign land with the
state." Um, the separate issue is customary use. And customary use is no one, I guarantee, before they went out looked at the Arctis maps or determined where that high water line was when they were walking over the dry sand or even
the wet sand. So customary use is relative rather than absolute. Customary use has been that people have always walked along where they observe the that we're the high water line to be and believe that to be the sovereign and
customary use has been I believe people walking on the beginning parts of the dry sand or actually sitting on the dry parts of the dry sand. Um, but again, I think there's always been objection and they haven't been open and notorious. Um, I think there's always been
objection to people who were then, you know, doing the very thing that that, you know, property owner uh was in the business of doing. You know, they'd object if you put a t a chair up against their chair. So anyway, I'm thinking that if we could get some of that into
this ordinance, something to help get, you know, without without dictating too much in customer use, that also could be something that we've learned from this incident, but also could help us in general. Let me get into that part.
Just a thought. >> Any other comments on this situation? Yes, sir. I just want one more thing on the you were mentioning the resort zone and the signs must be removed. Um I believe when we were out there there are like
sandwich board signs that are plastic. You pick them up and then you can move them and put them out. Um are tend to be at the al cabana alcohol sales area or the be the actual chair area. They'll be like anformational sign. These chairs
are for this property. Here's our number. Um, and those are um removed. And I think there are al also stakes that are placed in the alcohol sales area um that don't appear to be marked. They're just stakes. And then Brandon is here
and he can explain the interaction with the sign ordinance and the beaches area and what we found when we went to the sign code to examine compare what the signs were at the undertoe to the sign code.
He can explain some some of what we were able to find there. >> Yeah. I my point on the sign was also just besides that we may have may have it may have fallen out too soon was that maybe it's a scrier's area but scrier's error but they write about you know signs on the beach in the resort zone
there's no such thing there's signs on the beach in the preservation zone that adjoins or par you know you know uh you know ab budding the uh the resort zone >> if if I may um two two questions one in
this situation that brought this all on. There was no dispute u transversing is it laterally or what what's whatever the word >> it wasn't about the perpendicular >> wasn't it was so >> customary use and walking was about
>> though a topic wasn't in dispute here >> well no but customary use and sitting >> was a topic and that's a that's that's >> it seemed as though they were trying to make sure that they weren't entering the customary use area by saying we they
weren't expressly ly they expressly they weren't objecting to people walking >> people sitting without chairs >> um probably being mindful of the customary use um and trying to limit their objections to tents coolers with
alcohol um those types of more egregious maybe non-traditional uses right so it's it's not the customer use isn't part of this it's just whether the customer uses only for walking or the customer usage for people sitting. I mean, our own mayor was was attempted to
at one of the places to remove because he was sitting under a tent at a at a place as I understand. So, I mean, I think it's customer use to talk. >> My second question is, um, do you guys plan to come back to us with a sign ordinance for us to discuss signs for
the beach? >> We can ask Brandon to come up. >> Not today. when you're prepared I because you said you guys were working on potentially updating the sign ordinance like that. Is that something that's that's going to update to avoid
the peripheration of signs across >> the beach? Is that something you're working on? >> So I think and Brandon can talk about this a little bit more. Um sign ordinance the sign ordinance itself typically doesn't come to you. um be the
beach ordinance comes to you. Um we were trying to consolidate everything about the beaches into the beach ordinance, but I think the sign ordinance needs to stay separate as a sign ordinance where it's really just addressing signs. He was your predecessor. I think what we
would do something like signs in the beach preservation zone and have criteria for that and that would be in the regular >> sign >> sign ordinance and that would probably be best brought to you as a separate >> right >> ordinance if we were to bring it to you
for advisory recommendations and review since you focus on the beach. I think that could be um discretionary to do that. >> Um but we want the sign ordinance to be separated if we're going to regulate these signs. We want it to be just about signs.
>> Exactly. >> That's the best legal defense. Uh is that these signs are just signs. So I'm sorry, Brandon. >> He's still your >> I didn't have anything to add. >> That's what I assume the answer to be. So >> you agree with that, Brandon? >> Okay. >> Because we need to think about there are
signs, single post signs that we like, you know, stay off the dunes. U >> so the lawyer for the >> turtle, you know, stay away from turtle nests, stay away from birding nests, right? Those are good signs that we want to allow and the turtle nest might be so
far away from the mean high water lot. We have no idea with that. So, we have to really we have to think through to make sure that we're doing that the right way in the preservation zone to make sure we're solving the the situation that about signs.
>> So, signs are complicated because of the uh the case law that you have to be content neutral. If you have to read the sign to see if it's in compliance, that's not content neutral. So, if you have to read a sign that says black skimmer nesting area, you don't want to set it up that way because now you're
talking about content. So, it's very complicated. Um, so >> don't leave with your drink. >> We have to make it about uh we have to work work with the first amendment issues and make sure we're covering everything adequately. But I do like the idea about signs in the beach
preservation zone. and then having some criteria that are related to placement, location, construction materials. Um, and there typically will be an exemption for government signs or government uh
I'm hoping that the areas that are um cordoned off for sea turtle nests and for nesting birds apart from signage, we can address that as areas that are um
placed uh off limits or corded off or whatever wording we come up with to to make sure that that's still allowed to happen. >> I have all the confidence in the legal team to come up with appropriate language. >> Okay.
Any other conversation on that matter? >> Um I mean I've been on beaches where every property owner has a sign on the beach that tells you it's private. I wouldn't hate to see that up and down our beach with metal posts all the way
along saying this is private property, private property, you know. So, I'm hoping we're not heading that direction, but I understand the concerns and understand for a business, you know, who could lose their liquor license. I mean, those are very legitimate concerns. So, they need to be able to, you know, not
have issues with their business. So >> there's liability issues, there's subregation issues, there's all sorts of fascinating things, >> but yeah, >> that come in letting >> people on your property. >> No. Yeah, I agree.
>> Those issues were raised too in the meeting. >> Yes. >> Liability. >> Thank you for what must have been a very difficult topic. >> Yes. If uh we're okay, we can move forward to the recommendation of ordinance 20
202502 to the city commission. >> Morning Brandon Barry planner get the screen pulled up. The board's amendable to this. I will go through the changes that were discussed to the forum, focus on the the
modifications that I made that I I feel are significant and >> can you hear me better now? >> Um, if the if the committee is amendable to it, I will go through the changes to the ordinance that we discussed at the community forums and cover those big
modifications and then we can go back if >> in our last meeting we went line by line. I I was just go through the changing the changes of what happened since our last line by line meeting >> because I missed the last meeting. I I
watched it and until I almost wanted to cry and then I turned it off and only watched it again yesterday. I did have some some comments about things where people where they were so one person would say one thing that I don't believe was true but then it it would just
snowball and it might be nice uh I I think it would be helpful to revisit some of the things that even weren't changed between last meeting and this meeting um because I think there's more comments to be had. How do the other members feel of going
back? >> I think most of my comments were on highlighted areas, so those were things that were added in yellow, but >> I would agree with that as well. >> I mean, my problem was it was, you know, it wasn't during one of those scheduled
meetings and so beside it being the an extra meeting, I had a health medical issue that didn't allow me to be here. you know, I thought >> and I wasn't allowed to do remote or I would have participated, but I wasn't allowed to do that either. >> Yeah, I I I actually thought about that
and you know, the process we went through there were several and I understand it's a health issue, but it for anytime we have a special meeting, there were multiple dates set out and unfortunately for any of them, >> you couldn't make any of them for either meeting and >> it's just at what point do we move
forward of of that? Um, I was under the belief and Brandon, I thought that you said you received comments from vice chair. I I could be wrong, but >> earlier >> I've been working on this for three years.
>> I understand. I just at some point we have to move forward. Um, >> I I don't object. I I had no issue with the fact that it moved forward. Uh, I just now have some comments on some of the things that, you know, may have gotten glossed over or missed or just
didn't have all the information at the time. So, I just wanted to provide my input on some of those other points. >> How does the committee would you >> um Jenny, how much time have we allocated for this meeting? >> An hour and a half.
>> Hour and a half. >> So, we've got a hard stop at 10:30. >> Well, it can go over if you need to. you know, if we're mindful of the time. I I just >> if you can be succinct as we're going through the highlighted, if there's things in between. >> Yeah.
>> That you want to just >> Yeah. But again, >> we've I've been working on this almost two years and it's one of those how many times you know the the sausage grinder the the the blades in the sausage grinder are now dull
>> at some point. We've got to make some sausage. That's good. >> Oh, yeah. I'm not I'm not I'm not stalling it past the meeting. I'm just trying to make sure that Okay. >> some things get considered. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, let's get started. I will stop at the highlighted areas to
explain. Um, this pertains to construction of shelters, other structures on the beach. I just added that as authorized by section 954 uh we do allow for cabanas um tikis and so on that are authorized in
other sections of this code. >> So you're what section right now? >> Uh this is starting at the beginning of the ordinance. This is on page well four of the ordinance itself. >> Um this is a modification to 5826. >> I'm sorry. Um, I see this on page 27 of
99. I don't I I print out the >> Yeah, countries. >> If you go by section numbers, regardless of which version you have, you'll be able to find it. >> We'll pay attention.
