[13.A) A Resolution Approving a Valet Licensing Agreement Between the City of Naples and Old Naples Hotel Management, LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company for Valet Services at the Old Naples Hotel; Approving Right-of-Way Permit Application PRRW2502489 to Provide Valet Services as the Old Naples Hotel Located at 200 Broad Avenue South, Subject to the Standard Permit Conditions, Special Conditions and General Operating Conditions; Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Valet Licensing Agreement; and Providing an Effective Date (Supplement 1/Updated Item).]

[13.B) A Resolution Approving Public Right-of-Way Permit Application PRRW2505442 with Standard and Special Permit Conditions, and the Right-of-Way Design Plan, to Improve Future Traffic Deficiencies Related to the Development of the Old Naples Hotel Located at 200 Broad Avenue South; Approving the Broad Avenue South/Gordon Drive Intersection Improvement Agreement between the City of Naples and Old Naples Development, LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company for Turn Lanes and Right-of-Way Improvements at the Old Naples Hotel; Authorizing the Mayor to Execute the Intersection Improvement Agreement; and Providing an Effective Date (Supplement 1/Updated Item).]

SO IF COUNCIL, HOW WOULD COUNCIL LIKE TO HANDLE THAT? I BELIEVE THE OVERALL PROJECT IS INTERTWINED.

THERE'S MULTIPLE RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS BEING ISSUED. I CAN READ THEM BOTH.

AND WE CAN HAVE ONE RECORD WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WILL TAKE TWO SEPARATE VOTES AT THE END OF IT, IF COUNCIL SO WISHES. WE TRIED TO TAKE IT SEPARATELY, AND IT WAS KIND OF DIFFICULT BEING THAT THEY OVERLAP ONE ANOTHER.

ON ANOTHER ISSUE. SO COUNCIL HEARING THEM TOGETHER TWO SEPARATE VOTES.

YEAH. HAVE A CONSENSUS. YES YES I DO. OKAY. THANK YOU MR. MCCONNELL. YOU'RE WELCOME MAYOR. SO THE FIRST 113 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VALET LICENSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND OLDE NAPLES HOTEL

[00:25:05]

MANAGEMENT LLC, FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FOR VALET SERVICES AT THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL.

APPROVING RIGHT OF WAY. PERMIT APPLICATION PRR 12502489 TO PROVIDE VALET SERVICES AT THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL, LOCATED AT 200 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, SUBJECT TO THE STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, AND GENERAL OPERATING CONDITIONS. AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE VALET LICENSING AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

AND 13 B A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT APPLICATION PRR 2505442 WITH STANDARD AND SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY DESIGN PLAN TO IMPROVE FUTURE TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF OLDE NAPLES HOTEL, LOCATED AT 200 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH. APPROVING THE BROAD AVENUE SOUTH GORDON DRIVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE OLDE NAPLES DEVELOPMENT LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FOR TURN LANES AND RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS AT THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. PLEASE SWEAR AN. OATH TO GIVE TESTIMONY.

PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? OKAY.

THANK YOU. DISCLOSURES COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN.

YES, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. SPOKE WITH MISS BICKERT BRIEFLY, AND THAT'S IT.

AND BARTON FAMILIAR WITH SITE. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

NO CONTACT SINCE THE LAST COUNCIL DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE.

COUNCILMEMBER KRAMER FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND LIKEWISE NO CONTACT SINCE THE LAST COUNCIL DISCUSSION.

FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE? NO CONTACT SINCE THE LAST MEETING.

VICE MAYOR? YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

HAVE VISITED THE SITE, HAVE RECEIVED EMAIL REGARDING THIS MATTER.

THAT'S PART OF MY PUBLIC EMAIL RECORD AND NO CONTACT WITH THE PETITIONER.

THANK YOU. AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. VISITED THE SITE, DRIVE BY THE SITE EVERY DAY.

AND I'VE SPOKEN TO STAFF IN REFERENCE TO THIS PETITION AND NO FURTHER DISCLOSURE.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE'LL HAVE THE PETITIONER'S AGENT.

GOOD MORNING, MR. BROOKER. GOOD MORNING. MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS CLAY BROOKER WITH THE LAW FIRM OF CHAFEE.

PASSIDOMO, 820 ONE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH. I REPRESENT OLDE NAPLES DEVELOPMENT LLC, THE DEVELOPER OF THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GORDON DRIVE AND BROAD AVENUE SOUTH.

WITH ME TODAY IS MR. PATRICK WALSH, ONE OF THE FIVE FAMILY SIBLINGS THAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES OF THE DEVELOPER, ALONG WITH LAURA ADLER MANAGER OF THE EDGEWATER BEACH HOTEL FOR THE PAST 12 YEARS, AND WILL BE THE MANAGER OF THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL WHEN IT OPENS.

ALSO PRESENT IS ANDREW RATH, THE PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER, AND NORM TREBILCOCK, THE PROJECT'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

I HAVE I HAVE PREPARED A PRESENTATION. BUT BEFORE I LAUNCH INTO THE PRESENTATION.

WITH YOUR INDULGENCE, MR. WALSH WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, MR. WALSH. GOOD MORNING.

MAYOR. GOOD MORNING. COUNCIL. CITY MEMBERS. MY NAME IS PATRICK WALSH, AND I'M A FELLOW RESIDENT HERE IN NAPLES WITH YOU.

AND I CAME THIS MORNING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY, SPECIFICALLY BILLY AND MARK, WHO I KNOW A NUMBER OF YOU HAVE MET, TO THANK THE CITY STAFF, CITY ATTORNEY, COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS AND HELP AND TRYING TO GET THIS PROJECT TO FRUITION, WHICH WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT. ON A PERSONAL NOTE WHILE I'M PROUD OF EVERYTHING MY FAMILY'S ACCOMPLISHED WITH ALL OUR DEVELOPMENTS HOTELS AREN'T LIKE CHILDREN. YOU CAN HAVE FAVORITES.

AND THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORITES BECAUSE I'M BRINGING IT TO MY HOMETOWN.

I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO WHEN I RESIDED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE TO DO THE SAME THING.

WE REPLICATED AN OLD SHUT DOWN HOTEL THAT WAS A GRAND DAME OF NEW ENGLAND CALLED THE WENTWORTH BY THE SEA.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE HAPPIEST DAYS BRINGING THAT TO MY COMMUNITY.

AND I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY, AS IS LAURA AND HER TEAM, TO REWARD YOUR FAITH AND SUPPORT IN THIS PROJECT AND SHOW YOU WHAT A GREAT ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY IT WILL BE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. AND I MUST SAY, IT'S LOOKING GREAT.

YOU'VE CHANGED AN EYESORE INTO A MUCH BETTER PICTURE SO FAR.

[00:30:02]

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR. AND WITH THAT MAYOR AGAIN, CLAY BROOKER, FOR THE RECORD TODAY'S HEARING IS A CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION THAT OCCURRED BACK IN ON JUNE 4TH, DURING WHICH COUNCIL REACHED CONSENSUS AS TO THE APPROPRIATE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BROAD GORDON INTERSECTION, THE DETAILS OF WHICH I'LL GET TO IN A MOMENT.

ALSO DISCUSSED AT THAT HEARING WAS THE DESIRE FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE OPERATIONS OF THE HOTEL AND ITS VALET SERVICE.

SINCE THAT HEARING ON JUNE 4TH, A LOT OF WORK HAS BEEN DONE BOTH BY THE DEVELOPER TEAM AND CITY STAFF.

MY CLIENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESSLY THANK CITY STAFF FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE AND GUIDANCE IN GETTING THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT ISSUES RESOLVED AND PACKAGED FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION TODAY, SPECIFICALLY CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BRUCE SULFONE.

CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR BOB MIDDLETON.

CITY ENGINEER ALLISON BICKETT. AND TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR DAVE RIVERA.

FORGIVE ME IF I'VE LEFT ANYONE OUT, BUT EACH OF THESE CONTRIBUTED IN THEIR OWN AREAS OF EXPERTISE AND RESPONSIBILITY TO COMB THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE RIGHT OF WAY APPLICATIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY. SO WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY? TWO RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT APPLICATIONS. THE FIRST RELATES TO THE BROAD GORDON INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH, WHICH IS A PROPOSED INTERIM, I'M SORRY, INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MY CLIENT.

THE SECOND IS THE PERMIT FOR THE VALET OPERATIONS, PART OF WHICH WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH TRIGGERS COUNCIL REVIEW. ASSOCIATED WITH THE SECOND PERMIT APPLICATION IS A PROPOSED VALID LICENSE AGREEMENT.

TURNING FIRST TO THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PERMIT, THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL BACK IN 2018.

SHOWN HERE IS THE RESOLUTION THAT APPROVED THE HOTEL SITE PLAN.

THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR TRANSIENT LODGING, THE VALET PARKING PLAN AND THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS.

EVERYTHING YOU SEE HERE AND HERE TODAY IS CONSISTENT WITH THESE APPROVALS FROM BACK IN 2018.

AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE 2018 RESOLUTION REQUIRES THE DEVELOPER TO PAY 50% OF THE COST TO DESIGN TO DESIGN AND INSTALL WHATEVER IMPROVEMENTS CITY COUNCIL DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR THE INTERSECTION OF GORDON AND BROAD.

IN THIS REGARD, TWO THINGS OCCURRED BACK ON JUNE 4TH WHEN COUNCIL FIRST DISCUSSED THIS MATTER.

FIRST, COUNCIL REACHED A CONSENSUS THAT THE APPROPRIATE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, AT LEAST INITIALLY, WERE THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW TURN LANES ON BOTH GORDON AND BROAD, WHILE KEEPING THE INTERSECTION A FOUR WAY STOP AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

THOSE RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE SHOWN TO YOU IN A MOMENT.

SECOND, COUNCIL ACCEPTED MY CLIENT'S OFFER TO PAY FOR 100% OF THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION COST OF THESE INITIAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, WITH A SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION BY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHETHER THOSE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE ADEQUATELY IMPROVED THE PERFORMANCE OF THE INTERSECTION.

THE DETAILS OF THAT OFFER ARE SET FORTH IN THE IN THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL BE SUMMARIZED FOR YOU SHORTLY.

SHOWN HERE IS THE MASTER SITE PLAN OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.

PLANS FOR BOTH OF THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THESE PLANS, DRAWN BY DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, ARE LABELED AS RIGHT OF WAY PLANS IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET MATERIALS.

I REALIZE THAT THERE'S A LOT TO TAKE IN HERE, SO I'M GOING TO ZOOM IN ON THE VARIOUS AREAS OF THE PLANS ONE AT A TIME, TO EXPLAIN THEM TO YOU. THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN BLESSED BY CITY STAFF, AND THEY DETAIL THE NEW TURN LANE ON GORDON DRIVE HERE.

THE NEW TURN LANE ON BROAD AVENUE SOUTH HERE.

AND THE VALET DROP OFF. DROP OFF AND PICK UP HORSESHOE DRIVE HERE.

IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THAT SHEET, YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS MASTER SITE PLAN SHEET IS DESCRIBED AS A CONSOLIDATED PLAN SET WITH A DATE OF SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2025 THERE. I POINT THIS OUT TO YOU BECAUSE THESE ARE THE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING PLANS DATED SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2025 THAT ARE REFERENCED FROM TIME TO TIME IN BOTH THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT.

[00:35:11]

FOCUSING FIRST ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROJECT, HERE IS GORDON DRIVE.

WITH THE NEW RIGHT TURN LANE. THERE WILL BE ONE LANE TRAVELING SOUTH HERE, ONE LANE DEDICATED TO TRAVEL TRAFFIC TRAVELING NORTH STRAIGHT THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, AND A NEW TURN LANE FOR TRAFFIC WISHING TO TURN RIGHT OR EAST ONTO BROAD AVENUE SOUTH. AND I NOTE THE GORE STRIPING HERE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE.

A CLOSER UP VIEW OF THAT GORE STRIPING IS SHOWN HERE.

THIS AREA WILL NOT BE CURBED. IT WILL BE ONLY YELLOW STRIPING ON THE PAVEMENT, AND IT SERVES TWO PURPOSES, BOTH RELATED TO THE RAMP HERE AT THE REAR OF THE HOTEL.

FIRST, IF YOU RECALL, THIS RAMP IS THE EXIT RAMP FOR THE HOTEL'S PARKING GARAGE.

VALET ATTENDANTS WILL DELIVER CARS TO THE FRONT OF THE HOTEL BY TRAVELING UP THE RAMP, TURNING RIGHT ONTO GORDON.

SO THE GORE STRIPING HERE ENHANCES SAFETY BY KEEPING VEHICLES ALREADY TRAVELING ON GORDON.

DRIVE IN THE THROUGH LANE, AWAY FROM THE EXIT UNTIL WELL PAST THE EXIT.

SECOND, THE RAMP ALSO SERVES AS A LOCATION FOR THE HOTEL'S SOLID WASTE COMPACTOR.

HERE, TO ACCESS THE COMPACTOR, A ROLL OFF TRUCK WILL BACK DOWN THE RAMP, A MANEUVER THE FEASIBILITY OF WHICH WAS PROVEN VIA LIVE DEMONSTRATION WITH CITY STAFF PRESENT ON AUGUST 7TH.

THE PAINTED GORE STRIPING WILL ALLOW THE ROLL OFF TRUCK TO USE THIS AREA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BACK DOWN MANEUVER, SUCH THAT THE TEMPORARY DISRUPTION ON TRAFFIC OF TRAFFIC ON GORDON IS MINIMIZED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

TURNING NOW TO BROAD AVENUE IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL.

YOU SEE HERE THE NEW LEFT TURN LANE TO HEAD SOUTHBOUND ON GORDON DRIVE.

A CURVED DIVIDER WILL ALSO BE INSTALLED HERE TO PREVENT WESTBOUND TRAFFIC ON BROAD FROM ATTEMPTING TO PULL INTO THE VALET HERE, JUST SHORT OF THE INTERSECTION. RETURNING TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROJECT. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE INTERSECTION OF GORDON DRIVE HERE AND 12TH AVENUE SOUTH.

FOR CONTEXT, HERE IS THE EXIT RAMP BEHIND THE HOTEL.

DURING THE LIVE ROLL OFF TRUCK DEMONSTRATION ON AUGUST 7TH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER BRUCE SEALFON POINTED OUT THE EXISTING CROSSWALK ACROSS GORDON HERE. AND ITS PROXIMITY TO THE EXIT RAMP.

MR. SULFONE SUGGESTED RELOCATING THE CROSSWALK TO THIS LOCATION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 12TH AVENUE SOUTH.

EVERYONE AGREED THAT THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE IT A MINIMIZES POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT WITH VEHICLES EXITING THE RAMP.

B PLACES THE CROSSWALK ON THE SAME SIDE OF 12TH AVENUE SOUTH AS THE CITY'S PARKING LOT, A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE WEST THAT SERVES PRIMARILY THE PIER. SO MOST OF THE PEDESTRIANS WILL BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 12TH AVENUE SOUTH ANYWAY, AND SEE, IT PROVIDES BETTER LINE OF SIGHT BETWEEN PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES ON GORDON, BECAUSE THERE'S SOME MATURE VEGETATION THAT EXISTS HERE ON THE CORNER.

THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION. SO THE CROSSWALK RELOCATION FROM EXISTING LOCATION HERE TO THE 12TH.

THE SOUTH SIDE OF 12TH AVENUE SOUTH HERE HAS BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

AND ANDREW ROTH OF DAVIDSON ENGINEERING IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, DETAILED QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE IN THAT REGARD.

ON JUNE 4TH. MAYOR JUST A QUESTION. YES, SIR.

PROCESS. QUESTION. MR. BROOKER, I ASSUME YOU'RE MOVING TO THE VALLEY DISCUSSION NOW.

AND JUST A MINUTE. I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY FOR THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.

MY QUESTION IS, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO WHEN YOU FINISH WITH THE INTERSECTION DISCUSSION TO PAUSE AND HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE TO VALLEY?

[00:40:05]

QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION. THESE ARE TWO INTERRELATED ISSUES, BUT THEY'RE REALLY SEPARATE ISSUES.

AND IN MANY RESPECTS TO AND THERE IT MIGHT IT MIGHT IT MIGHT WORK BETTER THAT WAY.

BUT IT'S UP FOR YOUR QUESTIONS. YOU WANT TO TAKE A PAUSE AND BEFORE YOU HEAR THE VALLEY.

I'M, I'M WONDERING WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS AND A STAFF REPORT ON THE ON THE ON THE RIGHT OF WAY INTERSECTION ISSUES BEFORE WE MOVE TO VALLEY.

