this meeting to order. Please stand and join us for the pledge of >> allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Clark, >> can I have a roll call, please? >> Member Rothenberger, >> here. >> Member Thompson >> here. >> Member Kurszman >> here. >> Chair Stevens >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Great. >> Uh before we start, I would like to
congratulate our assistant clerk for um employee of the was it quarter? >> Yeah, >> last quarter. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for all of your hard work in supporting us in this committee. My pleasure. Thank you. >> And that was long every day. >> Yes. >> Thank you.
>> Uh first up, uh presentation beach activity report. Oh, >> uh also like to introduce we have a new board liaison, Camden Mills. Uh like to acknowledge Ayako and all of her
contributions over the years. And welcome Camden to uh the beach stewardship committee. Thank you. I'm glad to join. And yes, I'd also like to thank Ayako and and the information she's helped provide me to try and bring me up to speed so I can be a smooth transition as as I serve as
your your staff leaison moving forward. Um so this item for our beach activity report. This is a as I understand an activity report that we provide every quarter um that just provides an updates on weddings, public meetings, special events, cleanups as well as um sheriff
violations um for in this report will be from April 1st through June 30th. Um so a copy of that was included in the agenda packet. Um one item I'd like to note was um at the time that it was published, we didn't have an update quite yet from keep panels beautiful on
the cleanup events. Um, so I'd like to share that information today. Um, from April through June, there was a total of 13 events um, with 221 volunteers. Um, over 486 volunteer hours were served. Um, and they collected justund just
under 900 pounds of litter and over 12.5 um, miles of of beach was improved with those cleanup events. Thank you. >> Great. Moving forward, uh, approval of the agenda.
Does anyone have any modifications to the agenda? I would, uh, like to suggest that the customer use conversation be moved up to before item A because I think it would be important to understand customary use
uh, as we discuss the ordinances on the agenda. That'll be useful information if we make that up. Any objection to that? >> So move 5e to 5A. >> Yep.
>> And it's my understanding of B and let's take a look here. Originally A and B, the goal of today was for them to introduce
both of them to us, solicit uh public feedback, and then for us to hear all that and then schedule two separate workshops that will be scheduled after this via what's the tool called Doodle. uh for us to meet each one so we have
time to really sink our teeth into it. >> That that's the plan. >> You're saying this isn't the today is not the day to be diving into these ordinances. >> If you read it, they're not asking for this in in there that they would like to
do a separate workshop for each one. And then at I was going to say at the end of the current B we would talk about the process for the workshop. on how we'd want that. Do we want any more? Do we want any additional information provided
for the workshop to prepare us? And then what process would we go through for each to set us up for success? And I believe at the end of each workshop they would have our feedback and they would come back to us with a
dare I say a final draft that we would then vote to propose to move forward in the process. I believe the turtle light once that was done it would have to go to planning and then the beaches uh the behavioral beaches one would go straight
to commission. But uh in my understanding of that that would give us more time for each one to just focus on that does that >> but it would come back to us before it goes to commission even the behavior one. >> Yes. For us to vote to say yes that's my understanding. Camden is is that
correct? >> Uh Brandon you confirm that? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Everyone okay with that? >> So so to clarify my request I I'm not asking that we res change A B C and D's order. I'm just trying to make E sort of be a zero. That's fine. >> Yeah,
>> we'll leave the other letters alone. >> So, we'll move that up. >> Okay. >> Any other changes? >> Do we uh So, can can I have a motion for the updated agenda? >> I'll make that motion uh to follow the updated agenda.
>> I'll second it. >> Roll call, please. >> Member Thompson. >> Yes. Vice Chair Kerszman. >> Yes. >> Member Rothenberger. >> Yes. >> Chair Stevens. Yes. Motion carries. >> Great. Next is
uh to review the August 20th, 2025 agenda. Uh oh no. Uh minutes. Do we have to do minutes? >> Yes. >> Yes. That's that's next after comments. >> So we'll move to audience comments.
Uh this is general comments. Uh if you have a uh any comments, please fill out a card and present to the clerk. At the end of each uh action item, we will stop and ask for specific comments for each item. I
>> I I forgot one item. I see John Bishop and it says he's talking. Is he on the agenda? Item um D for an update on Penllis County Emergency Beach Nourishment Project. We are going to briefly give an update on UPAM and John would be available for for any questions if
needed. Thank you, >> clerk. Do we have any general comment requests? >> No, general. >> Okay. Do I want to take them first? >> And we'll move uh approval of the May minutes. Any changes to the minutes? >> I have one. >> Okay.
>> Uh it's just a typo. I'm not sure how important, but on page two of the agenda, section 4A, second paragraph refers to planning project.
It's actually a planting >> project for the planting of the sea oats and whatnot there. Oh, sorry. >> That's all I have. I'm sorry I couldn't hear you because of the >> um
so page two >> section 4 a >> okay >> second paragraph planning project >> should be planting >> okay >> as in seats >> okay >> project >> thanks
>> okay thank you >> any I wasn't here for that meeting any changes I'll make a motion to accept the um minutes with the uh change uh suggested.
>> Have a second. >> So second roll call. >> Member Rothenberger. >> Yes. >> Member Thompson? >> Yes. >> Member Kursman? >> Yes. >> Chair Stevens? >> Yes. The motion carries. >> Okay.
Uh, we're going to our new number A, the customary conversation. City attorney, >> did we want to take John Bishop and do D first since he's here? We could let him go back to work after this report.
>> I already did. >> Since we have a guest from uh from the county, >> I want to let them hear. um or his request is to let uh Dr. Bishop uh give us an update on number
the new number E >> D. But >> oh, that's right. The new number >> the new E. Is that okay? That >> on the beach renourishment project >> is uh John available now?
>> Yeah. So, let's let's go ahead and do that. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so for this agenda item, we wanted to provide an update on the Penllis County beach uh emermergency beach nourishment project. Um the county has done a great job of some public outreach um recently having three
separate meetings um with presentation uh providing some information on that. A copy of that PowerPoint presentation was included in your agenda packet for this meeting. Um, as it relates to the Uppam, um, portion specifically, um, it looks like there'll be about 66,000 cubic
yards there and about 2,000 ft stretch of beach. Um, I think the estimated cost for that was around $1.3 million. Uh, Gator Dredging will be the contractor working in that area and the estimated time frame to start is in midepptember
um to early October. Um, and the sand source um, for this nourishment will be from Blind Pass. Um, so for that I' I'd open it up to any questions or or if uh, Dr. John Bishop has anything he would like to add um, we can do that as well.
>> That's uh, perfect. That was exactly what I was said. >> I've got a few questions. Um, will this increase or decrease the amount of usable beach for the public on up after it's completed?
>> The beach will extend out uh it should extend out beyond the uh the groins that are out there now, the T groins. >> Okay. >> So, we'll make the beach wider and have more more surface area. And and I noticed that, you know, maybe I'm spoiled, but I remember loving the the
the consistency of of our beach and commenting about it. And I was on Upen Beach earlier this week and I noticed where the water came in, it was still that nice, beautiful sand, but then there's the big cliff up and where I guess it was filled from some project
and I don't know which project it was and that's consisting of a whole different kind of sand with crushed shells in it. It's just not the same. And so I'm wondering, you know, where that came from. It was that also from the blind pass or will uh
this blind pass sand being on top remedy the whole situation? >> Um well, I don't know the specific sand you're talking about. Is it on sort of the middle of the beach? >> It's it's from the cliff, you know, then inward to land. I took
some pictures, but it's just basically you only see that really pristine sand before what looks like fill >> or maybe >> Well, this sand source, >> this sand source is coming from Blind Pass, so it should be um very similar to what's on the beach now. Um there were
some posttorm efforts to put sand back on the beach uh that took sand that had washed up from the nearshore. Uh, a lot of that sand was shellier, so it might still have a lot of shells in it from that, but this sand should be um more similar to what you're used to coming in
from a blind pass. It's what we put on the beach last time. >> That was beautiful stuff. And then administratively, have we now circumvented the erosion control line issues and the getting permissions from the, you know, the
properties nearby? um because now I think it's Penllis that's funding this uh or doing this work or what's happening there. >> Yeah. So for this one project um Penllis County is moving forward with a one-time only project to kind of reset the
status. We're not circumventing. We're trying to buy more time to get the project in compliance. We don't intend to come back and nourish again uh without the core being involved. So all of the uh the property issues in Uppam will need to be taken care of eventually.