>> 58-26. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. My first comment was at 952, so I think that's later. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. um uh looked into it uh between the forums and this meeting currently and I believe there's been
some discussion in the legislature over the last few years. It's gone from completely preempting polystyrene um regulations to I believe last year there was discussion on extending the ability of cities to privet polystyrene on the
beach or in public places generally. Um none of those bills have passed at this point in time. The bill is still um or the the law is still what was put in place in 2016. Cities can regulate polystyrene use in on public property. Uh we cannot prohibit it on private
property. Uh that would extend to the the beach as well. So on the city's beaches um at direction of the committee um there could be no polystyrene used on the on the public beach. There is a bill pending um to expand the single-use
plastics bands to to uh to a larger area. We'll see if that passes or not. And that may happen while this is going to the city council which point we would make some appropriate amendments. >> Okay. >> I did never mind. Yeah, I did notice
something earlier in the old 90 the old 5if 9 9470 that was moved to 5832 they you know you you have the sleeping ordinance >> but where in the beach chapter do you have sleeping chapter 95 >> or we did you skip ahead ahead of the
>> motoriz if you >> I did I lost it while you're looking at that >> but but it's actually just a general question >> for people who want to follow the auxiliary container single-use plastics bill it's Senate Bill 240 and it went to the Environmental Natural
Resource Committee uh yesterday, November 18th. I don't know the results of that hearing, but that's a preliminary stop. So, it's Senate Bill 240 that would give us more power to regulate. >> Okay, >> Brandon,
Vice Chair Kursman, the point you just brought up, I I was thinking of that as I went through these amendments. I I don't see any harm in just having a reference in the beach ordinance to this section. Just to make it clear, we we try to tie back where we can so that if the committee's amendable to that, I'll just add a line in the beach uh
division. >> Just rephrase that. So if so I understand >> just just a reference to >> I was on the highlight. >> Sorry to head and now I thought we were going back. So catch >> so this >> it's not in here. I think I mentioned wasn't that's the point.
>> I was going to the next change we were going to review. So, we're jumping around. Let's >> So, I will add a reference in chapter 95 to section 5826 just so within the beach chapter it's clear that there is no sleeping permitted on the public beaches
in the city. Um, I will just make a reference back to that. >> It's coming up, isn't it? Oh, >> that's >> it's not it's not in job 95. >> Oh, okay. That's >> He jumped ahead. >> I missed it. I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> Okay. Let's go back to where we were
working on. >> So our current micromobility device definition, it's not in chapter 95. I am adding a reference to the definition in chapter 74 to chapter 95 just to relate
back and make it clear for those who are um trying to understand what what I'm referring to in that chapter. But our current micromobility device definition is in line with the one that was in state law back in the early 2020s. It has been significantly modified since
then. At the time, the definition of microobility device was defined more around the service use of the devices. Talking about fleets, Bird and Lime and the other um you know actual fleet
services that used microobility devices. So that's where um you got more of the definition as it tied back to the number of devices. The definition has changed in the statute. It is now pertaining more to the device itself. What I did
>> statute the state or yours? >> The state. Okay. So this definition is a combination and this again is in chapter 74. This is our micromobility ordinance but the chapter 95 definition ties back to this and I'll show this in a moment.
The definition is being modified to include the language that is currently in the definition. It also includes language that ties in more with the devices themselves. So that's in the highlighted portion here. Um the weight limit, the general range of speed, um
the reference to the human power to non-human powered devices like bicycles, electrical bikes and so on. That is all part of the state's definition. What is being brought in from our current definition are the parts of the definition that relate to the use of an
online application um scheduling for point-to-point trips and electrical personal assisted mobility devices. Because our ordinance is based around rentals and how registration and all occurs for those fleet microobility
services, I wanted to keep that in because it is something that's important for how we regulate them generally, not on the beach. But that's where that language came from. It's just being brought forward from our current definition. And then of course we still have the assistive uh device exemption from this. We do not prohibit those on
the beach and that will still be the case. Um so I just wanted to explain that we have a later section that deals with micromobility on the beach itself, but that's where this definition came from. I'll discuss micromobility I think when we get to this the actual regulation.
But this definition as I understand it yeah the the state the state definition and I think it's just important to people understand history when the city made the ordinance they they advertised for um streets and sidewalks and
microobility. And so at the time uh because the state definition of microability was rentals and every meeting up to that to that point they said we need to address all these rentals. Um the private personal devices got sort of thrown in without the
without the public notice uh pre preceding all the people involved here. Um and and um I there's been a lot of feedback that I've gotten of people saying that they they that was a very scary part and that they included the
beach too at the last minute and the beach was not part of the streets and sidewalks either. So um it it caught people by surprise and unfortunately then TI heard that we did it and then they did it and I even went to their meeting said but hold on it it didn't
even go through the process yet in in St. Pete. It didn't matter. So TI sort of followed because we did it. Um and and and I you know we have we have golf but I don't want to get into that now. >> Are we going >> that's that's under the definition. >> Yes. >> Other than I don't understand why it's
only for the motorized transportation device designed for individual use. In other words uh what what's the intent of that phrase being added? That is really just to line up with the state state definition. Um
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Uh this was unruck. This had been struck um potentially accidentally. It might have been related to the um ongoing litigation, but this was this was unruck. the highlighted language
about the uh beach behind blocks M and N. That was the direction of the committee. Can you check one thing on that? I believe the north the southern boundary is Cababrillo and not 30th.
I have a if you have a problem issue finding that I have a survey someplace. >> Thank you. >> But I I I believe it is Cababrillo. And then on the 30 then 32nd there is a public beach access
and then 30th is south of that but yes. >> Okay. >> So I had a question about this. I know we talked about it but I couldn't remember why did we add in this private area beach specifically? >> It was there and then it got taken out.
Okay. And the question is why was it ever taken out? Because it was always there. Because um back when I do know the history when it was put in, it was to prevent people from sleeping on the beach in Eminem, which is what the neighborhood
wanted, >> but that was before I even moved here. So, >> okay. Well, because I was like, is it enforceable by the city? Like if the association >> But this year, this year it is. >> Okay. Even though it's private. Yeah. Okay.
>> Are you up? Okay. I'll see who you are. Okay. Moving on to chapter 95. This is both new content and content that is being moved over from other divisions, chapters. Um this is just again a reference back to the definition that we
just just discussed for micromobility devices. Um no no change definition. And it's just a relation back to uh chapter nuh 74. >> Okay. >> Um I didn't I didn't see a reason to have a separate service animal
definition from Florida statute. Um I not that that changes frequently, but just tie it back to uh the statutory definition for service animal >> on smoking. I I I watched the video and I think there was a little uh change of
of heart. The definition of smoking that's listed here distinguishes smoking from vaping. It does not include vaping as a type of smoking. So it defines smoking and then it defines vaping
and those are two separate things here. And I think when we got later on to the actual ordinance related to smoking, they just sort of like, oh, well, vaping, but it's not defined as a type
of smoking in this as I read it. I read it to distinguish between the two. >> And we did I I did amend to make it clear that we are also referring to vaping in chapter 9510 or section 9510. But city attorney, I I had read that to
mean Vaping is considered smoking. Therefore, >> yeah. Here, all we're doing is defining the word smoking. Smoking would be cigars, cigarettes, and vaping. And then later on, there's some state limited partial preeemptions about what we can and can't do. So, then we get to the
substance later on in the ordinance. >> But in the ordinance, someone said, "Oh, well, you know, vaping is listed as a type of smoking, so you know, of course, it's illegal." But no, that was we deliberately had already dis already carved it out because nobody's leaving vape butts around the beach
>> in the substantive section. >> Right. I'm just pointing out here that this is a distinction, not an inclusion as written. >> Just defining words. >> You're correct. >> We're in the definition section. >> Was that I am too. >> He's just pointing it out. Yeah. >> Yep.
>> Okay. It's correct. Okay. Good. Thank you. And on temporary structure in the in the definition section uh a structure record 180 days or longer shall not be considered a temporary structure when it comes to a beach as we
use the term I would suggest anything that's you know pulled out at at the end of the day would be considered temporary. It's not 180 days. In fact, if you leave it overnight, it's not temporary when it comes to the beach.
This is not a building code distin distinction. This is the intent of what we're trying to control, which is is it here permanently or is it here temporarily? And if you bring it in every night, it's automatically temporary. >> Isn't that what this definition says? It
says if it's less than 180 days or if it's more than 180 days, it's no longer considered a temporary. >> I think that line is a little a little late. The reason that's in there, I think Brandon can talk about it, is if you're over 180 days, you have to get a full building permit, >> right? From the context of building
permits, I'm saying for the context of the beach, a temporary structure might just be something that's there only until the >> move next morning. >> Let's keep that in mind as we get to the substantive section of the ordinance about
>> we can come back to that because that is a good point. I want to I want to talk about the distinction here. Let me just note that. Okay. All right. Looking at section 954, chairs, tables, benches, cabanas, and umbrellas. Um, we have gone with based
on the recommendation from the committee a registration process. those who are setting up chairs, tables, umbrellas or cabanas regardless of location would need to register with the city. Um we would just need to know that they are operating within our city. We already
get that level of registration, that level of information for anyone who is operating behind a resort where they have, you know, private land. Um >> BTR, >> correct? They they go through the BTR, they register with us and they renew
yearly. um those who operate um and we we have a lot of enterprises that will bring a cabana or a table out to the public beach and then they'll pick it up at the end of the day. We don't know that they're operating. They will call me to ask if
they're allowed to operate in our our jurisdiction that way, but that's the only information that we get from them. So, those enterprises would need to register with the city just so that we know that they're operating within our jurisdiction. um we have tied it to the uh renewal of
the business tax receipt for those that are existing on um any you know any private beach land. So I've got a few things on this part of it. Um one is you know very important
for for customary use um that the phrase private beach or public beach um is very significant. Uh, I like that in some parts of this ordinance it says private beach land or public beach land because it sort of
then suggests that we're not talking whether that the beach is priv private or public but that the land is private or public. Uh, so I like that. But then this part now refers to a term called public access speech. Is that yet a
different category of distinction or would you know I just want to be sort of I think if we're safest if we stick to some key phrases and only use those phrases >> to avoid problems later. I >> I have no concerns with going through
the ordinance and changing it to public and private beach land. city attorney. Do you do you have any concerns with I I don't know of any distinction where we're trying to differentiate between >> or is it beach on private land, beach on public land? What do you think would you're clear of showing that later on
someone could argue, oh well, the city has already accepted that this is my private beach. Um, customer use was extinguished when the city made that adoption. That's the that's the issue that I'm raising and have the concern about.