THAT'S MY QUESTION. MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY IN EVERYBODY'S OPINION, TO PROCEED HERE IN TERMS OF MR. BARKER'S PRESENTATION AND THE DISCUSSION? YEAH, I WOULD YES, I AGREE TO ASK QUESTIONS IF WE COULD JUST HEAR THE WHOLE PRESENTATION ON BOTH AND THEN WE CAN TAKE BOTH SEPARATELY. SO YOU WON'T DO THE WHOLE PRESENTATION.

YES, PLEASE. OKAY, FINE. AND THEN WE'LL TAKE SEPARATE QUESTIONS STARTING WITH YOU ON THE INTERSECTION.

DOESN'T HAVE TO START WITH ME, BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANK YOU. CONTINUING ON JUNE 4TH, COUNCIL ACCEPTED MY CLIENT'S OFFER TO PAY FOR 100% OF THE DESIGN AND INSTALLATION COSTS OF THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS JUST DISCUSSED.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE 50% OBLIGATION IN THE 2018 RESOLUTION, THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I COLLABORATED TO DRAFT THE PROPOSED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TO MEMORIALIZE THE DETAILS OF THAT OFFER.

HERE ARE THE FUNDAMENTAL TAKEAWAYS FROM THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT MY CLIENT WILL CONSTRUCT AT ITS SOLE 100% COST.

THE IMPROVEMENTS DETAILED IN THE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING PLANS WE JUST DISCUSSED.

AND THOSE ARE DESCRIBED IN THE AGREEMENT AS THE INTERIM APPROVED IMPROVEMENTS AND TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID HIGH SEASON.

12 TO 16 MONTHS LATER, A REEVALUATION OF THE INTERSECTION'S PERFORMANCE WILL BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

COUNCIL CAN THEN DECIDE WHETHER ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE DESIRED.

IF SO, MY CLIENT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF THE TOTAL COST OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS RECEIVING A CREDIT FOR THE COSTS ALREADY INCURRED. SO BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, A MATH EXAMPLE.

LET'S ASSUME IT TAKES $300,000 TO CONSTRUCT AND INSTALL THESE INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS.

A YEAR LATER, COUNCIL DECIDES TO INSTALL A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT A COST OF 700,000.

THESE ARE JUST ROUND NUMBERS FOR AN EXAMPLE. PURPOSE.

SO THE TOTAL COST OF THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS WOULD THEN BE THE 300 PLUS THE 700 TO EQUAL $1 MILLION.

MY CLIENT, WHO IS ALREADY INCURRED $300,000, WILL RECEIVE A CREDIT TOWARDS THIS 50% OBLIGATION OF THE 1 MILLION, WHICH WOULD BE $500,000, BUT HE'LL RECEIVE THE CREDIT OF 300,000, SO HE WILL OWE AN ADDITIONAL 200,000 TO THE CITY.

THOSE ARE JUST ROUND NUMBERS. TO TRY TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE MATH OF HOW ALL OF THIS WOULD PLAY OUT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

MR. BOOKER, TO THAT POINT, THOUGH, SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MATH EQUATION, I DO WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF FOR SOME REASON, THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT COUNCIL WANTS COME IN AT LESS THAN WHAT THEY PAY FOR THE INTERIM INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, THERE IS NO SITUATION IN WHICH WE PAY THEM BACK MONEY.

OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. MATTHEW, ON YOUR ON THAT CLARIFICATION, WHAT WAS THE COST THAT YOU PAID FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PUBLIC PROPERTY? THE COST WAS THERE A WAS THERE A PAYMENT MADE FOR CREATING A TURNING LANE FOR THE HOTEL FUNCTION? OR DO WE JUST GIVE IT AWAY FOR THE RECORD? SO THE THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE TURN LANE, YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE COST OF WHAT THE TURN LANE IS GOING TO TO BE FOR THE TURN LANE AND THE DISCUSSION PERHAPS OF THE EXTRA FEET GOING BEHIND IT TO HAVE IT THE GARBAGE FUNCTION BETTER.

I THINK WE HAVE, AND MAYBE HIGHER, BUT THE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE FROM MR. RIVERA WAS APPROXIMATELY $156,000 FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT INCLUDES THE TURN LANE. I THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE COST BETWEEN.

BUT BUT THAT'S I BELIEVE YOU'RE YOU'RE IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, IF THAT'S IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY, ARE YOU? YEAH, I WAS JUST WONDERING. I MEAN, IT IS PUBLIC LAND.

IT'S PUBLIC. RIGHT? YOU KNOW, RIGHT OF WAY. DID WE GET A PAYMENT ON AT ALL ON TAKING ALL OF THE PERVIOUS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S RIGHT NOW THERE'S GRASS, THERE'S TREES, ETC..

AND I GUESS WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE CALLING AN IMPROVEMENT IS WIPING IT OUT AND PUTTING A TURN LANE THERE TO ALLOW A HOTEL TO FUNCTION BETTER.

[00:45:02]

AND NOW WE'RE IN THIS PROPOSAL. IF I READ IT CORRECTLY, THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 50 OR 60FT OF OF THAT.

ARE THEY ARE WE GETTING OR IS THE PUBLIC GETTING COMPENSATED FOR THAT? NO, THE PUBLIC IS NOT GETTING COMPENSATED. COMPENSATED.

BUT THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.

REALLY? THANK YOU. YES. YEAH. AND IF I COULD, IF I COULD JUST ADD TO THAT THE INTERSECTION AT BROAD AND GORDON IS FAILING TODAY. ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS I JUST DESCRIBED ARE ON PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND WE ARE MAKING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AT OUR COST TO IMPROVE THE OVERALL INTERSECTION PERFORMANCE THAT IS FAILING TODAY.

ONCE THE HOTEL OPENS, THE HOTEL WILL CONTRIBUTE 10% OF THE TRAFFIC TO THAT INTERSECTION, PER OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

AND YET WE'RE PAYING FOR THE 50%. WE HAVE A 50% OBLIGATION TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTIONS PERFORMANCE.

THANK YOU. AND JUST COUNCIL, IF WE COULD JUST LET HIM FINISH THE PRESENTATION, WRITE DOWN YOUR.

I JUST WANT TO KEEP TRACK OF THAT. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. TURNING NOW TO THE RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT FOR THE VALET OPERATIONS.

INCLUDED IN YOUR AGENDA MATERIALS IS A VALET OPERATION PLAN.

OVERVIEW. THIS OVERVIEW WAS REQUESTED BY STAFF TO SUMMARIZE AND CONSOLIDATE THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE VALET OPERATIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE VALET PARKING PLAN APPROVED IN 2018.

THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT, WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN MOMENTARILY, AND THE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING INTERSECTION PLANS WE JUST DISCUSSED.

THE VALET OPERATION PLAN OVERVIEW IS NOT INTENDED TO SUPPLANT OR SUPERSEDE THESE DOCUMENTS.

RATHER, THE PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT IS TO PROVIDE A CHEAT SHEET, IF YOU WILL, OF THE VALET OPERATIONS DETAILED IN THE OTHER DOCUMENTS.

HERE IS THE VALET TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN APPROVED BY THE 2018 VALET PARKING PLAN.

THE PICKUP DROP OFF AREA HERE. ONCE DROPPED OFF, THE VEHICLE IS PARKED IN THE GARAGE THROUGH THIS DOWN RAMP.

UPON REQUEST FOR PICKUP, THE VEHICLE EXITS THE GARAGE VIA THE REAR RAMP.

TURNS RIGHT ON GORDON DRIVE, THEN RIGHT ON BORDEN BROAD AND DELIVERED INTO THE VALET DRIVEWAY.

HERE'S A MORE DETAILED LOOK AT THE VALET DRIVEWAY, PER THE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING PLANS.

THIS IS THE EASTBOUND TRAVEL LANE OF BROAD AVENUE SOUTH.

VEHICLES ENTER THE ONE WAY PERMEABLE PAVER VALET DRIVEWAY AT THIS LOCATION.

THE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED CURB DIVIDER ON BROAD AVENUE WILL PREVENT WESTBOUND TRAFFIC ON BROAD AVENUE FROM TURNING SHORT OF THE INTERSECTION, CUTTING IN FRONT OF THE EASTBOUND TRAFFIC AND ENTERING THE DRIVEWAY.

VEHICLES ARE DELIVERED INTO THE GARAGE THROUGH THIS DOWN RAMP HERE.

AND NOTE THE PROPOSED HINGED GATE ARM HERE TO PREVENT PUBLIC VEHICLE INGRESS.

FINALLY EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK IS SHOWN HERE. A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF THE OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR THE HOTEL'S VALET SERVICE IS FOUND IN THE VALET PARKING PLAN FROM 2018, AND THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT CONDITIONS DRAFTED BY STAFF, WHICH ARE PART OF YOUR AGENDA. BUT HERE IS A SUMMARY LIST OF SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS.

THE VALET IS RESTRICTED TO HOTEL GUESTS AND PATRONS OF THE SUNDRY SHOP, CAFE, SPA AND RETAIL SPACES.

ACCESS TO THE GARAGE IS LIMITED TO THE VALET ATTENDANTS AND HOTEL EMPLOYEES ONLY, I.E.

THERE'S NO PUBLIC ACCESS. VALET SERVICE WILL BE AVAILABLE 24 HOURS PER DAY, SEVEN DAYS PER WEEK.

THE ATTENDANTS WILL BE PROFESSIONALLY UNIFORMED AND SCREENED FOR VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE.

A VALET STAND WILL BE LOCATED NEAR THE HOTEL ENTRANCE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

NO STACKING, QUEUING OR PARKING OF VEHICLES ON BROAD AVENUE SOUTH IS PERMITTED, AND THERE WILL BE NO CHARGE TO HOTEL GUESTS AND PATRONS OF THE SUNDRY SHOP, CAFE, SPA AND RETAIL SPACES. SHOWN HERE IS THE VALET SIGNAGE APPROVED IN THE VALET PARKING PLAN.

THE PRECISE LOCATION OF THE SIGNAGE WILL BE COORDINATED WITH STAFF TO ENSURE NO SITE OR PEDESTRIAN OBSTRUCTIONS.

BECAUSE PORTIONS OF THE VALET OPERATIONS OCCUR IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

STAFF REQUESTED THAT WE ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.

THE FUNDAMENTAL TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE VERBIAGE OF WHICH WAS AGAIN THE PRODUCT OF COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, ARE SHOWN HERE. IT ESSENTIALLY INCORPORATES ALL OF THE OPERATING CONDITIONS DRAFTED BY CITY STAFF,

[00:50:03]

AS WELL AS THE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING RIGHT OF WAY PLANS THAT WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.

IT PRESERVES CITY OVERSIGHT. ANY VIOLATIONS OF OF THE CONDITIONS OR LIFE SAFETY CONCERNS MUST BE CURED BY THE VALET OPERATOR, AND THE COUNCIL RETAINS JURISDICTION TO TO RECONSIDER AND REVISE AS LONG AS YOU'RE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE 2018 APPROVALS, THERE IS AN ANNUAL ADMINISTRATIVE EVALUATION BY THE CITY MANAGER, AND THEN THERE'S ULTIMATELY A REVIEW AND RENEWAL BY CITY COUNCIL EVERY THREE YEARS.

AND THOSE TERMS AND TERMS OF THE RECURRING REVIEW ARE SIMILAR TO THE VALET PRO SERVICES AGREEMENT.

A LOT OF THESE TERMS ARE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THAT AGREEMENT FOR THE VALET OPERATIONS UP AND DOWN FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH.

SO A LOT OF THIS IS VERBATIM FROM THAT AGREEMENT, AND THE TERMS ARE VERY SIMILAR.

VALET OPERATOR MUST CARRY INSURANCE WITH THE CITY NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED.

AND THE CITY IS INDEMNIFIED IN THE EVENT OF ANY ACCIDENT.

THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION, WHICH WE HOPE EXPLAINED THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS IN AN EASY TO UNDERSTAND MANNER.

WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THE TWO RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED AGREEMENTS.

THANK YOU. DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION ON BOTH ITEMS, THE VALET AND AGREEMENT AND THE RIGHT OF WAY? IT DOES. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. WITH THAT COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT? WE CAN GO BY INTERSECTION AND THEN DO THE STAFF REPORT FOR INTERSECTION.

I THINK I THINK THEY INTERTWINED. SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER KRISEMAN AND AND THE STAFF REPORT ON THAT VALET.

I'M INTERESTED IN HEARING THE STAFF REPORT. OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS? COUNSEL? OKAY. I DO ONE QUESTION WITH YOU.

FOR YOU, MR. BROOKER. CAN YOU TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2018 APPROVED VALET PERMIT? AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY? SURE. THE SIMPLE, BROAD ANSWER IS THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE HEARD AND IS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE 2018 VALET PARKING PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES A VARIETY OF CONDITIONS. THE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, ALL OF THOSE TYPES OF CONDITIONS ARE ALREADY BUILT IN, ALREADY APPROVED BY THE 2018 APPROVAL. WHAT YOU SEE HERE TODAY IS MORE OF THE DETAILS OF THE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING PLAN SET UP, AS WELL AS THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT, BECAUSE THIS WILL BE OPERATING IN A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THE THE CITY IS OBVIOUSLY CONCERNED, REASONABLY SO, ABOUT HAVING CONTINUED SUPERVISING AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT, AS WELL AS CONCERN ABOUT BEING INDEMNIFIED IN THE EVENT OF ANY ACCIDENT OCCURRING.

ALL OF THOSE PROVISIONS ARE NOT IN THE VALET PARKING PLAN FROM 2018, BUT THOSE ARE THE NEW DETAILS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU TODAY. SO I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S DIFFERENT IN WHAT YOU'RE SEEING TODAY IN TERMS OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE VALET SERVICE AS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS APPROVED IN 2018.

AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF ASKED ABOUT THE TREES AND THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WILL BE ABSORBED BY A NEW LANE. CAN YOU JUST TELL ME HOW MUCH OF THAT WILL THE HOTEL BE TAKING OF THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES, THE HOTEL PROPERTY? THE HOTEL IS TAKING NO PROPERTY WHATSOEVER OWNED BY THE CITY.

OKAY. IT HAS PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT IS FULLY WITHIN.

THE HOTEL IS BEING BUILT FULLY WITHIN ITS PRIVATE PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINES.

WHILE HONORING THE SETBACKS AS WELL. ALL THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PLANS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AND THAT WERE SHOWN TO YOU ARE OCCURRING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ALREADY. THE HOTEL IS NOT TAKING ANY PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY.

OKAY. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY BEING ASKED TO CREATE A LANE BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO HELP WITH THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.

CORRECT. FOR THE INTERSECTION. YES. SO WITH THAT, WILL THERE BE A SIDEWALK? BECAUSE ARE YOU FIRST QUESTION IS. I'M SORRY, ARE YOU LOT LINE TO LOT LINE.

YOU SAID SETBACKS. WHAT ARE THE SETBACKS? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE SETBACKS ARE, I GUESS. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY, DAVID, TO BRING UP THE THE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING SET?

[00:55:11]

WHAT'S WHAT'S LABELED RIGHT OF WAY PLANS. AND JUST JUST FOR CONFIRMATION.

I'M SORRY. THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION IN HERE. THERE'S A POWERPOINT WITHIN OUR PACKET THAT THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEING SHOWN TO US.

THERE WAS NO POWERPOINT SUBMITTED. THERE WAS A PRESENTATION SUBMITTED VIA PDF, JUST A FORMATTING DIFFERENCE.

AND THAT WAS THE SUPPLEMENT THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED TO YOU.

EARLY ON AT THE AGENDA SETTING THIS MORNING. GOT.

MAYOR JUST A POINT OF ORDER. I'M LOST ON WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS RIGHT NOW.

HE MENTIONED THEM. HE MENTIONED THAT WE'RE WITHIN THE SETBACKS AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE SETBACKS WERE.

I'M JUST ASKING THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU. CAN YOU? GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING DAVIDSON ENGINEERING I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT THE SETBACKS HERE.

BUILDING SETBACK TABLES LISTED HERE NORTH AND WEST IS TEN FOOT.

TO THE EAST IS TEN FOOT, BUT 25 FOOT PROVIDED.

SIDE DOORS NORTH AND SOUTH. 0 OR 10. YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE PLAN.

WE CAN SHOW YOU. AND TO THE REAR, TO THE SOUTH WE HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK.

SO THE SIDE YARDS VARY AS YOU MOVE THROUGH HERE.

BUT IT'S ZERO REQUIRED, ZERO PROVIDED ON THE WEST, YOU HAVE TEN FOOT REQUIRED, TEN FOOT PROVIDED ON THE NORTH, TEN FOOT REQUIRED, TEN FOOT PROVIDED. SIDE YARD HERE ZERO REQUIRED, ZERO PROVIDED.

SAME HERE ZERO REQUIRED ZERO PROVIDED. ON THE EAST YOU HAVE A TEN FOOT REQUIRED 25 FOOT PROVIDED.