>> So who has that action item? How are we going to make sure we're ready for the next one? >> Um we are working on uh we're still working towards getting core policy changed uh and working to those revenue through those avenues and
um we're we're trying to do what we can to uh make sure that this project is core compliant. >> Thank you. Oh yeah. Excuse me. Two things. Can you give us a sense? Are we going to start at the mouth of Blind Pass and move
south towards Silver Sands? Is that >> It's not going to go in front of the Silver Sands. It'll fill from the Silver Sands north. So, the north boundary of the Silver Sands up to the Jedi. >> I can't say for certain what direction they'll work in. Uh in the past they'd
usually start at the south end and work north, but that would be an order of work that uh we haven't discussed at this time. >> And will there be fencing blocking off sections of the beach for the >> Can you give us where that'll be? >> New dredging will will block off the
fence and people will not be allowed in the construction area where they're placing sand >> for safety reasons. >> Okay. And thank you for um putting all this together. I I'm looking at the schedule. You've got us starting in next month.
>> Yeah. >> And we're at the top of the list. >> Yeah, pretty much. Um, we're working simultaneously. Uh, Weeks Marine is the prime contractor, but they have subbed out, uh, Uplum and Treasure Island to Gator dredging. So, they're going to actually have two different dredges out
there working at the same time. Weeks is going to be starting up in uh, the San Key area in Indian Shores. And then uh Gator is going to be starting at Uppam and they're going to be dredging Blind Pass and putting that sand on Uppam. Um and they're they're starting there
because there's going to be more sand in Blind Pass. They can go on up and then they'll put the remainder on Sunset Beach just to the north. And then they'll go up to John's Pass and they'll dredge John's Pass and put that on Sunshine Beach at the north end of Treasure Island. And then they'll put the rest of that down on Sunset. And
then um any remainder in sunset will get filled by weeks from egg control when they're done. >> Great. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. >> Any questions, Dan? >> No, I'm good. >> Um I have one question, but it's a
little off topic. Uh but since we have you here, Dr. Bishop, um there was some talk uh in in my communications with Zach about planting of Passagrow and um could you do you know the status
of that? You guys put beautiful sand there and now we just what can we do to protect that massive investment? >> We are um just finalizing the scope to get that out to bid so that we can uh get a contractor to plant that. It's
going to be combined with the plantings we're going to do in the other areas. I'm sure they'll plant that one first probably because it's already done. Um, and they can get started on that, but we're combining the scope to fill all of the dunes we're building all the way up to Clear Water. So, it'll be one big
scope and then um and and it should get uh planted sometime I would say early this fall. >> Right. And with that, >> does that mean you're also planning to plant where you're putting new sand in
Uppam? >> No, we we aren't planning to put any dunes in Uppam and so we're only planting where we put dunes. >> Okay, understand. >> Thank you. >> Yep. >> Yep.
any uh ask for any public comment on this. >> I don't have >> somebody raising her hand. >> Okay. It was item. >> This is item D. >> C.
No comment. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Bishop. Always good to see you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for having me. That is good news. So, we'll go uh to the city attorney and
the uh use conversation. >> Okay. Um I guess just a little background on customary use doctrine. Um so the customary use doctrine um deals with the dry sand area of the beach. Uh
the area below the Bean High water line, which is considered uh by lay people to be the wet sand area, is subject to the Florida Constitution's public trust doctrine. Um which allows you to uh walk that wet sand area, fish the wet sand
area, and I think the constitution even says spread nets uh for the public and for Indian tribes. Um there was a case to Daytona Beach versus Tony Rama and in that case they expanded um where you can
show recreational use of the sandy area adjacent to the mean high tide above the mean high tide has been ancient reasonable without interruption and free from dispute which is the big kicker. the free from dispute and the ancient
are are the big kickers such as a matter of custom should not be interfered with by the owner of the property. So if you if someone is charged with trespass um a defense to trespass can be the customary use doctrine which arises from
this Tony Rama case. The court in Tony Ram also said that the owner may make any use of the private property which is consistent with such public customary use and not calculated to interfere with the exercise of the
right of the public to enjoy the dry sand area as a recreational area adjunct to the wet sand or forshore area. So, in the Tony Rama case, um look at things like a beach uh lifeguard stand or a
beach pavilion or a beach um use that wouldn't interfere generally with the public's customary use if they could show it was ancient and it was free from dispute. Um after the Tonorama case that was in 1974.
Uh jumping in the time machine to 2007 we came to the case uh trepier versus county of which qualified the Tony Rama customary use doctrine. And the fifth district court of appeal
in that case um stated while some may find it preferable that proof of the elements of custom be established for the entire state by judicial fiat in order to protect the right of public access to p Florida's beaches. It appears to us that the acquisition of a
right to use private property by custom is intensely local and anything but theoretical. In other words, it's sightsp specific to each property. The court went on, "Custom is inherently a source of law that emanates from
long-term open, obvious, widely accepted, and widely exercised practice. It is accordingly impossible precisely to define the geographic area of the beach for which evidence of a specific customary use must be shown because it
will depend on the particular geography and the particular custom use at issue. whether it's walking or something else. The court said that the determination of customary use on a property requires the courts to ascertain in each case the
degree of customary use and ancient use the beach has been subject to. So after that case in 2007 we had Walton County adopting an ordinance in 2016.
They adopted a customary use ordinance and it stated that there would be a 15- ft buffer zone located seawward from the toe of the dune from any permanent habitable structure owned by a private entity that
is located on or adjacent to dry sand area of the beach. whichever is more seawword except as necessary to exercise an existing or future public e beach access point for ingress and egress. So they created a a
buffer zone that basically limited the private use and limited customary use and said you're not going to have customary use on these this 15t buffer zone. But from 15 feet across this dry sand that's privately
owned down to the beach. The um ordinance prohibited anyone from impeding or interfering with the public at large on dry sand area of the beach that is owned by private entities for certain specific uses. And they included
traversing the beach, sitting on the sand in a beach chair or on a beach towel or blanket, using a beach umbrella that is 7 feet or less in diameter, sunbathing, picnicking, fishing, swimming or surfing off the beach, staging surfing or fishing equipment,
and building sand castles. So that Walton County ordinance basically authorized the public all across Walton County to do those things on private land on dry sand area.
So that um case was challenged. Um, it was a case I think Alf Alfred, let me get the case name. And then this Alfred case went to the uh federal district court of appeals
or for federal district court for trial. Um they had a trial and the district court ruled um that the ordinance could be upheld. Um while that case was pending in court,
the legislature met um and the legislature adopted a new statute. This House Bill 631 that was in the 2018 regular session. The district court ruling that the customary use ordinance was valid was on
appeal to the 11th circuit. Um the 11th circuit after the legislature adopted House Bill 631 directed the district court to remove their opinion because it was moot it was
mooted out by the um the legislation. So they vacated the district court's order um which put things back in limbo. Meanwhile, al the ordinance the statute required that if the county wanted to
adopt an ordinance, it had to seek judicial determinations on each of the properties. Um so Walton County Board of County Commissioners uh made a motion to proceed under the statute.
Um they filed lawsuits against 1,197 beachfront property owners. Those beachfront property owners had to go out and obtain lawyers. They all obtained different lawyers.
And I know some of the lawyers uh and I've spoke spoken with them who represented some of the beach owners including David Smoker um who's here in Tampa. After five years of litigation,
the county had spent uh tens of millions of dollars uh on the case. The private property owners have also spent tens of millions of dollars on the case.
Um, people got tired of spending money on the case. Um, I think lawyers call it um, bleeding the other side out or hemorrhaging money. uh so much money and effort and time was being spent on this case and it was also
clogging up uh not only these law firms that many of them were working on nothing but this but also the court. Um and the the cases uh ultimately were set for a 7week bench
trial. They were going to have a trial that was set for seven weeks and it was to occur on May 22nd, 2023. Um, but like many cases, uh, the case ultimately settled uh on the courthouse steps before going to that trial. After
being set for trial, the um property owners obtained a dismissal with prejudice and a finding that customary use does not exist on their beach. Uh for some of
them, other property owners, uh and that was through motions for summary judgement where they couldn't establish ancient and they were able to show it was in dispute. Obviously, if they're in court and disputing it, it's not free from dispute. Um, so that's a very hard
hurdle to get past and it's not adequately uh well, it's it's hard to define um even if you were to defi define it in the statute. The other property owners negotiated a settlement agreement
allowing the public a 20- foot transitory area for walking and sitting and a finding that customary use does not exist on their beach. So some property owners uh one obtained rulings that their beaches
were not subject to customary use. The others settled and said they agreed that customary use was not on their beach, but they would allow in exchange for that a 20 uh foot area where the public could walk.