It's not opening the door for future belief that the city's now endorsed a private beach. >> Yeah. Customary use doctrine applies on its own. It's by case law in the courts and it's not dependent on the city or a
city ordinance. Even if you have no city ordinance, uh it that says we recognize customary use doctrine and customary use doctrine exists throughout Florida. If you wanted to do something for customary use, the most I would recommend doing is having a section that says the city of
St. Pete Beach recognizes the common um the customary use doctrine. Period. >> Yeah, that would that part would be good. But again, what I read in something was that some people have already used the defense that because their city had already said that it was
a private beach. They had already uh extinguished some of those uh arguments to then say, "Oh, we >> I think in this section we would we don't we're not running a foul of it." As Brandon is explaining here, um, this
section is is addressing chairs, tables, umbrellas, cabanas. Um, >> but it refers to a I think somewhere here it talks about a public access beach. And I didn't know what a public access speech was versus a public beach, >> Brandon. Do we have that in the definition?
>> It's it's not it's not separately defined. And I think we we decided to not make those definitions, but public access beach was a term that was a hold over from some earlier version of this ordinance. >> I I believe it was originally tied into
I I I I'm not I'm not sure what it means at this point. So if it's if it's clear to just >> I have for 954 that the phrase public access speech is mentioned. Uh >> where is where is that? I think we took >> Oh, the first one in A. The the last sentence in A. >> Can you scroll up to a Brandon? Sorry.
>> Which would interfere with the use of the public access beach. So maybe that means including the high water, you know, people walking the high water line or does it only mean the county and up >> lawful for any person to place upon the public beach that alone or combination
of size that would interfere the use of the public access beach? >> And you've added the word access. That's the new insertion, >> correct? But that that had been a hold over from an earlier version of the ordinance I wasn't involved with. I I didn't want to take that term out if it had some meaning to the committee. So,
we could take it out at this point. It doesn't add anything. >> Well, but is it public? Then I would say public beach land. The intent here is that you're not supposed to preempt the public from using the public beach by setting up a huge area at one of our
public beaches that preempts other people from using it without getting a special event permit. >> Yes. Or public beach land. Then >> you could take out public access beach and just leave public beach. >> Okay.
>> So if it's used by the public on private land, you can do it. If it's private land, you can set up, you know, u >> No, now we're getting into your on your private land. So, I'm talking about reing the public beach area. >> But now you're getting into a person who
brings their own chairs >> and puts it on what's priv. Yeah, that's when the trespass starts. >> I thought we just said that if it's customary use that people are sitting there and doing that. So, that's why I'm hung up. We said they wouldn't be trespassed. What is your suggested
language on >> public public beach land or if that's the intent >> in in where what section which >> a the end of a second sent last sentence of a >> because someone's going to bring their beach chair
>> instead of saying the word access you say public beach land >> that's what you've done in a number of other spots so I was trying to follow along >> or that's what the ordinance >> if the word land adds anything you could just say public beach or a public beach? >> Well, no, because public beach is
referring to an activity. Public beach land is a noun referring to a place. I'm trying to distinguish between an activity and a place. This is relating to a place. >> I don't see a problem with adding land if you want to add land. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> I just want to remember we we did talk about being mindful of time and um we've we're grinding through this again. I can think nothing could be more important than making sure we're not disrupting the customary use rights of the public and residents
>> and as we reviewed these before I had those in mind. >> Brandon, what's the scope of the meeting right now? This this section of the meeting >> we well the the plan was to go through the the highlighted changes where there are certainly other items that we might need to touch on just to give context.
Um I >> How much time did you allocate for this? Um I think we we had we had till 11 or sorry 10:30 but we have more time if >> we have two ordinances to go through. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> The other one the other one went a lot quicker and um well I guess what does
what does the agenda say? Um the agenda says >> I think it's to discuss the recommendation of the ordinance. So it's not discuss only the latest changes. >> I think we need to move on. >> Yeah. Well we did we covered it. I would just ask any comments from the
committee to be concise to the point and that we can move forward for forward more uh efficiently. >> Yeah, I think I've Okay. >> Okay. Item D is an addition that was requested by the committee. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for franchise to operate on any private
beach could change that to private beach land without permission of the land owner. Just certifying that. Um C relates to registration on the public and private beach land. D would be um you know we don't we don't restrict uh
setups on the on the public beach unless they're of a nature that would uh prohibit use of the beach. But on those on private land, we are not preempting the ability of the the land owner to uh to prohibit franchise. So, could a could a company come in and just put up a whole bunch of chairs for rent that
doesn't have our our franchise on the public beach based on the way this is worded? >> Well, I think under a um you know, that would be a judgment call by the sheriff's office or the code enforcement department, but if it would interfere with the use of the beach by the general public, we there would have to be a
judgment call made on that. We we didn't look into actual dimensional standards. Um I think that was something we were potentially going to consider under the third ordinance. Um, but at this point in time, we don't have actual dimensional or >> so so someone could just sprinkle chairs
around with a little sign and then say you can't sit on that unless you pay me on the public beach based on this. >> The private beach you have to get permission. >> I'm talking about the public beach. >> Public beach is controlled by the city or the county. >> I I know. And and normally we we even
have people that have paid or somehow won the bid to be the vendor for those places. And the way this is written, I view that someone could just come in and sprinkle their chairs ahead of time and you you go on the app and then you pay and you're just in direct competition to
people that are working hard to run a business on our public beaches. >> They can't sell, right? They have to be registered with the city to sell anything on the beach. Correct. No, this is the this is that whole thing where people are allowed to come and do and do their own thing
with this way. They're they're they're delivering. >> They have to get approval to do any commercial activity on the beach on a public on the public beach. >> That that would be to your to your point that would be more in line with the registration. They would not give us a setup map or anything like that. It would just it would just be a
recognition that they are operating in our jurisdiction. We >> move on. Thank you. Okay. Uh coming down through 955 picnics. >> Oh no, no. Give me 90 E. I've gotten a lot of people very concerned about the
10 by10. You did remove the wording that was in the last version that said measured at the base because that was particularly bad um where people would put sandbag, you know, you have sandbags that stretch out so it goes out further. So this is you're saying here this is
the final version. Um, and 10 by 10 is okay. No height restrictions either. >> No, no, this this is a carry forward from an earlier version of the ordinance. >> Thank you.
>> Section 955, picnics may be allowed on the beach subject to the regulations in subsection B, consumption of alcohol. Again, this is really just deferring to later sections um explaining where the regulations could be found. uh amending B1 to state that um
depositing litter can only be within a lawfully provided container. This gives more detail to the earlier statement that polystyrene is prohibited. This is particularly under a section where it would be reasonable for someone to think about bringing one of
these products onto the beach. um they are still prohibited on the public beach. The use and possession of plastic straws associated with any picnic or food or beverage consumption on any beach is prohibited. That is within the city's right to regulate. In talking with the city attorney, there was a recommendation that we potentially make
an exemption for um certain medical conditions. Is that correct, >> Ralph? >> I'm sorry. Um, looking at the the straw prohibition, you had made a recommendation that we make a medical >> for now and then if the bill passes
Senate Bill 240, we can make it some adjustments. >> Could we adjust this now though to just not allow glass containers or bottles period? Whether I don't care if it's because they decided to consume the food or not. I I think glass is dangerous on the beach. I mean, your eyeglasses are okay.
So maybe that's the distinction you're trying to make, but glass bottles or containers, I think it should not be on the beach, period. I don't know if anybody has a problem with why it has to be. >> So you were talking about an a exception
for medical reasons. >> That would be specific for straws. I I had gotten clarification that that that's in >> You said straws, >> correct? Yes. >> So we went from straws to glass containers. I mean, I'm trying to catch up here because we're jumping around. >> No, this is the item he was discussing.
He covered glass containers talking about the medical exemption. >> Then he said straws to him >> for medical exemption. >> No, that's we you jumped before we got an answer of that. You jumped in with with >> glass containers. So, can can we should
there be a ex to your question first before this started to Ralph about >> looked at glass? I would have >> No, we're talking about straws. straws. >> Which is that on the screen? Is straws on the screen right now? >> The use and possession of plastic straws
associated. Okay, >> that's what we were talking about. >> So, I went to the one above it before it >> glass containers or bottles associated with the consumption of food or beverages shall be prohibited. >> So, we have a prohibition on glass in
there already. So there's no glass on the beach. >> Where does it say that? I'm sorry. >> Three. >> Three. >> No, it says associate associated with the consumption of food. I was recommending strict striking striking consumption of food >> or we have or beverages.