AND THERE IS THAT THE FRONT OF THE HOTEL. THAT FRONTS THIRD STREET.

IT'S ALL PART OF THE SAME PROJECT. YES. AND YOU HAVE SOME RETAIL FUNCTION DOWN ON THE GROUND LEVEL THAT GREETS THE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL ALONG THIRD STREET.

THANK YOU. AND THEN THE FRONT OF THE HOTEL. THE FRONT OF THE HOTEL TO THE NORTH IS A TEN FOOT REQUIRED, TEN FOOT PROVIDED SETBACK. AND SO THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU'LL BE DOING THE RIGHT OF WAY THE VALET WILL BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

THAT'S THAT AREA THAT IS IS THAT GOING TO BE BRICK PAVERS? PERMEABLE PAVERS? YES. THAT WAS HOW IT WAS ENVISIONED BACK IN 2018.

OKAY. CARRYING THAT FORTH. AND THAT'S WHY IN THE AGREEMENT IT SAYS THAT WE WE WILL MAINTAIN THAT OR YOU WILL MAINTAIN THAT.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A HOTEL. MAINTAIN THE HOTEL WILL MAINTAIN THAT.

OKAY. I WAS JUST AND THEN WHERE IS THE SIDEWALK? WILL THERE BE A SIDEWALK REPLACED? YEAH, THERE WILL BE A CONTINUOUS EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK.

RIGHT HERE ALL ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY.

AS WELL AS AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND ARE YOU GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL OF WHAT THE CHANGES ARE IN THE RIGHT HAND TURN LANE ON SECOND AND HOW THAT WILL OPERATE? WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

YEAH. I MEAN, IT'S A IT'S A PRETTY STANDARD RIGHT HAND TURN LANE PUSHING THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT OVER TO THE EAST TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL WIDTH FOR THAT AUXILIARY RIGHT HAND TURN LANE HERE.

AND. THAT WILL ENCROACH OR NOT ENCROACH INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT RESIDES TOTALLY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

OKAY. AND WHERE IS THE SIDEWALK? ON THE WEST SIDE.

EIGHT FEET. AND IT ABUTS THE WALL. CORRECT? CORRECT.

THANK YOU. JUST CHECKING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.

AND ON A SIDE NOTE, HAVE YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT ANY KIND OF BUFFER FOR THE RESIDENTS ON

[01:00:01]

THE GORDON DRIVE WEST SIDE WITH THE TRUCKS COMING OR VALET OR ON THE WEST SIDE OF GORDON, THE WEST SIDE OF GORDON COMING OUT OF THAT GARAGE.

NO. I'VE HAD NO CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT BUFFERING ON THE WEST SIDE OF GORDON.

NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. I CAN SAY A LOT OF THIS.

WHAT IT PRESENTLY EXISTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF GORDON TODAY IS IS PRESENTLY UTILIZED AS PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS OVER THERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF SHELL AND GRAVEL PARKING OVER HERE IN THIS AREA.

BUT THERE'S SOME LITTLE OPPORTUNITY TO LANDSCAPE THERE BECAUSE IT'S ALL PRESENTLY BEING UTILIZED AS PARKING.

RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I GUESS THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE WOULD DO ANY KIND OF BUFFERING WITH THEM.

I'M JUST CHECKING. THANK YOU. AND WE WOULD TO THE.

CAN YOU SHOW THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY LINE. I'M THE RIGHT OF WAY.

BOUNDARY LINE IS AROUND HERE ON THE AREA. OKAY.

YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS HERE.

SO THE RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY ON THE EAST SIDE IS THE WEST SIDE.

THE WEST SIDE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S I THINK IT'S THIS DASHED LINE HERE.

OKAY. MY, MY MY THOUGHT WAS I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THAT RIGHT OF WAY BOUNDARY LINE ON THE WEST SIDE WAS OR EXISTS TODAY.

BUT IF THERE IS ROOM TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING, THEN I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ON PUBLIC OWNED PROPERTY.

IF IT WERE OTHERWISE, WE WOULD WE WOULD BE TRYING TO INSTALL LANDSCAPING ON PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY, AND THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FOR ALL OBVIOUS REASONS.

THANK YOU. AND THEN I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM, IT SAYS THAT THERE WILL BE NO STACKING OR QUEUING OR PARKING OF VEHICLES ON BROAD AVENUE SOUTH. CORRECT. SO HOW WILL YOU MAKE SURE THAT'S NOT OCCURRING? THE HOTEL WILL MANAGE IT'S VALET OPERATIONS. THIS IS NOT THEIR FIRST RODEO.

THEY'VE THEY HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY VALET OPERATIONS SERVICES.

AND SO THEY WILL MANAGE TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM IN THIS TWO LANE VALET DRIVEWAY TO MANAGE THE VEHICLE REQUEST AND LOAD, SUCH THAT THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY QUEUING OR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE THROUGH LANE OF THE EASTBOUND LANE OF BROAD AVENUE SOUTH.

OKAY. SORRY. BUT THANK YOU FOR THOSE. JUST A FEW QUESTIONS SO FAR.

OKAY. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO STAFF REPORT.

GOOD MORNING. ALLISON BICKERT, DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER.

FOR THE RECORD, ACCOMPANIED BY OUR DIRECTOR, BOB MIDDLETON.

WE ALSO HAVE PLANNING STAFF HERE. FIRE RESCUE, IN ADDITION TO OUR STREETS DIVISION.

DAVE RIVERA HERE IN ATTENDANCE THIS MORNING FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL IS A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED IN OLD NAPLES.

AS ALREADY MENTIONED, IN THE SOUTHEASTERN QUADRANT OF BROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND GORDON DRIVE, SECOND STREET SOUTH. THE SITE PLAN WITH DEVIATIONS PETITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PETITION FOR THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL WAS APPROVED ON MAY 16TH, 2018. RESOLUTION 2018 ONE 4149 HAD SEVERAL CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

TODAY, THERE ARE TWO AGENDA ITEMS RELATED TO THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL PROJECT.

THE FIRST 13 A, IS THE VALET OPERATIONS AGREEMENT REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF THE OF THE VALET SERVICES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED HOTEL. THE SECOND IS AN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THAT EVOLVED FROM THE CRITERIA RELATED TO SECTION TWO, CONDITION FIVE OF THE RESOLUTION, REQUIRING A FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION OF 50% OF THE TOTAL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION COST FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

THERE IS A THIRD APPLICATION CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW, RELATED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS THAT INCLUDE THE PAVERS THAT WERE MENTIONED LANDSCAPE, SIDEWALK, AND ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THIS APPLICATION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS DISCUSSION TODAY, AS IT IS STILL BEING REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF.

I WILL ADD THAT THERE MAY BE SOME REDUNDANCIES WITH THE PETITIONER'S PRESENTATION AND MY REPORT.

[01:05:05]

I WILL ALSO RELAY COUNCILWOMAN PETRANOFF THAT IN MY RESPONSE EARLIER.

THE PUBLIC BENEFIT I WAS REFERRING TO IS GENERALLY FOR THE TURN LANES, SIDEWALKS.

THAT'S ALL IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE DEFICIENCIES THAT ARE BEING SQUARED AWAY ON BEHALF OF THE EVALUATION OF THIS IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.

THERE ARE SOME UNIQUENESS IN THIS REQUEST PERTAINING TO THE VALET DROP OFF AREA.

THAT IS NOT NECESSARY NECESSARILY, I WOULD SAY A PUBLIC OVERALL GENERAL BENEFIT.

SO I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY THAT AS IN MY RESPONSE, I WILL START WITH THE VALET DISCUSSION.

AS THAT WAS 13 A. IN 2018, THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED A VALET PARKING PLAN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

HOWEVER, PER CITY CODE, VALET THAT OPERATES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY REQUIRES A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT AND MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

THIS IS PURSUANT TO TWO SECTIONS OF THE CODE RELATED TO VALET, WHICH IS SECTION 36, 67 AND SECTION 17 OF THE RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS ORDINANCE AND HANDBOOK TO SATISFY THIS CONDITION.

DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, ON BEHALF OF THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL, SUBMITTED A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY APPLICATION TO REQUEST A VALET SERVICE TO SERVE CUSTOMERS OF THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL, LOCATED AT 200 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH.

YOU MAY RECALL THE VALET AND HOTEL OPERATIONS WAS MOST RECENTLY DISCUSSED AT THE JUNE 4TH, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF CONCERNS RAISED TO THE HOTEL RELATED TO THE HOTEL OPERATIONS AND VALET CIRCULATIONS.

THE PICKUP AND VALET STAND IS PROPOSED ALONG BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, AS ALREADY IDENTIFIED WITH UTILIZATION OF THE HORSESHOE DRIVEWAY WITH A WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DURING THE VALET OPERATIONS. THE ROUTE IS IDENTIFIED IN THE VALET PARKING PLAN, WITH A PROPOSED ROUTE EAST OUT OF THE VALET DROP OFF AREA TO THE GARAGE ENTRANCE EAST OF THE VALET DROP OFF AREA.

UPON RETURN OF THE VEHICLES, THE VALET WILL PULL OUT OF THE GARAGE, EXIT ALONG GORDON DRIVE, HEADING NORTHBOUND, AND MAKE A RIGHT ONTO BROAD AVENUE SOUTH BACK TO THE HORSESHOE DROP OFF AREA.

WHILE THE PETITIONER'S AGENT, CLAYBROOK SUBMITTED A LETTER ADDRESSED TO CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG DATED AND RECEIVED ON JULY 28TH, 2025, STAFF HAD A NUMBER OF UNRESOLVED CONCERNS AT THAT TIME TO ADDRESS THE SOLID WASTE CONCERNS AND DEMONSTRATION.

DEMONSTRATION WAS PROVIDED AUGUST 8TH, 2025 ON SITE ON GORDON DRIVE TO ALLOW CITY STAFF TO WITNESS A DEMONSTRATION OF THE CITY ROLL OFF TRUCKS, TAKING THE SOLID WASTE FROM A HOTEL COMPACTOR AT THE EAST END OF THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL HOTEL SOUTH ACCESS DRIVE.

THE TRUCKS WERE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, BUT IN ORDER TO DO SO, THEY NEEDED ALL THE LANES OF GORDON DRIVE, INCLUDING THE SOUTHBOUND LANE, FOR BOTH BACKING IN AND EXITING.

IMPROVEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE TURN LANE AND CROSS SECTION CROSSWALK MODIFICATIONS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE.

TODAY, THE VALLEY OPERATORS WILL PARK IN THE PARKING GARAGE FOLLOWING THE VALET PLAN PARKING PLAN DATED FEBRUARY 28TH, 2018 BY WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS. AS NOTED IN THE AGM, THERE ARE CONCERNS FROM FIRE RESCUE IN A MOST RECENT RESPONSE WITH FIRE RESCUE AND THEY ARE HERE TODAY. IT WAS NOTED WHILE TRADITIONAL FIRE APPARATUS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TRAVERSE GARAGE LEVELS, SMALLER VEHICLES WITH TOWING CAPABILITIES CAN.

WE HAVE USED THIS ABILITY DURING PREVIOUS INCIDENTS TO PULL BURNING VEHICLES FROM PARKING STRUCTURES TO LIMIT DAMAGE TO OTHER VEHICLES, AS WELL AS THE STRUCTURE. ADDING ADDITIONAL VEHICLES TO THIS SPACE WOULD ELIMINATE THAT POSSIBILITY.

A VALID LICENSE AGREEMENT WAS CREATED FOR THE VALET SERVICE OPERATION AND IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE IN THIS VALET SERVICE IN THIS AGREEMENT IS FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY PORTION. TO MAKE THAT COMPLETELY CLEAR, THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LLC. THE PETITIONER HAS ALSO NOTED THE HOTEL IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN.

THE VALET OPERATOR HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED TO DATE IN ADVANCE OF VALET OPERATIONS AT THE HOTEL.

THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ON BEHALF OF VALET WILL BE OBTAINED AND PROVIDED TO THE CITY, NOT TO PROLONG THE CONVERSATION TOO MUCH FURTHER, BUT I WILL GO INTO THE TURN.

LANE HAS ALREADY MENTIONED TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES WERE IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS SUBMITTED FOR THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL. TO OFFSET THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS, THE DEPARTMENT REQUIRED A FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION OF 50% FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THAT EXPAND

[01:10:10]

VEHICULAR CAPACITY AT BROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND GORDON DRIVE SECOND STREET SOUTH.

THE PETITIONER WAS ALSO TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ASSISTANCE ACCOMMODATIONS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION FOR A RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AS NEEDED. THE PETITIONERS AGENT PRESENTED A ROUNDABOUT, INITIALLY AS A PREFERRED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT.

AT THE JANUARY 30TH, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, STAFF BROUGHT FORWARD THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION TO GAUGE INTEREST IN A POTENTIAL ROUNDABOUT VERSUS INVESTIGATING OTHER ALTERNATIVES.

THIS WAS NOT SUPPORTED. AT THE MARCH 5TH, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THE DEPARTMENT BROUGHT AGAIN FORWARD AN AGENDA ITEM TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. THE PREFERENCE BY COUNCIL WAS A TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPTION WITH A NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE.

AT THE JUNE 4TH, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CONSENSUS WAS REACHED TO APPROVE INSTALLATION OF A NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON GORDON DRIVE AND A WESTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE FROM BROAD AVENUE SOUTH ONTO GORDON DRIVE, AND TO IMPLEMENT A FOUR WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION ON A ONE YEAR BASIS WITH REEVALUATION. AFTER A YEAR, STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE PETITIONER ON THE DESIGN PREFERENCES FOR THE TURN LANE AND CONSIDERED CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK.

THE NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE ON GORDON DRIVE WAS EXTENDED FROM THE ORIGINAL ITERATION.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR PLANS, THE HATCHING WAS INCORPORATED NORTH OF THE EXIT ONTO GORDON TO PROVIDE A VISUAL TRANSITION FOR MOTORISTS EITHER CONTINUING NORTH ALONG GORDON DRIVE OR USING THE RIGHT TURN LANE. AS MENTIONED AT THE JUNE 4TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING, FIVE PALM TREES WILL BE ELIMINATED FROM THE INTRODUCTION OF THE TURN LANE ALONG BROAD. A DEDICATED WESTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE WAS INTRODUCED WHILE MAINTAINING A LANE TO FACILITATE THE THROUGH AND RIGHT TURNING MOVEMENTS.

TO PREVENT PREMATURE TURNS INTO THE HOTEL ENTRANCE, A TYPE A CURVE IS PROPOSED BETWEEN THE WESTBOUND AND EASTBOUND TRAFFIC LANES.

A TOTAL OF 11 PARKING SPACES ARE IMPACTED ALONG BROAD AVENUE SOUTH DUE TO THE IMPROVEMENTS.

YOU MAY RECALL. PER THE RESOLUTION, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO ALSO RESTORE AND PROVIDE FIVE PARKING SPACES OFF SITE AND FRONTING ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE PROPERTY PER THE RESOLUTION. INTERIM INTERSECTION. IMPROVEMENTS WERE PROVIDED TO SATISFY THE 50% CONDITION SUBJECT TO THE SUBSEQUENT INTERSECTION EVALUATION DESCRIBED WITHIN THE BROAD AVENUE SOUTH GORDON DRIVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS AGREEMENT.

THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE.

THE TERMS INDICATE THAT SHALL THAT SHALL PROVIDE THE CITY ONE YEAR TO 16 MONTHS TO OBSERVE THE IMPACTS FOLLOWING THE HOTEL OPENING.

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR COMPLETION OF THE INTERIM INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AND DETERMINE IF OTHER OPERATIVE OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, SUCH AS SIGNALIZATION OR ROUNDABOUTS, SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT THAT TIME.

THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THE TURN LANE SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE COST TO CONSTRUCT THE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL IT BE DESIRED.

THAT IS THE END OF MY REPORT AND I AND OUR TEAM ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. YOU CAN ASK FOR THAT. I COUNCILMAN CHRISTIAN.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO SOME QUESTIONS FOR FOR STAFF.

THE LET'S START WITH THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.

THE THE SO SO WHAT? WE'RE REALLY THAT'S RIGHT.

SET THE CONVERSATION IN DOING THAT, THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS ENTERED INTO BACK IN 2018 WAS THAT THE THE INTERSECTION AT BROAD AND GORDON WOULD NEED TO BE IMPROVED.

THERE WERE MULTIPLE OPTIONS CONSIDERED ROUNDABOUT STOP SIGN, SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AND THE.

THE DECISION WAS POSTPONED IN 2018 UNTIL LATER.

BUT THERE WAS AGREEMENT THAT WHATEVER WAS AGREED TO, THERE WOULD BE A 50% COST SHARE BETWEEN THE OPERATOR OF THE HOTEL AND THE AND AND THE CITY. IS THAT ALL CORRECT? WHAT I JUST SAID.

