[00:00:03] >> DID I ALREADY SAY DECEMBER 10, 2025? [1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM] NO, KEEP SAYING DECEMBER 10, 2025. WHAT YOU WANT TO LEASE IN THE PLEDGE? >> MCKENNA, ARE YOU TAKING ROLE TONIGHT? >> I AM. >> PLEASE DO IT. >> MEMBER BENNETT? >> HERE. >> MEMBER ROBES. >> HERE. >> MEMBER STEVENSON? >> HERE. >> MEMBER GINGER. >> HERE. >> CHAIR DOSTER? >> HERE. >> MEMBER GOETT. >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU. NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES. [3.1. Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of November 12, 2025.] I THINK EVERYONE WHO HAD SOME HAS CALLED THOSE IN, CORRECT? ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? >> I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION. >> PLEASE DO. >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. >> OKAY. WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR PAB MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER THE 12TH, 2025. >> I SECOND THAT. >> ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? THAT PASSES. NEXT, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE INTO OLD BUSINESS, AND THERE IS NONE. WE'LL GO INTO NEW BUSINESS. [5.1 (Legislative) PAB 2025-0016 - FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT, LOT 8-9-10 BELVEDERE AVENUE] MARGARET, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE US INTO THE FIRST ITEM? >> I CAN. THIS IS THE FIRST ITEM IS PAB 2025-0016. IT IS A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT. BUT ALSO, THERE'S ANOTHER CASE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A QUASI-JUDICIAL CASE. WE'LL JUST BE TALKING ABOUT THE LEGISLATIVE CASE NOW. THEN IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE SECOND CASE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE ASSIGNMENT OF ZONING, WE NEED TO HAVE SWEAR TESTIMONY. UNLESS WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE SWEAR TESTIMONY FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE APPLICANTS. >> WE'RE GOING TO JUST STARTING OUT. >> I MEAN, THERE'S FOLKS HERE THAT MAY WANT TO SPEAK. >> YES, MR. CHAIR, IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO READ, WHAT A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING IS, READ THE STATEMENT AND THEN HAVE EVERYBODY BE SWORN, AND THEN. WHENEVER THEY GET UP TO SPEAK, IF THEY HAVE TO BE SWORN, THEY WILL HAVE BEEN. >> ALL RIGHT. >> THAT'S FINE WITH ME. >> YOU'LL JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. >> I'M GOING TO DO THAT. >> THANK YOU, TERESA. >> NOT QUITE SO BRIEFLY, BUT YES. [LAUGHTER] A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING BY STATE STATUTE, AND CASE LAW IS DIFFERENT THAN A REGULAR HEARING CONDUCTED BY THIS BOARD. A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING IS LESS FORMAL THAN A COURT HEARING, BUT SIMILAR IN PROCEDURES ON EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. APPLICANTS HAVE THE BURDEN, AND HERE IN THIS INSTANCE, THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT THAT IS ASKING TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY. THE APPLICANTS HAVE THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THROUGH COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE CITY'S APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THOSE THAT ARE OPPOSED MUST ALSO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS. WHILE THE BOARD WELCOMES COMMENTS FROM ALL WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS PROCEEDING, FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES THAT THE BOARD'S DECISION IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTION BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD DURING THE HEARING ON THE APPLICATION. COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND WOULD ACCEPT TO BE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION PRESENTED, THAT THERE MUST BE A FACTUAL BASIS IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE OPINION. THE HEARING PROCEDURES ARE AS FOLLOWS. STAFF WILL BE SWORN IN TO DESCRIBE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. THE APPLICANT WHO IS THE CITY AS WELL, SO THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SAME FOR BOTH. IS ALLOWED TO WAIVE THEIR PRESENTATION, BUT TONIGHT, THE APPLICANT WILL BE MAKING THE PRESENTATION. ANY PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS THAT MAY BE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT ARE FOR OR AGAINST THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE SWORN IF THEY INTEND TO SPEAK AND THEY WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES EACH TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THIS BOARD. EXTENSIONS OF TIME MAY BE GRANTED THROUGH THE CHAIR. PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS PRESENTING EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE APPLICATION WILL ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PODIUM, WHICH IS OVER TO THE RIGHT, OUR RIGHT, YOUR LEFT. OUR REPRESENTATIVE WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES FOR CROSS EXAMINATION, REBUTTAL OF ANY EVIDENCE. STAFF MAY PROVIDE FINAL COMMENTS TO THE BOARD. THE BOARD WILL THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSS THE APPLICATION AMONG THEMSELVES. THEY MAY ASK QUESTIONS AT THAT POINT OF THE APPLICANT OF STAFF OR ANY WITNESSES THAT CAME TO THE PODIUM. THEN ANY MOTION OF THE BOARD SHOULD INCLUDE WHETHER THE BOARD MEMBERS FINDS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED TONIGHT, THEREFORE, NO APPLAUSE OR OUTBURSTS, NO TALKING OR COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE, UNLESS YOU'RE AT THE PODIUM, [00:05:01] AS IT COULD DISTORT THE RECORD, AND MY OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTS THE BOARD AND PROVIDES COUNSEL, INCLUDING ADVICE ON THE HEARING PROCEDURES AND THE RELEVANCY OF THE EVIDENCE TO THE BOARD. WHILE THE STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO A COURT PROCEEDING WILL NOT BE UTILIZED, THE BOARD WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF MYSELF MAY EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE CODE CRITERIA AS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION OR IS REPETITIVE IN NATURE. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS YOU MAY ASK THEM AT THIS TIME, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME FORWARD? NO. THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE A VERY ROWDY BUNCH, SO I THINK WE'LL BE OKAY. >> THERE ARE THREE ITEMS HERE. THE SECOND ITEM IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, THE OTHER LEGISLATIVE. BUT I'M TAKING FROM YOUR EXPLANATION THERE THAT WE'RE TREATING THIS AS MORE OR LESS ONE PIECE. >> NO. >> MARGARET. >> MARGARET, YES MS. PEARSON, INDIVIDUALLY WILL PRESENT THEIR LEGISLATIVE ONE, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THEN THE QUASI-JUDICIAL AND THEN WE HAVE SOME CODE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE LEGISLATIVE. BUT WE CAN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, JUST HAVE EVERYBODY BE SWORN SO THAT THEY'RE READY. YOU CAN ALSO, IF YOU'D LIKE, MR. CHAIR, GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE EX PARTE DISCLOSURE DONE NOW SO THAT YOU CAN JUST PROCEED WITH THE MEETING. YEAH. >> WE'LL DO THE SWEARING IN FIRST, IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK DURING THE MEETING, YOU NEED TO BE SWORN IN, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE MS. MCCARTHY AND MR. HOLTON, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. YOU WOULD STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND MCKENNA WILL. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. >> YOU'RE CUT OFF. >> YEAH. WE'LL DO YOU LATER. THE BOARD NOW WILL DISCLOSE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION THEY'VE HAD ON THE ISSUE. I'VE SPOKEN WITH MARGARET AND GLENN ABOUT THIS. >> I HAVE NONE. >> YOU HAVE NONE? >> NONE. >> NONE. >> NONE. >> ALL RIGHT. THEN MARGARET, YOU'LL CONTINUE WITH ITEM 1. >> YEAH. THIS IS PAB CASE 2025-0016. IT IS THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION FOR PROPERTIES EASTWARD OF THE INTERSECTION OF BELVEDERE AVENUE AND SOUTH WOLF STREET, AND THE PROPERTY IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE EXISTING CONSERVATION PROPERTY OF EGAN'S CREEK GREENWAY. THE CITY ACCEPTED THE DEED OF DEDICATION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER BY RESOLUTION ON OCTOBER 7, 2025 JUST LAST OCTOBER. SO HERE IS THE PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT CONSISTS OF THREE LOTS, LOT A 8, 09, AND 10. THE TOTALING OF THE ACREAGE IS 0.39 ACRES. THE CURRENT LAND USE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THAT AREA AS A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND SO THE CITY, WHICH IS CUSTOMARY FOR US WHEN WE OBTAIN PROPERTY FOR CONSERVATION, WE REQUEST THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS CHANGED TO CONSERVATION. THEN WITH THE NEXT STEP OF ACTUALLY THE ZONING. BUT THIS PART OF IT IS JUST THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND FINDS THAT THE REQUEST IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ESTABLISHES A CITY COMMISSION'S GOAL TO INCREASE CONSERVATION LAND AND ZONING ACREAGE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PAB, THE APPLICATION WILL MOVE TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THIS WILL ACTUALLY GO IN TWO DIFFERENT ORDINANCES, BUT THIS ONE HERE WILL GO AS ORDINANCE AT A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HEARD AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE COMMISSION MEETING. FOR THIS ONE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS PAB 2025 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THE ASSIGNMENT OF CONSERVATION LAND USE CATEGORY FOR THE THREE PROPERTIES THAT ARE EASTWARD OF THE INTERSECTION OF BELVEDERE. >> BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT CHANGE, PERHAPS THE TWO PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW RATHER THAN FOR PART 2 OF THIS, WOULD YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS PART OF THE ISSUE? >> NO. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN DISCUSSION AMONG OURSELVES. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT. I DID NOT GO THROUGH IN EXTENSIVE DETAIL ON ALL THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS. THERE'S MORE LEGAL DOCUMENTATION WITH THIS THAN ANYTHING ELSE. I DIDN'T TRY AND GO BACK AND MAKE SURE WE HAD ALL THE T'S CROSSED AND THE I'S DOTTED ON IT, BUT IT LOOKS BASED ON A LOT OF THAT WAS ALREADY NOTARIZED AND SO FORTH. I TOOK THAT AS IT HAD GONE THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL CHECKS AND BALANCES. [00:10:03] >> WE DON'T HAVE OUR LITTLE LIST OF HOW TO PROPOSE. >> I'LL MAKE ONE UP ON THIS ONE. >> [OVERLAPPING] WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION. >> MARGARET HAS GOT IT. >> YEAH. I HAVE ONE RIGHT HERE IF YOU CAN. >> WELL, I CAN. >> SHE'S UP THERE. >> HERE YOU GO. >> CAN YOU? >> I CAN'T READ IT FROM HERE. OKAY. >> I CAN'T EITHER. >> I CAN'T. >> LET ME JUST MAKE A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION THAT PAB REQUEST 2025-0016, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LDR TO CONSERVATION, CON, FOR THE THREE PARCELS OF LAND IDENTIFIED AS CAN I DO JUST THE LAST FOUR DIGITS ON THOSE FOUR PARCELS OR DO YOU WANT TO READ THE WHOLE PARCEL? >> NO. YOU'VE ALREADY READ THE CASE. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BUT IT'S FOR PARCEL 0080, 0090, AND 0100. >> THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >>ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? THAT PASSES 6-0.TTHAT TAKES US INTO THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PORTION OF THIS. [5.2 (Quasi-Judicia) PAB 2025-0017 - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, LOT 8-9-10 BELVEDERE AVENUE] WE'RE SWORN IN AND SO WE ARE GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ISSUE. >> I THINK I NEED TO GIVE A BRIEF. >> I BEG YOUR PARDON, OF COURSE. >> IT IS THE SAME PRESENTATION, BUT IT'S JUST THE SECOND PART OF IT, WHICH IS PAB CASE 2025-0017. NOW THAT WE HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE OR A PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION. WE WOULD NEED TO PUT A ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING CONSERVATION, CON IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE USE FOR THAT. IT'S THE SAME PROPERTY THAT WAS DEDICATED TO THE CITY, AND IT ALL FALLS IN LINE WITH CURRENTLY, ZONED R1. SO WE WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING TO CON JUST LIKE AT THE GREENWAY, SO IT'D BE A CONTINUATION OF THE CONSERVATION LAND, THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THAT LAND AS WELL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS. IT MEETS THE COMP PLAN. IT'S IN LINE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IT CONTINUES THE CITY COMMISSION'S GOAL TO INCREASE CONSERVATION LAND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> ALL RIGHT. DO ANYBODY WANT TO ADD OR OFFER EVIDENCE, AN OBJECTION TO WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED? >> SAID YOU HAD A QUESTION? OKAY. YOU CAN COME TO THE PODIUM. >> CAN YOU SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? >> MY NAME IS JILL MCCARTHY, AND MY ADDRESS IS 2120 BELVEDERE. I OWN 10 AND 11. I GUESS THIS IS A DUMB QUESTION. IS CONSERVATION THE SAME AS WETLANDS? BECAUSE WHEN WE BOUGHT THE LAND, IT WAS CONSIDERED WET LANDS. >> THERE MOST LIKELY IS SOME WET LANDS THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY. BUT WHAT THE CONSERVATION MEANS IS THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN A ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S DEVELOPABLE. IT'S CONSERVATION TO STAY IN IT'S NATURAL STATE, WHEREAS BEFORE UNDER R1, IT'S DEVELOPABLE LAND, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS WHY IT COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THE CITY WAS ABLE TO. >> IT IS DEVELOPABLE? >> NO, IT WON'T BE. IT'LL BE IN CONSERVATION. IT'LL HAVE TO STAY IN A NATURAL STATE. >> OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. >> DID YOU SAY THAT YOU OWN 10? >> ELEVEN AND 12. I'M SORRY. YEAH. DID I SAY 10? I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION. MR. HOLTON. MARGARET? WAIT. MR. HOLTON IS COMING UP AND THEN MARGARET. COME ON. >> NO, IT'S ALL RIGHT. >> OH, OKAY. GREAT. >> THANK YOU. ARE WE CONSIDERING MARGARET SWORN IN? >> MARGARET, DO YOU SWEAR? >> YEAH SHE DID. [BACKGROUND] >> MARGARET KIRKLAND 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE NASSAU. I THINK WE HAVE PLENTY OF EVIDENCE WITH THE THE STUDIES THAT WE HAVE HAD DONE, BOTH IN FERNADINA BEACH AND THE COUNTY, OUR VULNERABILITIES STUDIES, THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY MR. SCHWALZ, AND SO ON. WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE OF LIVING IN THIS COASTAL AREA. THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE ALL SHOULD BE [00:15:03] THINKING ABOUT AND DOING TO THE EXTENT THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN. I APPLAUD THE PERSON WHO IS DOING THIS AND I APPLAUD THE CITY FOR CONSERVING THIS LAND. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR WELL BEING, AS WELL AS FOR THE WELL BEING OF ALL OF THE FLORA AND FAUNA ON THE ISLAND. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> I JUST WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT OF WHAT MARGARET SAID. >> GO AHEAD. >> I THINK WE HEARD THE WORDS. IT'S GREAT. WE'VE GOT TO MOVE BY RESIDENT OF THE CITY TO PUT ADDITIONAL LANDS INTO THE EGAN'S CREEK OR BASIN. I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT GENERALLY AS A CITY IS, HOW DO WE MAYBE PUT TOGETHER A LITTLE BIT OF A ROAD-MAP, SO IF SOMEBODY'S INTERESTED THEY GOT AN EASY, UNDERSTANDABLE ROAD-MAP TO BE ABLE TO DO IT FOR OTHER PROPERTIES. BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE PROBABLY THINKING ABOUT IT OR THINK GEE, MAYBE, OR I COULD DO PART OF MY PROPERTY OR WHATEVER. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO PUT AN EASY PATH IN PLACE FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO ASK ONE PERSON AT THE CITY ABOUT, THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO AND GET ALL THE ANSWERS IN ONE PLACE. >> JUST GIVE US THE DEED. >> THEY DON'T HAVE TO GIVE US A DEED. >> I JUST WANTED TO SUPPORT. OKAY. >> GIVE ME A MINUTE, I GOT TO MY GROOVE MY FOOT, TYPE. >> YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH? >> YEAH. YOU SWEAR. >> I SWEAR A LOT. >> KIM WOLFORD, 1315 BROOM STREET. YES, I STILL LIVE BEHIND THE FUNERAL HOME. I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH MARGARET KIRKLAND AND THE CONSERVATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON A PROGRAM TO HELP US IDENTIFY PROPERTIES, FIND THE FUNDING FOR THE PROPERTIES, AND A LOT OF IT IS GENERAL AWARENESS. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER POYNTER, COMMISSIONER TOTIN AND THE MAYOR ON THIS PROGRAM. WE ARE WORKING ON SIGNAGE, WHERE TO BE POSTED IN PLACES DOWNTOWN, SUCH AS THE MARINA, OR WE HAVE GREAT ANCILLARY ITEMS SUCH AS ON RESTAURANTS TABLES, YOU CAN GO IN AND HAVE THE LITTLE STAND UP. I DON'T KNOW WHAT LITTLE ACRYLIC TALKING PIECES OF ACRYLIC. BUT WHAT WE'LL HAVE ON IT IS DIGITAL CODES SO THAT PEOPLE AFTER THEY ORDER THEIR DINNER, AND THEY'RE HANGING AROUND WAITING FOR THEIR DRINKS AND FOOD CAN READ THE LITTLE PIECE OF ACRYLIC, WHATEVER, TALKER AND DONATE BECAUSE THAT'S HOW PEOPLE DO IT NOW. THEY DO THE SCANNING, THE DIGITAL AND WHAT WE WANT TO GET IS TOURISM, PEOPLE TOUR SITTING AT TABLES. HEY, DONATE $10 WHILE YOU SIT HERE. THIS HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL IN ST. SIMONS. THEY HAVE RAISED OVER $800,000 USING THIS PROGRAM. IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM. WELL, THE CITY WILL HAVE SOME PROCESSING FEE FOR HOW WE HANDLE THE MONEY. BUT THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR CONSERVATION LANDS, FOR MAINTENANCE OF CONSERVATION LANDS, EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS. IT'S REALLY GO TO MIXING PROGRAM AS SOON AS I CAN WALK AND MARGARET CAN HOBBLE ALONG ALSO. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FIRM? >> ANYONE FOR KIM? >> NO. >> THANK YOU. >> WELL, WE LOOK FORWARD TO SPEAKING WITH YOU ALL INDEPENDENTLY OR AS BOARD OF THE PAB WHEN WE START MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROGRAM IN THE SPRING. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE THIS YEAR. I FIND THAT COMING TO THIS IS ACTUALLY A PLEASURE BECAUSE I LIKE THE WAY THAT YOU ALL WORK TOGETHER AND HOW YOU WORK THROUGH PROBLEMS TO SOLVE WHATEVER IS AHEAD. EVERYBODY HAVE A WONDERFUL HOLIDAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> LET ME MAKE ONE SUGGESTION, JUST IN TERMS OF THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING DEPENDING ON HOW YOU'RE DEVELOPING, AND EVEN BRING FORWARD TO OUR CITY CLERK FOR MAYBE A SPECIAL PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSIONER. BECAUSE IT WOULD GIVE YOU PRETTY BROAD COVERAGE. >> YES. WE'VE MET WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE AGAIN. SHE HAD ISSUES, AND WE HAVE SHER OSTEO ISSUES. WHEN WE GET THROUGH THIS AGAIN, WE JUST DIDN'T GET THE TIME. WHO ELSE WILL WE SPEAK WITH? I THINK MIA WAS THERE ON THE PRESENTATION. WHO ELSE WE TALK WITH, MARGARET? [00:20:02] I DON'T KNOW. WE WERE TALKING MAINSTREAM PEOPLE? WE TALKED WITH CITY MANAGERS. SO YEAH. >> KIM, IF WE CAN GET BACK ON. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, KIM. >> READY FOR A MOTION. >> WELL, NO. ARE WE GOING TO COMMENT ANY QUESTIONS HERE, IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. [NOISE] THEN COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD QUESTIONS OF THE CITY. GO AHEAD. >> ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> CAN WE READ IT FOR YOU? >> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] >> THIS IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF PAB 2025-0017, WHICH IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP CATEGORY FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R1 TO CONSERVATION CON FOR THE THREE PARCELS OF LAND IDENTIFIED AS 0080, 0090 AND 0100, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.39 ACRES. >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY POSE? THAT PASSES. ALL RIGHT, MARGARET, WE'RE ON ITEM 3 ON THE AGENDA? [5.3 (Legislative) - PAB 2025-0018 - CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH] >> YES, SIR. THIS IS PAB CASE 2025-0018. THE CITY OF FERNANDINA REQUESTS A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LDC, SECTION 5.03 SIGNS TO TO PERMIT LIMITED SIGNAGES ON CONSERVATION PROPERTY FOR RECOGNITION OF DONORS, SPONSORS, OR PARTNERS WHO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE ACQUISITION, RESTORATION, OR STEWARDSHIP OF SUCH PROPERTIES WHILE PRESERVING THE NATURAL CHARACTER AND ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY OF THE LANDS. THIS ALIGNS, WHEN WE SEE ELEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED FROM YOUR PRIORITY LIST, SUCH AS COMMUNITY CHARACTER, PROTECTION, AND CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND SUSTAINABILITY. WE BRING THEM FORWARD WHEN WE SEE A VOID, AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE AREAS. RIGHT NOW, THE LDC DOES NOT HAVE A PROVISION FOR SIGNAGE ON CONSERVATION PROPERTY. CONSERVATION PROPERTY CAN LOOK TWO WAYS. ONE, THE MAJORITY OF THE CONSERVATION PROPERTY, THE CITY OWNS. BUT THERE ARE SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN CONSERVATION THAT ARE OWNED BY THE LAND TRUST THAT ARE DONATED TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. I THINK THE STATE HAVE SOME IN THE CITY AND THEN THE LAND TRUST AND THEN OF COURSE, THE CITY OR THE BIG 3 THAT HAVE CONSERVATION PROPERTY.BUT CURRENTLY, AS YOU CAN SEE, FROM THE CURRENT LDC, CONSERVATION IS NOT SHOWN. WHEN A ZONING DISTRICT IS NOT LISTED, THEN IT'S NOT ALLOWED. IF IT'S NOT LISTED FOR SIGNAGE TO BE, THEN IT'S CONSIDERED NOT ALLOWED. BUT WHEN YOU GO TO ANOTHER SECTION OF THE LDC, SECTION 10305, THERE IS A PROVISION FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS IN CONSERVATION AND REC. THOSE ARE REALLY JUST TO PROMOTE IF THEY HAVE A SPECIAL EVENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT IS ALLOWED TO BE THERE. HISTORICALLY, THE CITY HAS ALLOWED FOR THESE TYPES OF SIGNAGES ON THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED CONSERVATION. THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THAT'S BEEN ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH IT'S A PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, IT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY. THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF ALLOWANCE, BUT IN GENERAL, SIGNAGE IS NOT ALLOWED ON CONSERVATION PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THESE PICTURES, THESE ARE EXAMPLES OF CONSERVATION SIGNAGE THAT THE CITY HAS ON OUR PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED CONSERVATION. >> MARGARET. >> HERE'S ANOTHER. >> I'M SORRY. >> GO AHEAD. >> WHEN SOMEONE WITH THE CASE THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, SOMEONE CAME AND WANTED TO PUT THEIR LAND, GIVE IT TO THE CITY AND PUT IT IN, WHO DO THEY CONTACT TO DO THAT? WHAT'S THE FIRST CALL? >> WELL, TYPICALLY, I THINK THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE GET INQUIRIES, KATHY RUSSELL WITH THE CONSERVATION MANAGER. SHE'LL LET US KNOW THAT THERE'S PROPERTY THAT SOMEONE WANTS TO GIVE THE CITY. SOMETIMES WE HEAR FROM MS. KIRKLAND, THEY'LL BE PROPERTIES THAT SHE'LL IDENTIFY THAT WE'LL PURSUE, AND THEN IT GOES ON UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION IF THEY WANT TO ACCEPT IT OR NOT. BUT RIGHT NOW, THAT'S HOW THE CITY GETS THE PROPERTY. >> I'M COMING BACK TO THAT LATER. YES. VICTORIA. >> CAN YOU GIVE ME THE DIMENSIONS OF THAT PICTURE, THE SIGN IN THAT PICTURE? PUT IT. >> IT'S LIKE IT SAYS IT'S 48". THE ACTUAL SIGNAGE PART OF IT IS 48 BY LOOKS LIKE ABOUT 36. [00:25:04] >> THE SMALLER SQUARE OR RECTANGLE UNDERNEATH THE CONSERVATION LAND, IS THAT RECOGNIZING EITHER THE CITY OR WHO DONATED IT? >> YES. IT WAS DEDICATED TO BISHOP JOHN FREEMAN YOUNG. >> ALL RIGHT. I KNOW THAT AND I MEAN, HOW IMPORTANT RECOGNIZING DONORS, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE CITY, LIKE THE LAND TRUST, RECOGNIZING PEOPLE WHO DONATE LAND FOR CONSERVATION IS. THAT'S A PRECIOUS CIVIC SERVICE THAT PEOPLE WHO DONATE LAND FOR CONSERVATION ON THIS ISLAND IS FOR US AS A COMMUNITY. MY ONLY CONCERN IS MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S SOME CONSISTENCY IN WHAT THE SIGN LOOKS LIKE. IF IT'S WHERE IT LOOKS SOMETHING IF THAT'S THE STANDARD SIGN, AND THEN YOU HAVE A WAY TO IDENTIFY WHO THE DONOR IS, WHETHER IT'S THE LAND TRUST OR WHOEVER IT IS. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO IT. I GUESS MY CONCERN IS MAKING SURE THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME LIKE VISUAL LITTER. >> BILLBOARD. >> BILLBOARD. THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN IS I DON'T THINK, I MEAN, CONSERVATION LAND SHOULD BE A VISION OF BEAUTY TO ALL OF US. WHEN YOU START TO HAVE ALL DIFFERENT LOOKING SIGNS, I THINK THAT'S DISRUPTIVE IN OUR BEING ABLE TO ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF THE LAND. THEREFORE, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE SOME STANDARDIZATION OF THE SIGNAGE. I KNOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE SIX FOOT SQUARE FOR PARCELS OF FIVE ACRES OR LESS AND 16 SQUARE FEET OF PARCELS OF FIVE ACRES ARE LARGER. NOW, IS THAT A SIX FOOT SQUARE SIGN? >> WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT PART YET TO TALK ABOUT THE TAX AMENDMENT. WELL, I KNOW. >> IT WENT THROUGH. >> I PROBABLY CAN I GUESS WANT A LITTLE QUESTIONS. >> THOUGHT THOUGH WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING IT BECAUSE, I MEAN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS PLEASANT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET INTO BILLBOARDS. I THINK THAT, IF EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THEIR SIGN, AND THERE'S NO CONSISTENCY IN WHAT THAT SIGN LOOKS LIKE, I THINK FOR THE CITIZENS, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT LOOKS THIS WAY, ONE WAY AND THIS WAY, ANOTHER WAY. I THINK AS A CITY, WE JUST NEED TO HAVE MORE CONSISTENCY IN WHAT THE SIGNAGE LOOKS LIKE. I'M REALLY IN FAVOR OF HAVING SMALLER IS BETTER. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS ON THAT. >> I'M A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE MINDSET THAT I DO WANT A LITTLE BIT OF RECOGNITION, MORE THAN WE GOT. WE'VE GONE AROUND NOW AND PUT OUT SIGNS AND I DON'T KNOW THEY MAY BE TWO BY THREE FEET. THE SIX FOOTER IS LIKE NORMALLY A TWO FEET HEIGHT, THREE FEET WIDE, WHERE WE HAVE THE WALKS DOWN TO EGAN'S CREEK. THEY'VE DONE THAT LIKE ALL ALONG OVER BY THE SCHOOL. I THINK ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN CITRONA, THEY'VE NOW GOT THOSE SIGNS IN PLACE. THEY LOOK VERY NICE AND THEY ARE CONSISTENT, AND I THINK THAT WAS DONE MAYBE TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, PROBABLY AFTER COVID. AND IT DOES TAKE SOME SIZE IN ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO GET THE VISION. A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO DROP BY. THEY'RE NOT WANDERING AROUND THE PROPERTY. I DO THINK YOU WANT TO HAVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF, CALL IT, ADVERTISING. THIS IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY AND MY VIEW IS THAT THE SIGNS ARE AN EXCELLENT THING TO DO. THE ONLY CAUTION I HAVE IS AND THIS IS MORE INTO THE MECHANICS FROM STAFF IS SOME SITUATIONS MAY REQUIRE AND MARGARET, YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WE MAY HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WILL GRANT CONSERVATION LAND, BUT KEEP THE ACTUAL TITLE TO THE LAND, BUT IT WILL BE TURNED INTO CONSERVATION. I KNOW THERE'S ONE THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED ON EGAN CREEK NOW FOR SEVERAL ACRES, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA IF IT'S GOING ANYWHERE. NOW, IN THAT CASE, THE INDIVIDUAL MAY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE SIGN, BECAUSE IT'S NOT. I GUESS I DON'T KNOW. [00:30:01] TREES, IF YOU PROVIDE AN EASEMENT A PERPETUAL EASEMENT, BUT THE OWNER MAINTAINS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND. I GUESS THEY CONTINUE TO PAY TAXES ON IT. WE DO THIS? I DON'T KNOW. >> WELL, A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, I THINK MISS PEARSON DOES HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO PROVIDE OF HOW SHE'S LAID OUT THIS TEXT AMENDMENT. BUT I HAD THAT QUESTION WHEN I ARRIVED TONIGHT TOO. >> IS THIS ALL JUST CONSERVATION LAND THAT'S BEEN DONATED TO THE CITY AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. YOU SAID IT WOULD APPLY TO ANY LAND THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS CONSERVATION, WHETHER THE CITY OWNED IT OR NOT? >> CORRECT AND THAT IS THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT CONSERVATION LAND OWNED BY THE CITY, WE PUT OUR SIGNS UP. WE JUST DO THAT. BUT THERE ARE SOME SELECTIVE PRIVATELY OWNED LARGE TRACTS OF CONSERVATION PROPERTY BY THE LAND TRUST AND THE STATE THAT ARE ASKING TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY CAN DO, AND WE DO NOT HAVE A PROVISION TO ALLOW THEM TO DO IT. THAT IS A VOID IN OUR ORDINANCE SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO ALLOW THE PRIVATE OWNERS OF THE CONSERVATION, WHICH ARE USUALLY NOT JUST INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PEOPLE. BECAUSE OF THE MONEY INVOLVED, THEY WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO BUY THEIR PROPERTY AND PUT IT IN CONSERVATION, WHICH IS WHAT THE LAND TRUST DOES, WHICH THEY HAVE OVER 400 ACRES ALONG ATLANTIC, WHICH IS WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT SAME THING. THEN THE STATE HAS SOME PROPERTY TOO THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE SAME ABILITY TO PUT A SIGN, AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROVISION AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS TRY TO PROVIDE THAT. BUT THEY ALL CAN HAVE A TEMPORARY SIGN AND SO THEY COULD JUST TAKE DOWN FOR 30 DAYS AND PUT FOR A DAY AND PUT RIGHT BACK UP BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE REGULATIONS IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT SAYS HOW MANY TIMES YOU CAN KEEP IT UP. IT JUST SAYS 30 DAYS. IN ESSENCE, YOU COULD TAKE IT DOWN ONE DAY, PUT IT UP IN 30. WE DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE TEMPORARY SIGNS IN THE CITY, BECAUSE THEY ARE USUALLY BANNERS. THEY'RE NOT OF QUALITY, AND THEY ARE A SIGN CLUTTER AND SO TODAY, THE LAND TRUST COULD PUT THE TEMPORARY SIGN, WHICH THEY HAVE UP. THEY COULD TAKE IT DOWN ONE DAY AND PUT IT BACK UP, AND IT'S GOING TO WEATHER, AND IT'S NOT MADE OUT OF MATERIAL THAT WE WOULD DESIRE. WE USE KIND OF AND THE CITY HAS TWO, AND THEY'RE PUTTING UP CONSERVATION SIGN, TRYING TO USE THE GUIDELINES FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGNS AS A AS A BENCHMARK, IF YOU WANT TO SAY SO THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY WITH WHAT THE CITY HAS PUT UP, AS, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CITY LOGO, ONE'S A DIFFERENT CONSERVATION SIGN. AND SO THAT'S HOW WE ARRIVED. WE WERE SHOWING THESE, FOR EXAMPLE. WE'RE RECOMMENDING ONLY FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT. THIS LOOKS LIKE THIS PERHAPS IS TALLER THAN THAT SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE HERE. IT'S A CITY AND SO IF IT IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, LIKE THE LAND TRUST, THEY WOULD PAY FOR THEIR OWN SIGNAGE. THE CITY'S NOT GOING TO PAY TO PUT. IT'S TO LOOK SOMEONE ELSES PROPERTY. >> THE LEFT. FIVE FEET TALL AND MARGARET, IF WE SAID YES TO THIS AND EVERYBODY WHO WANTED A SIGN, PUT UP A SIGN TOMORROW, HOW MANY SIGNS WOULD GET PUT UP? >> YOU CAN ONLY PUT UP ONE. >> HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO SIGN RIGHT NOW? >> THE LAND TRUST. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE WE'VE GOTTEN AN INQUIRY ABOUT AND THEY HAVE 400 ACRES, AND THEY HAVE ASKED FOR THAT. ANYONE CAN PUT UP TEMPORARY SIGNS. >> I WANT TO KNOW IS IF WE SAY YES TO THIS, HOW MANY SIGNS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW? >> RIGHT NOW, IS ONE. >> ONE. >> THEY'RE ASKING TO PUT ONE UP AND SO WHAT WE DID, SINCE THERE IS NO PROVISIONS WHATSOEVER. WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE CITY HAS DONE AND LOOKED AT THE VISUAL AND I PLANNING DEPARTMENT REALLY LIKES THAT GREEN ONE. THAT'S OF A BENCHMARK THAT WE WERE USING WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO CRAFT SOME STANDARDS SO WE HAD TO COME UP WITH A TOTAL NEW SECTION BECAUSE THERE ARE NO STANDARDS. WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING, AT THE END OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE WAS A PROVISIONS FOR RECOGNITION SIGNS AND WHEN WE SAY WHAT THE PURPOSE IS, IT'S FOR RECOGNITION, DONATION, SPONSORSHIP, CONTRIBUTION OF THE ACQUISITION AND WE WANTED TO COME UP WITH DESIGN STANDARDS. WE WANTED TO SAY THAT YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE. THERE'S ONLY ONE SIGN ALLOWED. BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT IF YOU HAVE FIVE ACRES, PERHAPS A SIX SQUARE FOOT SIGN WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. BUT IF YOU HAVE 400 ACRES OR 1,500 ACRES, THAT PERHAPS YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THE SAME SIZE SIGN AS YOU COULD IF YOU HAD A TEMPORARY SIGN. EVERYONE CAN HAVE A HUGE FOR SALE SIGN AND SO WE TRIED TO MAKE IT PROPORTIONAL TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE SO THAT'S HOW WE LANDED ON. [00:35:02] IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN FIVE ACRES, YOU COULD HAVE 16 FOOT SQUARE FOOT SIGN. WE SAID, IN NO CASE SHOULD THE SIGN BE HIGHER THAN FIVE FEET. WE THINK THAT'S A LIMIT THAT SHOULD BE ADHERED TO. WE THINK THAT THE MATERIAL NEEDS TO BE DURABLE MATERIAL. IT NEEDS TO BE NATURAL IN APPEARANCE, SUCH AS THE CITY SIGN, THE GREEN, THE TREE. IT NEEDS TO HAVE THAT ELEMENTS. EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T NECESSARILY READ IT, WE CAN LOOK AT THE APPEARANCE AND THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. YOU WOULDN'T WANT A BRIGHT YELLOW SIGN AROUND A BUNCH OF GREENERY, SO WE'VE TRIED TO ARTICULATE THAT INTO THE SYSTEM INTO OUR DESIGN STANDARDS. WE SAY THE SIGN SHOULD BE SET FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IT NEEDS TO BE SET BACK. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE RIGHT ON THE ROAD. IT NEEDS TO BE SET BACK. THE ONE IN THE LAND TRUST IS SLIGHTLY TOO CLOSE RIGHT NOW AND WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR THE PERMANENT SIGN TO BE SLIGHTLY IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. IT ALSO NEEDS TO BE AT THE ENTRY POINT. IT NEEDS TO BE AT A TRAILHEAD. IT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANCE, NOT JUST TO BE OF SCREENED ABOUT THEIR PUBLICITY. IT NEEDS TO BE A MEANINGFUL AREA AND SO WE TRIED TO ARTICULATE THAT THAT WE WANTED IT AT AN ENTRY POINT AND A TRAILHEAD. WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO INTERFERE WITH OBSERVATION AREAS OR AREAS WITHIN SIX SENSITIVE HABITAT SO WE REALLY TRIED TO ARTICULATE THAT. WE WANTED TO SAY THAT THE LANGUAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO RECOGNITION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROPERTY IS PRESERVED THROUGH THE GENEROSITY OF WHOEVER WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SIGN IS MAINTAINED. RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE PROVISION FOR SOME OF THE MAINTENANCE SO WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, IF IT STARTS LOOKING BAD AND YOU'RE NOT MAINTAINING IT, THAT YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, WE COULD START A CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION IF YOU DID NOT MAINTAIN THE SIGN. THE CITY ALSO WANTED TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THE SIGN. IF IT WAS RELOCATED, IF IT BECAME A HAZARD, OR SOMETHING CHANGED, CONDITIONS CHANGED AND SO WE OR IF IT ALL OF A SUDDEN STARTED CONFLICTING WITH THE CONSERVATION GOALS. WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT ABILITY AND THEN THE LAST PART WAS SIMPLY THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE A SIGN PERMIT BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THOSE ELEMENTS OF THE SIGN IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT IT WAS OKAY. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND STAFF WAS JUST WHAT WE CAME UP WITH. THE SIZE, THERE'S NO CONSISTENCY DOWN. >> MARK, VICTORIA, YOU READ OFF SOME SIZES. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? >> WHAT WAS IT IN OUR PACKET? >> IS THE SIZES OF THE PACKET. >> SIZES THAT ARE ON. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND MINUTES. >> ITEM NUMBER 1. >> I SEE. I HAVE IT HERE, 502. >> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS? WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS THE SAME HAVING A BILLBOARD BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROPERTY LOCATED NEXT TO THE HIGHWAY SO I WOULDN'T WANT THAT. IT SEEMS TO TAKE CARE OF THAT, IS THAT TRUE? >> DEFINITELY NOT AVAILABLE THE SIZE IS NOT. >> YOU WOULD HAVE NOT GREATER THAN. SOMEWHERE IN HERE. >> IT SAYS NOT. IN THIS DOCUMENT. THE MAIN THING I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT IS IF SOMEONE CAME IN TO PULL A PERMIT, WHO FOR THIS A SITUATION WHERE THEY STILL OWN HAD LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY WOULD THERE BE A STANDARD YOU'D PULL A PERMIT AND SAYS, THIS IS THE CRITERIA YOU HAVE TO MEET. IS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS, OR IS THAT GOING TO TAKE YOU BACK TO A PARAGRAPH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO DESCRIBE THAT SIGNAGE FOR THAT CONSERVATION LAND IN DETAIL. >> WHEN SOMEONE COME IN, THEY WOULD APPLY FOR A SIGN PERMIT. THEY WOULD PROVIDE THE DRAWINGS AS TO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. WE WOULD LOOK AT THE LDC, JUST LIKE WE DO NOW, WE WOULD LOOK AT THESE COMPONENTS IF THIS WAS WHAT WAS APPROVED, AND WE WOULD REVIEW THE SIGN BASED ON THAT AND WE'D EITHER LET THEM KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE SIGN ORDINANCE OR WE WOULD APPROVE IT. WE ALSO KNOW USUALLY PEOPLE WE MEET WITH MOST OF THESE SIGNS ARE DONE BY PROFESSIONAL SIGN COMPANIES, AND THEY PULL THE PERMITS, AND THEY'RE VERY UP TO DATE ON THE SIGN REGULATIONS. THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY READ THE STANDARDS AND WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED A SIGN PERMIT BECAUSE THEY WOULD INSTALL THEM TO MEET THE CRITERIA AND THE SIGN COMPANY NOW THAT'S INVOLVED IN THE LAND TRUST IS THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE DONE. THAT'S WHEN THEY WERE AWARE, THEY'RE LIKE, WE REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO SUBMIT A SIGN AND WE'RE LIKE, BECAUSE THERE IS NO STANDARDS FOR YOU TO SUBMIT THE SIGN. >> OR AHEAD. [00:40:01] >> IT'S NOT LIKE SOMEBODY JUST HAS AN IDEA THAT THEY WANT TO GIVE SOME LAND AND THEY WANT IT TO BE CONSERVATION, AND THEY JUST GO TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND PULL A PERMIT. THIS IS A PACKAGE WHEN SOMEONE COMES AND WANTS TO DONATE LAND, AS WE HAVE DONE. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE AND THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS TO ACCEPT THIS LAND, AND THEN THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO BLESS IT AND ACCEPT IT. THEN IT GOES THROUGH YOUR DEPARTMENT. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SOMEONE JUST WALKS IN OFF THE STREET AND SAYS, I'M GOING TO DONATE THIS LAND AND I WANT TO SIGN FOR IT. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT PART OF THE PROCESS OF US ACCEPTING THE CITY ACCEPTING LAND, THAT PUTTING A SIGN ON IT IS PART AND PARCEL TO THE PROCESS OF ACCEPTING THE LAND, TO SAY, DON'T YOU WANT TO HAVE A SIGN ON YOUR LAND TO SAY THAT IT'S BEEN DONATED BY YOU AND YOU SAY, I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT. WHATEVER Y'ALL WANT TO PUT ON THERE IS FINE WITH ME. THAT'S FINE. BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS, I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE JUST SIGN LITTER AND I DON'T HAVE A REAL SENSE OF WHEN YOU SAY IT'S 6 SQUARE FEET. IS THAT 6 SQUARE FEET? >> NO, THAT'S SIX FEET. >> THAT'S 12 SQUARE FEET. >> THAT'S 12 SQUARE FEET THERE. >> BUT 16 SQUARE FEET ON ACREAGE PARCELS, FIVE ACRES OR LARGER IS A BIG SIGN. >> IT'S NOT THAT'S 12 SQUARE FEET, SO 16 SQUARE FEET IS NOT THAT MUCH BIGGER THAN THAT SIGN. >> HOW BIG IS THAT OTHER SIGN TO THE LEFT THERE? >> IT'S THE SAME THAT'S THE SIGN OF THAT'S THE SAME SIGNAGE. THAT'S THE SAME SIGN US THAT WAS THAT'S THE DRAW UP OF IT, AND THEN THAT'S JUST A PICTURE THAT THEY TOOK DURING THE DURING THE DEDICATION. >> IT'S BEEN ELONGATED OBVIOUSLY IN ORDER TO FIT ALL THIS STUFF IN HERE BECAUSE AREN'T THERE DIMENSIONS ON THAT SIGN? >> IS 12 SQUARE THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING IT WAS 36 BY 48. >> ON THE RIGHT IS LITTLE DISTORTED. >> THAT'S DISTORTED. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A STANDARD SIGN AND WE HAVE CERTAIN LOGOS THAT WE PUT ON IT. IT COULD BE THEIR LAND TRUST LOGO. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT OR WHOEVER IT IS THAT IS DONATING IT. BUT I THINK CONSISTENCY IN THE SIGN IS IMPORTANT. I THINK SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE POINTED OUT, HOW FAR FROM THE STREET IT IS IMPORTANT, WHERE IT GOES IN REFERENCE TO, IS IT WETLANDS, WHERE DO YOU SEE IT? BUT I GUESS AND I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I TRULY APPRECIATE THE DONATION THAT THE LAND TRUST GAVE TO THE CITY. I GUESS PART OF THEIR DONATION. I WASN'T PART OF THE CITY. BUT IT WAS A FABULOUS 400 ACRE DONATION. IT WAS A FABULOUS PARCEL. BUT IT'S A BIG SIGN, IN MY VIEW AND IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH, I THINK, WHAT WE WANT TO SAY, THIS IS CONSERVATION PROPERTY BECAUSE QUITE FRANKLY, TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE A SIGN THAT SAYS FOR SALE. >> THE PROPOSED FINAL SIGN WOULD BE 15 SQUARE FEET. >> THAT'S A TEARS THAT SIGN RIGHT HERE? >> THAT'S 12. >> FOUR FEET BY THREE FEET. >> WHERE WOULD IT BE AT THAT LOCATION? >> WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, IT APPEARS THAT THE LOCATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT FAR ENOUGH BACK, AND IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AT AN ENTRY POINT. >> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION, THOUGH, IS IF YOU PUSH IT BACK, YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN THE MUD. >> THAT WE'VE GOT AND KATHY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THEM TO PUT IT IN THE PROPER LOCATION. >> YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT WILL? >> THEY HAVE COME. >> I'VE WORKED WITH KATHY ABOUT THIS SIGN, AND THE FINAL SIGN LOCATION WILL BE CLOSE TO WHERE THAT BENCH AND THE LIGHTHOUSE SIGN IS. SO IT'LL BE A LITTLE FURTHER EAST ON THAT VIEW SHED SO THE BACKGROUND WILL BE MORE TREES AND SHRUBS RATHER THAN THE VIEWED OF THE MARSH. THIS IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT WE CAN REVIEW IF THE SIGNS WERE TO BE PERMITTED RATHER THAN TEMPORARY SIGNS, BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY REVIEW THE LOCATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS BECAUSE THEY'RE MEANT TO BE TEMPORARY. IF SIGNS WERE TO BE PERMITTED THROUGH THIS PROCESS, WE COULD SPECIFY AND SCRUTINIZE THE LOCATION LIKE WE'RE PROPOSING NOW. WHEN THE LAND TRUST COMES IN FOR THEIR SIGN PERMIT, [00:45:03] WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT IT'S MOVED OVER TO THE EAST TO BE WHERE THAT BENCH IS, AND THE LIGHTHOUSE SIGN IS NOW ON ATLANTIC. >> ARE THERE SPECIFICATIONS THAT SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO BE GREEN WITH THE GOLD LETTERING AROUND IT, KIND OF THING. CONSISTENCY ON CONSERVATION LAND, I THINK IS IMPORTANT. >> JUST LIKE WE DO IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE HAVE A PALETTE OF COLORS THAT WE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL TYPE LOOK AND THE NATURAL LOOK, BUT WE CAN'T, THEY HAVE CERTAIN LOGOS. WE CAN CONTROL WHAT WE PUT ON, BUT WE'RE NOT EVEN CONSISTENT WITH THE SIGNS THAT WE PUT UP. TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO LOOK JUST LIKE THE CITY SIGNS, WE DID NOT THINK THAT WAS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR STANDARD. THE LAND TRUST HAS A STANDARD FOR THEIR TYPE SIGNAGE THAT THEY WOULD INCORPORATE THE ELEMENTS THAT WE WOULD NEED IN THEIR STANDARDS, SIGNS, AND THEIR LOGOS. TO SAY THAT WE WOULD HAVE A STANDARD THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE THIS, THAT JUST WOULDN'T BE APPROPRIATE FOR THEM AND THE STATE, THEY HAVE REGULATIONS ON THEIR SIGNAGES. IT'S JUST THE PART THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THE NATURAL LOOK, IT'D HAVE TO BE IN THE AREA, I'D HAVE TO BE THE MATERIAL WE WOULD LOOK AT. WE ALSO WOULD LOOK AT WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO REALLY READ THEM, BUT WE CAN TELL IF THEY TRULY ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOLD OF CONSERVATION WITH THE SPONSORSHIP. THE LAND TRUST IS ACTUALLY A CONSERVATION SO THAT WOULD BE A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THE SIGN IS JUST WITH OUR STUFF ON IT. I MEAN, THAT WOULD NOT BE. >> MARK AND THE NECK, YOU MAY HAVE AN ORGANIZATION WITH THE UGLIEST LOGO IN THE WORLD, BUT IF THEY'RE DONATING THE PROPERTY, DOESN'T MATTER. I DON'T SEE THAT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO COLORS. TO ME, YOU HAVE A CERTAIN SIZE SIGN. ANYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO CREATE BARRIERS. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DONATE IT, LET THEM DONATE IT AND PUT THEIR LOGO ON IT. I DON'T. >> I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS, BUT I THINK YOU'RE OVER KILLING IT. >> NICK, AND THEY'RE PAYING FOR THE SIGN. THAT'S PART OF IT, TOO. THEY SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT INTO WHAT THEY WANT TO PAY FOR. >> WE FEEL LIKE THAT IT DOES THE RECOGNITION WHENEVER POSSIBLE, MAKES PEOPLE AWARE, AND THEY MAY WANT TO CONSERVE MORE AND HAVE THEIR PROPERTY IF THEY CAN HAVE A LEGACY THAT THEY WERE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE ENVIRONMENT. WE THINK IT ALIGNS VERY MUCH WITH THE GOALS AND THE GOALS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE OF PRESERVATION OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES TO HELP PROMOTE IT. >> I HAVE ONE. THANK YOU. THIS IS FOR CITY ATTORNEY. I'VE WORKED WITH CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. A LOT. AND SOME OF THOSE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY CONSERVATION LAND, BUT THE EASEMENT WOULD DICTATE WHAT GOES ON THE PROPERTY. SO WHAT HAPPENS? >> DO THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THAT? >> YOU'D HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT. >> YES. >> SO IN THAT CASE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE CITY WANTS. SO THEY WANT TO PUT A SIGN UP AS CONSERVATION? >> WELL, BUT THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET OUR SIGN STANDARDS. YES, THE SIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE IN HERE UNDER 5.05 02. AND WE COULD ALSO DISCUSS CONSERVATION EASEMENTS BECAUSE ARE THEY REALLY CONSERVATION ZONED AT THAT POINT? SEE, THIS IS RESTRICTING IT TO CONSERVATION-ZONED PROPERTIES. SO THERE WOULD BE AN ARGUMENT THAT THAT EASEMENT WOULD NOT QUALIFY. BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY CONSERVATION-ZONED PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY DESIRE TO ALSO INCLUDE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. I DON'T KNOW IF PLANNING LOOKED AT THAT. BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE THE UNDERLYING ZONING BECAUSE IT IS BEING PROPOSED ON JUST CONSERVATION-ZONED PROPERTY. SO, FIRST STEP ONE, IS IT CONSERVATION ZONED? IF IT'S NOT, THEN WE DON'T GO TO STEP TWO. >> I'M SYMPATHETIC TO VICTORIA'S ARGUMENTS. WHEN I MET WITH MARGARET MCGLYNN ABOUT THIS. THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MY MIND WHEN I READ THIS IS, OH, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SELL NAMING RIGHTS TO THE CITY, ARE WE? IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE EVERYTHING'S FOR SALE. AND PLEASE TELL ME WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. AND I DON'T THINK WE ARE. IF THERE'S ONE SIGN, IF BY THE TIME WE'RE DONE WITH THIS, THERE ARE TEN SIGNS IN THE CITIES, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BE OKAY WITH THAT. IF THERE ARE 200, THEN I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS. I DO THINK AGAIN, IT'S. >> IF THERE'S 200 SIGNS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 200 PROPERTIES, AND IT'S ALL GOING TO BE UNDEVELOPABLE FOR THE MOST PART, [00:50:01] BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PUT ANYTHING ON CONSERVATION LAND. THE SIGNS WILL BE ONLY THING THERE. >> WELL, AND MR. CHAIR, THE CITY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS RULE. I DON'T SEE AN EXEMPTION FOR THE CITY. IF THE CITY WANTED TO ERECT SIGNS ON ITS OWN CONSERVATION LAND, THEN IT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THIS, UNLESS THERE'S AN EXEMPTION HERE FOR THE CITY. AND I DON'T SEE THAT. SO THAT MEANS THAT THE PLANNING WOULD BE LOOKING AT EVEN CITY CONSERVATION ZONE PROPERTY IF THE CITY WANTED TO INITIATE SOMETHING. THEN YOU'D BE GETTING PROBABLY INTO OH, THE SPECIAL USE, THERE'S SOME ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE WORKING ON FOR NAMING RIGHTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THIS ORDINANCE WOULD COVER CITY PROPERTY, BUT WHAT I JUST HEARD FROM MISS PEARSON IS THAT IT REALLY IS MEANT FOR CONSERVATION-OWNED PROPERTY BY OTHERS. BUT IT'S GOING TO COVER CITY PROPERTY. BUT IT WAS INITIATED BECAUSE OTHERS ARE COMING FORWARD. THERE'S NO WAY TO DISTINGUISH CONSERVATION FROM CITY. >> FILL IN THIS THING. WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A BIG SIGN AND A SMALL SIGN, A STANDARD OVERALL FOOTPRINT? IT'S A BLANK SLATE. THEN, IF ROTARY CLUB OR THE KIWANIS CLUB OR WHOEVER WANTS TO DO, THEY CAN PUT THEIR LOGO ON IT. YOU HAVE A LIGHT ENOUGH BACKGROUND SO YOU CAN SEE IT, AND YOU DON'T CARE IF IT'S BLUE OR PURPLE OR GREEN. JUST HAVE TWO STANDARDS. THIS WOULD BE, AND THAT WAS BEFORE LAND THAT IS NOT PHYSICALLY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE CITY. THE CITY CAN DO THE SAME THING FOR THE PIECES OF CONSERVATION LAND THAT ARE UNDER THE CITY. I GOT A BIG AND A SMALL, AND I HAVE A STANDARD FOOTPRINT FOR THAT ONE OUTSIDE OF THE NAMING, AND IF THEY HAVE ANY LOGOS AND SO ON. IT'S GOING TO BE CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO DICTATE THAT YOU WILL USE THEIR LOGO. MOST OF OUR SIGN COMPANIES UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THAT'S ONLY FOR THE LOGO ITSELF, NOT FOR THE WHOLE STRUCTURE. SO JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE. YOU WALK IN, YOU ASK FOR THE QUESTION. I NEED A BIG OR I NEED A SMALL, AND THEN YOU LAY IT OUT FROM THAT. >> [OVERLAPPING] STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THAT IF IT'S A FIVE-ACRE TRACT, THAT IT BE LIMITED TO 6 SQUARE FEET? WE DON'T WANT IT NOT PROPORTIONAL. THE 16 SQUARE FEET IS SIMPLY TO ACCOMMODATE LARGE TRACKS, WHICH THERE WAS ONLY ONE THAT I KNOW OF. BUT THAT'S 400 SQUARE FEET. 400 ACRES. >> BUT IN THIS LANGUAGE HERE, IT'S SAYING THAT 16 SQUARE FEET FOR PARCELS OF FIVE ACRES OR LARGER. >> CORRECT. >> SO A 16 SQUARE FOOT SIGN ON A 5.1-ACRE DONATION IS A BIG SIGN. >> WELL, NO, WE CONSIDER THAT STANDARD FOR REAL ESTATE SIGNS, FOR SALE SIGNS, THAT STANDARD FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGNS. WHAT WE WERE REALLY FOCUSING ON IS THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE A 400-ACRE TRACT OF LAND. AND SO UNDER THAT SCENARIO, IF YOU WERE WANT TO LOOK AT PROPORTIONALLY, THEN A 400-ACRE TRACT OF LAND WOULD HAVE A BILLBOARD, AND WE WOULDN'T WANT THAT. AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE KIND OF LIKE SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO CAP IT AT THE 16, NO MATTER HOW MANY ACRES YOU HAVE. IF YOU HAVE FIVE, SIX SEEMS TO BE APPROPRIATE, IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE REAL ESTATE SIGNS. IT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGNS. SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PERMANENT SIGNAGE. >> IN THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE HERE, OR I GUESS, MAYBE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THIS SIGN, WILL YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY WHERE THAT SIGN IS GOING TO BE LOCATED? >> YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN. SO AND WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE AT? AND WE CAN KIND OF SAY WHERE THAT IS. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU JUST WANT THE ORGANIZATION SIGN TO PICK WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THE SIGN. >> YES, THEY CAN'T. WE TELL THEM THEY CAN'T. >> AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS REALLY ONEROUS. IT'S JUST ONEROUS IN OUR DISCUSSION. I THINK ONCE WE'VE DECIDED WHAT IT IS, THEN IT'S PRETTY STANDARD PROCEDURE ON HOW YOU GET ONE OF THESE SIGNS. MY ONLY CONCERN IS SIGN LITTER, AND HAVING TOO MANY SIGNS AND HAVE NO CONSISTENCY, SO THAT WHEN SOMEBODY DRIVES BY, THEY SAY, OH, THAT IS LAND THAT'S BEEN DONATED UNDER THE CONSERVATION PROCESS. AND YOU GO OH, ISN'T THAT NICE. CONSISTENCY IN WHAT THAT SIGN LOOKS LIKE. I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING A PROBLEM AS FAR AS PUTTING IN A LOGO, [00:55:05] LIKE PETE WAS SAYING, I'M SURE THE LAND TRUST, THEY'VE GOT THEIR OWN LITTLE LOGO. THAT COULD GO INTO WHETHER IT'S THE CITY OR THE LAND TRUST OR THE ROTARY CLUB OR WHATEVER THAT SAYS, THIS IS CONSERVATION PROPERTY, AND HERE'S OUR LOGO, AND HERE'S ALL THE WORDS WE WANT TO SAY. BUT I'D LIKE MAYBE THIS TO BE FLUSHED OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS ONEROUS EXCEPT IN OUR DISCUSSION. AND I THINK ONCE WE'VE DECIDED WHAT IT IS, THEN IT IS. >> I WOULD SAY THAT THE ONLY THING I WOULD JUST REITERATE IS THAT WE DO HAVE STANDARDS. WE'VE PUT IT IN THERE, THAT THE HEIGHT, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE PURPOSE OF IT, WHERE IT'S GOT TO BE LOCATED, THE MATERIAL THEY HAVE TO USE, AND IT HAS TO HAVE THE COMPATIBLE APPEARANCE, COMPATIBLE JUST SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT, JUST LIKE WE DO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. WE DON'T TELL THEM EXACTLY HOW TO BUILD THEIR HOUSES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK THAT THE CITY SIGNS. NOT SO MUCH THE BLUE WOOD, MAYBE, BUT THE GREEN ONE DOES SAME ELEMENTS. THAT'S HOW THAT SIGN WOULD HAVE CAME OUT BY THOSE SAME ELEMENTS OF LOOKING AT IT. >> OKAY. BARBARA? OKAY, IF I'M A DONOR, I WANT MY SIGN TO BE SEEN. I DON'T WANT IT BURIED SOMEWHERE. I'D LIKE IT TO BE SEEN, AND I AGREE WITH, I THINK IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT. BUT LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DO PEOPLE ASK YOU TO PICK THE SIGN, OR DO THEY PICK THEIR OWN SIGN? >> NO. THEY TYPICALLY HAVE A COMPANY, AN ORGANIZATION, JUST LIKE THE CITY. THEY HAVE A STANDARD. THEY HAVE A STANDARD THAT THEY USE, AND THEN THEY MODIFY THE SIGN TO FIT THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY'RE PUTTING THE SIGN, JUST LIKE THE CITY. WE HAVE A STANDARD, WE CHANGE IT. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT PLACES. BUT WE HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY. BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT, AS YOU CAN SEE. I MEAN, WE DECIDED TO GO WITH THAT TYPE OF SIGN IN THAT ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE GREENWAY. AND THEN ON THE OTHER CONSERVATION PROPERTY, WE DECIDED TO GO WITH THAT TYPE OF SIGN. IT'S JUST LIKE THE LAND TRUST WOULD HAVE, THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. THEY'RE THE LAND TRUST. AND SO THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF CONSISTENCY OF SIGNS THAT THEY PUT OUT JUST LIKE HISTORICAL DISTRICTS. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? WELL, I GIVE ONE QUICK. >> THERE'S NO REASON SIGN CAN'T BE ROUND, IS IT? >> THAT IT CAN BE ROUND. WELL, WE MEASURE IT. THERE IS A WAY TO MEASURE A ROUND SIGN. >> NO. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT NOTHING THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU FROM HAVING A ROUND SIGN RATHER THAN RECTANGULAR. YOU WANT THAT? THAT'S THE QUESTION I JUST HAVE. >> NOT ACCORDING TO THIS LANGUAGE. NOT ACCORDING TO THIS LANGUAGE AS I SEE. >> IT DOESN'T SAY THAT IT CAN'T BE ROUND. >> YOU CAN HAVE A ROUND SIGN. IT'S JUST MEASURED. >> A CIRCLE STILL HAS A SQUARE SQUARE. MR. CHAIRMAN, FIRST OFF, I THINK A MAJORITY OF OUR DONATIONS ARE GOING TO BE LESS THAN FIVE ACRES, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE A 6 SQUARE FEET NEARLY ALL TIMES. I THINK THAT IS A TYPICAL SIGN, AND IF SOMEONE'S WILLING TO PAY FOR IT FOR LAND THAT THEY DONATE, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN IT. I'M FINE WITH THIS ORDINANCE WITH ONLY ONE CHANGE. I THINK THAT WE SAY FIVE ACRES OR LESS FOR ONE SIZE AND THEN FIVE ACRES OR MORE. SO WE SHOULD SAVE FIVE ACRES OR LESS GREATER THAN FIVE. >> LESS THAN FIVE ACRES. I WAS GOING TO MAKE THAT COMMENT. >> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION IF WE'RE DISCUSSING [OVERLAPPING] >> ONE MORE QUESTION HERE. ONE MORE QUESTION. YOU SAID YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SIGNS ARE MAINTAINED. AND SO IF THEY'RE A PRIVATE SIGN, PRIVATE COMPANY SIGN, IT GOES THROUGH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO THEY WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE CONTACT INFORMATION ON WHO TO NOTIFY THAT THE SIGN IS IN DISREPAIR AND IT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT'S TYPICALLY IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS. IS THE PROPERTY. >> IT'LL BE THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE. >> I'LL SECOND. >> [OVERLAPPING] >> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE APPROVE PAB 2025-0018 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, THE LDC FOR 5.0 300 SIGNS TO PERMIT LIMITED SIGNAGE ON CONSERVATION LANDS FOR RECOGNITION OF DONDERS SPONSORS OR PARTNERS. OKAY. I WILL SAY THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO 5.05 O2A1 TO SAY THAT FIVE ACRES OR LESS WOULD BE 6 SQUARE FEET, AND LARGER THAN FIVE ACRES WOULD BE MAXIMUM OF 16 SQUARE FEET. >> THANK YOU. >> SECOND. >> EIGHT AND SECOND. I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION. [01:00:03] SO ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. >> OPPOSED? PASS. MARGARET, LET'S TALK ABOUT TREES. [5.4 (Legislative) - PAB 2025-0020 - CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH] >> OKAY. FUN. THIS IS PAB 2025-0020. THE CITY OF FERNANDINA REQUEST AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEX AMENDMENT TO LDC SECTION 1108 04, PACIFIC PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF TREE REQUIREMENTS, AND TABLE 110804 FOUR FINES FOR UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVAL OF TWO OR MORE TO CLARIFY THE CALCULATIONS OF FINES AND ESTABLISH THE MINIMUM FINES ASSOCIATED AND IT'S ACTUALLY NOT TO ESTABLISH IS TO RETAIN THE MINIMUM FINES ASSOCIATED WITH MULTIFAMILY SUBDIVISION MIXED USE AND NON RESIDENTIAL. THIS DOES, AGAIN, ALIGN WITH YOUR PRIORITIES OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. BA TREAT COMMAND CANOPY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMUNITY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK IS BEAUTIFUL HERE. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, IT SAYS, WHENEVER AN UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL OF A TREE HAS OCCURRED, THE OWNER SHALL SUBMIT A FINE AND A RESTORATION PLAN WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER BEING CITED FOR THE VIOLATION. WE'VE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE HAD TREE REMOVALS. THE MAIN PROBLEM COMES IN WHEN THERE'S MORE THAN ONE TREE. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN THE LAST CASE THAT WE HAD BASICALLY SAID THAT OUR ORDINANCE IS NOT CLEAR. ON DEFINING WHAT THE FIRST TREE REMOVAL IS. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT SAYS, INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS OF A SINGLE LOT OF RECORD WILL BE FINED $1,000 FOR THE FIRST UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVAL VIOLATION, AND SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL FINES AS PROVIDED IN THE TABLE BELOW. WHEN THERE'S MULTIPLE TREES COME DOWN, WHO DECIDES WHAT THE FIRST TREE IS? AND IT'S SOMETIMES VERY DIFFICULT TO GO OUT THERE TO KNOW WHICH TREE WAS TAKEN DOWN FIRST. THE PERSON WHO TOOK DOWN THE TREE, OF COURSE, THEY'RE GOING TO DEFER TO THE LARGEST TREE WAS ALWAYS THE FIRST TREE. WHEREAS THE CITY, YOU KNOW, THEIR POSITION HAS BEEN THAT THE SMALLER TREE IS THE FIRST TREE. AND SO IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE HAD THE LARGER TREE, THE SMALLER TREE WAS 1,000, AND THEN THE LARGER TREE WAS 5,000, WHICH WAS MADE A $6,000 FINE. BUT WHEN THEY APPEALED, THE VIOLATION, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WHO'S TO SAY THAT THE LARGE TREE WASN'T THE FIRST TREE, AND SO THEREFORE, THE FINES WERE REDUCED TO $2,000. THAT KIND OF GOES AGAINST OUR GOAL OF TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE NOT TO REMOVE TREES WITHOUT A PERMIT. SO WHAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THAT. AND TO ENSURE, COMPLIANCE, WE ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT IF YOU REMOVE A TREE, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT $1,000 FOR THE FIRST UNAUTHORIZED TREE FINE. AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, YOU PAY THE FINE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHART. IF YOU TAKE DOWN A SMALL TREE, YOU PAY $100. IF YOU TAKE A 36-INCH TREE DOWN, YOU PAY THE 20,000. AND THAT WOULD DETER SOMEONE FROM TAKING DOWN A 36-INCH TREE AND PAYING $1,000. AND SO THAT'S TWO PARTS OF THAT IS TO CLEAR UP THE FIRST, WHAT IS THE FIRST TREE, AND ALSO DISCOURAGE SOMEONE FROM TAKING DOWN A LARGE TREE. THE NEXT PART OF IT WAS ALSO JUST TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST PART, WE KEPT THE $5,000 BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THAT WAY, THAT IF YOU TOOK DOWN A TREE IN A NON-RESIDENTIAL AREA, THE FIRST TREE WAS $5,000. EVEN IF YOU TOOK A SMALL ONE DOWN IN A COMMERCIAL, YOU DIDN'T PAY 1,000, YOU PAID 5,000. WE WANTED TO RETAIN THAT. WE JUST SAY THAT IF YOU TAKE DOWN A TREE IN A NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, YOU WILL PAY THE FINE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHART, BUT A MINIMUM, YOU WOULD PAY $5,000 AS A DETERRENT. SO IF YOU TOOK DOWN A SMALL TREE ON A COMMERCIAL, YOU WOULD NOT YOU WOULD GO TO THE 5,000 FEE INSTEAD OF 1,000. WE ALSO HAD THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION THAT'S EXACTLY OR THAT WASN'T CLEAR AS TO WHERE THE APPEALS GO WHEN SOMEONE HAS AN UNAUTHORIZED TREE FINE AND WANTS TO APPEAL IT. WE SPECIFIED THAT THE APPEAL OF SUCH FINES SHALL BE TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT PERTAIN TO FINES AND VIOLATIONS. >> THAT'S I'M HAPPY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS. >> MARGARET, I GUESS LET ME DESCRIBE WHAT I PERCEIVE THIS TO BE. [01:05:02] THIS IS BASICALLY A CHANGE TO FIX A KNOWN PROCESS PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WITHIN THE STAFF THAT CAN GET INTO A LEGAL ISSUE. BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE'RE FIXING THE LDC, CLARIFYING THE LDC AND I WOULD SAY, ELIMINATING 99% OF THE TIME THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A MISINTERPRETATION OR SOMEBODY TRYING TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE PENALTY IS GOING TO BE. >> CORRECT. IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE CITY'S POLICY WE DISCOVERED WHEN WE WERE ENFORCING A TREE REMOVAL AND TAKING IT TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THE CITY'S CLEAR POLICY THAT WAS BEING CONSISTENTLY APPLIED FROM WHAT WE FOUND WAS THE SMALLER TREE WAS ALWAYS THE FIRST TREE, NO MATTER WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD PROVE IT. THE LARGER TREE WAS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THAT SECOND ONE, AND THAT GAVE UP A HIGHER FINE, WHICH MET I THINK THE PURPOSE AND INTENT, AS WE INVESTIGATED IT AND LOOKED INTO IT WAS THE DETERRENT. OF COURSE, WHEN WE PRESENTED IT TO THE MAGISTRATE, THE QUESTION WAS, WELL, WHERE WAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION? WHERE WAS THE AUTHORITY IN THE CODE THAT YOU COULD SET THAT POLICY OF WHO DECIDES WHICH ONES FIRST. TO YOUR POINT, THIS IS CLARIFYING THAT NO MATTER WHICH ONE, I MEAN, I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT I'VE NOTICED READING IT, BUT YOU WOULD CALCULATE IT BASED ON AND MY QUESTION IS EITHER PER TREE IN THE SIZE OR IS IT THE TOTAL? IF YOU TOOK DOWN AN EIGHT INCH TREE, IT WOULD BE 10,000, AND AND WE'RE ON RESIDENTIAL NOW, AND IF YOU TOOK DOWN A 24'' TREE, IT WOULD BE 5,000 FOR THAT TREE. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? >> YES. >> BECAUSE THAT TOGETHER IS 32" WHICH WOULD BE 15, SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE TOTAL DBH, WE'RE TALKING A [OVERLAPPING] TREE DBH. IT'S TO CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE THAT NO MATTER WHICH ORDER THEY CAME DOWN, YOU PAY THE FINE FOR THE DBH OF THE TREE YOU TOOK DOWN. >> WELL, YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT. SHOULD WE SAY PER TREE OR ANYWHERE IN THERE JUST AS [OVERLAPPING] >> SIZE OF TREE REMOVED? >> IT SAYS THAT IF YOU TAKE IT DOWN. >> UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVED [OVERLAPPING] IT FINE. >> IF YOU TOOK OUT ONE OF EACH CATEGORY, YOU'D HAVE $41,000 IN FINES. >> IN THAT COLUMN. GOT IT. IT'S IN THE COLUMN. >> BEFORE IT HAD A $5,000 MINIMUM FINE FOR ANYTHING THAT WASN'T SINGLE FAMILY. >> AS YOU CAN SEE THE STRIKE THROUGH, IF YOU CAN SEE THAT WAS THE WORDING BEFORE IS THAT IT WILL BE FINED $5,000 FOR THE FIRST UNAUTHORIZED TREE VIOLATION. WE KEPT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE WE DO THINK THAT IS A DETERRENT FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY SHOULD NOT REMOVE A TREE DETERMENT. >> IF A DUPLEX CAME IN AND DID AN UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVAL, WOULD THAT BE A $5,000 MINIMUM OR WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL? >> I OWN THE DUPLEX INDIVIDUALLY, AND YOU ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND I REMOVE ONE TREE ON MY DUPLEX AS A SINGLE LOT OWNER ON ONE SIDE OF THE DUPLEX. THAT IS CONSIDERED MULTI-FAMILY. >> A DUPLEX IS CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. >> [OVERLAPPING] MAYBE WE OUGHT TO SAY SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEX ON OUR CLARIFICATIONS FOR BECAUSE I COULD SEE DUPLEX. >> YOU'RE SAYING UNDER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS, YOU COULD SAY DUPLEX SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX [OVERLAPPING] >> I COULD MAKE IT EVEN CLEAR. >> BECAUSE THE INTENT, I'M GUESSING IS MULTI-FAMILY SUBDIVISION, MIXED USE AND NON RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE IN THIS SITUATION, AND I'M JUST ASKING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO CHAT WITH YOU ABOUT THIS. WE'RE REALLY THINKING OF A DEVELOPER DEVELOPING PROPERTY, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. A APARTMENT COMPLEX. A SUBDIVISION. A SHOPPING CENTER. >> THEN THE MULTI-FAMILY ONCE IT'S SOLD OFF TO INDIVIDUALS, THEN THEY BECOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS. INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS. GOT IT. >> IF THEY'RE TOWN HOMES, BUT WE CONSIDER TOWN HOMES DIFFERENT THAN MULTI-FAMILY. >> JUST FOR MY EDIFICATION, SINGLE LOT OF RECORD. IS IT DEFINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? >> LOT OF RECORD IS. [OVERLAPPING]. >> A LOT OF RECORD. I DIDN'T BREAK. I DO HAVE IT. >> WE LOOK AT THE [OVERLAPPING] >> WE GET INTO THESE DEFINITIONS, AND I JUST. >> I'M JUST GOING TO GET TO IT. >> JUST MAKE SURE IT IS. >> DEFINITELY LOT OF RECORD IS. >> SHE SAID, YEAH. >> IT HAS SOME IMPLICATIONS HERE. [01:10:01] LET'S LOOK AT IT. LOT [NOISE] OF RECORD. COME ON. BECAUSE IT DOES GO INTO THE INDIVIDUAL THINGS THAT MR. GILLETTE IS RAISING HERE, SO WE CAN I CAN SCROLL DOWN QUICKLY ENOUGH. >> BUT JUST AS A DUPLEX, THEY WOULD HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL LOT OF RECORD AND AN INDIVIDUAL LOT IF THEY WERE DIVIDED, AND THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE SOLELY TO THAT LOT. >> THAT'S UNDER THE LOT DEFINITION. >> I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING IT. [NOISE] I'M MALFUNCTIONING OVER HERE. >> WHAT DO YOU GETTING AT, PETER ON THAT? >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GOT A DEFINITION WE DO. >> WE DID. >> I JUST OKAY. IT'S HERE. IT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT. >> LOT OF RECORD MEANS A LOT, WHICH IS PART OF A SUBDIVISION, THE MAP OF WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT AS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE COULD POTENTIALLY USE A BETTER DEFINITION THAN A LOT OF RECORD BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. WHAT IF I WELL, I'M GOING TO BE PART OF A SUBDIVISION NO MATTER WHAT. [OVERLAPPING] >> STILL A LOT OF RECORD. >> ARE WE OKAY WITH THE LANGUAGE THEN OR? I'M JUST OKAY. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE IT REALLY JUST SEEMS TO BE A CLARIFICATION ORDINANCE MORE THAN ACTUALLY MAKING A POLICY. >> I HAVE A PUBLIC. >> IS THERE ANY MURGA DO YOU WANT TO SECOND MARGARET OR YOU WANT TO TALK? >> YOU HAVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU HAVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. >> PUBLIC HARING IS OPEN. [LAUGHTER] >> FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT. >> I THINK MARGARET WANTS TO REDUCE THE FINE TO $50. [LAUGHTER] >> MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF [INAUDIBLE]. THE TEXT OF THIS, THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF THIS DOCUMENT CAME FROM ME. [LAUGHTER] THAT NEVER, EVER, EVER OCCURRED TO ME THAT ANYONE WOULD INTERPRET 1ST TREE AS A SEQUENTIAL THING, LIKE, GEE, LET'S CHOOSE THE LITTLE ONE FOR NUMBER 1 OR I MEAN, THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. HOWEVER, I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ALL OF THESE OTHER TYPES OF PROPERTIES, INCLUDING ALL OF THESE TYPES OF PROPERTIES BECAUSE ALL OF THESE OTHER TYPES OF PROPERTIES INVOLVE A [NOISE] LOT MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. THAT MEANS YOU ARE CREATING MORE CHANGE IN THE SOIL AND THE GRADE, IT MEANS YOU ARE CREATING POTENTIALLY MORE FLOODING. WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH THAT. THAT'S WHY THERE WAS THE DIFFERENTIAL THERE, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE SHOULD BE A HIGHER RATE AT SOME POINT FOR THAT. EVEN TOWN HOMES. WHAT DO WE HAVE WITH THE TOWN HOMES? WE HAVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE A NAUSEUM, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE PROTECTION OF OUR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WE NEED. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S MY THOUGHT ON THIS. IT'S SHOCKING TO FIND OUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SEQUENCE OF TREE CUTTING. I DON'T KNOW [OVERLAPPING]. >> IT HAPPENED. >> NICK, YOU CAN. >> I WAS. >> YOU GO TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION. I THINK I DID MAKE A MOTION. >> WELL, I'LL SECOND. I THOUGHT YOU DID. >> I DID. I'M DONE. >> THAT'S RIGHT YOU DID SECOND. I'M ASSUMING NO MORE DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED PASSES. WE'RE ON TO BOARD BUSINESS, NICK, PROPOSE [6. BOARD BUSINESS] >> I DID. I WANTED TO KIND OF UPDATE THE BOARD. I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING WHAT THE COUNTY HAS BEEN DOING ON THEIR IMPACT FEE AND MOBILITY FEE UPDATES TO THEIR PLAN. THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THEY BE CONSIDERED AN EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE, WHICH I'M SURE STAFF AND THERESA CAN SPEAK BETTER TO THIS THAN I CAN. BUT STATE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO INCREASE YOUR FEES [01:15:02] 50% UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES EVERY EITHER 4-5 YEARS. I'M NOT SURE OF THE TIME FRAME. IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU CAN RAISE THEM MORE. THE COUNTY IS CLAIMING THAT, AND THEY'RE RAISING THE FEES, SOMETIMES 100%, SOMETIMES TRIPLING IT. WE ARE NOW BEING DESIGNATED, WE BEING THE CITY, WE'RE GOING TO BE FEED A LOT DIFFERENTLY THAN WE HAVE BEEN. I THINK PART OF THAT MAY UNDERMINE SOME OF OUR REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. WHAT I HAD SENT STAFF AND WANTED TO GO OVER IS I WANT TO DOCUMENT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. NUMBER 1, WE KNOW. NUMBER 2, MAYBE WE HAVE AN OPINION ON IT. WE DON'T NEED ONE TONIGHT, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THEIR FINAL HEARING IN MID DECEMBER. THEN THERE'S A 90 DAY PERIOD IN WHICH IT GOES TO THE STATE THAT THE STATE REVIEWS IT AND SAYS, YEH OR NEY. THERE IS TIME. BUT IN ORDER FOR THE COUNTY TO COLLECT FEES FROM THE CITY, AND WHETHER IT'S A SCHOOL BOARD OR COUNTY COMMISSION, THERE HAS TO BE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. IN THE PAST, WE THE CITY HAVE HAD AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR MOBILITY FEES, WHICH IS ROUGHLY AROUND $4,000 A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT. WE DON'T HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PARK AND REC FEES THAT THE COUNTY TRIED TO CHARGE. WE DO HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD TO PAY SCHOOL IMPACT FEES. WHAT I HAD SENT STAFF, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF WE CAN START WITH THE IMPACT FEES. >> IS THAT THE MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS? >> NO, IT WOULD BE THE ACTUAL FIGURE THREE. IT WOULD BE IN THAT FIRST EMAIL I SENT YOU. WHAT'S NEW ABOUT THIS IS THE COUNTY IS RAISING REGIONAL IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS AND REC AND ADMIN. I THINK IT'S BEEN PRETTY WELL-DOCUMENTED THAT THE CITY PROVIDES A LOT OF PARK AND REC FOR THE COUNTY AND IT'S NOT VICE VERSA. I KNOW IN THE PAST THE COMMISSION HAS REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY AND SAID, MUCH YOU PAY US SOMETHING AND THAT'S SOURED OUR RELATIONSHIP. BUT THAT'S THE ONE. THANK YOU. CAN WE ZOOM IN ON THAT MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE IN THE GREEN? I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING]. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> IF WE GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT, THAT'S GOOD. >> IS THAT BETTER? >> THAT'S A BETTER ONE. IF YOU LOOK AT LET'S JUST SAY A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES IN THE PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WILL BE $5,177 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT. NOW, THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE FEES THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO CHARGE. BY THE WAY, THE CITY PROVIDES A LOT BETTER PARK AND REC FOR CITY RESIDENTS THAN THE COUNTY DOES. THE FACT IS WE PROVIDE IT'S LIGHT YEARS BETTER THAN WHAT WE PROVIDE. TO ME, IT'S DRIPPING WITH IRONY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE US AND WE DON'T CHARGE THEM. WHEN YOU START PILING THESE FEES ON, I THINK IT'S GOING TO AFFECT CITY RESIDENTS, WHICH IS ANYBODY THAT FILES A PERMIT IS EITHER A CITY RESIDENT OR A CITY PROPERTY OWNER. IT'S AFFECTING PEOPLE THAT PAY TAXES IN THE CITY. I THINK THAT AND IF YOU TAKE A 2,500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE IN THE CITY, I THINK WE PAY ABOUT $3 A SQUARE FOOT FOR RECREATION. WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP PAYING $7,500 TO THE CITY OR SOMEBODY WOULD, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO PAY ANOTHER $5,000 TO THE COUNTY. THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO USE THE COUNTY FACILITIES, THAT WE HAVE GREAT RECREATION FACILITIES. WE'RE PAYING A LOT FOR THOSE. TO ME, THIS IS DOUBLE TAXATION AT ITS FINEST. I THINK IN THE PAST, THAT'S WHY WE OPTED OUT OF ANY RECREATIONAL IMPACT PIECE THROUGH INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY. I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT'S COMING. >> WHAT'S THE MEETINGS I THINK A COUNTY MEETING GOING ON, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S. >> THERE'S A WORKSHOP THAT WENT ON. IT WAS DECEMBER 8TH AND THEN DECEMBER 18TH, WHICH WILL BE OR MAYBE IT'S A 17TH MAYBE I THINK IT'S A WEDNESDAY MORNING MEETING. >> I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE TONIGHT BECAUSE I THINK TIM WAS GOING TO THAT. >> I'M NOT SURE. >> IT COULD HAVE BEEN A TRC OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT. >> IT'S NOT THE 15TH. THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT AT WEDNESDAY MORNING. >> THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT A WEDNESDAY MORNING MEETING AT 9:00 AM. >> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S THE FINAL ADOPTION. >> THAT'S THE FINAL ADOPTION. NOW, IF WE CAN SEGUE TO MOBILITY BECAUSE THAT OTHER CHART, [01:20:01] IF YOU DON'T MIND, BECAUSE THIS TO ME IS THE KILLER. >> THIS THE ONE YOU TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE? >> THE TABLE 10. >> THIS ONE. >> THIS ONE IS. >> I CAN. >> VERY STAGGERING. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'LL ZOOM IN, LOOK AT IT 210, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. >> TODAY IT'S ABOUT 4,000. THEY'RE GOING UP TO $11,332 FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. KEEP IN MIND, THIS GOES TO THE COUNTY THAT THEY CAN SPEND ANYWHERE THEY WANT EAST OF I-95. SO WHERE DO YOU THINK MOST OF THE GROWTH IS GOING? IT'S NOT HERE. IT'S GOING OUT WLY, AND THEY CAN PARTITION IT ANY WAY THEY WANT TO. IF YOU'LL SCROLL DOWN, I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGER ONES, MARGARET, IF YOU'LL GO TO THE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. LET'S SAY NOT THAT WE WANT A BUNCH OF FAST FOOD PLACES HERE. BUT IF YOU GO TO ZAXBY'S, FOR EXAMPLE, AND YOU LOOK AT THEIR NORMAL-SIZED RESTAURANT, WHICH IS A LITTLE OVER 4,000 SQUARE FEET, THEY WOULD PAY $474,000 IN MOBILITY FEES. THAT'S IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER BUILDING PERMIT FEE THAT YOU WOULD PAY. DO YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO LOCATE HERE? NO. THEY'RE NOT. IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THESE HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANTS, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, BEACH DINER, THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN MOBILITY FEES THAT ARE GOING TO GET SHIPPED OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE. IF YOU'LL PUT ON THE CHART THAT SHOWS WHERE THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE, MARGARET? >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE? IS THIS? >> NO, THAT'S ACTUALLY A GOOD POINT. GO BACK TO THAT ONE, PLEASE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE 2045 CONDITION, THEY HAVE TO GO OUT 20 YEARS AHEAD. THEY MODEL THE WHOLE COUNTY. THOSE ARE THE ONLY SEGMENTS THAT ARE FAILING IN THE WHOLE COUNTY AND THE 2045 CONDITION. NONE OF THOSE ARE IN THE CITY. THEY'RE ALL EAST OF 95. WHAT THE COUNTY IS PROPOSING IS THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD PARALLEL CORRIDORS, NOT TOO WIDE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WIDEN ONE EIGHTH LANES. THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP IT AT SIX. THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD THESE LITTLE OFFSHOOTS THAT WOULD BYPASS THESE FAILING SEGMENTS, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE MONEY FROM THE ISLAND TO PAY FOR THAT. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. ANOTHER EXAMPLE WOULD BE, AND I'M NOT SAYING WE NEED TO PROMOTE THESE THINGS, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOTEL AT MAINE BEACH THAT WAS BUILT, THE DUAL BRAND, IT WAS 238, YOUR ROOMS, 239 ROOMS, THEY WOULD PAY $1.7 MILLION IN MOBILITY FEES. THAT'S A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THEY PAID FOR THE LAND. I MEAN, ONCE AGAIN, WE WON'T SEE ANY OF THAT. MARGARET, IF YOU'LL GO TO THE PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS. I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE IN THEIR PLAN. >> THIS ONE RIGHT HERE IS THE ONE HERE. THE MOBILE FUNDING OR THE INVENTORY. >> NO, GO BACK TO MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS, FIRST ONE. THOSE ARE ALL THE ROADS THEY PUT IN THERE. MARGARET, ON THE NEXT PAGE, THERE'S A MAP. SCROLL DOWN. YOU CAN SEE ALL THOSE CIRCLES WITH BLOOM. YOU ONLY SEE THREE IN THE CITY. ONE OF THEM IS A ROUNDABOUT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN FUNDED? ANOTHER ONE IS ANOTHER PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN FUNDED? THERE'S ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR. WE HAVE ONE PROJECT THAT IS A PEDESTRIAN AND MULTI-USE PATH DOWN CITRONA FROM ATLANTIC TO SADDLER. MOST OF THAT LAND IS IN THE COUNTY. THOSE ARE THE ONLY THREE PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTS THAT EVEN TOUCHED THE CITY, AND TWO OF THEM HAVE ALREADY FUNDED. WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR? IF WE'RE GOING TO GET CHARGED AND DINGED ALL THAT, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO UNDERMINE ANY TYPE OF EFFORT WE HAD ON SADDLER ROAD, ANY EIGHTH STREET, ANY 14TH STREET, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD SOMEBODY REDEVELOP? >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER JUST BASED ON EXPERIENCE. PUBLIX IS PUTTING IN A NEW FACILITY, SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS. I MEAN, YOU GOT ANY GAUGE OF WHAT IN? >> THEY WOULD GET CREDIT FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THEY HAD, AND THEY WOULD PAY FOR THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. WHICH, IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT CHART, WHICH I HAVE IT HERE ON SHOPPING [OVERLAPPING]. >> THEN, ADDED ABOUT 3,000 [OVERLAPPING]. >> THEY DIDN'T ADD A LOT. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE THAT REDEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE STAGGERING. WELL, IT WOULD BE STAGGERING. I THINK THE HOTEL ON THE BEACH WAS A PRIME EXAMPLE. I WAS AN OLD ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. PEOPLE WERE SITTING ON THE FRONT PORCH. YOU DIDN'T HAVE A BIG TRAFFIC IMPACT. >> WHICH ONE LIKE THE MARRIOTT? >> YES. >> YEAH, OKAY. >> THAT ONE, YOU GET VERY LITTLE CREDIT FOR WHAT'S THERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT VERY HIGH ON THE CHART, BUT THE HOTEL GETS DINGED DRAMATICALLY. WHY WOULD YOU REDEVELOP? THAT PLACE WAS ABOUT TO FALL DOWN. I MEAN, IT LITERALLY WAS. THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANTED REDEVELOPED. THEY GET HIT WITH A $1.7 MILLION MOBILITY FEE; THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T. [01:25:04] >> BECAUSE THE ROI IS SUDDENLY [OVERLAPPING]. >> IT'S LIKE $7,800 A UNIT. I MEAN, THAT'S A BIG NUMBER. >> THERE IS SOME CREDIT GIVEN FOR THE EXISTING. >> THERE WOULD HAVE. >> THERE MAY BE A BOOST FOR ANY REDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY. >> IT WOULD BE A BOOST IF YOU HAD A HIGH IMPACT, DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU WANTED TO GO TO A LOW PRO MOTILITY. IT WOULD. I DID A THING ON MEDICAL OFFICES. WE HAVE A LOT OF MEDICAL OFFICES COMING. I'M SURE YOU SEE APPLICATIONS. >> YES, WE DO. >> IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT MOBILITY CHART AGAIN, I'M SORRY TO BOUNCE YOU AROUND ON. >> NOT THIS ONE, THE OTHER ONE. THIS ONE. >> IF YOU GO TO ONE THING GOING ON. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. OVER EVERY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, YOU GET CHARGED $41,000 OF MOBILITY FEES. DOES THAT SOUND FAIR TO ANYBODY? I MEAN, REALLY, IF YOU'RE IN THE CITY AND YOU'RE GOING TO DING, WHAT WAS THE BAPTIST THAT JUST GOT BUILT? PROBABLY 5,000 SQUARE FEET. >> ONE ON LIME STREET. YEAH. >> $200,000 FOR THAT, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE MONEY AND THEY'RE GOING TO SHIP IT OUT SOMEWHERE ELSE TO DO IMPROVEMENTS. >> WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO SOLVE A PROBLEM THAT WASN'T A HUNDRED YEARS AGO. >> IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE CITY A LOT. MY POINT TO ALL OF THIS IS, I THINK, RECONSIDER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY AS IT RELATES, JUST LIKE WE DID WITH PARKS AND REC. I'LL CLOSE WITH THIS. IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT TO THE EMAIL I SENT THAT HAD PARK INVENTORIES, THIS IS WHAT'S LAUGHABLE TO ME. THIS IS PROBABLY THE WORST ONE. THE PARK INVENTORY THERE. IF YOU GO DOWN, I CIRCLED IT. UNDEVELOP FUTURE PARKS, WE GET THE CITRONA SITE, WHICH IS 34 ACRES AND ABOUT 32 OF IT AS WELL. WE GET A LITTLE PIECE OF SILVER LAND, WHICH IS IN THE COUNTY, BUT IT'S SURROUNDED BY COUNTY PROPERTY. WE'RE GOING TO PAY ALL THIS MONEY IN PARK AND REC FEES, AND THIS IS WHAT WE GET. I JUST WANT US TO CONSIDER AND KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT BEING REPRESENTED VERY WELL, AND I THINK WE'RE REALLY GETTING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. I THINK IT'S UNDERMINING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. I WAS JUST HOPING THAT IF YOU GUYS SAW IT FIT, MAYBE WE SEND JUST A STATEMENT TO THE COMMISSION FOR THEM TO CONSIDER IT. CONSIDER THE EVALUATION OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY. THAT'S THAT. YEAH, I'LL DRAFT IT. >> THANK YOU. >> ALOT IF YOU ANSWER QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR MAKING US ALL SHOCKINGLY AWARE OF THIS. >> OH, SHE HAD A BUMPY FOOT. >> YOU'LL GET 6 MINUTES. >> WHILE SHE'S LIMPING UP, IF I MAY, THE CITY MANAGER IS WELL AWARE OF THIS. I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS ARE AWARE OF IT. I KNOW MR AKAMOV MEETS WITH THE COUNTY, SO I BELIEVE HE'S ALSO BEEN KEEPING THE CITY A PRIZE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY IS AWARE OF. >> KIM WOLFORD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 1315 BROOM STREET, I WANT TO THANK MR GILLETTE FOR DOING THIS FOR US, AS I SAID, MAKING US SHOCKINGLY AWARE OF WHAT IS ABOUT TO TRANSPIRE FOR US. MY ONLY QUESTION WAS, WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT? WHAT CAN THE AVERAGE CITIZEN DO ANYTHING? WHAT CAN WE DO? >> I WOULD RECOMMEND, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE A COUNTY COMMISSIONER THAT REPRESENTS THE CITY, AND THAT'S JOHN MARA. >> THAT'S JOHN. >> YOU CAN CALL HIM AND EXPRESS YOUR CONCERN ABOUT IT. >> NOT THAT I'M A FAN OF DEVELOPMENT, AS WE ALL KNOW, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT, OR YOU CAN'T GROW YOUR TAX BASE OR HAVE ANY ROADS OR STREETS OR SCHOOLS. THIS IS QUITE CONCERNING FOR REALLY EVERYBODY. I'M GOING TO SEE WHAT I CAN DO WITH THOSE OF US WHO LIKE TO, STIR IT UP A BIT AND SEE IF WE CAN'T STIR IT UP IN A DIRECTION THAT IS REALLY WILL HELP THE CITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> HOW DO WE SOLVE THE CURRENT PROBLEM WHEN WE WANT TO GO OFF ISLAND WITH ALL THE CONGESTION THAT'S OVER THERE, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SOLVE THROUGH MOBILITY FEES. HOW DOES THAT GET SOLVED? >> WELL, IF YOU ACTUALLY DIVE INTO THE STUDY, WHICH I HAVE, A LOT OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IF ANYBODY SHOULD BE MAD, IT SHOULD BE THE WEST SIDE OF THE COUNTY, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY FAILING ROADS. [01:30:03] THEY'RE GETTING DINGED A HIGHER FEE THAN WE ARE. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE GOING TO PAVE SAUL'S ROAD, AND NOBODY HAS ANY IDEA WHERE SAUL'S ROAD IS, BUT SUPPOSEDLY, IT'S GOING TO ALLEVIATE CONGESTION AT THE CAROLINE INTERSECTION. WHAT IT IS IS THEY'RE GOING TO PAVE A DIRT ROAD, ABOUT 4 MILES OF DIRT ROAD, BECAUSE SOMEBODY WANTS IT PAVED. THEY'RE GOING TO USE MOBILITY AS THE REASON FOR IT AND LET GROWTH PAY FOR IT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY IT'S GOING TO TAKE TRAFFIC AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO A FAILING INTERSECTION. A LOT OF THIS IS MUMBO JUMBO, I THINK, THAT THEY ACTUALLY FIND A WAY TO DO IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO USE AVALOR FUNDS FOR. IF YOU REALLY DIVE INTO THE STUDY, THERE'S SEVERAL OF THESE, ESPECIALLY ON THE WEST SIDE. I MEAN, THEY'RE GETTING BRUTALIZED TO ME. THEY'VE RAISED THEIR HAND TO BE RECOGNIZED. BUT I THINK THE CITY, WE HAVE A LOT MORE PLANNING, AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE GOALS THAT I THINK WILL BE SEVERELY UNDERMINED BY A LOT OF THIS. >> NICK. WHAT WAS IT TWO WEEKS, FOUR WEEKS AGO. WE VOTED TO ANNEX IN ABOUT ADDITIONAL 18 ACRES. IT WAS WHAT WE HAD. IT WAS ACTUALLY IN OUR LAST MEETING. THAT WAS ANNEXED IN, AND I THINK THERE IS STRATEGICALLY CERTAINLY A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THAT ACREAGE. THIS WOULD BE PROBABLY AFTER THE FACT IF THEY DO IMPLEMENT THESE FEES, AND THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD GET ZIPPED WITH THESE HIGHER FEES. >> THAT'S A GREAT POINT. THAT'S A GREAT POINT BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO GET HIT WITH THE HIGHER FEES, AND THEY'RE GOING TO GET HIT WITH CITY FEES. THEY WOULD REEVALUATE ANNEXATION. HOWEVER, IF WE DIDN'T ENTER INTO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THEY MIGHT WANT TO ANNEX BECAUSE THE FEES WOULDN'T BE APPLIED. ONLY OUR FEES WOULD BE APPLIED, NOT THE COUNTIES. IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY THESE EXORBITANT MOBILITY FEES, FOR EXAMPLE, OR PARK AND REC FEES, $5,000 PLUS, AND THEY JUST PAID OURS, IT MAY INCENTIVIZE ANNEXATIONS. >> IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THE WEST SIDE OF THE COUNTY IS GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THIS? >> THEY ARE. I THINK THEY'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO TALLAHASSEE MYSELF. ALL THE DEVOTEES. >> DEFINITELY. >> THE DEVELOPERS WERE FINE WITH THE 50% INCREASE, AND EVEN A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TRIPLING IT. THE LOGIC WAS THAT COSTS HAVE WENT UP AND INFLATION. NONE OF THE OTHER COUNTIES IN OUR MSA HAVE CLAIMED THAT. WELL, [OVERLAPPING] PLAYED IN DUVAL; NONE OF THEM DID. >> THE OTHER ISSUE IN THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, WHICH WAS A BUILDER-DRIVEN CHANGE, IS THAT YOU CAN'T TOUCH IMPACT FEES EXCEPT FOR EVERY FOUR YEARS. SOME OF IT WAS A REACTIONARY MEASURE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO IMPLEMENT IMPACT FEES THAT WILL HANDLE THE FOUR-YEAR CHANGE. THAT IS WHAT IS NOW IN THE STATUTE: AN IMPACT FEE MAY NOT BE INCREASED MORE THAN ONCE EVERY FOUR YEARS. SOME OF IT IS A PROSPECT OF AN ISSUE, LIKE I SAID, THE CITY HAS BEEN AWARE OF IT. WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED. THERE'S BEEN VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT THE CITY COULD OR COULDN'T DO. WE'RE JUST WORKING THROUGH IT. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. ACKERMAN HAS ANY FURTHER UPDATES. THE OPTIONS ARE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PARKS AND REC. DO WE REDUCE OUR IMPACT FEES FOR PARKS AND REC? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHARGING THEM, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS? >> GLENA KRONOV, PROJECT MANAGER. WE'VE BEEN HAVING ONGOING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS ABOUT THIS PROCESS FOR THEM. IT DOES REQUIRE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW ONE, NOT JUST UPDATING THE OLD ONES. WE HAVE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE IMPACTS TO US AND THE DOUBLE IMPACTS. CERTAINLY, IT STARTED IN PARKS, BUT ON THE TRANSPORTATION SIDE, IT IS VALID. I THINK THE THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT, AS WAS EARLIER MENTIONED, IS THAT SOME OF THOSE. THEY'VE GOT TO VALIDATE WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BUILD, AND WITH THOSE IMPACT FEES, THEY CAN ONLY ADD CAPACITY, SO THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. THEY CAN'T DO THE SAFETY THINGS. CAPACITY IS VERY BROAD, THOUGH, IN THE DEFINITION. BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE SOME OF THEIR ARGUMENT IS: THEY'RE BOOMING. [01:35:01] THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A BOOM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRIDGE, AND THEY NEED TO DO THESE THINGS, BUT PEOPLE COME HERE FROM THERE. THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR ARGUMENT. VALID OR NOT, THAT'S GOING TO BE THEIR ARGUMENT. THE KEY THING HERE IS THAT IT'S ALL BASED ON HOW MANY TRIPS YOU CREATE. THEY CREATED THAT CHART BASED ON HOW MANY TRIPS YOU CREATE FROM YOUR FROM AND TO YOUR SITE PER DAY. >> I DON'T KNOW. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS THE OTHER DAY WITH THEM, SO I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THEY DO PEAK MORNING PEAK THERE'S A LOT OF TECHNICAL PARTS TO IT THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT TIME, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU GET INTO SOME OF THE DEBATE ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE. WE CAN HAVE THAT DEBATE WITH THEM, BUT I DO KNOW. THIS IS KIND OF A WARNING IS WHERE I CAME FROM IN WASHINGTON, WE BUILT A LOT, AND WE COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH THE TRANSPORTATION SIDE, AND IT WAS CRUSHING AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE TO THE BUSINESSES WHO CAME AND PAID THE FEES. THEN YOU COULDN'T GET IN AND OUT OF THEIR BUSINESSES. NOW, ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT ON THE ISLAND? NO. I WOULDN'T THINK SO. WE'VE GOT THINGS IN PLACE THAT WON'T LET THAT HAPPEN, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WON'T HAPPEN OUT THERE. AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT IN OTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OUR PARKS AND SOCCER FIELDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, GOING OVER THAT BRIDGE EITHER WAY WILL BECOME A LITTLE BIT MORE PAINFUL. I THINK THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE. DO THEY HAVE OTHER MOTIVES? PROBABLY, BUT THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT, AND THAT WE'VE GOT TO HELP THEM HELP THEM DO A GOOD JOB SO THAT WE CAN GET IT ON AND OFF THE ISLAND AS WE SEE FIT. THOSE ARE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING WITH THEM ABOUT IN THE INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT NEGOTIATION. >> WELL, I'LL ADD ONE COMMENT OR A COUPLE. FIRST OFF, THEY DO DAILY TRIPS NOW. I USED TO BE PEAK HOUR, BUT NOW IT'S DAILY. >> NOW THEY DO DAILY. >> WHAT'S IRONIC IN A LITTLE BIT OF THIS IS, WE GOT IN THE WEEDS, AND THEY SAID THAT THE AVERAGE AND GLENS RIDE IS BASED ON TRIP GENERATION, BUT IT'S ALSO BASED ON TRIP LENGTH. >> YEAH. >> I THINK THE CITY IS IN AN EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD POSITION BECAUSE THERE'S A REASON AT NINE OR 9:00 P.M. YOU CAN LAY DOWN ON ATLANTIC AVENUE AND DON'T WANT TO RUN OVER IT BECAUSE ALL THEIR TRIPS ARE DONE. THAT'S RIGHT. YOU KNOW, THEY WENT TO THE GROCERY, THEY WENT TO THE DOCTOR, THEY TOOK THEIR KID. THEY WENT THEY DID ALL THESE THINGS IN UNDER AN HOUR AND A HALF BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS CLOSE. YOU GO OUT IN YULI, YOU'RE DRIVING TEN, 12 MILES EACH WAY. YOU GET HOME AT 9:00 BECAUSE YOU HADN'T FINISHED ALL YOUR CHORES YOU HAVE TO DO AND THEY AVERAGE THEY BLEND THAT EAST OF 95, AND SO THE BLENDED RATE IS ABOUT 16.5 MILES FOR EVERY VEHICLE ON AVERAGE. WELL, PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND DON'T DRIVE 16 MILES. THE PEOPLE IN YULI PROBABLY DRIVE 25, AND THEY BLEND IT WITH OURS. I THINK WE GET THE SHORT END OF THE STICK. THE REASON THE WEST SIDE IS GETTING REALLY TORN APART IS THEIR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED ARE EXTRAORDINARY BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SERVICES VERY CLOSE. THEY GO SHOPPING, EVERYTHING'S FAR APART. I THINK WE GET THE BRUNT OF A LOT OF THIS, AND WE PROVIDE A LOT OF BENEFIT BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DRIVE FROM THERE TO HERE. WE DON'T DRIVE FROM HERE TO THERE. ABSOLUTELY. AND SO I JUST I JUST HAD TO RAISE MY HAND BECAUSE AFTER GOING THROUGH THIS, I JUST IT WAS JUST DRIPPING WITH IRONY. I THOUGHT THE FACT THAT THEY HAD THE AUDACITY. >> YOU KNOW, REALLY, THIS IS THE ONLY TRUE CITY IN ALL OF NASSAU COUNTY. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A PLACE IS, THIS IS THE ONLY PLACE IN NASSAU COUNTY. MOST IN NASSAU COUNTY IS SOMETHING YOU DRIVE THROUGH, BUT NOT TO WOULD DIFFER WITH THAT ARE TO MY D, YES [OVERLAPPING]. >> DONUT SHOT PINILAR, MAKES ME TRAVEL. [LAUGHTER] ALL AND BARBECUE. THERE ARE DESTINATIONS. >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS, THOUGH, THE DRUMBEAT THAT I HEAR ON TELEVISION THESE DAYS IS AFFORDABILITY. CAN WE AFFORD NOT ONLY JUST WHERE TO LIVE, BUT OUR GROCERIES AND GAS AND CARS AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE FOR DAILY LIVING. THIS I MEAN, LIVING IN FERNANDINA AND PROBABLY LIVING IN NASSAU COUNTY, JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE IS SO EXPENSIVE AND YOU ADD THESE KINDS OF IMPACTS ONTO JUST WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW MAKES IT EVEN MORE OUT OF [01:40:05] REACH FOR ANYBODY TO BUY A HOUSE AND LIVE HERE ON AMIA ISLAND, NOT EVEN INCLUDING WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BRIDGE. I MEAN, THAT IS A MAJOR DISINCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE LIVING HERE ON THE ISLAND. >> WELL, IF IT'S OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL DRAFT SOMETHING JUST TO SEND OUT. >> THERESA, CAN HE DRAFT SOMETHING AND SEND IT TO US AS TALKING POINTS TO THIS ISSUE? IS THEIR ISSUE NOT OUR ISSUE? >> OR CAN YOU SEND IT TO MARGARET AND LET HER SEND IT OUT? >> WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THAT ARE YOU THINKING OF SENDING IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS ADVISORY BOARD SHOULD BE SENDING AS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS A STATEMENT OUT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY TO THE COUNTY. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SENDING SOMETHING TO THE COMMISSIONERS, THEN IF NICK CIRCULATES IT, THEN YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT, YOU COULD TAKE IT AND WE CAN RECEIVE. YOU CAN RECEIVE IT. YOU JUST CAN'T COMMENT BACK TO HIM. YOU CAN'T DISCUSS HOW TO MAKE CHANGES TO IT. THEN IF YOU RECEIVED IT AND WANTED TO MAKE CHANGES TO IT, YOU COULD. >> WE COULD USE MARGARET AS A CONDUIT. IF WE JUST SEND IT TO HER, SHE GOT EVERYBODY. >> NO, YOU REALLY CAN'T. >> WELL, RIGHT, IF. >> BUT WE COULD HAVE. >> IT'S NOT A MATTER BEFORE YOU. I THINK SPECIAL MEETING. RIGHT. >> I DON'T THINK IT'S A COMPLICATED THING. I THINK IT'S JUST, HEY, HERE'S A HEADS UP. >> YOU'RE GONNA PUT TOGETHER A STATEMENT. PROVIDE IT CIRCULATED AROUND. YOU'RE JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REVISE IT AND COME UP WITH A JOINT, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE TO SEND YOUR COMMENTS. THEN MARGARET WOULD JUST HAVE TO SEND ALL THE COMMENTS ON, LIKE THIS I MEAN. >> WE HAD A MEMO VERY SIMILAR, I THINK WHEN YOU GUYS WANTED TO SEND SOMETHING UP TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS. THE ROAD OR SOMETHING. SOMETHING AND WHAT WE DID IS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT KIND OF WAS A CONDUIT THAT YOU GUYS JUST EVERYBODY JUST KIND OF SENT ME OR LIKE, SOME I THINK MR. DOSTER DRAFTED IT BASED ON THE FEEDBACK, BUT I MEAN, NICK DRAFT HAD SENT IT TO US, AND THEN WE SENT IT TO SARAH. YOU KNOW, WE SENT IT TO WE SENT IT TO WE SENT IT TO THE COMMISSION, BUT THROUGH SARAH, AND SHE RELAYS THAT TO THEM. THAT WOULD BE THE FORMAT WE WOULD PUT THE INFORMATION ON IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR SPRINTS. THAT'S THE WAY WE DONE IT LAST TIME. >> YEAH, AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT DISCUSSING IT AND SHARING. >> I THINK I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DISCUSSED WAS THE FOCUS ON REDEVELOPMENT. WE WERE LOOKING AT WIDE THINGS, WHETHER IT BE SADDLER ROAD OR WHATEVER. I THINK WE JUST SHOT THAT BOTH FEET IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS WERE TO HAPPEN BECAUSE EVEN WE DON'T HAVE, 50,000 ACRES OR SOMETHING WE'RE DEALING WITH, BUT WE DO HAVE AREAS ALONG SADDLINS ON WHERE YOU MAY HAVE A REDEVELOPMENT OF A STRUCTURE, BUT YOU MAY SAY, WELL, I'VE GOT ALL THIS PARKING LOT SQUARE FOOTAGE, I DON'T NEED. I'LL ADD TO THAT STRUCTURE TO ENHANCE WHAT I'LL CALL THE DRAW ABILITY OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. WE'VE KILLED THAT ONE. ANYTHING NEW IS GOING TO GET HIT WITH ALL THOSE FEES. ONCE THEY'RE IMPLEMENTED. >> MARK. >> I'M GOING TO ADD TO THAT BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THESE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, AND WHERE THEY'RE MOVING IT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN RURAL DEVELOPMENT. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT REDUCING TRIPS ON THE ROAD AND TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO CREATE MORE INTENSITY WITHIN SOME OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK OR RIDE THE BUS, DO SOMETHING ELSE. IF THE COUNTY IS GOING TO TAKE ALL THE MONEY AND WE DON'T GET ANY OF IT. AGAIN, WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO DEVELOP A HIGHER INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT ON SADDER OR ANY OF THE AREAS THAT DESIGNATE? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS OR IS OR EVEN A PROCESS, THAT WHEN DEVELOPMENT TAKES PLACE IN THE CITY, THOSE IS IT POSSIBLE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FEES ALLOCATED TO THE COUNTY? BECAUSE MOBILITY FEES ALL CAME UP BECAUSE THEY DID AWAY WITH CONCURRENCY YEARS AGO. THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON FOR THAT, BECAUSE WITH CONCURRENCY, YOU HAD TO HAVE EVERYTHING CONCURRENT WITH DEVELOPMENT. WELL, NOW WE'RE GOING TO JUST CHARGE EVERYBODY AND REDUCE THAT FEE. NOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW HOW OR WHAT WE CAN DO, BUT WE'VE DISCUSSED MOVING FORWARD WITH SADDLER ROAD AND AREAS IN THE CITY TO MAKE THIS MORE COMPACT DEVELOPMENT, SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE THE ISLAND, DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE, AND HOW CAN THE CITY PROTECT ITSELF? [01:45:03] IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, BECAUSE LIKE NICK SAID, SOMEBODY PAYING $200 MILLION A MOBILITY FEE WHEN THE WHOLE IDEA IS THAT PEOPLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OUR CITY ARE GOING TO WALK A HALF A MILE DOWN THE ROAD TO GET TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO GO AND WON'T EVEN HAVE A CAR. HOW DOES THESE ARE IMPACTS FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH CAN HAVE A REAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HOW A BETTER WAY FOR US TO HANDLE IT, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE WANT TO DRIVE ON AND OFF THE ISLAND ANYMORE, BUT DEFINITELY DON'T DO IT ANYWHERE 2-6. >> OF THE ISLAND, SOMEBODY WILL BRING IT TO ME TOMORROW. >> WELL, TO YOU. >> WELL, I CAN SEE A LOT OF BUSINESSES GOING OUT. SMALL BUSINESS. >> I MEAN, IT TAKES AN HOUR TO GO ACROSS THE BRIDGE NOW, IF NOT MORE. THAT'S IF YOU'RE LUCKY. >> WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT TABER CAUSED IT. THEY DOUBLED THEIR RENT AND THEY SAID THE REST OF THE CENTER STREET IS GOING TO BE IN THE SAME POSITION. >> OR DRIVING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE DRINKING DRIVING THE TOUR. >> [OVERLAPPING] OF THE REST THE GOLF TOUR OF THE RESTAURANTS. THAT'S WHAT THE OWNERS TOLD ME. THEY'RE NOT DOING WELL. THERE'S A BUNCH OF RESTAURANTS THAT ARE ALREADY THINKING ABOUT CLOSING. >> SAY A BUILDING KIND OF LIKE STANDARD MARINE, WHICH IS A BIG QUESTION MARK OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. WHAT YOU. IF THEY DO SOMETHING WITH THE BUILDING, IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME MAJOR STRUCTURAL CHANGES OR UPDATES, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. WOULD THEY BE AFFECTED IF THEY WEREN'T CHANGING THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT? >> THEY WOULD CAUSE IT'S A CHANGE OF VIEW. >> IS IT A CHANGE OF USE. >> THEY WOULD GET HIT WITH ALL THESE BECAUSE THAT BUILDING HASN'T BEEN OPEN IN DECADES, SO THEY WOULD HAVE NO STANDING FOR IMPACT THAT THEY ARE CREATING TODAY. THEY'D GET HIT THE FULL BRUNT OF THE RUN OF ALL THESE FEES. >> EVEN THOUGH THEY EXIST AND THEY HAVE SO MANY SQUARES. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MARINA BUILDING. I WAS STANDARD. THE STANDARD MARINE SORRY. >> IT HASN'T BEEN OPEN IN DECADES. >> BUT NICK, THE OTHER THING THAT WORRIES ME IN REFLECTING ON WHAT YOU'VE JUST PRESENTED IS ESSENTIALLY THIS COMMUNITY WILL FREEZE WITH WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. THERE WOULD BE NO INCENTIVE FOR ANY BUSINESS TO COME IN. THERE WOULD BE NO INCENTIVE FOR RESIDENTIAL. THERE IT WOULD FREEZE EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ON THE MU8 REDEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD FREEZE EVERYTHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WITH 14TH STREET. I MEAN, WE ALREADY HAVE A ISSUE WHERE IT'S HARD ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO SELL A HOUSE IN FERNANDINA OR A MILLI ISLAND FERNANDINA AND GO TO SOMETHING MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER FIT AS A RETIREMENT HOUSE, MAYBE IT'S ONE LEVEL AS OPPOSED TO STEPS BECAUSE OF IT'S SO EXPENSIVE. IF WE ALL ARE OKAY WITH ALL OF THESE STREETS, THESE THOROUGHFARES, BEING EXACTLY HOW THEY ARE. FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS OR HOWEVER LONG THIS THING IS IN PLACE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY THINK TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR THINKING AND OUR PLANNING IS FOR THE FUTURE AND HOW DO WE INCENTIVIZE COMPANIES TO DEVELOP IN THE WAY THAT WE ARE HOPING THAT THEY WILL DEVELOP. >> RIGHT. >> IT'LL BE DEVELOPED OVER THE BRIDGE. >> BUT WHAT THAT MEANS, THOUGH, THAT BUT LISTEN, EVERYTHING THAT WE SEE ON EIGHTH STREET AND 14TH STREET WILL STAY THE SAME. NOBODY WILL CHANGE WILL CHANGE A THING. THAT WAS ONE OF THE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO GET MORE DENSITY, GET MORE COMPLEX BUSINESS IN THOSE CORRIDORS, NOBODY'S GOING TO DO THAT. >> NO. >> THAT'S A SERIOUS ISSUE FOR US. >> YOU'VE GOT I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT THE BUILDING STRUCTURE DOWN AROUND MISS CAROLYN'S. YOU STILL GOT AVAILABLE PROPERTY THERE THAT COULD BE UTILIZED, EXPANDED, OR WHATEVER. YOU'VE GOT 14TH STREET UP THERE ON THE SHOPPING CENTER WHERE MILLENIUM IS A PORTION OF THAT THAT'S PRETTY GOOD SIZE PORTION THERE. YOU'VE GOT SOME OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE WALMART FACILITY IS. IT'S OPEN. >> EMILY DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? [INAUDIBLE] >> TRY TO GET OVER THEIR MILLS FAST WORDS. >> YOU ARE GETTING FREE EXERCISE AND THERAPY. FILLS AND THERAPY. [01:50:05] >> KIMBALL FORD 13 15 BROOM STREET. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WE ARE 13 OR SOMEWHERE AROUND 13% OF THE COUNTY'S POPULATION, IS THAT CORRECT? SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE, BUT WE PAY TO. >> THEY'RE A LITTLE OVER 100,000. WE'RE PROBABLY 14,000, I THINK, RIGHT NOW, AS FAR AS IT. >> BUT SO POPULATION. WE CONTRIBUTE ON THE NUMBER 24% OF THEIR TAX REVENUE. I HEARD THIS. IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS M PUNISHING YOUR CASH COW. PEOPLE AREN'T SOMEBODY SAID, WE'RE JUST DRIVING THROUGH YULI. SORRY. WE'RE JUST DRIVING THROUGH YULI, BUT THEY COME HERE. IF IT SEEMS REALLY OUT OF BALANCE THAT WE PAY 25% OF THE REVENUE. WE'RE ONLY 13% OF THEIR POPULATION, AND NOW WE'RE GETTING HAMMERED THE CASH COW. WE ARE THE COUNTY'S CASH COW, AND THEY'RE PUNISHING US FOR THAT. IT'S JUST MY COMMENTARY. I'M TAKING MY FOOT HOME AND JUST AN OBSERVATION, BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR THIS. APPRECIATE IT. >> BUT HOW ARE THEY GO TO CURE ALL THESE SINS OF THE PAST? >> I'M SORRY? >> HOW ARE THEY GOING TO CURE THE SINS OF THE PAST? >> TIA MARK, I THINK WE'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB HERE OF CURING OUR OWN SINS. IT ISN'T OUR JOB TO FIX THEIR DEFICIENCIES. >> I AGREE. >> YOU KNOW, WE GOT TO PARTICIPATE. SAYING IT SHOULD BE FREE, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU START LIKE SOMEBODY MENTIONED MILLENNIUM. I RAN THESE NUMBERS BASED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. IF A NEW MILLENNIUM WERE TO OPEN UP TODAY, WHICH IS A FAIRLY LARGE. IT'S LIKE 19,000 SQUARE FEET AND LOOK AT IT. IT WOULD BE $796,000.08 $796,844. YOU THINK ANYBODY HAS 800,000 BUILT IN THEIR PRO FORMA. >> NO. >> WE, WILL THE RENTS GO UP? >> TO VICTORIA'S POINT, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE STAGNANT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN FOR ALLOWING. THANK YOU, NICK. THANK YOU. >> KEVIN MARGARET, WOULD YOU FILL IN FORMS AND GIVE THEM TO KEN. ANYTHING ELSE FOR NOW? >> NO. I JUST WANT TO THANK NICK FOR BRINGING. THANK YOU. I DO KNOW FOR A FACT THAT AT LEAST A COUPLE OF THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW ABOUT IT, BUT ONE IN PARTICULAR DISCUSSION. THEY ARE IS ON THERE. >> KEEP TALKING TO HIM, CAUSE HE'S GETTING CLOSE. >> THAT'S A RIDICULOUS. >> WE ARGUE. >>I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.