>> Oh yeah, I'm sorry. You're right. >> People to eat food out of glass containers but not drink out of glass. >> No. Glass containers or bottles shall not be permitted. >> He just wants blanket. No glass. Oh, I'm I'm sorry. You know, I read this backwards. You're saying that glass containers or bottles are allowed on the
beach prohibited. >> Says glass containers or bottles associated with the consumption of food or beverages shall be prohibited. >> Okay. So then why not why does it have to only be with the consumption of food? Why can it not say glass containers or bottles
shall be prohibited? if that's the pleasure of the committee. I'm trying to wrap my brain around why other glass would be on the beach and I'm just >> So then it's redundant >> enough time to think about what other kind of glass things might come to the
beach. >> But you certainly could. Yeah. >> Say glass containers or bottles shall be prohibited. >> That's what I was trying to suggest. >> No glass on the beach. >> No, no glass. The >> words associated all the way to beverages. >> Containers and bottles still should stay
there. Just not the mention of food or beverage. >> Can we go back to your question of straws? >> You could you repeat your question to the city attorney? >> Yes, it it sound and he he did provide
clarification. There is a pending bill that would exempt straw use for um when when it's necessary under medical conditions. So, that's something we could potentially add now. uh we could revisit in the future. >> I think it's best to wait to see how the
the bills pan out. This is one that we're kind of at the mercy of the legislature. >> Well, even if it's for medical use, they can still use paper or the um what do you call it? The stainless steel straws, which there's there's lots of different
products now that they can make straws out of. >> I'm not a medical professional. I can't imagine what a >> someone with a stro with a swallowing difficulty or well not even swallowing like a stroke like sometimes >> I don't know all of them. So that's where I think we should go with whatever
the state goes to and >> yeah I was just saying you don't have to outline all straws. >> I'm not a medical professional nor do I play one on TV so I can't guess on what a doctor might >> So now there's some biodegradable plastics that are available. I'm just saying outline PL plastic straws doesn't
outlaw all straws like right is that what >> this do this would allow the you some of the other beaches I'll have paper straws only so you can get a paper straw some cities say straws only upon request at
places that are selling drinks. Um this would say right now the use and possession of plastic straws associated with picnic or food or beverage consumption on a beach is prohibited. So if you have a drink with a straw in it and it's plastic, you have to take it off the beach.
>> McDonald's gives paper. >> There's an example. There's the paper straw. >> Yeah, there's lots of other straw products. >> Those degrade. The idea is that the paper will degrade where the plastic will last for thousand years. >> It'll degrade before I finish it.
>> Okay. >> All right. Moving on to C. Um, this is just stating specifically that the city needs to issue a permit to authorize beach fire pits unless one has been issued. Open and uncontrolled flames on the beach are prohibited. Um, when we
post signs at beach acts, beach access points, beach ends, city parks, other appropriate locations, um, they can reference this language. Doesn't doesn't require the city to post signs, but where they do, um, they they will reference this language. It's um for D
where it says penalties for consumption or food or drink. Was that back when picnics weren't allowed? Should that be taken out? Is there a place where consumption of food or drink is not allowed? >> Um I I think that was intended more just to be in anything that is violating this
section, but you're right. This could be clarified to allude back to the earlier prohibition. So maybe maybe including that language. >> Where was that Brandon? >> That is indeed in the highlighted section. Sign shall contain language
referencing the penalties for consumption of food drinks. Um we don't prohibit food drinks. So I'll I'll modify that to All right, getting down to 25.8. Um, we have learned I I have learned um
that the state does not require um certain maintenance activities within the dunes. However, historically the city well at least in in recent history, the city has asked for a permit for those activities. This is just clarifying that even if the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection does not require the permit, it is something that we ask for, it is more of a registration, just a notice that work is or maintenance is going to be occurring within the dunes. And um I I know that our former beach manager had
been um issuing permits for that and we would just like to continue doing that in in a codified manner. Section 959, beach maintenance regulations. Just adding in a reference back to what I just talked about. Um, there are additional maintenance of dune
standards that we don't want to remove out of division 25. They work effectively where they are. Um, but just to tie back to site that you can find additional regulations in that division. >> So, you just covered that one. So, I just request that we go back to 958.
Um, I I watched the video and I think that there was some um I I don't know if they acknowledged that they were changing it or um but the the past plan had been that the
bicycles would be allowed on the beach with a permit. I'm not talking about ebikes. the past agreement had been that bicycles would be allowed with a permit. However, because it it was also interesting that the criteria for issuance didn't include things such as
someone having a permit for a bicycle. Uh and and other reasons the bicycles were stricken. Um I think it's valuable to leave bicycles in. Um this is a great place for kids to ride their bike on quiet days. Francis, just go to the
beach today after this meeting. Look around. I mean, this time of year, the beach is very, very quiet. And I would really suggest that we rethink this section a little bit because um first
off, turtle season, understand no bikes or ebikes during turtle season. We know when that is. it's been written as May about May 1st to October for turtle season. Uh we generally mark where the birds are
nesting or the baby birds are. Um we have a speed limit in here of 10 miles an hour. Uh and you know certainly you could put in a rule that says you need to not be operating your bike with 100 feet of a you know person or 50 feet of
a person a bigger number. Um, you don't have to um deprive and take away uh that. I mean, I have to tell you, you know, when I moved here, I loved watching the fireworks at night when there was weddings. I loved taking a
yoga class that was inexpensive because you just made donations. And I I love riding my bike, you know, uh, on the beach after those yoga classes. And I I I just feel like this used to be a fun place and we're just coming up with more
and more things to not do. I mean, it's aren't it's easy to always say just make something illegal. I think it's much more valuable and I think it's a duty upon us and we don't have to do it now, but to carve out and say this is the concern and also to keep it constitutional. this is the concern and
so we're making it illegal something illegal for this time or age group or put rules around it but to just blanketly make bikes and ebikes illegal and everything else uh I think we're we're overstepping and I'll just just
want to say that now and I thank you >> I think we discussed this at length and I even acknowledge that vice chair had an issue with that if we all remember that conversation as I As I hear from citizens or residents,
the number one complaint on the beach is dogs on the beach. The second one is bikes and ebikes. That and then since the meeting that we had this conversation to today, I've received two texts and one phone call of almost getting hit by people
two on two two on bikes, one on an ebike. And uh I've almost been hit by a bike, an ebike. And though I do think in a perfect world we could say 100 ft and only on on non- busy days, I don't know how you enforce that.
>> Well, let's figure that out. >> Uh I think it's uninforceable. But nevertheless, to the safety and the feedback that I get from the people that reach out to me and I I go out actively and talk and I go to as many district
meetings I can um not only my own in four but to others in three and two and one as I know about them and u you know I've never heard that issue brought up. I've only that they support it. I've only heard that I'm tired of almost
getting hit. I've seen kit, you know, they weave in and out. It's usually people that are getting aggressive and on a on a weekend. Um, so I I am on I am on a I'm in full support that uh we keep it as we discussed and we actually had
consensus at our work our special meeting. >> Well, I I heard things in that special meeting that if I may go ahead um let's let's finish this one out. We we respectfully vice chair we understand your position and you've articulated it well. So let us let us
discuss. Do you I'll start down here. >> I definitely am not for bikes on the beach >> or ebikes >> or ebikes either. None of them. >> Okay. Um, I talked to a neighbor yesterday who
enjoys riding her bicycle on the beach. And the discussion was that she doesn't use an ebike. It's she's been doing it since she moved here years and years ago. However, this morning walking on the beach as my husband and I, there was a flock of seagulls right on the shore area. As we're walking by, they're all
just chilling and then a bicycle comes the other direction and like a flock of like 50 birds like takes off in front of us because the bike startled the birds. Whereas the lady running after the birds landed again, a lady ran past them and of course they just, you know, they didn't move. So I personally am not in
favor of bikes on the beach and I think they're disruptive. >> No bikes on the beach. >> I heard, you know, people talking about making assumptions about how birds have been hurt. Um, and I heard a number of different things. So, I'm not going to go in now that just were not, you know,
you know, we in one breath we say we we we're worried about the birds flying into the windows and getting hurt and then in the next breath, well, if a bird's hurt, it must have been due to an ebike. >> So, we don't have a point of order. So, I think we've uh discussed this. We've all come to and we we've heard your your
concerns, vice chair. >> Um we even I even brought it up when we were discussing it. We read your absence out of respect for you >> and uh I think we can move forward. >> I did just want to point out um this was not modified but as we are stopped in
this section they would still be permitted of the four exemptions under a special event permit if there was a special event that featured bikes in in some capacity. So, we talked about the maintenance of dunes.
Um, expanded the mechanical beach cleaning permitting requirements from uh February 15th to tie in with Penllis County turtle uh sorry, seabird uh nest nesting season to October 31st. That is
the end of marine turtle nesting season. I'm just going to mark that for when we get to the wildlife lighting ordinance. >> Okay. >> I'm going to refer back to that. >> Very good. >> Have you already gone past 9510 or are you >> We are in 9510.