ESSENTIALLY, THE APPLICANT HAD SUBMITTED A THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE OF A ROUNDABOUT AT THE TIME, AND UNDERSTANDING ROUNDABOUT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE CONTROVERSIAL OVER THE YEARS.

[01:15:02]

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS FLEXIBILITY IN THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT DETAILED. WE DIDN'T MAKE THAT DECISION AT THAT TIME.

SO IT WAS BASICALLY, AS YOU MENTIONED, IT WAS DEFERRED.

IT WAS DEFERRED. AND THEN EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE COUNCIL, THIS COUNCIL MADE THE DECISION, REACHED THE DECISION THAT A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION WAS THE PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE.

CORRECT, YES. AND THEN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, AT A I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT.

AN UNDERSTANDING WAS REACHED THAT THERE WOULD BE A SO-CALLED INTERIM SOLUTION OF STOP SIGNS.

AND AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME, THE STOP SIGNS WOULD BE EVALUATED AND THERE WOULD BE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IS NECESSARY.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ROAD SYSTEM OVER THERE THAT ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED HERE WOULD INCLUDE THE CREATION OF A TURN LANE ON GORDON DRIVE, WHICH ACTUALLY HAS BEEN MADE LONGER DURING THIS DISCUSSION PERIOD.

SO THAT'S ONE THING. AND THEN A INTRODUCTION OF A LEFT HAND TURN LANE ON BROAD ONTO GORDON.

CORRECT? YES. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON BROAD THAT WOULD CREATE CURBING OR SOME KIND OF A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD PREVENT CARS GOING WEST ON BROAD FROM TURNING LEFT INTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE HOTEL.

CORRECT. IS THERE ANYTHING IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN TERMS OF ROAD OR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED THAT I HAVEN'T MENTIONED? WELL, THE CROSSWALK WAS AWESOME AND THE CROSSWALK ROTATED SOUTH.

RELOCATED. OKAY. NOW, WHAT I'M REALLY GETTING AT HERE IS NOT ONLY TO MAKE SURE WE ALL HAVE ALL THESE ITEMS CLEAR IN OUR HEADS, BUT YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION IS REALLY, WHAT WILL ALL THESE COST AND WHO SHOULD PAY? RIGHT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHILE THIS BEGAN WITH A.

PARTNERSHIP AGREED TO BACK IN 2018 AROUND THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT AT GORDON AND BROAD.

EVERYTHING ELSE WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT IS REALLY PART OF THAT.

IT'S JUST BECAUSE WITHOUT THOSE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THAT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH.

I SAY WE I MEAN, THE CITY AND THE HOTEL OPERATOR.

AND SO WHAT MY QUESTION THEN IS IN TERMS OF I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATES AT THIS POINT.

YOU MAY HAVE BALLPARK SENSE OF WHAT? WHAT EACH OF THESE PIECES COST, BUT WHAT WHAT IS BEING CONTEMPLATED AS TO IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING, MISS BECKETT, AS TO WHO PAYS FOR THE THE.

GORDON DRIVE, TURN LANE AND THE VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS WE JUST DISCUSSED AND THE CROSSWALK RELOCATION AND THE GORDON AND THE VARIOUS IMPROVEMENTS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT ON BROAD. WELL, AS PER THE AGREEMENT AS WELL, THE THE COST IS BEING BORNE BY IT WILL BE ON THE APPLICANT. THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL WILL BE PAYING FOR THESE EXPENSES FOR THOSE TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS. NOW, SHALL WE CHANGE AND DECIDE TO DO THE INTERSECTION IN THE MAST ARM UPGRADES AT THE INTERSECTION, AND IT'S WARRANTS A SIGNAL THAT IN THAT CASE, THAT AMOUNT WOULD BE DEDUCTED THAT THEY'RE PAYING INTO RIGHT NOW FROM THE 50% CONTRIBUTION OF THE PROJECT, THE WORK, AND ALSO THE SO AND WHAT ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON BROAD THAT IS THAT IS ALSO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AGAIN,

[01:20:02]

WITH WITH A CREDIT CREDIT CORRECT BEING RECEIVED.

YES. AND YOU KNOW, JUST SO WE ALL UNDERSTAND AT LEAST THIS IS MY POINT OF VIEW, THE, THE HAVING THIS TWO PHASE APPROACH WITH THE STOP SIGNS AND THEN THE SIGNALIZATION IS IS CERTAINLY AN ACCOMMODATION FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THE OPERATOR IN THIS SENSE THAT WE AGREED THAT THIS COUNCIL AGREED. WHEN WAS IT? BACK IN MARCH OR APRIL, THAT WE WANTED TO GO THE SIGNALIZATION DIRECTION THAT THAT WAS THE AND STAFF RECOMMENDED TO US THAT THAT WAS THE THE BEST OPTION IN TERMS OF SAFETY AND ACCOMMODATING TRAFFIC ALONG GORDON DRIVE. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT THAT SIGNALIZATION PLAN IN A, IN A TIME FRAME THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE THE OPERATORS PLANS FOR OPENING THE HOTEL.

SO THE SO THE STOP SIGNS ARE REALLY A INTERIM SOLUTION TO THAT CAN CAN CAN ACCOMMODATE THE SCHEDULE THAT THE OPERATOR IS ON.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE REALITY.

SO THE IN THE ABSENCE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME WE WOULD HAVE SIMPLY MOVED FORWARD TO IMPLEMENT THE SIGNALIZATION THAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO US BY STAFF AND THAT WE AGREED TO BACK IN THE SPRING, BUT INSTEAD WE'RE GOING THROUGH A TWO STEP PROCESS HERE.

SO I WHERE ARE WHERE ARE ALL THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AS TO WHO PAYS FOR WHAT MEMORIALIZED THEY ARE IN THE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, THE 2018 THE RESOLUTION FROM 2018 ONE 118 ONE 4149 UNDER SECTION TWO CONDITION FIVE, IT STATES, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

THE PETITIONER SHALL PAY A FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION OF 50% OF THE TOTAL DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION COSTS FOR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY INCLUDE A ROUNDABOUT, TURN LANES, TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR OTHER INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THAT EXPAND VEHICULAR CAPACITY AT BROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND GORDON DRIVE SECOND STREET SOUTH, AND THE PETITIONER SHALL ALSO PROVIDE REASONABLE ASSISTANCE ACCOMMODATION AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION FOR RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AS NEEDED. OKAY. SO THE THE EVEN THOUGH THE TURN LANE ON GORDON AVENUE AND THE BROAD AND THE BROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS WERE NOT CONTEMPLATED IN 2018, IN THE SPECIFICITY THEY ARE NOW, YOU FEEL THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESOLUTION IS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THOSE IN AND IN TERMS OF TODAY'S RESPONSIBILITIES, MR. PICKETT? YES. AND THAT'S WHY WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THE AGREEMENT AS WELL.

BUT YES, THEY ARE STILL EITHER WAY, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR AT MINIMUM, 50% OF THE DESIGN IN CONSTRUCTION.

OKAY. AND, MR. RIVERA, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANTED TO.

YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION.

YES. DAVE RIVERA, TRAFFIC OPERATION SUPERINTENDENT.

I JUST WANTED TO MENTION A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE ALSO ASKED THE HOTEL, WHICH CLAY DID NOT MENTION.

WHEN WE DO ADD THE RIGHT TURN LANE, I RECOMMENDED MILLING THE ENTIRE ROAD FROM 12TH AVENUE, WHERE THE CROSSWALK IS NOW, ALL THE WAY TO BROAD AND PAVING THE WHOLE SECTION INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING ONE SECTION, AND THEY AGREED TO THAT AS PART OF THIS. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT ON IT.

AND THEN WHEN WE GO TO DO SECOND AVENUE OR SECOND STREET, SORRY, FROM BROAD AVENUE TO FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, I WILL THEN CARRY THAT PART OF IT AND TIE IT INTO THAT SECTION, AND WE'LL HAVE A WHOLE NEW INTERSECTION AS WELL THERE.

SO AGAIN, ANY AND ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH GORDON AVENUE AND BROAD AVENUE WOULD BE INITIALLY BORNE BY THE DEVELOPER, CORRECT. AND DEVELOPER SLASH OPERATOR. AND THEN DEPENDING ON WHETHER THERE'S A EFFORT TO WHETHER AN EFFORT GOES FORWARD TO SIGNALIZE THE INTERSECTION, THEN THERE WOULD BE A CREDIT EXTENDED TO THEM

[01:25:01]

AGAINST THE COST OF THAT SIGNALIZATION PROJECT.

YES. IS THAT ALL CORRECT? I ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THE INTERSECTION.

I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO VALET YET. BECAUSE OTHERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE INTERSECTION.

I THINK WE JUST STAY ON THAT FOR NOW. IF THEY DO.

BUT I THINK THERE'S SOMEWHERE IN HERE A CONDITION THAT PROPOSED CONDITION THAT AT THE END OF A YEAR OR 12 TO 16 MONTHS, WILL REEVALUATE HOW THE STOP SIGNS WORKING AND WHETHER WE WANT TO CONSIDER A SIGNALIZATION. AND I THINK IT SAYS THAT THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL DEVELOPER OPERATOR WOULD WOULD SELECT A ENGINEER TO CARRY OUT THAT WORK. I THINK PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WHERE WE SELECT THE ENGINEER AND THE ENGINEER PREPARES THAT THAT EVALUATION FOR US, BUT THAT THE COST OF THAT SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER OPERATOR, OR AT THE VERY LEAST BE DONE ON SOME KIND OF A COST SHARE BASIS.

SO I WANTED TO MENTION THAT NOW, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT US TO LOSE TRACK OF THAT AS TO HOW WE I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE HANDLE IT THAT WAY RATHER THAN WHAT I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE HOW I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE ARTICULATED NOW.

AND I'LL PAUSE THERE AND LET OTHERS ASK QUESTIONS ON THE AS I SAY, I HAVE QUESTIONS AS WELL, BUT WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT LATER, MADAM MAYOR.

YES, MR. YOUNG, JUST TWO POINTS ON THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT NUANCE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF IN THE VERY END.

BUT I ALSO WANTED TO AND, AND THEN HAVE DIALOG AS TO WHAT ENGINEER BEFORE WE FINALIZE THIS AGREEMENT.

BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A RELEVANT POINT. BUT THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MR. BROOKER'S VERY CLOSE IN HIS ESTIMATES OF THE COST.

AND I WILL REMIND YOU OF ITEM SEVEN, BE ON OUR AGENDA FOR CONSENT, WHERE WE'RE DOING NINTH AND 10TH FROM SPAN WIRE TO MAST ARM.

AFTER THE DESIGN AND THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AROUND 750 TO 830,000.

SO THAT'S THE GOOD PART IS WE DO HAVE SOMEWHAT RECENT ESTIMATES ON THAT.

SO BECAUSE YOU HAD ASKED THAT QUESTION, I JUST WANTED TO TO SAY THAT AND I ALSO WANTED TO REMIND THAT IN THIS YEAR'S ADOPTED BUDGET, WE INCLUDED WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTION.

IN THAT EVENT. SO WE ARE PREPARED IT SHOULD COUNCIL DESIRE THAT IT BE ENGINEERED BY US IN 12 TO 16 MONTHS AS OPPOSED TO THEM.

THE APPROPRIATIONS ARE ALREADY EARMARKED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THOSE THINGS OUT AS YOU CONTINUE YOUR DELIBERATIONS ON THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN BROUGHT UP THE DATES OF A YEAR FOR EVALUATION.

WHEN WHERE IN THE DOCUMENTS DOES IT SHOW? WILL THAT YEAR BEGINS BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT.

THE THE START OF WHEN THE 12 MONTHS OR 16 MONTHS IS AFTER THE LATTER OF THE A THE COMPLETION OF THE INTERIM INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, OR B THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE HOTEL.

AND YOU'RE READING THAT FROM THE RESOLUTION, THAT IS FROM THE YOUR IN YOUR PACKAGE, THE BROAD AVENUE SOUTH GORDON DRIVE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT. AND IT IS UNDER NUMBER FOUR SUBSEQUENT EVALUATION OF INTERSECTION AND PERFORMANCE, I BELIEVE I ALSO INCLUDED THAT IN YOUR AGM UNDER THIS ITEM AS WELL.

I'M JUST CHECKING TO SEE IF IT'S IN THE RESOLUTION, BUT THANK YOU.

YES, MA'AM. COUNCILMAN. THANK YOU. I HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN AND THEN PETRANOFF COUNCIL.

I THINK WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE DIFFICULTY RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING AND TRAFFIC AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF JUST A HOTEL, WE HAVE FOUR, THREE SHOPS, A SUNDRY SHOP, A SPA AND A RETAIL SHOP THAT ARE ALSO GOING TO BE A PART OF THIS PROJECT. AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE AS TO EXACTLY WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC THERE'S GOING TO BE RELATIVE TO THAT.

AND THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT THE HOTEL WOULD ABSORB THE PARKING FOR THOSE THREE AMENITIES AS WELL.

THEY WOULD NOT BE USING PUBLIC, QUOTE, PUBLIC PARKING.

SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WE'RE THIS IS WE'RE OPERATING IN A VACUUM UNTIL WE KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT IT IS THAT THE HOTEL IS WILLING TO ABSORB RELATIVE TO THE RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS. SO I NEED TO KNOW THAT FIGURE.

OTHERWISE, THIS IS A WASTE OF OUR TIME, IN MY OPINION.

[01:30:04]

MR. BRICKER. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION, MISS PENMAN.

THE 2018 SITE PLAN, THAT APPROVAL INCLUDED WITHIN THE HOTEL, SUNDRY SHOP, SUNTAN LOTION, THAT SORT OF THING. A CAFE, SMALL LITTLE CAFE, A SPA AND RETAIL SPACES.

THAT FRONT THIRD STREET. THAT WAS THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.

NOTHING THAT YOU SEE HERE TODAY CHANGES THAT SITE PLAN.

IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT APPROVAL WAS A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT TOOK ALL OF THOSE COMPONENTS OF THAT SITE PLAN INTO ACCOUNT TO DETERMINE HOW MANY SPACES WERE WERE NEEDED IN THE PARKING GARAGE BENEATH THE HOTEL.

THAT NUMBER WAS 124. THE DETAILS OF THAT WERE LAID OUT IN THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS PART OF YOUR AGENDA PACKET, BUT WHICH WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL BACK IN 2018.

JUST A SUMMARY REVIEW OF THAT PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS.

IT WAS A CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS THAT ASSUMED 100% OCCUPANCY OF THE HOTEL ON THE HIGHEST SATURDAY DEMAND MONTH IN HIGH SEASON WITHIN THE CITY OF NAPLES, AND INCLUDED THE FACT THAT, YES, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF CAPTURE A HOTEL GUESTS IS LIKELY TO GO TO THE CAFE AND DRINK A CUP OF COFFEE.

A HOTEL GUEST IS LIKELY TO GO TO THE SPA AND GET A MASSAGE.

SO YOU'RE NOT NEEDING TO DOUBLE PARK BECAUSE THERE'S CAPTURE WITHIN THAT, THAT ENTIRE ANALYSIS.

I'M NOT A PARKING ENGINEER, BUT THAT ENTIRE ANALYSIS IS LAID FORTH IN THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2018.

NOTHING HERE TODAY IS CHANGING ANY OF THAT. RELATIVE I WAS ON COUNCIL IN 2018, FOLKS, AND YES, IT DID PASS, BUT I WOULD HAVE IN MY ARTICULATION OF THAT PARTICULAR.

WE WERE HERE TILL AFTER 11:00 AT NIGHT REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR EVENT, THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR COUNCIL TO KNOW THAT IT BARELY PASSED BY ONE VOTE.

SO THERE'S STILL A LOT OF QUESTIONS REMAINING SO FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, RELATIVE TO THIS.

ARE YOU COMPLETE FOR NOW? YES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

I GUESS I'LL DEFER THE QUESTIONS TILL WE GET TO THE VALET PIECE OF THIS.

IS THAT. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? WHERE I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS IS GOING BACK TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY. AND DO WE REALLY NEED IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT INTERSECTION? IF THIS HOTEL DID NOT EXIST, AND DID WE AND AND WAS IT DID WE DO THE ANALYSIS OR DID DID OR DID THE PETITIONER WITH THIS HOTEL DO THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS? THE PETITIONER'S AGENT HAD A TIZ AND A TIA. TIS ONLY BECAUSE THE BECAUSE OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR I BELIEVE THE TIS HAD TO BE UNDER THE PARKING STUDY.

APPLICANT SO THEN THE TIA, WHICH WAS COMPLETED BY NORM TREBILCOCK THAT WAS SUBMITTED, IT DID IDENTIFY A DEFICIENCY OR A CLOSE TO DEFICIENCY IN THE LEVEL OF SERVICE VOLUMES.