So this past legislative session, the statute uh requiring the process uh to go through the judicial system for determinations on a case-byase basis and
the process that requires local governments to sue their own property owners was repealed and that was in Senate Bill 1622. So that had the effect of repealing the Florida statute 163.035
that had this arduous uh process and required as I said counties to sue their own property owners. basically putting us back to the common law of customary use, back to Tony Rama
and back to the Trepier case U versus County of Valuchia. Um, and puts us back to where the court would have to ascertain in each case the degree of customary and ancient use uh for the beach and whether it has been free from
dispute. Um so it's back in the courts. Um the customary use doctrine can be used um as a shield um or can be used as a as a sword. Typically as a shield if someone is
charged with trespass on a private beach. um a defense to that trespass charge is the customary use doctrine, but it has to be shown um in court and proven that whatever they were doing
perhaps walking on the dry sand has been done free from dispute for u for many years in that exact location of that particular property that they were walking on. So it has the effect there. Um now if
you'll remember the uh case that was in the federal district court uh where they found an ordinance to be valid was vacated um because the 11th circuit uh found it to be mooted by the legislation. So the 11th circuit never reviewed that federal
district court case but it's still out there. So, one of the things we want to do is be mindful of private property rights, uh, especially when we're talking about an ordinance, um, that would apply across
the miles of beach that we have and impact many, uh, different property owners. Um, we have been mindful in drafting the ordinance so that it doesn't interfere with private property rights. In our legal department review, we may have some things that come up. Uh
so we'll want to pay attention as we go through the workshops and as we go through the through the hearings. Um at one point um St. Pete Beach had had a customary use ordinance
uh not as drastic as Walton County um but it had an ordinance. Um one of the other things to consider um is that the beaches particularly in St. Pete Beach are complex. The ownership is complex.
There are a great many easements um that are out there. There are plats. Um um there's a few cases uh already that are still in court. The St. Pete Beach got dismissed out of one of the cases. is there was a dispute between
two uh property owner groups uh about the use of an access. Um with that said, because it's so complex, it's very difficult to adopt a customary use ordinance that would apply across uh the entire beach. Um so the better
alternative from a legal perspective is to allow the common law of customary use uh to exist and if we are going to adopt an ordinance to keep it general to say for example the city of St. Pete Beach
hereby acknowledges the existence of the common law uh right to customary use of dry sand areas of the beach where the criteria for customary use doctrine can be established uh in the judicial system
and that's even if you do an ordinance that's where where it would occur. Um, so with that said, I think that allows uh it gives you some background and that does allow us to go forward with the um beach turtle lighting ordinance as well
as our beach behavior ordinance and hopefully by knowing a little bit about the background uh will help you analyze uh what you want to do in your beach ordinances. >> Thank you. Question for the committee. Do we want to do public ask for public
comment first and then discuss or >> Okay. Is there any public comment or this topic? >> I don't have any. >> Please state your name and address for the record. And you have
>> Excuse me. Yeah, excuse me. You can fill out the card afterwards. >> Okay. Thank you. Dave Winkler, Sun Coast Watersports, 9540 Blind Pass Road. I would like to thank the city attorney for that >> voluminous comprehensive
analysis of that. I think it initially what this I think what the really tone of that was it's complicated, >> you know, and uh the private property owners I work on the beach. I work on the beach every day. I've been in business in St. Pete Beach for 47 years
on St. Pete Beach and I'm on the beach daily. Um, I operate in the areas that you guys are discussing. So, I have contractual agreements with hotels to provide services on the beach. I know that their position is
they're not going to go away quietly, you know, if we try to take away property rights. So, uh, once again, I thank the city attorney, you know, for addressing the overview of the complexity of these issues. And, uh, I
ask the commission and the stewardship committee to take those into consideration when they're thinking about making ordinances that might be overly restrictive. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Question. Yes. >> Um, since you've been on the beach a long time, and I think you've shared
this with me, but I want to make sure I got it right. Um, if someone, you know, from the public just walked onto a certain part of the beach where you were even doing business, could you in the past kick them off? >> Yes. >> Or do you need tools to do that or
>> are you able to do that? It's been determined as private property and if we have an issue with someone that is disruptive uh we're advised to ask them personally you know first to settle down or leave because really people the general public
does not know how to behave and you know we deal with that on a regular basis. So you can ask them to leave nicely if not if not then you can request the assistance of the sheriff. That was if they were disruptive, but if people were just like walking across or putting a
towel down, was that an issue? >> Uh, it depends if they were interfering with any kind of the activities that were already licensed on the beach or, you know, disruptive to guest in any way. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> Thank you, sir. You bet. Any other comments? Open it up discussion for the committee. Any questions for the city attorney? >> Yeah, I've got a couple. Um, you know, I was, it predates this attorney, but I was involved when they did the earlier
uh, ordinance in the city, which I like the way you referred to it. Thank you for the whole dissertation that it was a shield. I think they called it affirmative defense. It took me forever to find out what that was. Um but when that ordinance when that statute came
out in 2018, there was a provision that you could have a provision by a certain date for affirmative defense but not a complete customary use ordinance. So the city did that intermediate one because it was the only piece that was carved out in a confusing way in the in the
legislation so they could do the affirmative defense one which we later got rid of due to the writing to case and other things that were going on. Um but what I want to understand now is do you know when I spoke to for instance
Mr. Twitty who's the tax assessor I he explained that he only taxes the land where they build on the coastal construction line at one rate. He taxes or the county taxes the the marshland and wasteland which is the little short
area from the CCL to the actual just the marsh land and then the entire sandy beach is not taxed to what we would call these private property owners. Uh but he taxes the properties instead as beachfront.
Um, and part of the reason for that was I believe in understanding customary use that many people use the beach. So it wouldn't be fair to tax these these people. They're owning this basically the land under the sand. Um, and and so
that's why I'm trying to understand that a bit. I know nobody wants to lose their rights, but the public also doesn't want to lose their rights. and and in looking at something else sort of related to I mean seems another piece of legislation
one uh FS 161021 um says access or public access as used in these sections means the public's right to laterally traverse the sandy beaches of the state where such access exists on or after July 1st 1987 or
where the public has established an access way through private lands to land seawward or lies or water line by prescription, prescriptive easement or any other legal means, development or instruction shall not interfere with such rights of public access unless a comparable alternative
access way is provided. So even though the whole customer use assession was going on, this this particular statute seemed to survive and and so I understand the city not wanting to sue or be sued by every private property
owner with land under the sand. But it's why the word public beach and private beach scare me so much in our upcoming ordinances because it then does draw a line in the sand with regard to to
customer use. And I think it's important that we maintain at least the ability at some stage to decide what to do about customer use should we ever have to. But at the same time appreciate that when there's a
private property owner they actually help provide the quorum and do any of the things that even if we rented out you know Haram Park to somebody you know they have the right even if they don't you know own it to say no you can't bring your chair here or you can't bring
your food here because I have that quote franchise. So that's why I'm trying to understand this customary use in conjunction with the with the ordinances. I don't know if you could shed some more light on >> Yes. What was the number of the statute you had again?
>> 161.021. It's in the definition section. >> 161.01 021. I'm going to pull >> and I had actually sent this to uh the attorney for you know some of the hotels and CCD you um even I didn't realize it was
>> Let me pull it up. um >> in the August. >> Yeah. So that's the um definition of access or public access. And then 161 also talks u about in the context of it is um beach reourishment
projects construction on the beach uh development uh uh beyond the coastal construction control line. Um, if you go for a uh a permit from DP and
you're uh in that beach area, there's additional criteria that apply. And the section you read uh is about is in the definition but impacts and it's about maintaining uh uh access um
um parallel to the to the beach in the in the wet sand and any customary use dry sand, but also in in almost primarily perpendicular to the beach to allow someone to get from say um G
Boulevard to the water and states that there are certain beach access points uh that are arise either through a recorded easement or um by what they call prescriptive easement which may not be
on paper but has been open and notorious and continued on for many years. And you can establish uh those prescriptive easement easements even though they're not in writing or recorded. And again, sometimes those arise as a shield. If
someone is charged with trespass, they bring it up in court as a shield, an affirmative defense, and says, "Oh, but people have been walking here for 50 years to get to to the water." And you'll see many of those cases resulting in
uh what I what you see on for example Longboat Key uh where there are gated access points and it says these are this access point is for homeowners within a particular condominium only. trying to
maintain that as a strictly written private easement for use of that homeowner as opposed to um a public use that anyone can open the gate and go to the water. >> Um
and it also sometimes results in in u closures uh for a day, one day a year uh to make sure that they can say, "Oh, it hasn't been open to the public 365 24/7 for 10 years." They said, "Well, it's closed every New Year's morning."