>> Okay. I'll let you speak, then I'll speak. Going back to our discussion earlier, um this clarifies that both smoking and vaping is prohibited. Starting or maintaining a fires or open flames on the beach um inclusive of
public and private beach land is prohibited except where it's been allowed in um under this chapter. This is a point from the uh committee at the last meeting that um any kind of discharge of human waste is prohibited unless it's within an approved um water
closet, lavatory, urinal. Dumping of any litter is prohibited except within a container approved for such a purpose. Um similar language is used earlier in the chapter for um picnics and so on.
We're getting now into 9510 pertaining to alcohol. This is an assemblage of multiple sections from the code um all into one section. This is one where I've heard um feedback
about I if that's what I think it is. One is that you know who are we helping when we restrict uh where people can drink. The guests of the hotels can drink in their cabana zones or what also we said that we were not going to be calling them cabana zones anymore.
We we renamed them. The city commission agreed to that renaming. Um I think they were wet zones or or something of that nature to to because cabanas are something else. But um hotels can have their drink. And I've had people say, "Well, I want to just go with I go with
Sunset with my Yeti and drink alcohol. Am I really going to, you know, break I don't want to break the law." And then we have people that say, "Well, you know, if it's the law, it's the law." So, I think we we need to consider our residents first and and think about a
way that our residents uh you know, maybe it should be that there's no obtrusive, there's no visible drinking. Uh but you know making making visible drinking drunkenness is already illegal. Um but the issue is visible drinking or
you know rather than saying no alcohol and it comes up I've also been told by the attorney of the number of the hotels. Um they they can't have a situation where if people try to leave the area they're going to lose their license if it happens twice.
>> You know they're going to have to put guards around the perimeter. Um, and that's exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do to the speech. Um, I've seen people in the water with the cups and they had umbrellas in them. Um, I I actually was once involved in a case
where there where it was whether a red cup or a blue cup. And if it was a blue cup, it was okay. And if it was a red cup, it was illegal because alcohol is usually in the red cups. So, but I mean, the point is, are you visibly drunk or not? Are you visibly drinking or not? We, you know, some of the cities, and I've looked into this, some of the
cities have made it illegal during spring break time. They have different rules during spring bait months to say, "We don't want to turn into an attraction to bring the people that are trying to drink." But people, you know, a visible drinking is what I think is
really the concern, I think, and I think we should make our laws match the concerns. So, two of the points you brought up, one of them, and I I I intended to address it. It it may not have been effectively addressed, but there was quite a bit of content struck from what is currently section 65D4.
>> Let me see if I can get down to that. >> Yeah, 65D is where I was seeing this. >> Um, I do not believe the responsibility as this is drafted. It was not intended and I know this did this was discussed. Um I believe it even came up when this
came forward as a consolidated ordinance with the commit commission. Um the intent is for serving to be within the cabana service area or the wet zone. But ultimately if someone steps outside the wet zone and ignores requests to come
back into the wet zone, >> they're the ones who would be cited, not the that that that is the intent. That's what the language is intended for. >> Right. Good. Thank you. So rest of the hotel is concerned. But it's still in there, isn't it? That they the business would be fined. And
>> so the the service can only be within the command of service area. And if if that needs to be clarified, I'm I'm happy to to do so. But they're responsible for serving within their area and having signs posted that you cannot leave the area. But ultimately, if someone ignores them and they leave
the area, the responsibility is not on the lodging facility if they've if they've provided adequate notice. So, >> I mean, and I've told people I don't think anybody's a searcher yeti unless you're doing something stupid already, >> but just if we could somehow focus on
the activity or the behavior versus the presence of a substance, it's not going to kill the birds if it spills. >> I would like to hear from the committee on that item, though. Is is it not clear enough that the hotel or the the resort
would be responsible for or they would be the one sighted? I I can definitely change that language if needed. And that is that's specifically here in nine service of alcohol shall only be provided within cabana service area. So they if they are serving outside of that
area, that's where the penalties would come into play. But there's nothing explicitly in here that says that the hotel would be cited for someone leaving. >> So I guess 11 is where it talks about the penalties. And I guess mine my
thinking was the penalty was for someone stepping outside the boundaries, but that's not what the intent was. >> No. And and that that individual could be cited for drinking on the public beach as as currently written, but they would we would not site the the lodging facility. >> Right. So it says in C it should be
unlawful to drink or consume acquis honor all sovereignty submerged land. So then later on we have penalties and it it's not clear which things fall into the hotel's responsibility and people's responsibility for themselves.
>> Understood. The intent was for the penalties to be specific to subsection H. Okay. >> Um I can go back and make sure that the formatting is correct on that. said these penalties would apply only to violations of subsection H. >> It confused the attorney also. So, so >> understood >> at least an earlier version.
>> Thank you. >> When I read this, I didn't have any misconceptions. I But I took it as what you originally intend. >> That is a good point though. I will clarify that to the commission. I know that did come up with a consolidate dated beach ordinance. So, we'll discuss
that. And this is just talking not that we see many of these but um this is for special events. We are not limiting special events on the public beach lands. There is a limitation on the number of special event permits that can be issued to uh
private beach land owners. >> And thank you throughout this in this section it does use that word land afterwards. >> Thank you. That's where I got it from. >> I don't know why this was brought up at the uh forum. I don't know why the
prohibition on chumming was removed. Um as far as I can tell, the guidance from FD or Fish and Wildlife rather um still prohibits chumming exactly as stated here. So I did just add that language back in. Going back to 9510D though,
could I I didn't quite catch other than people thinking that was the earlier intent that vaping um was going to be illegal. Um there's a concern about litter of cigarette butts. Vaping encourage
encourages people to not use regular cigarettes when and one vape might equal, you know, a pack or more of cigarettes. So it's, you know, >> they leave the in >> the cartridges are everywhere, but they would run out of the cartridges. 130 at the time and I can't believe that
they're really a problem of >> cartridges. >> So the problem with cartridges is you don't know what product was in there. Sometimes there's a THC product and I've worked in schools and you can actually get transfer if you're picking that product up and it's has a a really
strong product in it. You can actually absorb it through your skin. So to me a vape is way more dangerous than a cigarette butt. I don't pick them up without gloves or a bag because you don't know what was in that bag. >> Germs on it. I don't think you you know unless it's fentanyl. I I I'd be
surprised. But um >> I I don't think that I don't think that. So you're trying to protect the the litter collection people in this >> anyone a child picks it up and starts playing in the sand with it. I mean >> there's and someone could leave a knife. Someone could leave uh something they're
a peanut uh you know there's a lot of things that >> I pick up hooks all the time. Yes. I know there's lots of dangerous things. think that the whole beach should make vaping illegal because a child's going to pick up someone's litter. >> I think they're looking also plastic pollutions. Plastic in the oceans is >> Why are people throwing Yeah. And and
again, there's plenty of There's plenty of plastic. We're not outlawing plastic. They're leaving their buckets and shovels. You know, I saw a kids plastic shovel on the beach, but we're not going to outlaw them because some because it might pollute the water. I I think I think it's easy enough for people to be
discreet, but I just think it's wrong that we're >> Your concern has been noted. >> Yeah. Thank you. So, prohibitions on chummings at chumming as stated um have been reincluded. um direction from the committee at the
forum um is to prohibit fireworks on the beach. This is a this is brought in from the Naples ordinance. They have a similar prohibition. It was only expanded to um include over any beach. So firing from, you know, the deck area
over the beach would also be prohibited. This would be a blanket prohibition. I'll point out in uh ordinance 202516 that would be the backup. It would be prohibited during turtle season through that ordinance that will be amended to refer back to this section should the
commission agree to a blanket year- round ban. >> Thank you. >> And and I just want to note as we're noting um I I disagree with this fireworks prohibit on the beach except during turtle season. With during turtle season it's fine, but outside of turtle season I I I I think we should leave
that alone. Okay. Also in um and carcasses and I think anything that people are doing to teach fish, predatory fish to come into our swimming area really should be prevented. So I I think really we should
come up way not just about chumming. But why teach sharks that this is a good place to to to to eat at at a major swimming location? As we've discussed at a previous meeting, um to Florida statute, we cannot prevent shark fishing
off our beach. We can uh uh say no chumming. Again, we've talked about that at several a meeting a while ago and well as the meeting here. So, I couldn't agree with you more and that's what we're trying to do with this. >> So, we'll link to the FD as you saw when
you uh watched the the meeting. >> Yeah. And I I I know people are going to be wearing their ARs and uh and uh and fishing since they can't ride their bike anymore, but we'll see how that goes. Section 9516 talking about microbility
devices. It's in the definition including bicycles. Um given that that has has been part of the focus prohibited on the beach. Um, I will say just based on our earlier conversation, I will amend this sentence just to reference back to the special event
permission earlier in the chapter. Uh, just to make it clear that they're proh prohibited except where authorized through one of those four exemptions. The one that would be applicable to bikes in most situations would be the um special event permit.