I THINK THAT THERE'S ALREADY CONCERNS YOU COULD PROBABLY OBSERVE, PARTICULARLY IN THE PM HOUR WHEN THE TRAFFIC. THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ARE LEAVING, PARTICULARLY HEADING NORTHBOUND ON GORDON DRIVE, THAT YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME DELAY AT THAT INTERSECTION FOR THE NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC.

OKAY, BECAUSE I DO TAKE IT ALMOST EVERY DAY NOW.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DO SEE THAT WHEN THE WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS ARE THERE, IT BACKS UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT NO WORSE THAN OTHER INTERSECTIONS. AS AS PEOPLE LEAVE, THEY SEEM TO LEAVE AT 330 TO 4.

AND SO JUST, YOU KNOW, A GENERAL COMMENT IS I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE THIS HOTEL WAS BUILT REALLY TO TOO BIG FOR ITS, FOR ITS SPACE. AND SO IT REQUIRED PUBLIC LAND AND LOTS OF ACCOMMODATIONS.

YOU YOU YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS GREATLY TO TRY TO MAKE THIS THING WORK AND THIS RIGHT OF WAY. SOME OF THIS GREEN SPACE THAT WE'RE AND WE'RE CALLING FLATTENING IT AND PUTTING PAVERS OVER IT IMPROVEMENTS.

[01:35:02]

I STRUGGLE WITH THE TERM ITSELF BECAUSE IT IS IT'S SO PRECIOUS AND IT IS DISAPPEARING RAPIDLY.

YOU KNOW, I SEE THIS ON THE MIRACLE MILE PROJECT WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE CEMENT IS HAS BEEN INCREASED 5.5 TIMES WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.

AND THAT WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE CITY.

SO, YOU KNOW, AND AS PEOPLE, BECAUSE WE DON'T PRESERVE GREEN SPACE ON OUR CODES AS MISS MARTIN 2022 PRESENTATION PRESENTED WHERE 40% LOT COVERAGE REALLY BECOMES 90% PAVED.

AS LONG AS YOU CAN HANDLE YOUR STORMWATER THIS BECOMES MORE AND MORE OF A IMPORTANT PUBLIC ASSET THAT WE ARE GIVING AWAY AND PAVING FOR, FOR THE BENEFIT OF A OF A PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND POSSIBLY SOME, YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENTS IF IT BACKS UP, WHICH I COULD. I FORGET WHAT THAT GRADE WAS THAT THAT THAT CAME UP WITH THAT INTERSECTION.

YOU KNOW HOW WE GRADE THEM. WAS IT A C OR A D? FOR THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION? I THINK THIS ONE WAS NEAR FAILING WHEN IT WAS EVALUATED.

YEAH. BY THE PETITIONER'S AGENT. YES. AND SO HAVE WE EVER DONE A SCENARIO OR HAS THE PETITIONER DONE A SCENARIO WHERE WE DON'T TAKE PUBLIC SPACE AND AND IT FUNCTIONS? IMAGINE IF EVERYBODY DID THIS WHEN THEY BUILT EVERYBODY TOOK THEIR, YOU KNOW, AND PUT CEMENT OVER THERE THAT THIS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

WHAT WOULD THE CITY LOOK LIKE. AND WAS THERE A SCENARIO WHERE WE SAID, OKAY, YOU BUILT THIS THING AND IT IS NOT THE CITY'S JOB TO SOLVE THIS THING FOR ON BEHALF OF IT. AND I SEE A LOT OF STRUGGLING IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH THE STACKING.

AND I SEE THESE THESE NOTES THAT IT WAS A VERY WELL WRITTEN LETTER BY MISS BARBARA WALKER.

BUT IS IT POSSIBLE, OR HAS THE SCENARIO BEEN LOOKED AT BY THE CITY STAFF WHERE WE DON'T TAKE THESE THIS GREEN SPACE AWAY AND THE HOTEL COULD FUNCTION, OR WAS IT SIMPLY BUILT TOO BIG THAT IT NEEDS TO PAVE UP PUBLIC SPACE? WELL, I THINK THAT WE TYPICALLY IN MOST CASES WE TRY TO LOOK AT AND AND I MEAN, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AND EVEN IF THEY DO TRIGGER A TURN LANE WE DO TRY OUR BEST TO NOT BECAUSE OF THE PRECIOUS SPACE THAT WE HAVE IN THE GREEN SPACE. THIS IS VERY RARE THAT YOU SEE A TURN LANE PROPOSED, AND I THINK THAT WAS PART OF WHEN THE INITIAL RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CLIENT WHEN THEY EVALUATED THIS, THAT THEY DID PROPOSE THE ROUNDABOUT TO PRESERVE RESERVE MORE GREEN SPACE.

I'M NOT TRYING TO PUSH THAT OPTION, BUT THAT WAS PART OF, I THINK, THE INTEREST AT THAT TIME AND THAT AND AGAIN, WE TYPICALLY DO NOT WE TRY TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO OFFSET THOSE TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND NOT LOOK TOWARDS THE FIRST CASE OF A OF A TURN LANES TO BE INCORPORATED.

AND THAT'S REALLY FOR THAT REASON THAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP TO PRESERVE THAT GREEN SPACE IF WE CAN.

HAVE YOU EVER LOOKED AT PLAN C WHERE WE DON'T DO EITHER OF THOSE, BUT KEEP IT AS AS IS? AND YOU KNOW WHAT? ASK THE PETITIONER TO SAY, HOW WOULD YOU YOU BUILT THIS HOTEL, HOW IS IT GOING TO FUNCTION? WELL. AND. DO YOU RECALL, I BELIEVE, THE LAST MEETING I PRESENTED SOME NUMBERS THAT WE DID A STUDY THERE AND IT WARRANTED IT. ALL THESE TURN MOVEMENTS THE NORTHBOUND MOVEMENT, I BELIEVE IT WAS LIKE 60%.

WE'RE TURNING RIGHT VERSUS GOING STRAIGHT. AND THE WESTBOUND MOVEMENT WAS LIKE A 90 TO 10 THAT WE WERE COUNTING AS FAR AS TURN STUDIES. SO THE INTERSECTION INTERSECTION, I FEEL WITH NORM AND THEM THAT IT DOES WARRANT DOING SOMETHING THERE AND VERSUS NOT DOING SOMETHING ALONG WITH THE EXTRA 10% OF TRAFFIC THAT WE WILL GET FROM THE HOTEL NOT DOING SOMETHING, I THINK IT WILL BACK UP TRAFFIC EVEN MORE SO, EVEN IF THIS HOTEL DID NOT EXIST, YOU WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED PUTTING A TURN LANE IN.

WE WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT IT EVENTUALLY. YES. OKAY, OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMPLETE I AM COMPLETE. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER. YES, WITH RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUE WHO I LOVE IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S A43 VOTE, IT'S NOT A THING. IT WAS APPROVED. IT WAS APPROVED IN 2018.

MY OTHER COLLEAGUE WHO I LOVE, THIS IS. IT'S GREAT FORWARD THINKING.

MAYBE IN THE FUTURE. THE FACT IS THIS WAS APPROVED.

WE CANNOT LIKE THE PROJECT OR WHATEVER. IT WAS APPROVED IN 2018.

[01:40:03]

YES. AND IN FAIRNESS, TALK ABOUT TAKING PUBLIC LAND IS A LITTLE HYPERBOLIC.

WHAT IS IT? THREE TREES. I WENT OUT THERE AND LOOKED, I CAN'T REMEMBER. THERE'S FIVE TREES, FIVE TREES AND A STRIP OF LAND.

MAYBE THAT, AS YOU KNOW, THIS WIDE DOWN THE DOWN THE WALL THERE.

REGRETTABLE. NONETHELESS, THE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO BE MADE.

AND THANKFULLY, WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO WILL PARTNER WITH US AND SAVE US A HALF $1 MILLION IN FIXING IT. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS FOR NOW.

I'D JUST LIKE TO MOVE THIS THING FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. KRAMER.

THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. AGAIN, I THINK THAT VOTE PRIOR TO LEFT US WITH A LOT OF DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DO WHAT WAS APPROVED.

AND I AGREE, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON ALSO. BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS LIKE WE'LL, WE WON'T SEE THE LANDSCAPING AND THE SIDEWALK THAT YOU MENTIONED MISS PICKETT BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU WERE WORKING ON THAT. WELL, THAT MAY THAT MAY ULTIMATELY END UP COMING BACK BEFORE YOU.

WE'LL HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT. IT DEPENDS ON IF WHAT WE CAN WORK OUT.

THERE'S A FEW ISSUES THAT WE HAVE REVIEWING THE THE PROPOSED PLAN, AND WE WILL NOT BE LOOKING AT SIGNAGE.

SIGNAGE IS. WELL, THERE IS SIGNAGE SHOWN ON THE PLAN NOW, THE VALET, THE SIGNAGE RELATING TO THE VALET AND THE SIGNAGE RELATING TO THE TURN LANE IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW.

THE ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAY BE ASSOCIATED LIKE THAT? THE MAYBE THE SIGNAGE? AND I'M TRYING TO THINK WHAT ELSE.

THERE'S THE NO ENTRANCE SIGNAGE PERHAPS, BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T.

THERE'S LIMITED OTHER SIGNAGE THAT'S PROPOSED IN THIS PLAN, BUT THAT WOULD BE ULTIMATELY THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF WHAT WOULD BE INCLUDED ON THE PLAN THAT I REFERRED TO WITH THE BRICK PAVERS AND LANDSCAPING AND WHATNOT.

THAT IS PART OF REALLY THE SITE RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT SEPARATE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT.

OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE SIGNAGE THAT WILL IDENTIFY THE HOTEL WHERE WHO'S APPROVING THAT? THERE IS NOT THE ONLY SIGNAGE THAT IS PROPOSED FOR THIS PLAN IS THE VALET RELATED SIGNAGE.

I THINK THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SIGNAGE THAT THAT MAY PERHAPS FOR THE BUILDING THAT WAS NOT IT'S NOT PROPOSED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THAT WOULD BE I DON'T KNOW IF WITH IF SO, NO SIGNAGE AT THE GARAGE.

THERE IS THERE'S SIGNAGE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE VALET ENTRANCE THAT YOU CAN SEE ON THE PLAN THAT WE COULD GET INTO IF YOU WANT ME TO TRY TO ZOOM IN, BUT THERE'S THERE IS SIGNAGE SHOWN FOR THE VALET IN THE ENTRY INTO THE GARAGE THAT IS IDENTIFIED.

AND PART OF THIS PLAN, THE SIGNAGE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDE IS NOT PART OF IT, BUT THE SIGNAGE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN IS, CAN YOU JUST SHOW ME THAT I DIDN'T? OKAY, SO LET ME MAKE SURE I'M ON THE RIGHT PLAN.

OKAY. SO THE YOU'LL SEE OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN WHERE IT STATES PERMANENT VALET PARKING SIGN.

LEGEND. MAXIMUM HEIGHT 36IN ABOVE EXISTING GRADE THAT HAS NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO.

NUMBER ONE IS THE STATEMENT OF VALET PARKING LIMITED TO OLD NAPLES HOTEL, CAFE, BAR, SPA, SUNDRIES SHOP AND COMMERCIAL RETAIL. NO CHARGE WITH VALIDATION.

THE SECOND SIGN, NUMBER TWO, IS OLD NAPLES HOTEL VALET PARKING ONLY.

NO PUBLIC PARKING ACCESS. SO WHEN YOU LOOK OVER HERE ONTO THE SCREEN, I WILL ZOOM IN.

YOU WILL SEE NUMBER ONE RIGHT HERE. AND NUMBER TWO OVER HERE ON THE SIDE OF THE SCREEN.

BOTH OF THOSE, WE I DID REQUEST THAT WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE LOCATIONS, BECAUSE I WANT TO ASSURE THAT WE HAVE CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT VISIBILITY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.

SO. THE SIGNAGE WILL BE. THERE'S A SIGN THAT'S NEAR THE PROPERTY LINE OVER HERE.

THAT'S NUMBER TWO. THAT IS THE ONE THAT STATES THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL.

VALET PARKING ONLY. NO PUBLIC PARKING ACCESS.

AND THEN NUMBER ONE IS THE ONE WHERE IT STATES WHO THE VALET IS.

[01:45:02]

FOR THAT I JUST READ RIGHT HERE. VALET PARKING LIMITED TO OLD NAPLES HOTEL, CAFE BAR, SPA, SUNDRIES SHOP. SO THAT IS WHAT'S SHOWN RIGHT HERE AT THE DROP OFF AREA.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT I HEARD YOU SAY THERE ARE 11 SPACES THAT WERE LOST ON BROAD.

YES. I CAN GO BACK TO LET ME SEE THE PLAN.

I NEED TO ZOOM OUT AGAIN. SORRY. OKAY, SO THERE ARE THERE'S FOUR SPACES RIGHT HERE ON THE PLAN.

THOSE WILL BE ELIMINATED BECAUSE OF THAT. THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THE TURN LANE.

THERE'S THE OTHER THREE SPACES RIGHT HERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

AND THEN JUST IN ADVANCE OF THE CROSSWALK OVER HERE TO THE RIGHT SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

THE OTHER THREE SPACES. AND THEN JUST TO THE NORTH, THERE'S ONE OTHER ONE MARKED PARKING SPACE THAT EQUATE TO 11 PARKING SPACES.

AND THOSE ARE THE SPACES IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENTS.

YES. AND IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL. CORRECT. AND WHERE ARE THE FIVE SPACES THAT YOU INDICATED? WERE CREATED? THERE'S FIVE SPACES AND IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION.

IT'S NOT SHOWN IN THESE SET OF PLANS. IT'S UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT REQUEST.

BUT THOSE ARE LET ME JUST READ THAT TO 14TH AND 13TH.

YES, I BELIEVE SO. SO THERE'S FIVE AND FOURTH.

YES. YES. WE HAVE THREE ON FOURTH STREET AND THEN TWO ADDITIONAL PARKINGS ON 14TH AVENUE SOUTH.

AND SO THEY WERE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY WHERE THERE WERE SWALES, AND NOW THEY'RE BRICK PAVERS.

SO NOW THE THAT PLAN. YES, THAT PLAN, IT WAS MODIFIED.

AND WE DID. YES. I BELIEVE IT WAS PERMEABLE PAVERS THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED.

AND WE DID LOOK AT THE THE STORMWATER AS WELL WITH THAT PLAN.

SO THERE WERE SOME ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE TO BE MADE FOR THE SWALE.

I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT BEEN ON SITE TO LOOK AT IT SINCE I BELIEVE DAVE HAS, BUT YEAH, THE UNDER THAT RESOLUTION, 2018 14149, IT STATES THE PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FIVE ON STREET PARKING SPACES ON 14TH AVENUE SOUTH AND FOURTH STREET SOUTH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A 385 14TH AVENUE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLAN PREPARED BY DAVID DAVIDSON ENGINEERING.

AND THEY DID SUBMIT A RIGHT OF WAY APPLICATION FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AT THAT LOCATION AS WELL.

OKAY. SO THEY AND DID THEY ALSO PAY FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS? YES. OKAY. SO ARE THOSE SPACES WILL IN THE FUTURE BE IDENTIFIED FOR THEIR PARKING? THEY'RE OPEN FOR ANY PUBLIC. ANY PLACES THAT THERE'S IT'S CONVERTED FROM GREEN SPACE TO HARDSCAPE.

WHETHER THAT BE IT'S TYPICALLY NOT LIME ROCK BUT PERMEABLE PAVERS OR ANY KIND OF HARD SCAPE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PER OUR CITY CODE. SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE NOT DESIGNATED DIRECTLY TO THE HOTEL.

THOSE ARE JUST AVAILABLE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN THAT AREA.

OKAY. AND THEY WERE NOT THERE WAS NOT PARKING THERE FOR THAT DRIVE THRU, RIGHT? CORRECT. I HAVE VICE MAYOR. WELL. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PREPARATION ON THIS. THIS DOES TO COUNCILWOMAN PENMAN'S COMMENTS.

THIS DOES TAKE ME BACK. AND I THINK COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN ALSO HAD SOME COMMENTS THAT TOOK ME BACK IN TIME TO WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ISSUE LATE INTO THE NIGHT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M LEVEL SET WHETHER WE'RE HANDLING WHICH AGENDA ITEM 13 A OR B ON RIGHT NOW. WHICH ONE ARE WE HANDLING? WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT 13 B. WELL, WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE INTERSECTION.

EVEN THOUGH THE PETITIONER GAVE THE INTERSECTION AND THE VALET.

YEP. WE JUST THOUGHT TO KEEP IT CLEAN. WE WOULD DO THE INTERSECTION, BUT THEY DO INTERTWINE.

OKAY. OKAY. FIRST OF ALL TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY, ON EACH AGENDA ITEM, THERE WAS A MEMORANDUM. THERE IS A RESOLUTION.