>> Y >> um to try to prevent that. I think what's important to realize is yes, it's complicated not only by the customary use, but by all these prescriptive easements, written easements, plats. Um but it brings to
focus what I think that we need to concentrate on as we look at these ordinances to stop uh from getting too confused. a little framework to imagine this in is that there are um
two kind of worlds. One is regulating development and and that has to do with um land development regulations. Um how high you can build, where you can build, square footage, floor area ratio,
all all those land development regulations and behavioral rules like if you if your light bulb goes out, you have to replace it with a total friendly light bulb. um it's not really development but it's u maintaining a beach for environmental
concerns versus the customary use doctrine which is more about um property right to exclude people. So that's the primarily primary um stick in the property rights bundle that you're talking about with customary use
doctrine um is when you have own property you have many rights. uh one one that the court considers to be very uh important is the right to exclude. So it's if it's my property and uh you're
becoming disruptive uh or you're interfering with things that are going on to trespass to say you're no longer allowed to be on my private property. You're here with my permission other times. Um but I retain that right to exclude you
or exclude you for forever um or exclude all public. Uh that's also there it but for a customary use claim that's there as well. So, when we're looking at the ordinance, um, we have things like regulating development,
regulating the private land owners private use of their beach for the they themselves, what they're going to build, and for their guests, how where their guests uh, areas are going to be in terms of land
development approvals. And then there's the customary uses all about behavioral. And so some of some of the ordinances might might uh overlap in each some of these areas. And as we think about public and private, as you were mentioning the words in the ordinance, you want to think what context it's
being used in. And you do have the power to regulate development on private land just like you regulate all the developments that come forward on private land. So if you have a new hotel going up, you can establish setbacks. um you have height limitations,
uh floor area ratios, open space requirements, all those requirements you can still do. That's land development regulations. Um what you can't do is uh on the customary use and the behavioral stuff is open up someone's private land um to
require them to allow the public to traverse private property. Now, they they can allow it if they want to u but you can't force them to. uh accept the public. >> But if there has been a customary use in such a matter, then they have lost that
right to do that exclusion. Correct. >> To be determined by the courts on a case-by case basis if you can establish the ancient custom of that particular use. One use might be might be walking. Another use might be uh bike riding. And
maybe there has been no bike riding. And we often have new uses that come up on the beach like electric bicycles. Um when I was uh younger man, I was a big wind surfer. Now wind surfing has been replaced by kite surfing and uh the my
surfboards that I used to ride now have sks that go down and they go over the wave. So there's always new things that are coming up. Um, some of these new uses will probably be hard to show that they were ancient. Um, and that they occurred a long time ago. Um, but
walking, I think traversing, walking peacefully across like that might be uh something that one might establish if they were charged with trespass. But again, from what you heard earlier, most of the time people aren't being trespassed just for walking. They're
being trespassed because they're disruptive or interfering with operations. And a complaint I had heard was that, you know, if there was an operation, you know, renting chairs, for instance, that there that there was a difficulty in getting, you know, someone who just, you know, plunked an umbrella, you know, 5t in front, you know, for the
public of those chairs. That that was a problem that needed to be addressed. Probably why they're trying to do this statute now or this ordinance. But that does establish at the same time that the customer use was that people were able to flunk themselves down in in what some
people might find inappropriate places. Um and and and not be removed. Um so that's why I'm trying to get a handle on this again. Um and and I'm also wondering if we're going to redo our statute now that we have the door the windows open again to have a not not
because of what we had before but because of the new legislation. It wouldn't make sense, I think, to to reestablish that customary use. You know, how what it means >> if we do a statute, I uh would recommend that we simply adopt the common law of
customary use and say that we recognize it. It's very dangerous to go into the territory that Walton County does doesn't say, well, you have to establish a 20 foot walkway for the public to go through. That's harder. >> Um and and that's more subject to challenge. Um the other thing in the
behavioral ordinance um that we're looking at staying out of the dunes um could is would now be also a uh a public ordinance that would regulate members of the public and tell them they can't go into the dunes. That doesn't mean that
or interfere with the private property owner. the private property owner who owns the land on which those in that area can say, "Well, hey, we are doing a planting project here. We're fencing this off and you can't come on here and it's our uh private property
and and exclude people from that area." Um, so I think that they can work hand in hand. the property right to exclude people, the behavioral ordinance um that sheriffs can use to write up somebody apart from whether the property owner is
there or not. Not able to call about the trespass, but the sheriff finds some someone camped out in the dune area. They can remove them if we have a solid ordinance on those behaviors. >> Thank you.
>> Any other questions for the attorney? I >> I have a a quick one. I I know this stuff goes back to Roman days, but the word ancient, how would you describe that today? >> That was a big part of the case in Walton County. U big part of what they
were arguing about. Um they were going back to the creation of the state. >> Okay. >> Um 18, what was it? 45? I might have it wrong. Um city of St. Pete Beach 1957. Um, prior to that, I imagine we were
part of Panelis County. >> Um, >> I I do recall, if I can just add that when they did the other ordinance or when they repealed the other ordinance. Um, the words used by the the city commissioners at the time was the beach
is public. The beach will always be public. This is only getting rid of the ordinance that was created, you know, due to that process. Um, and that the attorney who had been with the the, you know, the the city for a while said I
that he think it would not be that hard to establish that our usage because of the age of Passagil, the age of the the different communities that were merged together when the four cities were combined. That those those all indicated that it would not be that hard to show
that a ancient usage by the public. Mhm. >> Um so >> I think a couple other contexts where it could arise. Um recently there was a uh application to put a house uh in the sand dune area on Siesta Key and and the Sarasota County
government. Um so they had asked for u a variance uh to put a house where houses are prohibited because of environmental uh concerns. Um and then that was denied. Uh but you you might imagine a uh uh someone wanting to put a structure uh
so far seawword that it might interfere with customary use area and as Tony Rama says you can use your private property but you can't use it in a way that would interfere with the customary use. So it could be used as a sword in that case where the uh local government would say
you can't build your house there because of customary use. So they're using as a sh sword rather than as a shield to a trespass case. So can can be used that way also on on occasion. >> So would that also mean that you know a wall of chairs you know just thousands
of beach chairs being put out could that be considered um you know on both the customary use angle as well as of course if the city has ordinances to control that. uh on customer use. Um you know this >> potentially it could arise um if chairs
have been there for a long time it might be an interruption in the ancient use um and it might might have problems with um free from dispute. Um the thing to keep to keep in mind there is that you're regul you're allowed to
regulate through site planning uh development and that's different than than saying people have to be allowed to walk through here. You're saying we're going to regulate this for uh environmental reasons uh for safety
reasons uh fire access emergency access those kinds of things are proper. Um, if you're regulating development and you can do that as long as you're not saying you must allow the public in, you're saying where you can put your stuff is different than saying you have to allow
uh the public to walk through your over your property. Um, if the prop public's been walking over your property for decades, then you can use it as a as a sword and say, "Hey, well, you have to keep continue to allow that area to be free uh for passage for for say walking,
but maybe not for for bike riding or maybe not for uh you know, other activities that people might try, electric bikes or things like that." that that you just mentioned that I mean uh when I was researching this also I saw on the on the attorney general's
site their example of a unconstitutional beach ordinance was I think it was Palm Beach or somewhere out on the east coast they had a regulation against no skiboards and they said you can't use skim boards anywhere on the beach and they give that as an example of well you
can't just say that you have to say you can't use skim boards over here over there but to just make something illegal on its own is not constitutional. >> Yep. And skim boards um for people that may may not skim board. You have a skim
board and you're running and you throw it down in the wet sand and then you go into the wave and come back. So that wet sand area is again that public trust doctrine that has the really strong constitutional provision that the public really is allowed to use that area for
for for the public for any activity. Um there's another interesting aspect too uh maybe uh to draw an analogy that's more drastic than than it is here in the west coast but um in Nassau County in uh St. John's County, some of the in
Daytona. I'm sure you're all familiar with the car driving on Daytona. So, the county says you can drive your car on the beach. You have to go through this access point. You have to sign in. You we have speed limits. You have to park
here. Um you can only stay for certain hours. Um sometimes they regulate how many cars go there. um the that has been occurring there probably since cars were invented. Um so
that's probably ancient and customary use free from dispute. But that doesn't mean that the county or the state or in that case the federal government uh can't regulate that activity uh under say the endangered species act and say
well we have sea turtles that nest on this beach and so you're going to be prohibited from driving during sea turtle nesting season or you're going to be be prohibited from driving at night when turtles are hatching or even establishing conservation areas where
they have to stay out of for turtles or for nesting birds. Um so there is a regulatory overlay even to the public's uh customary use. Um that can happen. It's not a not a defense that you rode
your ATV through a bird nesting zone. Um and you say, "Well, it's a customary use. People have always been riding ATVs on the beach and therefore I can ride right through where the black skimmers are." So that would still be a crime. Um, and you can you can regulate even
that that activity. >> Great examples. Thank you. >> Thank you. I have one question and then we'll we have a heavy agenda. We'll move on. Can you just discuss your thoughts on how do you manage liability in this where
the public is on but it's private property. Someone trips and falls and then the lawyers get involved in lawsuits and now But hey, I got I have to let them on my property, but they trip and fall now, I'm getting sued. >> That you don't want to write an
ordinance that says they have to let them on their property. You want to preserve their ability to exclude people from private property. You don't want to say you must must take people. >> Thank you. >> Ready for the next move forward.