All right. in in 9517 uh vending on the beaches. Uh I think that when it refers to um well I should just cross reference this
chapter 62 because chapter 62 is the peddler rule and so anything you remove from one section you know peddler is an activity and I'm not referring to pedaling a bike it's pedaling and soliciting. Um, so I just think that
9517 and 60 chapter 62 should be related. And uh, it said Gulf of Mexico, I think, or maybe I've got the wrong link. >> Yeah, it's a little meandering in getting there because it references 9518, which references 62, but I I'll absolutely include that reference. That
makes sense. and in 9518 why remove the requirements for the facilication line of a survey or should I jump ahead or or behind? >> No, this this is in line with let's say
>> so 9518E was removed. So you can take out the Gulf of Mexico. Just say sandy beach areas for B. >> Oh yeah. B was Yeah. Gulf of Mexico. >> Right. Just take out references because we only have one one ocean or
>> what does he want? >> So in B 90 uh I'll let you speak. Go ahead. >> She was asking >> take out the Gulf of Mexico from the ordinance. That way we avoid the political controversy. Let's
try that. And an F or I'm sorry, E and F. I think E was copied somewhere else. But why is E removed? Why wouldn't we want that? Is it when it was chapter 62? It was there. >> Yeah. E I think the one that's stricken
that has some first amendment concerns that or this is kind of from the old old ordinance. So we were taking it out to address solicitation case law that's arisen u from u the Florida sup or the US Supreme Court and the uh
>> well this is just this is just the rel what the e I'm referring to. Maybe that was F. The E is >> establishment of a solicitation line on individual property. >> Yeah, we want we can take that out. >> So they could solicit anywhere. >> Okay. Thank you.
There was a request to add sand sculptures to the list of features that need to be flattened um during uh turtle nesting season. You may not expect to hear >> what section did you
>> I'm sorry this is 9519 >> and I heard a big concern about holes >> but did we address people how that how deep a hole could be >> he's right >> or what kind of tools they could use or >> is it just filling it in after you leave the be
>> so they can do any depth because I I heard something concerned about a kid getting you know I don't know if it happened here I just Okay >> if we could uh I had one comment I I've pre prefaced pre prefaced it before. 2519
marine turtle nesting season from um one to May 1st. Should that be of and I this is a can of worms. I don't know if we have to we we changed the date to
February 15th for sure shorebird season. Do we need do we need to touch that here in your opinion? Do we need to change the date to be aligned and edirds?
>> Did these things affect Shawbert? >> Do we want to have separate um seasons that are corresponding to the science and the biology? So, sea turtle season won't be the sea turtle season and shorebird season could be separated >> if it's if they're not the same dates. But I don't want to
>> like if you look at uh >> we're saying marine turtle nesting season is from that that should be just about turtles. >> Well, but if you look at uh if you if you look at D, it says any turtle nest or nesting activity. Is that to be turtle turtle nesting activity or sure?
I just want to make sure we're dealing, you know, we have two populations of wildlife that nest. And again, I open this up with this could be a can of worms. no pun intended to the birds, but uh >> I think this was intended for turtles.
Brandon, do we have a separate section for birds? >> Uh we reference it in the forthcoming ordinance, but it's more of a it ties in more with the um the window treatments and all. So, um I think this was more for the the transit concerns with marine turtles, but
uh and and the the reason for the expansion, the draw out to February 15th was specifically for mechanical beach cleaning. That's where that was expanded out to uh to include nesting season. >> That's where it's relevant. >> And I'm not pushing that this. I'm just
want to make sure that we, you know, we we have two several problems we're solving. It's just not turtles. It's other wildlife. >> Why are we removing this from chapter 44, which is turtles? I mean, why wouldn't it be a cross reference?
I mean, we don't have the turtle rule in the turtle section. >> That's a good point. it it was brought forward. I I understand what you're saying. I have no concerns with leaving it in the land development code and just making this a reference to 443 if if the committee is amendable to that.
>> It would be the same content just left in the land development code. I this was just how it was formatted. So I I left it here. >> So >> the other is having all things beach and beach having >> all things turtle and turtle. But >> where would the where are you suggesting
this to go back to? >> This would remain in land development code division 44. It's section 44.3 and we've changed we would it would be relocated within that division but this would remain but it would be a reference to that that section in the land
development code. Um I I left it in here because it had been moved forward in an earlier draft of the ordinance but I don't have any concerns with moving it back. can >> I kind of like it here because it's um activity related or behavior related rather than development of land.
>> So maybe maybe then >> I'd rather have it here than in 44 and that way we're also not running a follow of Senate Bill 180 with being more restrictive or burdensome on land development regulations. >> But given Senate Bill 180 then maybe we shouldn't be striking it from 44.
>> Um or you know the only difference between the two versions is sand castles. Um, I don't know if anybody's going to sue over their ability to make sand castles unless they want to have an event. Um, >> I think these are really behavioral activities. I don't see any development activity here.
>> Okay. I I didn't mean it to go that way when I brought this up. I think I agree as we started this endeavor that this was about behaviors in this part of the beach ordinance. I think
>> city attorney is correct. This is behaviors. I would say keep it where it's at. >> By removing it from the turtle section, >> keeping it as proposed, >> right? Yep. >> This is reiteration down in section
9520. uh the requirement for a trimming permit even when it is not required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Um and this is I believe the last item, item C and D, uh recreational activities, any organized recreational
or entertainment activity which should probably be here in the uh the forward um including events such as concerts as well as skiboard surfing contests which had been in there previously. um they will be required to obtain the
necessary special event permits and any other required permits through the city manager. Larger events, those contests, volleyball tournaments, concerts, and so on, those are large events. They always need a special event permit. They're not a recurring event where we give a blanket permit such as for weddings on
the beach. Um those would be covered under a blanket. >> So, we are again deliberately removing all of this from the chapter that is specifically called dune preservation. We're removing it from chapter 20 to five, which is where people go when they
want to learn about the requirements for dunes. I mean, I know the dunes are at the beach, but then then eliminate the entire chapter if you're going to take that philosophy. So, my suggestion here is at least cross reference them
some way. I'm not I'm I'm not saying how. I'm just saying that why would you remove all this from from a chapter called dunes >> city attorney having cross references with the relocation of these sections between the code of ordinances and land development code that that doesn't pose
any challenge does it >> you can just say C >> okay >> C comma code section >> and we'll do that for the um 44.3 as well >> I just want to keep the projection >> that helps people that are looking through MUN code to know to navigate through the different sections of the code and know where to to look for more.
>> Yeah, I felt that way about the turtles, too. I accept >> the forum presentation included a broader or sorry a a narrower scope of those who need to register when they're using the
public beach um for anything other than the placement of chairs, tables, cabanas, and umbrellas because we already have a registration process for that in 954. Um this would require those this would apply to those events um such
as beach exercise excursions, photography sessions that include changing tents and so on. This is one of the items that the city commission had directed us to look at. Uh these are events that take place on the public beach. They are not part of a pre-registered
um private beach land approval. um they would need to register with the city just as they would for a um cabana chair table enterprise. >> But this is doing exactly what I asked about before and it's saying it would be
legal in a business operates and offers a service or event that involves the use of the public beach and we're only having a problem if it's other than the placement of chairs, tables, cabanas, and umbrellas. So, anyone will not incur occur under a business tax receipt or a special event permit.
We're saying go sprinkle the beach with chairs as I read this. I mean, because why are we saying except the we're saying, you know, we're not going to make these rules apply to the chairs, tables, cabana, and umbrella people. So, city attorney, one of the items we had in the
consolidated beach ordinance that was left to address in in the third ordinance, which we haven't brought forward, was a requirement that chairs and cabanas only be placed out when they're they are being rented. Um, I believe that was specific to private
beach, >> maybe the public, too. >> I I I believe you're you're correct. That was only on private beach land. But is is there an enforcable standard that we could add that would allow us to regulate any kind of equipment or
furniture on the beach if it's doesn't have someone occupying it. >> We can look into that a little bit and compare it with Senate Bill 180 and what we have and the issues that came before city commission last time. >> But what is the reason that we want to say other than the placement of chairs
tables cabana umbrellas? Why did someone put that in there? >> It says as regulated in 954. So you have to go to 954. >> They they have to register. They they have a registration process that's outlined in 954. So those franchises that are setting up chairs, tables,
cabanas, umbrellas only, they have to register through 954. That it's it's already established. They will. Yes. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Mhm. My question on that section is
and tell me how and I might have missed it is I and I'll since you said yoga I'll go to yoga a yoga class they go onto somebody's private property on the beach
and do a class anywhere in this is it addressed that they need the permission of the land to go do that. >> It's a good question. Let me >> and I like and I'm a yoga fan. I just
just want to make sure people aren't just going out placing a mat down on somebody's property >> doing a class. Someone gets hurt. There's a medical claim. Blue Cross Blue Gil subregates to the property owner. The property owner didn't even know they were there.