THERE IS NO OPTION. I WANT TO VERIFY THIS. THERE IS NO OPTION IN THE RESOLUTION TO NOT PASS IT ON EITHER ITEM.

IS THAT CORRECT? YOU HAVE THAT OPTION. I DIDN'T SEE IT.

AND IT'S NOT WRITTEN. THESE RESOLUTIONS ARE WRITTEN IN A WAY OF APPROVAL, BUT IF IT DOESN'T PASS,

[01:50:07]

THEN IT DOESN'T GET APPROVED. AND WHAT REASONING? TYPICALLY WHEN YOU SEE THAT IF YOU IF YOU FAIL THE ITEM, THERE'S REASONING GIVEN FOR NOT PASSING THEM. IS THAT REQUIRED HERE? I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO THIS IS NOT A STANDARD LAND USE ITEM, SUCH AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND AN OUTDOOR DINING WHERE THERE'S SPECIFIC CRITERIA.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO UTILIZE PUBLIC PROPERTY, HENCE THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT REQUEST.

SO THERE IS NOT THAT IN THE RESOLUTION. SO IF IT FAILS BY A VOTE I MEAN THERE WILL BE CONVERSATION AROUND IT, BUT WE'RE NOT COMPELLED TO PROVIDE EXACTLY WHERE IT FAILED.

I ALWAYS SUGGEST DOING THAT. SO YOU SHOULD ALWAYS GIVE REASONING AS TO WHY YOU'RE SAYING NO TO SOMETHING.

BUT BUT AGAIN, THIS IS HERE. THE ONLY REASON THIS IS HERE IS BECAUSE THERE'S A CONDITION IN THE 2018 RESOLUTION THAT REQUIRED THESE BE HANDLED THROUGH SEPARATE RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS. BUT FOR THAT, THIS WOULD NOT BE HERE.

RIGHT? THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN 2018 AND IT WOULD HAVE MOVED FORWARD. SO THIS IS HERE ON TWO SPECIFIC REQUESTS.

RIGHT OF WAY. PERMIT FOR VALET. RIGHT OF WAY.

PERMIT FOR INTERSECTION. INTERSECTIONS. OKAY.

I JUST THOUGHT THE COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO KNOW IF YOU READ THE THE MATERIALS AND THEN THE RECOMMENDED ACTION.

THE THE MEMO HAS A RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR US TO CONSIDER EACH OF THESE SEPARATE ITEMS A AND B, 13 A AND 13 B, CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THAT HELPS. A COUPLE THINGS THAT. AND I'VE GOT THE VALET INTERTWINED WITH SOME OF THE INTERSECTION. AND WHEN I SAY INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, YOU KNOW, INTERSECTION AND THINGS AROUND THE INTERSECTION BECAUSE IT ALL KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THIS A LOT OF ACTIVITY THAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING HERE.

FIRST OF ALL TAKE US BACK. WHOEVER'S OPERATING THIS, IF THEY WOULD TAKE US BACK TO THE GORDON DRIVE PICTURE WITH THE MARKINGS DENOTING WHERE DELIVERY VEHICLES ARE COMING OR BACKING IN OR COMING OUT OF THE GARAGE BACK UP ONTO GORDON DRIVE.

SO I'M LOOKING FOR THOSE STRIPED AREAS. THAT KIND OF AN ELLIPSE, IF YOU WOULD KEEP GOING RIGHT THERE.

WHAT DO YOU CALL THOSE STRIPES, BY THE WAY? SOMEBODY HAD A TERM FOR IT AND I LOST IT.

THEY'RE USUALLY CALLED A GORE. SAY IT AGAIN. A GORE.

ONE MORE TIME. GORE. GORE. YES. GORE MARKS G O.

GORE MARKS. OKAY, CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM WHAT DOCUMENT AND WHAT DOCUMENT IS THIS PLAN RIGHT HERE.

WHAT DO WE CALL THE WHOLE DRAWING RIGHT AWAY PLANS? THAT'S THE RIGHT OF WAY PLAN WITH THE GORE MARKINGS.

YES. ALL RIGHT, SO THESE MARKINGS TRAFFIC'S GOING TO BE GOING OVER THESE MARKINGS DAY IN AND DAY OUT.

IT HASN'T BEEN SAID, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE I SEE THIS ALL OVER TOWN, AND IT KIND OF BUGS ME WHERE THE MARKINGS GET FADED OR WORN. WHO WHO IS AT THE CITY THAT REFRESHES THESE WHEN IT'S NEEDED? YES. THAT'S MY LUCKY JOB. THAT'S YOUR JOB? OKAY, NOW YOU KNOW WHO TO COMPLAIN TO IF YOU HAVE ONE.

USUALLY THEY'LL PAINT IT AND THEN THEY'LL THERMO IT, WHICH IS A THERMOPLASTIC.

AND WE'LL GET FIVE YEARS OUT OF THE THERMOPLASTIC.

OKAY. SO IT'LL BE THERMOPLASTIC. CORRECT. YEAH.

THAT'S SOME TOUGH STUFF. OKAY. AND REPOSITIONING THE CROSSWALK.

MR.. CELLPHONE AND SOME OF THE CITY STAFF WORKED ON REPOSITIONING DISCUSSION ABOUT REPOSITIONING THE CROSSWALK FROM THE NORTHERN PART OF THAT INTERSECTION TO THE SOUTHERN PART OF THAT INTERSECTION.

AND THAT IS AT THE CORNER OF GORDON. AND WHAT, 12TH AVENUE SOUTH? 12TH AVENUE SOUTH. OKAY. I WAS PART OF IT, AND I AGREED WITH STEFAN AT THE TIME.

BECAUSE WHEN THE PIERS HAS HEAVY TRAFFIC AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE YOU'VE PROBABLY GONE THAT WAY.

THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT COME OUT OF 12TH, AND AS THEY'RE TURNING OUT, THEY HAVE TO STOP FOR THE PEDESTRIAN ON THE NORTH SIDE BY

[01:55:04]

PUTTING ON ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WE WOULD ALLEVIATE THAT ISSUE AND LET THEM FLOW WITH THE NEW TURN LANE AND EVERYTHING AND NOT HAVE A PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT. YEAH, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

I'M SURE EVERYONE IS. IS THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY COMING TO AND FROM THE PIER? THE PIER IS A VERY POPULAR DESTINATION, RIGHT? SO DOES THIS INTERSECTION WARRANT A A FLASHING LIGHT SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE IN SCHOOL ZONES AND OTHERWISE, THAT NOTIFIES THAT TRAFFIC GOING NORTH AND SOUTH ON GORDON, THAT WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WITH BEACH GEAR AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOING TO AND FROM THAT HOTEL AND OTHER OTHER DESTINATIONS. IT DOESN'T SHOW IT ON THE PLANS NOW, BUT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT.

IT'D BE PROBABLY A GOOD LOCATION TO PUT ONE THERE.

TYPICALLY FOR MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS WHERE THERE'S NOT A STOP CONDITION, WE DO TRY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE.

SO THERE IS NO STOP CONDITION AT THAT INTERSECTION.

COUNCIL. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, THAT WE WHATEVER HAPPENS AT THAT INTERSECTION OF THAT REPOSITIONING REPOSITIONED CROSSWALK, WHAT DO WE CALL THAT DEVICE? THE DEVICE. NO, THE THE RAPID FLASHERS. THE RAPID FLASHERS.

WHAT DO WE IT'S THAT'S WHAT IT'S CALLED. RAPID FLASHERS.

FOR ME, I'D FEEL A LOT BETTER IF WE PUT RAPID FLASHERS THERE.

IS THAT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CITY? GENERALLY, YES, GENERALLY.

OKAY, BUT IT'S PART OF WHAT? BICYCLE MASTER PLAN THAT SHE BROUGHT LAST WEEK.

WE HAD PUT IN THERE FOR ADDITIONAL FLASHERS SO WE WOULD HAVE THEM IN INVENTORY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

YEAH. WE'RE CHANGING. WE'RE POTENTIALLY CHANGING THE CONFIGURATION OF HOW TRAFFIC MOVES, THE INTENSITY OF THE FOOT, PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC.

SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S A CONDITION THAT IF IF COUNCIL WOULD AGREE THAT WE PUT ON THE THE IMPROVEMENTS, THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, ADDITIONALLY GOING BACK UP TO THE GORE MARKINGS, IF WE COULD, RIGHT THERE WHEN A VEHICLE IS COMING OUT OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

THIS IS THE PATH. ANY VEHICLE WILL COME. IS THAT CORRECT? EXITING. YES. YES. AND TO BE CLEAR, THERE'S NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXIT THE GARAGE ONTO BROAD.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS AN ENTRY. THAT'S ENTRY ONLY.

AND IT'LL BE MARKED AS SUCH. RIGHT? YES. I BELIEVE THERE'S THE ENTRY ONLY.

AND THEN THERE IS, I BELIEVE ON THE A LOADING SPACE THOUGH ON IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN ON THE EASTERNMOST ENTRY THERE. THERE IS I BELIEVE THAT'S FOR LOADING.

IS THERE A DEVICE THAT PREVENTS VEHICLES FROM EXITING THE PARKING GARAGE GOING THAT WAY? IN OTHER WORDS, I'VE BEEN IN PARKING LOTS WHERE IF YOU EXITED SOMEWHERE YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO EXIT, YOU'RE GOING TO PUNCTURE YOUR TIRES. WELL, THERE'S THERE THERE IS PROPOSED SIGNAGE THAT I BELIEVE THAT WAS FOR DO NOT ENTER.

AND THAT THAT IS ONLY FOR THE VALET. AND IT SHOULD ULTIMATELY BE UTILIZED FOR THE VALET OPERATORS.

THEY OR THEY SHOULD BE THE ONLY ONES THAT I THINK THIS IS INTENDED FOR AND FOR THE FOR THE GARAGE AND PARKING AREA.

IT MAY BE INTENDED, BUT WE HAVE NO CONTROL ABOUT WHO PULLS INTO THAT ENTRY SPACE, DO WE? I SOMEBODY WANTS TO PULL IN. THERE'S NO CONTROL.

THEY CAN PULL UP ALL THE WAY TO THE MAST ARM? YEAH. TO THE GATE. YES, TO THE GATE. AND THAT'S A PROPOSED GATE.

OR IS THAT A DONE DEAL? THAT'S A PROPOSED. THEY HAVE PROPOSED AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE PLANS PROPOSED HINGED GATE ARM TO PREDICT OR PREVENT PUBLIC VEHICLE INGRESS. YEAH. PROPOSED. WHAT IS IS EVERYTHING.

DO WE HAVE TO PUT PROPOSED ON EVERYTHING? IS IT TO HAPPEN OR NOT TO HAPPEN UNTIL WE APPROVE IT OR NOT? SO REALLY EVERYTHING ON THIS IS PROPOSED. WELL, YES.

YES, IN THE RIGHT. WELL I MEAN THERE'S THE, THE PRIVATE SIDE THAT IS NOT THE, THE BUILDING IS NOT.

THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. GOT IT. YEAH. I'M JUST IT'S, IT'S I GET DOWN INTO THESE DETAILS BECAUSE WHEN IT SAYS PROPOSED AND EVERYTHING ELSE DOESN'T SAY PROPOSED. I'M WONDERING WHAT'S REALLY PROPOSED.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OR IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

[02:00:05]

BUT LET'S GET BACK TO THE GATE ARM. AND THEN I'LL GO.

WELL, LET'S DON'T GO THERE. LET'S GO BACK TO THE GORE, PLEASE.

BUT THIS IS A ONE WAY OUT. OR IN RATHER, THE THE GATE ARM IS ONE WAY IN.

NOBODY'S GOING OUT THAT DIRECTION. BUT RIGHT HERE, IF I'M DRIVING A VEHICLE, IF I'M A VALET OR A TRUCK DRIVER, WHATEVER. HOW FAR OUT DO I NEED YOU TO SHOW ME BY THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE? HOW FAR OUT THAT VEHICLE HAS TO COME BEFORE THEY CAN SEE BOTH WAYS UP AND DOWN GORDON DRIVE.

SO TYPICALLY FOR VISIBILITY FROM A VISIBILITY STANDPOINT, YOU TYPICALLY MEASURE FROM LIKE THE EDGE OF THE TRAVEL LANE.

AND YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S VISIBILITY APPROXIMATELY 14.5FT BACK.

FOR THE DRIVER'S EYESIGHT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT VISIBILITY AND DETERMINING.

SO THERE SHOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 14.5FT BACK FROM THAT TREBLE EDGE.

THAT SHOULD BE VISIBLE. WHERE'S THE. IF I'M IN A VEHICLE, EITHER A TRUCK OR A CAR, USING THAT HAND THAT IS ON THE SCREEN, WHERE DO MY EYES NEED TO BE INSIDE THAT VEHICLE TO SEE UP AND DOWN THAT SIDEWALK AND SEE TRAFFIC? YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING, RIGHT? THERE'S A STOP BAR LOCATED THERE.

AND THERE'S A WHAT? THERE'S A STOP BAR IF YOU CAN LOOK AT IT ON THERE AS YOU'RE COMING OUT.

FROM THAT POINT THERE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE BOTH DIRECTIONS, LINE OF SIGHT, AND THEN PROCEED FROM THERE.

OKAY. SO THEY'RE NOT IN THE SIDEWALK, ARE THEY BEHIND A WALL? NO. STOP BAR IS REQUIRED TO BE FOUR FEET BACK FROM A CROSSWALK.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE VEHICLE IS GOING TO BE.

RIGHT. IT'LL BE FOUR FOOT BACK FROM THE SIDEWALK, THE EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK THERE.

SO THEY SHOULD. AND BEING THAT WE'RE REMOVING THE TREES TO THE NORTH, YOU'LL HAVE A CLEANER LINE OF SIGHT.

THAT WAY, IF A VEHICLE STOPS AT THAT BROAD BLACK BAR, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO SEE BOTH DIRECTIONS DOWN THAT STREET AND SIDEWALKS? YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO. HOWEVER, ANY NORMAL STOP BAR.

THAT'S WORDS. WE LOOK AT THE LINE OF SIGHT. YEAH, SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO JUST EASE ON UP A LITTLE MORE JUST TO MAKE SURE NO ONE'S COMING DOWN THE ROAD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN THE FUTURE STATE WHEN THIS IS BUILT, I BELIEVE THE PEDESTRIANS GOING TO AND FROM THE PIER ARE COMING DOWN.

IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE HOTEL, YOU'RE COMING DOWN THIS SIDEWALK. CORRECT? I'M JUST ASKING.

CORRECT. YEAH. SO HERE YOU GOT EVERYONE, ELDERLY AND OTHERWISE, MOMS WITH STROLLERS, LITTLE DOGS, WHATEVER. AND THEY'RE WALKING DOWN THAT SIDEWALK.

THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE TO THE CROSSING WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

RIGHT. I'M THINKING THAT KNOWING THE INTENSITY OF TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF THAT PARKING GARAGE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY EXIT AND THE TYPE OF TRUCKS THAT IF WE'RE PUTTING A RAPID FLASHER AT THE INTERSECTION, THE CROSSWALK, THAT THERE MIGHT BE MERIT IN NOTIFYING THE DRIVERS COMING OUT OF THAT PARKING GARAGE, THAT WE'VE GOT PEOPLE ABOUT TO CROSS, THAT EXIT OUT OF THE HOTEL, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN A HURRY.

I KNOW VALET, HOW THEY MOVE VEHICLES AND TRY TO SPEED THINGS UP.

MY QUESTION IS THIS WITHOUT THE ARE WE PROTECTING? ARE WE PROPERLY PROTECTING THE PEDESTRIANS BY NOT PUTTING THOSE RAPID FLASHERS AT THAT POINT? WE TYPICALLY WOULD NOT PUT RAPID FLASHERS THERE OR A LIGHT SOMETHING, BUT A SIGN.

I DON'T DISAGREE THAT A SIGN WITH PERHAPS THE STOP SIGN NOTIFYING THOSE DRIVERS PULLING OUT THAT TO CAUTION OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. AND I STATE THAT AS I DO HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER THAT WAS THAT WAS INJURED AND HIT BY A CAR PULLING OUT OF A SIMILAR HOTEL SITUATION, AND THEY DID END UP ADDING SIGNAGE.

SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT IS A GOOD POINT. I THINK IT'S A I THINK IT'S A POINT OF WEAKNESS.

I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE THIS OVERLY BURDENSOME, BUT I'M JUST WE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY.

IT'S ONLY PEOPLE. THANK YOU. SORRY. THE ONLY PEOPLE USING THIS ARE GOING TO BE EMPLOYEES OR VALET.

[02:05:04]

RIGHT. THEREFORE, WHY NOT PUT A AN ARM THERE? THAT'S THAT'S WAIT. RESPONSIVE. SO THE VEHICLES HAVE TO COME TO A STOP WHEN THEY'RE LEAVING THAT POINT.