Uh we're going to uh B now. Also, it's the ordinance creating chapter 95 beaches. >> Good morning, Brenberry, city planner. Um, thank you, Chair Stevens, for introducing this item previously. As mentioned, this is intended to just be
an introduction. We do uh we would like to ask the committee to set up separate workshops potentially between now and your November meeting. That'll give um time for this information to be digested and looked through and discussed and then potentially bring something back to you for
final draft at your November meeting. Um if it needs more time, it needs more time. We will address it in the future. But this is the first of what will be at least four public comment options. um we will have the meeting in November or um thereabouts. We'll also have two
readings before the city commission should this move forward. So just briefly um as mentioned at the community meeting back in July. Um the proposal is to bring what was previously
one consolidated document forward as at least three ordinances. The first is the establishing ordinance for the beach ordinance that that chapter 95 that's been discussed for several years. This will focus on behavior conduct and
public beach permitting. >> What's a public beach? >> What's or we're going to address that later? >> Well, we'll address that later. >> We have a workshop for that type of question. >> Okay. I just trying to understand the scope. Um, this content has not been
significantly modified from the content that was presented in early 2025. I did not attempt to go back and and define a certain um, you know, I didn't I didn't add to the content that you previously left off. I know that there was an ordinance that served as kind of a checkpoint last
summer. There was a workshop with the commission. There have been some modifications to this content that was largely more on the commercial regulatory side, but there were some changes to this content. I will try to define those, but the content that's presented in this agenda is likely
similar to the draft that you'll be presented at your workshop. Should we move forward with that? Um, I did not attempt to make significant modifications. I just attempted to reformat in a way that it's more clear what is being modified in our current code, what's being modified and and move
to chapter 95. This does not address most commercial regulatory and development related standards. That will be forthcoming. It will be subject of course we we're operating under Senate Bill 180 currently. Um there are development related standards that may
be off the table until 2027. Um not all but but some. um we have not put together any kind of um schedule for those those modifications at this time. And then of course the second item we're uh discussing today item C pertains to
marine turtle lighting standards that is in a separate ordinance ordinance 202516. So just to broadly summarize this ordinance this does not cover everything. These are the standards that have already been addressed related to maximum tent sizes, requiring public
beach franchise permits for setting up of cabanas, tents on the public beach, as we'll get into definitions in the workshop, prohibiting smoking on the beach and unsafe fishing activity, prohibitions on unpermitted fireworks, prohibitions on wild uh bird, turtle,
and manity harassment. making that declaration through our code. Permitting microobility devices and unregistered by on the public beach, permitting requirements for organized recreational activities in the public beach, which is something that came up in the community meeting. We'll have to spend some time
on defining what those activities are um when they need to be permitted, if that is something that is moved forward. There were items that seemed to be in consensus related to commercial activities and those were particularly the removal of the front desk registration and the wristband
requirements for resort cabana service areas. That's something that's been brought up in past public meetings, public discussions. There seem to be some consensus on that. That is something we are proposing to address under this ordinance. Not the more involved um development related aspects
of Cabana Beach permitting. just just removal removing those requirements and specifying signage and restroom requirements. Those latter is a Florida building code requirement. Signage is something we address at technical review committee uh when when these requests come in, but just specifying where
signage needs to be located and um what it needs to signify and then specifying penalties for violation of the beach ordinance. So, we ask for four tasks today. Um first is just confirming that there is a desire of the beach stewardship committee to schedule a workshop to
discuss this content. I believe in past formats you have gone through line by line section by section that is our default but if there's another format that you would like to undertake um we we're happy to consider that as well. If there is anything that you feel is appropriate for the scope of this
ordinance that hasn't been included that will not be addressed in other ordinances. Is there content that you would like us to bring back? not necessarily with recommendations, but just general broad categorical um conversations that we need to have at this workshop or potentially a future
beach stewardship committee meeting. And then if there is any initial public comment on this, as I mentioned, this is the first of at least four public meetings where public comment will be uh solicited. That's all I have. I'm happy to field questions
>> if you don't mind. I think let's do public comment first and then you know I have a couple at least one for number three that we can communicate then we can discuss how do we how to move forward with workshop number one. Is that okay
>> Lisa? Right. >> Are you on this one? No. Okay. >> I don't >> No public comment. Okay. Uh any back to his could you put that slide back up
just so we Thank you. any any Let's start with number three of anything as you I'm assuming we all read the the material that was sent out. Is there anything anybody else wanted to
add it for this conversation so they can prepare for the workshop? Uh so is there an item here to say the things that any any content for this ordinance that should be removed from this phase? Is that part of number three
also or is that a different item? >> You can either add or remove or if there's something you think shouldn't be put in. >> Exactly. I mean if we can cover things that I when I read this through um there are >> if I may I think it's if there's
something that has not been included it will not be addressed this is to add it and then if there's things in there at the workshop we can debate have a conversation on removing is how I read it >> if Brandon you've studied this quite a
bit I would imagine spent a lot of time on this >> sure yes >> so you probably know this better than anybody else right now. >> Well, um I mean it's it's gone through multiple iterations. I know it's been discussed with this board. It's gone through multiple staffs >> at a high level.
>> Mhm. >> Are you comfortable with the way it stands right now as far as you know segregation of this goes here and that goes there and >> I think the formatting work that I've done is consistent with what is logical to present in a discussion format as in
terms of the content of the ordinance. If there are items that the committee is has consensus should not be addressed in this ordinance, we're happy to address that at the workshop. I what I was hoping to get today was any content that should be included that has not been covered so far.
>> Do you know of any? >> No. Um I mean this has gone through a few year. I just >> That's a really good answer. >> It it's been through, you know, several iterations, several years with the committee. I haven't been involved with all of those, but I I believe it currently captures potentially more than what the committee would like it to
contain, but I don't know of anything that's been left out at this point. >> All right. Now that I've had time to think of how to phrase my comment in consistency with item three. >> Oh, I just add one thing. One thing we might add is what we had talked about with the customary use a section that
just acknowledges uh and recognizes common law of customary use in Florida as applicable and just have a general statement to that effect. >> So I go ahead >> that's it. So first off I want to really
thank you for what the work you did on this. I mean I have been involved in this through the many iterations back when uh some of the city commissioners were beach stewards. um and and been through a lot of this. I sent 91 changes to be considered from the LA to the last
draft. Um and when I think about negotiating, you know, we've got commercial interests or private interests that we're deferring till phase three. And I feel
that some of that needs to be added in here to enable us to go forward with some of the things that have been suggested. So for instance, I would be hesitant to recommend restricting the public from having an umbrella until I
knew what the hotels were going to be able to do with regards to an umbrella. you know, they there could be some agreement that says, "Hey, we'll only put a umbrellas in this area based on an based on an understanding that the private interests are going to have
umbrellas in other areas or available to the public or what have you. So I my concern is that by only throwing rules on the residents or the public and
not being able to establish where things will be with the hotels, it makes it more difficult. I don't want to say that the you know especially now with so many places you can't get alcohol. I don't want to add more restrictions to the public with alcohol until I understand
>> can they can they freely get them at the hotels. So I want to combine I want to add more of that if I could. >> Understood. And I I know you use those just as examples with the umbrellas cabanas. The only regulations that I believe are added um are regulations related to tent size which we can cover
at the next uh meeting. and we do have a stronger stronger enabling ability for the city to remove equipment left out overnight. So that's that's really it on that side. Alcohol I I don't believe we're changing making anything stricter
at least on the on the public beach or the non-commercial beach. Um but we can go through those things and I I completely understand and if we come out of the workshop with a a laundry list of items to you know address that's perfectly fine. And that's what we want to have that workshop for. And um I
think this is just more I'm I'm trying to think of an example because I I do think this is really a pretty thorough ordinance that you've you've worked through over years. But um if there's anything major that you would like to see discussed, customary use is an item we'll add in um for for the workshop.