And yes, Blue Cross Blue Shield does subregate um medical claims because I fell and hurt my shoulder and they tried to subregate to a ski hill. So I know they do this. >> Um there is a standard earlier in the ordinance. I'm blanking on where it is
currently, but it does I believe that might just be the authorization from the Upland >> Okay. >> owner. Yes. Okay. So it's it but this is this is specific to not you know the cab cabanas, chairs,
tables, umbrellas. So we could mirror this requirement in that >> okay you understand the problem I understand >> trying to bring us is to go ahead >> to protect >> and if the property owner is fine with the yoga class let's go.
related to that. Um why sometimes do we refer to the upland property owner and other times we refer to the property owner? Why would an upland property owner who doesn't own the
portion of the beach have rights that we're not even including for the property owner? We're only asking the upland property owner. Now, I think you mentioned in the last meeting, you're not sure how many of the if we have any situations where the up where the property owner and the upland property owner are different, although I could
think of some where the beach is public, but >> and the up and I don't know why the upland property owner would have rights over that. So, I'm confused why we other than we were trying to avoid the the wording of the owner of the land under
the beach or the public land, you referred up. that that might have been the intent. Um, >> and if that was the intent, maybe we should go back and make that the consistent wording. I think where Upland comes into play, at least currently, is
for Cabana service, wet service areas. Um, that is specific to Upland where there's an upland resort. So, they that would be an extension of their commercial facility. But for the rest of them, I think private beach land would would work. I >> mean, what I wanted to say was the
person who's paying taxes for that particular uh portion of the beach, but nobody is. Um, so that would not succeed right now. >> Okay. >> And that that should cover the ordinance
202502. Those are the major changes. Oh, in 9521, which was the next section, I know you were all clamoring, you know, debating what would be what is a special event. Maybe it's 50 people or 25 people
assembling. There was concerns about different kind of of, you know, uh, flash mobs and they didn't call them that, but you know, people just all showing up. Mhm. >> Um, so I think that and we could talk to the law enforcement, but I think that a a number of people involved in an event,
you know, uh, might be what what constitutes it being a special event. I mean, people singing happy birthday to their mother is not a special event, >> right? >> But if they and also if they try to do any exclusion where they set up, you know, they set up all these tables and
then they go, we're having our we're having our having a wedding here. Get get out of here. No, unless it's a special event, you have not reserved the right to block others from traversing. So, some something in that flavor may be helpful. There's something that I wanted
to say when I couldn't do it remotely to try to help this problem. Thank you. That is that is the rest of the ordinance. >> So before we uh the clerk left for a second. I was going to open it up.
>> Go ahead. Maybe we'll take a break. >> Let's take let's take a a fivem minute break and then when she comes back I'll open it up. >> I have a hard stop at like 11:30ish. >> So we will be much more efficient going through the
>> I leave at 11:30. Well, we still have a quorum. state your name and your address for the record. >> Hello again. My name is Christopher Hollands and I live at 401 Golfway. I'd like to thank you guys all for trying to put this together because uh it's like
you create a new nation. It's almost like an AI game. And uh you got some more uh you got some more issues coming up ahead of you. Just a couple things. Uh drones. You know, you guys are going to have a preserve area. You're going to have a
lot of drones and you're going to have robots within five years delivering drinks out there doing things, doing things and things. And I hate to say it, but uh you know if you don't preserve your rights now, you lose them later on.
Everybody else will override. And uh I think that's kind of you have too much on your plate already. I want to thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your comment. >> Y uh no other
Oh, please come up. As you know, state your name and address for the record. Lesley Price, uh, 303. Oh, wait, no, that's not where 6650 Sunset Way. >> Thank you. >> Um, uh, two qu or two comments about, um, some things you've already
discussed. One was the plastic straws. Um, as someone who picks up trash a lot along the beach. Um, so many families, parents serve their kids those little drink pouches. They all come with plastic straws
>> and any parent is going to say, "My child needs this." And there's really no other really good way on a beach to serve all those little drink pouches. So, be careful with that. And I'm all in favor of doing the no plastic straws,
but it needs to be practical as well. Mhm. >> Um and uh the the tent parts the 10 10 by 10 and um Kelly Chris was changing said things are changing and the size of coverage
um shade structures has changed dramatically in the last five years and trying to enforce a 10 by 10 is going to be incredibly difficult already. um as well as just how close people have to be to each other on a really crowded
weekend is going to make it very very difficult difficult for a sheriff to enforce who is together who is not how big is the area that they are um encompassing. So thank you so much for all you guys are doing. >> Thank you Lesie. All right. To to to be
be handling issues that that are raised such as this the drink pouch straw issue like whether we want >> Helenale Beach has an exemption for prepackaged drinks. >> Um if we'd wanted to include prepackaged drinks for children,
children's prepackaged drinks, >> but they should save the wrapper. >> It's a two-edged sword. You can do that. But then I also walk the beach with the trash bag when I go out. And what do you see the little plastic wrapper and the plastic straws? So what pro are we
trying to >> keep the beaches clean? >> There is prosecutorial discretion too by the deputies and the code enforcement. >> Right. >> I'd rather leave it to that. >> Feeding a child with responsibly with that package. They probably would make sure that they what
they bring in they haul out. >> Right. >> So >> So next I think we need we have a decision to make. Um I think we have three choices. Two uh
I'll just say two main choices. One, we could ask the uh the team to come back with the changes as presented. So, we could approve to move forward or we could uh I think we all agreed on the
changes that we were here that we could authorize or or vote to allow uh take the changes and then move that ordinance to the next step of the process um to get to the city commission.
So I'd be in favor of moving to approve the ordinance with the additions revisions noted today >> and presenting to the commission >> to move move the for >> vice chair. >> Uh there's there's it it I I don't care
whether we see it again or or not because I'm going to be vote I would v vote no uh with respect to saying that it represents my opinions and what we're actually going to be putting forward so it won't I don't care which way. >> Okay.
>> I would move forward. >> Yeah, I think we should move it forward committee. >> Uh clerk, how do we do we need to have a motion and vote this or just >> a motion to recommend approval to the city commission with the changes
discussed today? >> Yep. >> And then a second. >> I move to recommend approval with the changes discussed today and move forward to the city commission. >> Second. I second it. >> Roll call. >> Member Looney. >> Yes. >> Member Rothenberger. >> Yes.
>> Member Thompson? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Kursman? >> No. >> Chair Stevens? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. So then we'll move on to the next is uh it got renamed. There's it at the marine
chart and coastal wildlife protections. significantly fewer changes to this ordinance. I will cover them as I go along. There was discussion about pathway lighting um specifically over and through the dunes. Um we do have one
development coming up where the Department of Environmental Protection approved them for a path for a portion of the walkover. Um it is a paved path on the side property line. There is a walk over up to the top of the established dune from the storm and then they will have a cut through out to the
beach itself. So I had amended the definition of ballard lighting to include that temporary stake lighting similar structures that are installed low to the ground and typically used to illuminate a pathway. And I'll cover the prohibition that this uh pertains to
later on in the ordinance. Any concerns with that? That would include the the temporary stick in lighting, solar powered lighting. Um that could be used in pathways. >> Okay. No sign by 180 issues there.
>> No. >> Okay. >> I think we're okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It's a good question. >> All right. Moving down to section 44.5. Small language change, but it is a significant um alteration to the meaning. Uh we had discussed at the
prior meeting when the new lighting standards apply to a portion or a new building or a fixture within a building. Um the direction from the committee at the time had been that any replacement of any existing window and door would
need to be with a turtle compliant or coastal wildlife compliant uh glass pane. So that would be any replacement of an existing window or door that is visible from the beach would need to have the tinting applied to it. They
would not be eligible for the close the blinds or turn off the light standard of existing lighting. >> What is the current standard in our current ordinance? >> It's it's unclear. Um this this would specifically state that. Um, so
currently it's defined as existing development, but it doesn't get into the details of what that includes. That's part of what I was intending to do with this ordinance was define what construction triggers the new development requirements.
So, you know, with Senate Bill 180, which is focused on land development, you know, what you're what you're doing is you're saying instead of it only being on new development, we're also going to do it on repair, even non-significant repair. So, I think
that's a big expansion that would would not be available till October 2027. Well, I think I think in the statutes the definition of construction specifically ex or sorry, the definition of development specifically excludes maintenance or repairs of structures.
So, if anything, I think that would be where we would have the authority to do that. Is that correct, city attorney? >> I'm confident we're okay with this one. We're just replacing windows. When you're you're not saying you can't have a window, we're not putting a new window. It's just placing a window that needs to be replaced. Then there has to have film
>> or or the right glass. So, so what you're saying is that the SEO 180 doesn't stop us from being involved in it only stops us from being more stringent on new development, not on repairs.
>> The definition of development does not include repairs. It ex excludes that from the death. >> And I thought the whole esplit 180 was about making it easier to >> if you're going to tear down a hotel and rebuild a hotel, that's new development. But if you have an existing hotel and
they're just changing one window, that's not development. That's just changing out a window. >> So then what is the purpose of E where we're where we're raising the issue of substantial improvement? No, no, back up where you were. >> Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Sube A.