THE ONLY PERSON YOU'RE, YOU'RE PUTTING ANY TYPE OF BURDEN ON ARE GOING TO BE EMPLOYEES AND VALET.

THEY'RE FORCED TO STOP BEFORE THEY CAN CONTINUE.

THAT SLOWS THEM DOWN. YEAH. I MEAN, THAT'S A LOGICAL IDEA.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO PROBABLY PROVIDE A REMOTE THEN FOR THE TRUCKS TO BE ABLE TO HIT THAT, FOR IT TO OPEN THE BACK UP TO OR AN I.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, A A BEAM. IT'S A YES, PLEASE.

A MOMENT AGAIN. AND IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF ANDREW ROTH WITH DAVIDSON ENGINEERING.

THERE IS A GATE ARM ON THE PLAN THERE. OH THERE IS, YEAH.

THERE. YEP. RIGHT HERE. VEHICULAR CONTROL GATE ARM IS PROPOSED, RIGHT? THAT ONE DOESN'T SAY PROPOSED, BUT IT'S RIGHT UP.

HERE WE GO. VEHICLE CONTROL GATE ARMS. OKAY, SO IT'S RIGHT HERE, AND IT'S SITUATED BETWEEN THAT STOP BAR AND THE CROSSWALK.

OKAY, COOL. I SHOULD I SHOULD TAKE CARE OF IT.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. BUT TO ADD ON TO THAT, WHAT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT DRIVEWAY AND THE CROSSWALK THAT EXISTS? IS THAT DO YOU HAVE HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THAT CROSSWALK? ORIGINAL ONE. THE ORIGINAL. THE ORIGINAL ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE.

WE ARE ELIMINATING THAT CROSSWALK COMPLETELY AS PART OF THE MILLING AND RESTRIPING AND EVERYTHING.

IT WILL NOT BE THERE. AND IN THE CONCRETE. WE ARE CUTTING THEM SECTIONS NOT TO LEAD YOU OUT TO THE ROAD AT THAT LOCATION.

SO IT'S COMING DOWN. THE SIDEWALK WILL CONTINUE SOUTH TO THE NEW CROSSWALK THERE.

SO THERE WILL NOT BE A CROSSWALK TO GET TO THE PIER.

ONLY ON THE SOUTH PART OF THE INTERSECTION OF 12 AND GORDON.

SOUTH PART OF 12TH AVENUE. SOUTH. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE THE VISUAL HERE.

YEAH, IT WAS RELOCATED ON THE, ON THE SOUTH, NOT INSTEAD OF THE NORTH.

YOU CAN SEE THE NORTH CROSSING THAT THAT ONE IS BEING ELIMINATED.

AND THEN WE'RE PUTTING IN THEY'RE INSTALLING THE CROSSWALK ON THE SOUTH LEG.

OKAY. THAT'S THE MOST DANGEROUS INTERSECTION WE HAVE.

AND THAT'S GOING TO THERE'S ALREADY A CROSSWALK THERE.

CORRECT. WELL, THAT'S THAT'S THIS IS THIS IS ON BROAD.

SO THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE IS WILL BE ELIMINATED, WILL BE REMOVED, AND THEN IT WILL BE WE WILL BE INSTALLING ONE OR THEY WILL BE INSTALLING ONE ON THE SOUTH LEG. AND MADAM MAYOR, THIS IS WHERE THIS IS WHERE WE HAD DISCUSSED THE RAPID FLASHERS RIGHT HERE.

THERE'S THE ONE. HERE'S THE EXIT. I'M SORRY, BUT I TO BE CLEAR, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND GORDON CROSSWALK. THAT'S RIGHT THERE AT THE PIER. THERE'S TWO.

GOT IT. THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF THE GARAGE EXIT.

I'M LOST. THERE'S A CROSSWALK. THE ONE THAT IS BEING ELIMINATED, THAT IS BEING REMOVED RIGHT HERE.

THEY'RE PROPOSING BROAD, THOUGH. THIS IS. YEAH.

THIS IS THAT'S 12TH AVENUE SOUTH. THIS IS ON GORDON.

SO THAT'LL BE REMOVED. AND IT WILL GO TO THE SOUTH SOUTH PART OF THE INTERSECTION.

GET IT AWAY FROM THIS. THIS IS KIND OF A ZOOMED IN VERSION HERE.

THIS IS THE EXIT OF THE VALET. IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR SCREEN AND THEN DOWN BELOW THAT IN THAT CROSSWALK WILL BE REMOVED.

AND THE CROSSWALK, I BELIEVE WE WOULD PROBABLY REMOVE THAT WHOLE SECTION THERE.

TO MAKE IT SAFE. SO THERE'LL BE A CROSSWALK AT BROAD AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF BROAD ON SECOND.

THE SOUTH SIDE OF 12TH. YES. RIGHT. BUT I'M JUST ASKING.

YEAH, WE'LL STILL HAVE THE CROSSWALK ON BROAD.

THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO 12TH AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE ON THE SOUTH PART OF 12TH AS WELL.

AND ELIMINATE THE AND CONSIDER THE RAPID FLASHERS AT THAT LOCATION.

AND HOW MUCH DISTANCE WILL YOU HAVE THEN. MUCH BETTER.

YEAH. YOU'LL HAVE FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. WE FELT THAT IT WAS SAFER TO HAVE IT ON THE SOUTH END VERSUS THE NORTH END BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT COMES OUT OF THE PEER TO TURN NORTH ON GORDON. SO YOU'LL HAVE THAT CROSSWALK AT 12TH AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE CROSSWALK AT 13TH.

WE. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE CROSSWALK ON 13TH.

WELL, PEOPLE ARE THEY CROSS THERE. I'LL HAVE TO.

[02:10:01]

YEAH, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. VICE MAYOR. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO GOING BACK, WE HAVE A WE HAVE A GATE ARM THAT WILL HAPPEN THERE, RIGHT? OKAY. AWESOME. I THINK THAT WILL REALLY HELP US.

TO PROTECT PEDESTRIANS AND ALSO HELP CONTROL THE THE SPEED OF THE TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF THE GARAGE.

NOW, THE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIGNALIZATION AND HOW THE TRAFFIC REALLY WORKS IN AND AROUND THIS SITE, BUT NOT GOING INTO VALET WHEN IT COMES TO VALET.

MADAM MAYOR, I'VE JUST GOT A WHOLE DIFFERENT SERIES OF QUESTIONS, BUT GOING TO THE SIGNAGE.

MISS PICKETT THAT WE HAD ON THE ENTRANCE TO THE GARAGE? YES, WE HAD TWO PIECES OF SIGNAGE. COULD WE GO TO THE WORDING ON THE SIGNAGE? YES. RIGHT THERE. SO SIGNAGE NUMBER ONE, IS THAT POINTING ONE SPECIFIC DIRECTION OR BOTH DIRECTIONS, THE SIGNAGE, WILL IT BE FACING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER OR BOTH? I BELIEVE IN THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH THEM VERY CLOSELY WHEN THIS IS BEING INSTALLED TO MAKE SURE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S FACING TOWARDS THE VALET OFF.

YES. THE VALET. MAKE SENSE? DROP OFF AREA. YEAH.

IS IT EXTERNALLY LIT OR INTERNALLY LIT OR NOT? THERE'S ANY LIGHTING ON THAT SIGN. THERE IS. IT HAS NOT BEEN PROPOSED.

I BELIEVE IT'S JUST. ARE WE OKAY WITH IT BEING HIDDEN FOR A GOOD PART OF THE DAY.

RIGHT BESIDE IT, WE HAVE A STREET LIGHT THERE THAT WILL ILLUMINATE THAT AREA, AND IT WILL BE RATHER CLOSE TO THE THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

AND OKAY, SO I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD I WOULD EXPECT THERE'S THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE LIGHTING.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THERE'S A LIGHT RIGHT HERE ON THE PLAN AS WELL.

THAT'S AND IT'LL BE EASILY. YOU'RE SAYING IT'LL BE EASILY READ FROM ANYBODY PULLING UP INTO THAT VALET.

I CAN'T I MEAN, THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF SIGNING.

YES. I MEAN, I CAN'T PROMISE HOW EASILY IT WILL BE READ, BUT I'M JUST ASKING.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WOULD BE.

IT WOULD NEED TO BE THE WAY THAT THE SIGN IS MADE AND THAT IT'S REFLECTIVE AND ALL THAT.

IF WE COULD MOVE. I JUST NEED TO LOOK AT THE THE WORDING FOR SIGNS ONE AND TWO OVER HERE ON THIS RIGHT SIDE.

JUST IF WE COULD SCOOT THAT TO MY LEFT. THERE YOU GO.

RIGHT THERE. OKAY, SO ON SIGN NUMBER ONE, THAT'S VISIBLE WHEN YOU PULL INTO THE VALET.

IT'S TELLING YOU WHAT VALET PARKING IS LIMITED TO.

SO IT'S GOT TO BE RED. NO MATTER OUR INTENT, IT HAS TO BE LEGIBLE.

FROM THE DISTANCE TO THE FRONT DOOR THERE. AND IT SAYS SUNDRY SHOP AND COMMERCIAL.

IS THAT RETAIL IN PARENTHESES? IS THAT ACTUALLY ON THE SIGN, OR IS THAT JUST FOR OUR BENEFIT? THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. AND COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL. SUNDRY SHOP AND COMMERCIAL.

DOES THIS MEAN COMMERCIAL RETAIL INSIDE THE HOTEL OR COMMERCIAL RETAIL IN THE AREA? IT SHOULD ONLY BE INSIDE THAT HOTEL. IN THE HOTEL.

I THINK THAT'S ALSO WHAT'S INDICATED IN THE THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION FOR THE PROPERTY.

RIGHT. IT WAS ONLY ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THE HOTEL.

YES. CORRECT. OKAY. IT'S UNCLEAR TO ME WHAT MESSAGE WE'RE SENDING.

I MEAN, THE SUNDRY SHOPS MAY BE JUST SHOPS, BUT WHEN YOU SAY COMMERCIAL RETAIL, I THINK WE NOW WE'RE WE'RE PUTTING WORDING OUT THERE THAT OPENS IT UP TO ANYTHING OVER IN THAT AREA.

SO I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. AND THEN IT SAYS NO CHARGE WITH VALIDATION.

SO WHEN IT GETS TO VALET I'M GOING TO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHO'S RESOLVING THOSE DISPUTES.

RIGHT. AND HOW THAT HAPPENS. ARE WE TAKING VALET PEOPLE OFF OF THEIR MISSION AND HELPING RESOLVE IT, OR ARE WE GOING TO THE FRONT DESK? IT'S GOING TO BE THAT KIND OF A DETAILED QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WE WERE PREPARED FOR WHEN WE GET DOWN TO IT.

AND THEN NUMBER TWO, I WANT TO GO TO THE NUMBER TWO SIGN, AND IT'S, IT'S RIGHT UP HERE CLOSER TO THE GATE.

THE PROPOSED HINGED GATE ARM. SO BY THE CURSOR, COULD YOU SHOW NUMBER TWO WHERE THAT SIGN IS GOING TO GO THERE.

NOW, MISS BICKET, THAT THAT I SEE THE ROAD THERE WHERE CARS GO.

THAT'S CARS ENTERING THE GARAGE. YES. IS THE ELEVATION GOING DOWN AT THAT POINT, OR IS THAT ELEVATION LEVEL WITH THE STREET? I BELIEVE THAT'S GOING DOWN. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. SO THAT SIGN.

[02:15:05]

DO WE KNOW? WHAT THE ELEVATION OF THAT SIGN IS? WHO'S GOING TO SEE IT? AND IS IT ONE SIDED OR TWO SIDED AGAIN? IS IT ONLY POINTING TOWARD PEOPLE COMING FROM THE HOTEL AND AND GOING INTO THAT RAMP DOWN INTO THE GARAGE? WELL, IT IT IS PER THE CRITERIA, IT HAS TO BE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 36IN ABOVE EXISTING GRADE.

AND THEN IT DOES HAVE THE DIMENSIONS ON HERE IF YOU READ THE SIGN LEGEND.

SO HOW FAR? HOW MY MY QUESTION IS THE GRADE. YES.

HOW FAR IS THAT? DIVING DOWN THERE. I DON'T HAVE THAT LEVEL, I JUST DETAIL.

AND THAT'S WHY I DID WANT TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE SIGN.

POSITIONING. YEAH. I DIDN'T WANT TO BE MARRIED TO EXACTLY WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE PLAN WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SEE IT AND BE ABLE TO ASSURE THAT IT'S SAFE AND IT'S VISIBLE AND THERE'S NO OTHER PROBLEMS. AND THE LIGHTING ON THIS ONE, ARE WE STILL DEPENDING ON STREET LIGHTING OR IS THIS EXTERNALLY OR INTERNALLY LIT? THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY IT SHOULD NOT BE LIT.

I BELIEVE THE SIGNS TYPICALLY ARE NOT ILLUMINATED SIGNS.

AND I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS THAT INDICATE OTHERWISE THAT IT'S NOT JUST A STANDARD POST SIGN. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT ANSWERS IT.

AND. AND THAT SIGNAGE. THIS SIGNAGE, DOES IT HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE. I MEAN, AND THIS IS VERY.

ATYPICAL THAT WE HAVE VALET PERMANENT SIGNAGE AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

THE OTHER CASES, IT'S BEEN JUST A REMOVABLE SIGN THAT'S SET OUT AND REMOVED ON A DAILY BASIS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE CASE.

YEP. ALL RIGHT. AND THE WHOLE POINT IN THAT WHOLE SIGNAGE, PEOPLE DON'T.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T PULL UP INTO VALET.

THEY'LL TRY TO SHORT CUT IT AND GO STRAIGHT TO THE PARKING.

IN OPTION. AND WHEN THEY PULL IN FRONT OF THAT GATE.

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT HAPPENS IF I'M IF I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT I PULL UP TO THAT OPTIONAL ARM AND THAT ARM ISN'T OPEN? I MEAN, HOW DOES THE ARM EVEN OPEN? IS THAT THE IS THAT A LET'S ASK THAT QUESTION.

HOW DOES THE ARM OPEN? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE PETITIONER, AS FAR AS I ASSUME, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SOME SORT OF LET'S LET'S FIND OUT HOW DOES THE ARM OPEN ANYONE THAT CAN CONFIRM THAT.

IT'S AN ENGINEERING. I'M NOT A VALET OPERATOR, BUT I WOULD LIKE ACCESS TO THE MICROPHONE IN MY OFFICE.

I'M SORRY. JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF AGAIN, PLEASE.

NO, NO. THERE YOU GO. HEY, ANDREW DAVIDSON, ENGINEERING.

I'M NOT A VALET OPERATOR. BUT THE ACCESS TO THE GARAGE IS ONLY OPEN TO EMPLOYEES AND VALET STAFF.

I WOULD IMAGINE THEY WOULD HAVE A REMOTE CONTROL THAT WHEN THEY'RE APPROACHING THE GATE, THEY PRESS IT AND THE GATE OPENS BECAUSE THEY HAVE VALIDATED ACCESS INTO THE GARAGE, JUST AS SIMILAR TO LIKE A GARAGE DOOR OPENER.

OKAY, SO WE DON'T HAVE A VALET OPERATOR IDENTIFIED YET.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH VALET OPERATOR IN TERMS OF THIS GATE, SINCE YOU'RE ATTRIBUTING THE OPERATION OF THE GATE TO THE VALET.

CORRECT. THE CURRENTLY THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE VALET OPERATOR IS THE HOTEL OPERATOR.

THE HOTEL OPERATOR WILL BE OPERATING THE VALET OPERATIONS.

OKAY. AND LET'S IF I COULD HAVE THE HOTEL OPERATOR TALK ABOUT THE GATE.

PATRICK WALSH, OLDE NAPLES DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. MR..

I'LL APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. I'M THE ACCOUNTANT IN THE FAMILY, SO I NORMALLY AM NOT MAKING PRESENTATIONS OR SPEAKING, SO BEAR WITH ME ON THAT. WERE YOU SWORN IN AND DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT OR THE MANAGER OF THE PROPERTY? NO, I'M COMFORTABLE DOING IT. AND IF YOU'D LIKE, I'LL SWEAR IN.

OKAY. I MEAN TESTIMONY YOU MUST. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES, I DO.

SO THE GENERAL OPERATION WITH VALETS IS THEY DO CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE GARAGE, BOTH ENTERING AND EXITING BY THE ATTENDANTS THEMSELVES.

[02:20:04]

SO IF PATRICK WALSH IS TRYING TO SCAM THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL, PULLS BY THE VALET AND TRIES TO BREAK A HARD RIGHT AND GET IN THERE, I'M GOING TO BE STUCK IN FRONT OF THE GATE. AND IT'S GOING TO BE AN AWKWARD SITUATION FOR ME.