That's what we're hoping to get feedback on today. So now when you say the the commercial elements, those would be elements that were captured in the ordinance that were addressed earlier this year. Not necessarily in the form that you would
like them, but just that content should be brought forward. Is that >> right? Because I feel like it's a negotiation in a way and you're asking the public to give up, you know, what we're what we're asking the public to do is all these new things that are added here, but the other piece isn't there and it's like, will we ever get to it? But I've been through a lot of these
where we say, "Well, don't worry. We're going to do that later." And and it it never happens. >> Okay. >> And so the concern is we're going to, >> you know, make make life tougher and for some people. >> Okay. >> Not fair. >> Well, if the committee
>> all the faith in your professional persistence that the top not go away. >> I can't always do it. If it's appropriate for the committee, I think the best way to address that, even if we're not going to directly talk about that content, would be to have the
commercial regulation that matches the non-commercial regulation. I can we can present that at the workshop and we can just give what is the equivalent. So, you can have that as kind of a balance. Is is that acceptable? >> It it it certainly may help. But again, I'm just thinking that if we knew that
the hotel said, "Oh, well, we're only going to be to here," >> then we could say, "Oh, well, then we'll be over there." And we just can't get that going at this point. >> Okay. >> And maybe we, you know, I'm not saying it's not saying it's the wrong thing. I'm just saying it had that difficulty.
>> Any comments? >> We need to get busy. Yeah, >> my only and I believe the mayor said that you know we have to think about what's the definition of commercial business >> and as you brought up what's public and
private uh you know my is let's be consistent that if we have private property and there is some version of commercial business being attained that it's one approved by the land owner as
well as following the rules of the hotels and all that that do it through a BTR. So, you're just making sure that there's a mechanism to regulate commercial business that needs to be defined anywhere on the sandy beach.
>> Understood. Thank you. >> Um I think number two on your slide was how what's the process we want to go through in the workshop? I think, you know, the easiest is the you give us a draft. You know, we can talk about red
lines and things like that. I think you did a nice job of putting this together. Hey, what what was it? What's it going to? And then line by line, I would say we can step back and say, okay, why is this here? What problem are we trying to solve? And then, do we agree with that
problem? Now, I'll speak for myself. Uh I don't think we should get into the legal ease of wording it. We should be as a committee talking about what problem are we trying to solve and allowing the the legal team to do it in
a way that it is one enforcable and will hold up. So I'm just, you know, thinking about the process of it, just making sure that's how I would suggest we go through on the workshop and then
you would take that intent and then come back to us with a draft and then we could do a final review. That feel good? >> Well, I think >> from a from a process standpoint for the workshop. Well, since there is a draft here though and I do see, you know,
things that are put in section 58 but not 95 that it's no longer illegal to sleep on lots M&N that's being crossed out. Those kind of technical things I think are worth raising at some stage to go through >> in the workshop work agree couldn't
agree more. So not just >> not just telling legal what we want but >> I mean since there is a draft >> that's what intense are we trying to do and then we can react to what has changed I think it should be uniform across >> there shouldn't have been something
carved out in my opinion for M&N that's not applicable to the rest in these types of things >> maybe because they didn't know if it was public or private >> we're going to have again let's wait for the workshop I know you're anxious Uh any other?
Okay, let's move to new item eight. >> New item C. I think we added a letter. >> Oh yeah, it's now C. >> Sea turtles. >> Sea turtle lighting. >> Okay. Okay. So, this is the If we could
pull up the PowerPoint, please. This is the second of two ordinances. Um this pertains to wildlife friendly lighting as now defined by the state. This would be ordinance 202516 proposed for the second workshop. Uh this reflects input from the sea
turtle conservancy. We have been working with them now for a couple of months. They're a partner with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Um we have also received input input from our local partners, not necessarily in the content of this ordinance, but early on and we'll you know continue to solicit and receive that ordinance sorry
input as we move forward. Um, we have submitted what is in your packet to the Sea Turtle Conservancy. They're currently looking it over. I did speak with them late last week. Um, it sounds like we're heading the right direction, but I don't have a a markup yet that might be available by the workshop. Um,
but they they are looking this over. This is just a reiteration of what we presented at the workshop um, last month. We discussed our 2007 lighting ordinance with our local and state partners. Um we
underwent well the state underwent a review in 2022 related to any municipal or county ordinance that addressed wildlife lighting on the beach. Um our ordinance was determined at the time to be somewhat ideal. Um that is the second
highest category. most ideal is um those that hit a 75% coverage or or more. Uh we received a 15 out of 23.5 score for language and a 14 out of 26.5 score for implementation
enforcement effectively. Um that second measure was self-reported is it is a little bit outdated. We would get points today for um increased use of social media and so on. But um you know the the language is really what we're focusing on here. Although we do have content
that will address the correct enforcement agency and penalties and so on. So our current wildlife lighting ordinance um hasn't been updated since 2007, but it is based on a 1993 state model ordinance and that ordinance has
been iterative. Um it was updated majorly in 2020. There are actually some recommendations um post 2020 more new technical updates uh that have not been amended in yet. Um but those are best practices that we've uh we've received
from the sea turtle conservancy. State model lighting ordinance was updated in 2020. Um one of the more cutting edge uh best practices is uh tint requirements. There was a study that actually came out this year that showed that 30% or less
visible light transmittance is what really moves the needle. That is a statistically significant um impact on preventing false turtle crawls. So that's really the the standard we should be aiming for. 45% is what is currently in the model lighting ordinance. Many of
the updates that we need are technical in nature. Um I do think that we have a strong framework. We have one that I think we can work within the bounds of Senate Bill 180 and really just focus on those technical updates, those maintenance updates. I don't necessarily tread into development related um items.
Those include removal of outdated bug uh bulb types like the bug type bulbs in favor of long wavelength requirements. The state has a repository of um different fixtures and different bulb types that meet if they're installed correctly um are are wildlife friendly.
Uh specifying visible light transmittance standard for windows. We just currently state that they need to be tinted. We don't specify the visible light transmittance and as I mentioned 30% appears to be the um the correct standard to go with mandating spectrometric test for newly installed
lighting. We do have a spectrometer. Um we don't currently perform those tests. We use the cards. Um but the spectrometer is really the best way to make sure that the lighting is compliant. And that would be specifically for those fixtures that are not on the Fish and Wildlife Commission
certified wildlife lighting list. They have vetted these fixtures. They have the ability to vet and and um lab test these fixtures to make sure that they comply and that they're turtle safe. Um it's really on the jurisdictions to make sure that they're installed correctly. We would still have to inspect them, but
they've already done that work and we um we have the ability to use their list for for most fixtures. We do not currently have standards for pool lighting. Um that was one of these structures that they've requested that we add uh standards for. So we would be proposing that requiring full cut off
fixtures. That's just new terminology. It's not mounted above a certain height. It's not mounted um above a certain um range. So that is uh regulating full cut off fixtures and standardizing what constitutes existing and new construction for compliance. We
currently have that differentiation in our code between existing construction, new construction, but don't define what that is. Um whether that be obvious, you know, new building of course would fall into new construction, but if an opening is widened, if there's new interior light sources that are exposed to the
beach, those are the type of things that we need to work through and determine whether it falls into the existing or the new construction category. Same standards as for the first ordinance that was or same tasks as um were requested for the first ordinance discussed today. We would like to move
forward with the workshop. We want to address the workshop format section by section. Um it sounds like again it would be a more broad consensus on the items that should be included in this ordinance or things that need to be tweaked instead of um you know actual legal review which we would go through
subsequent to the workshop. Um if there's any appropriate content from this ordinance that has not been included. Um I will say thankfully with this ordinance we did receive that input from the sea turtle conservancy. I do believe what we have here captures most
if not all of the content that they had asked us to address. Um but if you do feel there is other content we need to address through this ordinance we'd be happy to discuss at the workshop and then of course if there are public comments we'd be happy to receive them. So, as we did for the uh last topic,
open it up for public comment. >> I'm going to wait for the workshop. >> There will not be public comment in a workshop. Correct. This is your opportunity. >> Good. >> We You're allowed to take public comment in a workshop if you want to in your discretion. So, we could set it up that
way if you'd like to. seems >> I was under the impression that >> in the workshops we haven't done that >> in the past we hadn't but we did something similar for the noise ordinance where we did take public input during the workshops to to u for tren just to increase the amount of input we
were getting >> excuse us for one second uh are we comfortable with also allowing public comment at the workshops >> absolutely >> yeah so you will also have sorry Lisa I I was under the impression from our past
workshops that that wasn't happening. So, I wasn't trying to I wanted to give you an opportunity. >> I just think my >> um the clerk has a question. >> I just was the noise ordinance a a public meeting or was it a workshop? >> Um we could go back and take a look, but I think the intent here is whatever
we're going to call these is to allow for some public input. >> So, we may have to change the the title of what it it's going to be. Um maybe a public workshop. We'll we'll find out what you call it. >> And that would be for both the turtle
lighting as well as the other ordinance. >> Was we'll open up with public comment and then go from there. Okay. So, uh if you would still like to comment, uh please state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes. >> My name is Lisa Reich and I'm in St.