>> Why? Why is substantial improvement raised as a discussion item? We're saying any any any window or door or breach of the openings. >> So, and and potentially this is where it could be worded. Uh this could be just a
wording issue, but these are all items that would fall under remodel, repair, addition. Um these are all items that could fall under that scope. Um, so one could be replacing part of the facade of a building and including new windows or
they could just be replacing windows or doors within part of a facade. The intention of this was really to cover any new addition, any remodel that introduces a new window or door or simply the change out of windows or doors. That this is intended to be
inclusive of all of those improvements. >> Okay. Thank you. And later on in the section, um, it gives a little bit more detail to this. So, I'll just I'll read this and I'll go through what the intent was. When a building is newly constructed, redeveloped, or substantially improved. So, those
buildings that are substantially improved that need to come into full compliance with the flood plane ordinance. That is typically also the zoning trigger for full compliance with all the zoning codes. We have a handful of exceptions that would not apply here. The entire building that is visible from the beach need to needs to be made
compliant with this ordinance. When the newly constructed, redeveloped or substantially improved building is the primary structure on the property. The new construction standards would apply to the entire property. So, if someone were redeveloping a beach bar,
that beach bar would need to be fully compliant, but they would not necessarily need to make the entire lodging facility compliant. If the lodging facility were to be redeveloped, the beach bar would need to be made compliant in tandem with the lodging facility being redeveloped. That is that
is what that is intended to cover. When an addition is constructed to a building and that addition itself is not a substantial improvement, the new construction standards of the division apply to the addition. And so if there's an extension of a building, if there is a new um we've had a few projects
recently for renovation of lodging where they're just constructing a vestibule at the back of the property. They're not adding a whole new building or extending the building. It would apply to that specific addition. It's not a substantial improvement. So the whole building would not need to be made uh compliant.
for all other construction associated with existing buildings and structures, including remodels, renovations that modify or replace the exterior of the structure, as well as onetoone change outs of windows, doors, and exterior lighting fixtures. Again, where the construction is not a substantial
improvement to the building or structure. The new construction standards of this division apply to the altered parts of the building or the replaced fixtures, windows or doors. So again, non-substantial. it applies to the work that they are doing on that building that is visible from the beach
but not to the entire um structure. That that is that is what has been drafted. Um happy to receive committee feedback on that but I believe that's what I took from the last meeting. >> I I commend you on on on you know how you documented and captured what was
requested. Um I disagree however with what was requested uh because of for instance that the gentleman mentioned earlier you know drones are available now and all these new technologies. I mean I I could see that a switchbot which is just a little device you put on
the the curtain rod will will close the curtains at a certain time of day. Um, and I would think that the requirements to have I think the key is and I think where our ordinance was written. You need to close your curtains. You don't
need to close your curtains if you have tinted windows. So it's it's carbing an exception. And I think that should be our philosophy and and continue. What this is doing is changing that and saying you no longer can just agree to close your curtains and and do it. We're gonna force you to spend a lot of money
to get turtle glass, which I hate because during the day when you when it's open, the room is dark and people are going to want to stay in a hotel with dark rooms. So, I think we should continue to give the flexibility for the and maybe use our teeth and say we're
going to like other cities, we're going to make sure at sunset your curtains are closed and you're going to start getting violations, but and and at random times during the night if we choose to. But I think us dictating you must implement protection of the light escaping your
your rooms by changing your glass is um o over is is is is necessary and maybe overreaching a little bit. So but again you you implemented what exactly what what was asked of you. This is more a
comment to the to the beach stewards and they can just say stay quiet and it'll continue as as it is. But >> any >> I feel >> any response to >> no >> the feedback we got was when it's up to closing curtains.
I mean is like you said I don't know what that robot cost that closes curtains for hotels but >> way less of the glass. >> It's a lot of human error as far as to whether it actually happens or I mean, the glass is always going to protect the light from coming onto the
beach. I don't know. >> I don't have a comment on that. >> I We had the I just wanted to show some respect to vice chair. We had this conversation before and make sure we reconsidered for new information. I think we uh
should move forward. Okay. Okay, thank you. And this is just clarifying the um the Ballard lighting the discussion that we had at the previous meeting. Any lighting um shall be long wavelength on the walkovers, cutthroughs, other means
of access. I do know that for the development that went through the FD permit. This was also specified for them, but it's just good practice later on down the line. and they do not put um you know non-friendly light bulbs um in
on their walkover. So getting into existing beachfront lighting section 44.7. So I wanted to clarify what I was uh what I was doing here. This is just providing more detail that for existing lighting that is visible from the beach
that is not compliant with the lighting ordinance. One of the ways that the screening can occur um is through the planting of vegetation between the light source and the beach to screen the light from the beach. One of the options I had
allowed for was Florida native or Florida friendly vegetation buffers. There are a lot of Florida friendly plants that don't belong in the dunes. That's what this second sentence was intended to do. All dune plantings shall be those listed in the FT recommended um
manual or guide. Um as an approved alternative, the the Florida friendly vegetation was intended for those developed properties that might have paved planter areas on their pool deck that aren't necessarily beyond the coastal construction control line. That
I don't think I did a very effective job communicating that. So if the committee is amendable to it, they would still be able to plant Florida friendly vegetation landward of the coastal construction control line. Anything waterword
regardless of whether it is dunes or beach or current improved property, that would need to be Florida native. Um, but if the committee would just like to see any screening used for this purpose being Florida native plants, I'm happy
to amend it to that as well. So, >> any I I have a comment, but I'm going to wait a turn. >> Dan, did you have any comment? >> I would I would always rather go with the native
as opposed to the friendly. Definitely. I um you can have non-natives that are Florida friendly and then those Florida friendlies then can spread into the dunes. The second thing that concerned me of your conversation is the CCCL
where there is dunes behind the CCCL >> and the way I heard you say it, you might not have meant it is in they could do Florida friendly in behind the CCCL in adune. That's that's a good point. >> And uh I would just get rid of
non-natives and there are plenty of natives and that would be up to the job to solve the problem as well as reduce this the risk of it spreading and
getting into the dunes where we don't want it. Okay. Section 44.8 just referring back to the definition for sunrise to sunset in chapter 95. Section 44.9.
Um, this again is the fallback restriction um during turtle nesting season. Should the city commission not agree with prohibiting fireworks on and over the beach year round, the recommendation would be that it is um they are
prohibited on or over the beach during turtle nesting season. I would, you know, kind of my same can of worms for short for birds is go to if that doesn't hold, I would say use the
nesting >> bird nesting >> bird nesting date as well. >> Understood. >> Is is the committee in agreement with that? >> Okay, I I'll get that changed. >> Okay. Along the same lines, I don't
understand why flashlights, cell phone or flashlight or other dress lighting >> um is uh prohibited outside of turbal nesting season. I mean especially if you think about tourists because you know if
we live here we might buy the light and use it any all time year although why would I use it if it's not turtle nesting season? Uh but for a tourist who has to go buy it in January that makes no sense at all. So in in the thing where it says with flashlight,
cell phone flash or light or other transient lighting, which actually is in it's in 9519 as well as in chapter 44 or in this in this section um in both places actually. We we're we're requiring special special flashlights of
people in January. I I don't think that's appropriate. >> Did that come from the model ordinance? Um I I don't believe transient lighting was directly addressed through the model ordinance. So that the type of transient lighting that the vice chair
is talking about I I don't believe that was out of that. But I I do want to say that transient lighting um as prohibited in 44.9 this is during turtle sea turtle nesting season or at least it >> yeah that one is >> but there's another spot like I just was
referring to in 9519 where we're we're making those and I think they're also here somewhere in this section that's because that's when I took the note so somewhere in here also it talks about needing the special flashlight and I think a comment out of respect I remember a comment was, you know, people
could just buy them. Um, but as a resident, yeah, people could buy them, but as a tourist who's only here in non-type turtle season, I think that that's something that should be considered. >> And we should not require it outside of turtle season.
>> Any comments? I think I asked a question in the last when we talked about this that it was currently flashlights were not allowed year round on the beach. Is that true or >> I I don't know >> because I thought I'd ask and it didn't I was thinking you could not use them
during turtle season but I think someone said it's year round no flashlights on the beach but I don't >> I think we should fix that. I don't know. I'm not sure where that would be referenced, but >> and in 9519 um that is the that is
referring to the marine turtle nesting season. The following activities are prohibited at the beach during nighttime during the nesting season. So that if that's what you were referring to, it's >> that wasn't I actually I actually wrote it at the very end. It was the last thing I wrote. So it was somewhere in this last section, but I didn't write
the number. I'm sorry. Okay. I'll I'll let you know later if it's really true. >> Thank you. All right, last item. Uh, the last section 44.13. Um, this is just a requirement on the city to provide our report that we submit annually to the city commission,
the beach stewardship committee. We would place this on your agenda and those are the major changes. >> Okay. >> Is there any public comment? Okay. So, the same options as we had
with the other ordinance. We can have the recommended changes and come back to us or approve this to move forward with the recommended changes and they don't have to come back. I'll I started I'll start at this. >> I would say I would say move forward
with the changes is fine. >> Okay. >> Yes, I agree. vice >> chair. >> Similar to my last comment, um I'm not even sure that chapter 44, which is the land development code and and and turtle ordinances um fully is is with and dictating uh
windows and so forth is fully within our scope. So, I'm going to end up voting no on this uh moving forward. Uh so, it doesn't matter whether I could proceed. >> Thank you. Um, I'll move to approve the changes discussed to this ordinance and
present to the city commission. >> I'll second that. >> Roll call. >> Member Thompson? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Kerszman? >> No. >> Member Looney? >> Yes. >> Member Rothenberger? >> Yes. >> Chair Stevens? >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Thank you, >> Brandon. Thank you. >> Very nice job. >> Great job. Thank you as always. >> Wow. >> Uh the next item, let's see. I think we're at number five on the
original agenda. Items for discussion, >> Ryan. Any issue from you? >> I don't have anything else. I'll make the adjustments to the beach activity report next time. >> City attorney? >> Nothing. >> Move, sir. Vice Chair, nothing. I want
us to be done at 11:30. >> No, nothing. >> Clerk, anything? >> No. Thank you. >> Then >> I say we are adjourned. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.