Petersburg now because I am not in my home on St. Pete Beach, but um I am part of coastal wildlife advocacy group and our focus is conservation on coastal wildlife which includes sea turtles and
I have been actively involved in trying to get this lighting ordinance addressed. Uh, and I just want to express my gratitude to the city staff, Brandon, for all your work that you have done, the city manager. Oh, and you're
back there, too. Everybody's been wonderful. So, I want to express my gratitude and I look forward to the continuous forward momentum. So, and I appreciate all of you and I'll look forward to the workshop. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for all your efforts, too. >> Thank you for all your efforts, too. Any other comment for today? >> Nope. >> Let's open it up for us. Any >> uh I uh you know, again, I like this. I mean, it's it's clear. There's red
lining that's actually real redlinining that shows you what's added and subtracted from the text rather than bulk changes. So, I really really appreciate that. Makes it a lot easier to understand what's being proposed. Um, maybe I didn't read it carefully enough,
but I see the definition of tinting went from 45% to 30%. But what I in our old ordinance, I remember there was a section of like here's what we have to do for new construction, here's what you have to do for existing. So, I wasn't quite sure, but I want to make sure that
we do include consideration of, >> you know, retrofits and make sure that people, you know, some things we want retrofitted by a certain date. other things just it just wait until you remodel. >> Right. So the the current ordinance and
and this is part of the challenge and speaking with the sea turtle conservancy this is one of the biggest challenges um statewide is that the exterior lights it's easy to get compliance on the interior lights is where there's a challenge because if you don't have any kind of film if the visible light transmittance you know close to 100%
those interior lights are more difficult to control um especially when they could be across the street but still visible from the beach as currently drafted there are multiple options for whatever we define as existing construction. So,
um any existing use where the windows haven't been changed out or the exterior fixture is in place and is just being maintained. Um they have multiple options for compliance. They could put a sconce on. They don't necessarily need to change the bulb bulb type. New
construction, however we end up defining that, that will have to comply with the tinting requirements. So, um, the other option could be to, you know, close the blinds at night or move the light fixture out of the window for existing, new would require compliance with film.
Um, and it really comes down to how we define that. So, I think we we have quite a bit of leeway in our code. It's just coming up with what the appropriate threshold for requiring that film uh would be. I know one of the concerns that we've received is you if you put the film on one window, you know, it's going to look out of place with the
other windows, but that's, you know, we just have to figure out where that threshold's going to be. So, >> just on that, we put in a few years ago new windows and our existing condo and
we had to show the specs of turtle glass before they would approve the permit and then close the permit. We had to show them documentation. So there is a process in place. >> Since you're giving an example, uh I actually in my house put in 20% BLT.
>> Wow. >> And I have to tell you what horrendous mistake that was. It was depressing. And when you open your windows and doors, then the light would come in because it was so little light. I I would understand if some of these hotels do decide to go with the curtain by the or
or may want it because it it affects the way you feel in the room during the day. >> Um but I don't want to get into committee work but since you raised you know >> yeah I was just highlighting there is a mechanism for existing homeowner for enforcement.
>> Any other comments on this? >> Good. U is there a want Uh there's a lot of technical aspects to this and I would say there's probably two options. If anybody has any
individual questions of the science or the technology or the technical specs, we could potentially arrange a one-on-one with the Florida Wildlife or the FWC or sea turtle conservancy. or if
it's a broader interest, if we think we're going to have very specific questions, we could invite them to the workshop. I just want to make sure we don't get caught in what about this, what about that, but making sure that we have the tools available to us.
>> Sure. I I was looking at the enforcement piece of it and then the penalties and you know we can create all the rules we want but at the end of the day they don't do us any good if we can't enforce
them and put some teeth behind enforcing them right >> so I'm wondering does Sea Turtle Conservancy andor other you know beachfront municipalities do we have like a a best practices Um, you know where I'm going with that.
So, >> we we do for new lighting. Um, their recommendation is something that's relatively easy for us to follow because we inspect any kind of new windows going in or new building, of course. I mean, there there's building inspections.
That's something that our code enforcement department does want to be involved with and and those inspections. It is a bit of a challenge for existing lighting compliance. Um, like I said, we we use the the cards, but going up to the back of the property to use a spectrometer in the middle of the night
can be a little bit of a challenge. So, that's and they recognize that as well. That's a statewide. >> I'm I'm just anticipating what we're going to hear during some of the workshops and we're going to have residents saying, well, you know, how do we do this or how do we enforce that or,
you know, how does how does Longbo Key or Anamarie Island enforce their? So if if we can have that at our dis ready to go and say, "Well, here's here's what St. Augustine Beach or >> here's what they do." >> Okay. >> And those kind of best practices for
actually making this thing work, >> right? >> Good. >> Other practices. >> I think that would be >> okay. >> Helpful would go a long way. Did you It's so easy to get caught caught up in the the minutia of the technology and the but if you pull back and you look
at, you know, what are we really trying to do here? How do we do it? >> That's kind of where I'm going with that. So, >> I saw a city where each night code enforcement would go out on the beach and then the hotel would have to call individual rooms, say, "Close your
curtains." And, >> you know, I I I feel for the people that have been, you know, contacting code enforcement and going, "Well, when is this bulb going to change?" Oh, I can see it. I can see it. I can see it. And my understanding from code enforcement was that the that the issue wasn't the
rules that they there was some I don't understand why they weren't getting enforced you know for some of the yellow bulbs that that were clearly in violation. >> Um so but if this so if this helps give some teeth to it >> I think that is very important also. So
that would be something. So to make it easy for you, if we can look at sea turtle conservancy and you know beachf facing municipalities not on mos but just you know
directed like what are they doing the best practices approach that >> I know longboat did revisit theirs a couple years ago and they're doing better now terms of compliance. I mean, why why reinvent the wheel when we can borrow from our neighbors, right?
>> Thank you. >> Key does have a code enforcement officer, I think, did a tremendous amount of work that we might want to >> There you go. Cool. Thank you. >> So, I just want to open back up to my
question. Do we feel we need an expert to come in and explain the tinting and science and papers and all that or are we >> How many workshops we going to have? >> This one might be doable in one. Um I mean we could always bring an expert back in November if
>> Yeah. If if we get >> I just want to make sure. >> Yeah. Know it's a great question. I mean if we have >> have the resources we need >> if we have interest in that area during the first workshop >> then we can bring it in >> follow it up with Right. >> Yeah. I like that. any other resources you may want. Okay.
>> All right. Thank you all. >> Thank you. >> All right. We are moving forward to original C but new D updating on walkover dune dune walkover replacement.
>> Thank you. Yes. Um so at the previous meeting there were some questions about what the status was on replacing the walkovers. Um, so I just wanted to give an an update on that. Um, the city has awarded a uh contract for design, permitting, and construction services uh
for dune walkover replacements at 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 51st, and 52nd avenues. Um, the vendor selected for this work was GF Coast Construction uh in the amount of $439,000.
Um, this was funded through the city CIP program. Um but we do also expect um some reimbursements through FEMA. Uh the Second Avenue boardwalk was damaged during Hurricane Adelia and there's a FEMA project associated with that. Um sorry, Second Avenue with um Hurricane
Helen. Fourth, 6th and 7th were associated with Hurricane Adelia. Um so we do expect to recover um a portion of of those funds. Um right now the the awarded vendor a purchase order has been issued and they're under design um under the design phase right now. And our goal
is to have permitting completed uh before the end of turtle season. Um that way we could get started on construction um as soon as the turtle season ends. >> Any public comment? >> We do. >> Please state your name and address for the record.
>> Yeah, thanks. Kathleen Eduan, 106th Avenue, St. Pete Beach. So south end of Pasigil. And I was wondering if we could add to this agenda the um progress and plan for the wall, the beach wall that
will be is under design. And my understanding is there is a temporary wall going up that's replacing the mesh wall and then there will be a permanent wall. So that's my request is that we have
some sort of a a progress report along with the walkovers. Um I have a second comment. I'm not sure if now is the time to make it or not, >> but um in in the um is that me?
>> Okay. in the hopes of um safety. Um I'm wondering if we can take a look at how we have our pedestrian walkways marked in Pasigrail. Um specifically there is a pedestrian
walkway at 8th Avenue and um Pasil Way going over to the bay. And I feel that we need to have a painted walkway at 8th Avenue going over to the beach where there will be a walkway.
Um the ice cream shop is on 8th Avenue. The walkway is on the beach and >> there needs to be one there. You're right. >> There needs to be a walkway there. >> It's a crosswalk. You're talking about >> a crosswalk. Need to be flashing lights, but there needs to be a crosswalk and it needs to happen sooner rather than
later. We've had a fatality there as you know. >> But but my general comment really is about crosswalks in general in Pasigril. Um many of the crosswalks that had once been painted or now faded because of the
storm, First Avenue and Passil Way, First Avenue and Golfway. Um and then the other intersection that's really important is where we just had the fatality 21st I think it is past a railway vena bridge we have Shainers we
have um the bar we have the bridge we have um the market no crosswalks I just I I I think that it would help it would help for pedestrians it would help for people with children and I'm asking
I think this I I've talked to our new commissioner about it. I I don't know if this is the committee, but this is where I'm bringing my request. >> Is Is that a city thing or a county thing? >> That would be a city. >> Sorry. >> A city >> a city thing. >> Yes, sir.
>> So, the city Kathleen, thank you for your >> Yes. input. So, the municipality goes to the county and says, "Here's what we want to do." >> No, that those are city local roads. So we would have the jurisdiction to stripe those >> total control over whether we do or don't how we do it.
>> Yes sir. >> Okay. >> I I thought that was an interesting point that just many of the the lines just have faded. >> Mhm. >> So there's some program maybe the city's I mean we have the luxury right now that Camden Mills is the right man even though this may not be the right committee um to get like lines
repainted. >> Sure. Yeah. I can I can speak to each of these items. Um, first related to the Gulfway wall, um, as you stated, we do have a, um, plan in place to install a temporary concrete barrier wall to hold us through the storm season. Um, that
should be installed, um, here in the next few weeks. Um, so, as soon as I have a date on on when that's confirmed, we'll share that. And then the plan, as you mentioned, for a permanent wall, um, that's associated with the capital improvement project we're proposing for next fiscal year. Um that project is
actually a rehabilitation of GFway from 1st Avenue um all the way to 22nd Avenue. Um so with that project we would be looking at replacing um damaged sidewalk and curb as well as installing roadway base and and new asphalt as well as striping um and signage and then also
installing a new permanent wall. um some of the design that we're evaluating right now for that permanent wall would have a more of a foundation to it and a footer um that would help prevent um some of the wave action and uplifting forces that that damage the existing wall um that's there today. Um so the
short term is is to get a concrete barrier to help hold the sand in place and then longterm is is that capital project that will start in fis school year 26. um regarding the the pedestrian walkway that at the Avenue um I I'll report that to staff so we can look into it. Um and
specifically at First Avenue too um I think in those locations that are in the areas of of where that upcoming project will be. We can get out there and tempor and install paint and that'll hold us over until we can do the thermoplastic striping with with the more permanent
project. And then the 21st Avenue intersection, um, that is an intersection our our commissioner has has brought up as a as a concern and and our staff is working on addressing. Um, just recently we restriped the the painted stop bars at that intersection, but u, we think more work needs to be
done. Um, the southbound stop sign isn't very visible um, due to a tree. We want to see either relocating that stop sign, potentially removing that tree, and then also um exploring maybe adding some lighting um to the stop sign just so it's more visible. Um as I understand
that used to be a lighted intersection back in the day and was signalized. Um but as much as we can do with with pavement marking and signage just to make that um more aware to drivers that that is a four-way stop would help. >> Any other public comment?
Any comment on this item? >> The the walkovers in Pass Grillil south of say 15th. You've got 3, fourth, 6th, 7th.
There's some that are in place. This the slope going up and coming down in some of those walkovers is excessive. >> Yes. Yes, sir. And that that is >> walk them yourself. >> Yeah, that's something we're aware of. And
>> the slope is part one. Then part two is the drainage from the footwash. >> Mhm. >> Kind of runs down that slope and out to the sidewalk and you get ponding water right there with this the sand debris. >> Mhm. >> So, two questions. Where are we in in
regards to the the construction of these new walkovers? And secondly, why the excessive slope? I mean, that to me that's it's it's dangerous. >> Yeah. >> It's not I mean, I've walked it several times and you know, if I'm about to
fall, I mean, I'm not the healthiest guy in the world, but if I'm about to fall, I'm sure that others are feeling the same. So, I'm wondering where are we with that? That that's a great question. So the the items um the walkovers mentioned in the agenda report, those are our
priorities right now for full replacement um just because those aren't there. And fiscal year 26, we are proposing to um um change those walkovers specifically at 12th and 16th. Those are two that that come to mind that have that really steep slope where
we'd be proposing just to um replace that section um with maybe stairs or a switchback design, something that'd be a little bit easier to tra traverse with that. With the proposed walkovers that we were doing, um we aren't proposing to have a a steep slope um like those other ones that were recently done.
>> Okay, good. I mean, it might be nice if we could avoid stairs. Although, I mean, it's not like people with wheelchairs really can navigate the doors that well, >> but you know, the county park is a great example where they've just done a really long >> to avoid the >> Yeah. kind of a switchback scenario to kind of make up that change in
elevation. >> Any other comments? Uh I just you know when I look at this list of numbers 2 3 4 6 7th then a gap to 51st and 52nd and then nothing north. Is
it is it that those these are the ones that were damaged or there really aren't that many other ones out there? Just don't understand the dynamics of the beach really. >> The the the reason why these these seven were prioritized. Um, fort was one because of storm damage and 51st and
52nd were ones that were previously programmed in the C in the city CIP for replacement. I believe one of those was damaged um from a vehicle that traversed over it. Um, so that that's that 51st and 52nd were just old um capital projects. But but moving forward um I
think we need to have you know a reoccurring program of of looking at these walkovers and having scheduled repairs and replacements. What I was trying to understand also though, is it because the nature of the dunes is different that like we don't need that many between 7th to 51st and 52nd north
or is it just that they got there was just more damage? I mean, I'm just wondering >> they're just not as high priority right now as as the other ones, but we do need to look at all of them holistically. >> There are they they exist and they >> you remember I don't know how many meetings ago there was a map that was
provided to us with all all of them. >> Yeah. Well, I don't know if I held Okay. I I don't crossover. >> Yeah. >> And and in our proposed um fiscal year 26 through30 budget, we do have a specific CIP project for dune walkovers. And the idea with that is that would
just be an annual program that you know remains a project and we can use the funding from that to address as needed. >> Any other any other? >> All right. I believe we moved we already did the update. We moved that one up. So we're at a German
>> I just wanted to make one comment is that when we go to schedule these workshops which I guess was going to be done by staff and doodle or whatever. Um I I just I'm going to have a personal issue in October perhaps out of pocket but I don't know that
schedule till I see some people tomorrow. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. I >> I just was wondering how the workshop scheduling would be happening and when it would be happening because I just have some times that I may be um a
medical issue. So, >> right, we we'll send out options. >> And one item I would like to note, um I do apologize for not reaching out to the committee ahead of time and and asking for agenda items. That will be something we we'll be doing moving forward. Um, on this case, we we wanted to get it posted
as quickly as possible so you guys could have time to read these ordinances, but moving forward, we will ask for that. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> If there's nothing else, can I motion to adjurnn? >> I move that we adjourn. >> I second. >> Roll call.
>> Member Thompson? >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Kerszman? >> Yes. >> Member Rothenberger? Yes. >> Chair Stevens? Yes. Motion carries.