AND LIKELY ALSO ON THE WAY OUT, AS IT WAS MENTIONED, THEY'LL BE A GATE THAT WILL BE STOPPING THEM AND THEN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PROCEED AND PULL OUT. SO YOU'LL HAVE A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

CAN YOU TELL US HOW THAT GATE OPERATES? I UNDERSTAND IT'S CONTROLLED THE BOTH THE ENTRANCE GATE TO THE GARAGE AND THE GATE AT THE TOP OF THE RAMP AS IT GOES OUT ONTO GORDON. JUST TELL US HOW THAT HOW BOTH OF THOSE OPERATE.

GENERALLY, THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE SYSTEM THAT IS DETERMINED.

AND I'M NOT AWARE OF THE SPECIFIC, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT'S ONE OF TWO THINGS.

IT'S EITHER WITH A CODE OR A FOB TYPE ENVIRONMENT, JUST LIKE WHEN YOU PULL IN FRONT OF YOUR GARAGE AND IT'S CODED AND YOU HIT A BUTTON.

OKAY. SO THE CODE WOULD REALLY BE VERY EFFECTIVE AS WELL.

YEAH, EITHER ONE'S VERY EFFECTIVE. AND WE'VE HAD IT IN OTHER PLACES, BOTH WHERE WE OPERATE THE VALET OURSELVES.

AND OR THERE'S A THIRD PARTY THAT OPERATES IT.

IT KEEPS IT CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT. OKAY. AWESOME.

THE THE INTERSECTIONS AND THESE AMENITIES, THE GARAGE.

THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY, AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS PREPARED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT ACCOUNTS FOR PEAK OPERATIONAL TIMES. MR. WALSH, YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS.

IF YOU WOULD JUST HANG THERE. LET ME DIRECT IT TO STAFF, AND THEN I SUSPECT I'LL BE COMING BACK.

HAS THE PETITIONER IDENTIFIED PEAK OPERATIONAL TIMES IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC? THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED PEAK OPERATIONAL TIMES, NECESSARILY.

I THINK WE KIND OF KNOW, BASED ON A TYPICAL SITUATION WITH A HOTEL WITH A CHECK IN TIME AND CHECK OUT TIMES AND HOW THAT RELATES TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS. THERE'S BECAUSE OF THIS LOCATION, THERE ARE EXTERNAL INFLUENCES ON PEAK TIME OTHER THAN THE HOTEL OPERATIONS. RIGHT. CAN ANYBODY THINK OF ANY PEAK TIMES DOWN BY THE PIER PARADE OR THE PARADE? THE PARADE IN THAT AREA. THE SUNSET, JULY 4TH.

NEW YEAR'S EVE. SO MY QUESTION IS THIS WHAT IS THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THESE PEAK TIMES? DOES THE GARAGE EVER GET FULL? WHEN DOES IT GET FULL? WHAT'S THE OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR PEAK TIMES IN AND AROUND THIS HOTEL? WE NEED TO KNOW THAT. I NEED TO KNOW THAT. WELL, JUST IN GENERAL, WHAT I CAN SPEAK TO IS WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED AT OUR OTHER PROPERTIES IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS. THE ACTUAL EVENT OF THE PEAK EVENT, LIKE A JULY 4TH OR A SAINT PATRICK'S DAY OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

GENERALLY OUR CLIENTELE, THEY DON'T ARRIVE THE DAY OF.

THEY ARRIVED BEFORE, AND THEY'LL DEPART AFTER SO THEY CAN ENJOY THE EVENT AS A WHOLE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION AS, AS IT, AS IT RELATES TO THAT PEAK MOMENT.

SO THE REALITY IS GOING TO BE THIS BECAUSE I'VE GOT A BUSINESS DOWN THERE.

WE'VE GOT A GATE ARM THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S OPERATED BY VALET, AND IT'S GOING TO BE EITHER BY CODE OR BY FOB.

AND INASMUCH AS WE THINK NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO PULL DOWN THERE BY THAT GATE DURING JULY 4TH.

NEW YEAR'S EVE AND OTHER PEAK TIMES PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STACK UP IN THAT AREA AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET OUT.

IF THEY'RE NOT A HOTEL GUEST, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET OUT. SO I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS HOW THAT'S CONTROLLED.

AND BY THE WAY, IN ADDITION TO THOSE TWO SIGNS THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, DOES THE HOTEL INTEND TO COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC IN ANY OTHER FASHION VIA SIGNAGE LIKE TINT SIGNS.

YOU KNOW, THE THE THE FOLDING SIGN A-FRAME SIGNS.

IS THERE ANY OTHER SIGNAGE DURING PEAK TIMES OR OTHERWISE, THAT YOU INTEND TO COMMUNICATE A MESSAGE RELATED TO PARKING AVAILABILITY AT THAT HOTEL? WELL, I THINK AS FAR AS COMMUNICATING TO THE PUBLIC WHEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PULLING INTO THE VALET STAND, WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ATTENDANT THERE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO STOP FOR.

SO WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP FOR A HYPOTHETICAL, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY AND I'M TRYING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, IS, AGAIN, THE ROGUE PERSON THAT WILL JUST PULL BY THE ENTRANCE AND TRY AND TAKE A RIGHT HAND INTO THAT.

[02:25:08]

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY RARE IN MY EXPERIENCE AND WHAT I'VE SEEN AT ALL OTHER HOTELS.

AND QUITE HONESTLY, WHEN SOMEONE PULLS IN AND THEY REALIZE EITHER BY A LEGITIMATE MISTAKE, OH GEEZ, I SHOULDN'T HAVE PULLED IN HERE. YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO NEFARIOUS ATTEMPT.

THEY JUST BACK OUT BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC FLOW THAT IS GOING AGAIN, BECAUSE YOU'RE CONTROLLED BY THE VALET, THEY'RE GOING TO SEE WHEN PATRICK WALSH MAKES THAT MISTAKE AND INSTEAD OF THEM PULLING IN BEHIND HIM AND LOCKING HIM IN IN THEIR NORMAL COURSE OF ACTION, THEY'RE GOING TO STOP AND THEY'RE GOING TO GO OVER AND SAY, SIR, PLEASE BACK OUT AND THEY'LL MOVE ALONG.

I DON'T SEE IT BEING ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A BIG CONCERN OR ISSUE AS FAR AS WHAT I'VE EXPERIENCED IN MY YEARS.

YEAH. WELL, IT'S IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK THAT WAY ON JULY 4TH AND NEW YEAR'S EVE.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, IT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. SO AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT HERE RIGHT NOW.

I AGREE, I WOULD TELL YOU, COUNCIL, THAT THE OPEN ACCESS TO BROAD AVENUE GOING DUE EAST ON BROAD IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL, ALLOWING TRAFFIC IF TRAFFIC HAD TO COME THROUGH THE VALET AND THEN THE VALET, INSTEAD OF GOING BACK OUT TO BROAD AND THEN CURVING IN AND THEN MAKING THAT RIGHT INTO THE GARAGE.

IF THAT VALET EMPTIED DIRECTLY INTO THE GARAGE INSTEAD OF OPENING IT UP TO TRAFFIC OTHER THAN VALET, IT WOULD PREVENT SOME OF THE CONFLICTS THAT I SEE ARE COMING.

BUT IN DELIVERY, ANY DELIVERY VEHICLES WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT VALET ENTRANCE AND THEN CUT IN.

BUT IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. AND I DON'T THINK THAT TERRY, CAN YOU CAN YOU MAP THAT OUT FOR ME ONE MORE TIME HOW THIS THING FLOWS? SO YOU SEE HOW THE VALET COMES IN FRONT OF THE HOTEL AND THEN IS THAT YOU CAN SEE BROAD AVENUE UP THERE.

YOU COME OUT OF VALET AND YOU GO ON TO BROAD AVENUE.

YOU SEE THAT? THEN YOU MAKE A HARD RIGHT AND COME DOWN INTO THE GARAGE.

RIGHT. BUT THAT THAT HARD RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S ALL NOT SELF-CONTAINED ON THE HOTEL PROPERTY.

YOU'RE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO USE VALET TO USE THAT ENTRY INTO THE GARAGE.

YOU HAVE A WE HAD A DESIGN OPTION OF NOT EMPTYING OUT ONTO BROAD.

SO IMAGINE SOMEBODY COMING THROUGH VALET AND NOT ENTERING OUT ONTO BROAD.

RIGHT. IT'S IN MY OPINION, IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO TOUCH BROAD AVENUE WITH TRAFFIC DESIGN DESIGNATED FOR THE HOTEL AND MAKE A LOOP WHERE THEY GO INTO THE PARKING GARAGE AND THEN BACK OUT OVER ON TO GORDON DRIVE.

BUT BECAUSE WE'RE OPENING THIS UP TO BROAD AVENUE, IT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC FOR ME.

BUT I'M WILLING IT'S NOT GOING TO GET SOLVED HERE.

IT'LL JUST MY VOTE WILL INDICATE HOW MUCH OF A CONCERN I HAVE.

I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS THAN WHAT YOU SEE HERE.

OKAY. WE I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE CHANGES IN PARKING SPACES ON BROAD AVENUE.

I GET IT. BUT THIS IS ON PART OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SIGNALIZATION OF BROAD AND GORDON.

I WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL LEVEL SET.

COUNCILMAN KRISEMAN DISCUSS THIS. THE CITY I WANT TO.

ARE WE ACCURATE IN SAYING THAT THE CITY HAS RECOMMENDED SIGNALIZATION OF THIS INTERSECTION? I. FROM THE DISCUSSION AT THE MARCH MEETING EARLIER THIS YEAR, THERE WAS CONSENSUS OF THE SIGNAL OPTION WITH A NORTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE THAT WAS PRESENTED THAT IF YOU COULD.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE CITY RECOMMENDED SIGNALIZATION OF THE INTERSECTION AT BROAD AND GORDON? YES, AT THE TIME WE DID. DID YOU WHY DID YOU RECOMMEND SIGNALIZATION? AND I'LL BE SHORT TO THIS ONE. WAS IT BECAUSE SIGNALIZATION PROVIDED SAFER CONDITIONS FOR BOTH MOTOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS? PERHAPS IT PROVIDED MORE OPTIONS FOR THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC TO FLOW WITH THE CHANCES OF OVERLAPPING PHASING,

[02:30:04]

WHICH I DID. THE LITTLE DRAWING WHERE YOU CAN TURN RIGHT AND TURN LEFT AT THE SAME TIME AND MOVE TRAFFIC VERSUS THE ROUNDABOUT AT THAT LOCATION, AND THE TRUCKS AND DELIVERY STUFF, LAWN VEHICLES THAT GO THROUGH THERE.

SO FROM THIS, THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO FOR FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, WHERE ARE WE AT IN THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THINGS? ARE WE STILL PLANNING ON ADOPTING A SIGNALIZATION.

SOLUTION OR. NO. WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS BEFORE YOU.

THE AGREEMENT IS THAT THE ANALYSIS AND THE DIRECTION FROM THE LAST MEETING WAS TO PROCEED WITH THE STOP WITH THE TURN LANES THAT OPTION AND THEN TAKE A YEAR PER THE AGREEMENT.

AND THEN IF WE DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH EITHER A SIGNALIZATION OR ALTERNATIVE IMPROVEMENT, THEN WE WE HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY UPON SEEING HOW THIS OPERATION WORKS AND HOW TO PROCEED FROM THERE.

BUT BY NOT SIGNALIZING NOW I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR.

IT DOES NOT. ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS WAS WE BROUGHT UP THE STOP SIGN THAT IT WOULD TAKE ALMOST A YEAR TO GET ALL THE PRODUCT TO PUT IT THERE ANYWAY. OKAY, BUT I'M LOOKING FOR AN ASSURANCE THAT BY NOT SIGNALIZING ANY PORTION OF THIS INTERSECTION, WE'RE NOT COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF MOTOR VEHICLES OR PEDESTRIANS.

WE'RE PRETTY MUCH GOING TO HAVE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

YEAH, MINUS THE MASS ARMS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME DIRECTIONAL BORING UNDERNEATH THE ROAD TO GET THE CONDUITS FROM POINT A TO POINT B, BUT OTHERWISE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DRILL IN THE CORNERS TO PUT THE CONCRETE BASES IN FOR THE MASS ARMS AND SOME DETECTION SYSTEMS. BUT OTHERWISE WE HAVE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AS FAR AS THE ROADWAY.

BY NOT SIGNALIZING THIS INTERSECTION. AT THIS POINT, WE ARE NOT COMPROMISING THE SAFETY OF MOTOR VEHICLES OR PEDESTRIANS.

CORRECT? NO, I FEEL WE'RE INCREASING IT BECAUSE WE HAVE REQUIRED OVERSIZE STOP SIGNS THERE VERSUS WHAT'S THERE NOW.

IF NEED BE, WE CAN PUT A STOP ON THE ROAD MARKINGS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE VISIBLE AND EVERYTHING.

SO, YES, WE'RE LOOKING OUT FOR THE SAFETY OF EVERYBODY.

AWESOME. AND TO THAT POINT, VICE MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT'S SAFER FOR RESPONSIBLE DRIVERS AND RESPONSIBLE PEDESTRIANS.

EXACTLY. I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT. YES, THERE MAY BE SOME INCREASED CONFUSION BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL WITH THE ADDITION OF THE TURN LANES.

SOMETIMES. YEAH. EVERYBODY JUST CREATES CONFUSION OF PRIORITIZATION.

ORGANIZATION? YES. AT THE THE INTERSECTION. YEAH.

THIS IS A PHASED APPROACH. RIGHT. OKAY. AND I WON'T BE HERE IN A YEAR.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S WHAT'S THE PLAN IS VERSUS WHAT'S WHAT'S JUST PROPOSED.

AND THEN THIS TOUCHES ON VALET, BUT IT'S ONE QUESTION.

AND WHEN THE WHEN THE. IT DOES IMPACT THE INTENSITY OF THE TRAFFIC WHEN THE GARAGE IS FULL. WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR VEHICLES? SO THEY HAVE OVERFLOW PARKING. THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO PARK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THEY SHOULD HAVE YOU KNOW, THE ACCORDING TO.

AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IN THAT ORIGINAL PLAN. THAT WAS IN 2018 THAT WAS APPROVED.

THAT'S WHERE THERE'S OVERFLOW PARKING. THAT'S THAT'S CREATED AND IDENTIFIED AND THAT AND IT'S ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE AS WELL.

I MEAN, CAN YOU JUST MAKE SURE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU COME BACK FROM A BREAK, YOU CAN MAKE SURE YOU ADDRESS THAT. I HAVE COUNCILMAN PARTNER, AND WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK.

VICE MAYOR, YOU KNOW, I'LL COME BACK TO IT. SO ON THAT OVERFLOW PARKING, THAT'S WHAT I NEED TO DIG INTO IS HOW MUCH OVERFLOW PARKING.

AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THAT'S FILLED? SO YES, I HAVE THAT DETAIL IN THERE AND I CAN.

SO I JUST WANTED TO DISCUSS THAT. THANK YOU. YES.

AND WE CAN WE CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTER BREAK. BUT I WANT TO I WANT TO GET INTO THE DETAILS.

YEAH, I GOT IT. THANK YOU. BARTON, I'LL BE REAL QUICK.

MOST OF WHAT I HAD QUESTIONS ON WERE WERE TOUCHED ON.

BUT IN REFERENCE TO THE. AND DAVE, THIS IS MORE DIRECTED AT YOU THAN ANYONE ELSE WITH THE THE STOP SIGN IS VERSUS SIGNAL

[02:35:02]

AT THAT INTERSECTION. WHEN WE HAD GONE OVER THAT IN DETAIL EARLIER THIS YEAR.

AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE STUDY IT WAS PRETTY CLOSE BETWEEN THE SAFETY AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE MAST ARMS AND THE SIGNAL, I SHOULD SAY, AND THE STOP SIGNS. AND YOU WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT STOP SIGNS WOULD, WOULD PROBABLY BE EFFECTIVE THERE. AND THE KEY HERE.

I'M SORRY, BEFORE I CONTINUE, IF THAT WAS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, PLEASE CORRECT ME.

NO. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE KEY HERE FOR US, AS WE WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND OUR CONSTITUENTS, WAS THAT IF WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS THAT ARE RELATIVELY EQUALLY THE SAME FROM A STANDPOINT OF SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND TRAFFIC, BUT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE AND EXCUSE THE NOMENCLATURE, BUT THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PETITIONER'S ACCOMMODATION TO PAY 100% OF THIS ENTIRE PROCESS, IF WE GO IF WE START WITH THE WITH THE STOP SIGNS, THEN IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST.

IT'S IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST, IT'S IN THE RESIDENTS BEST INTEREST AND THE TAXPAYERS BEST INTEREST TO HAVE THEM PAY FOR 100% WITH THE OPTION OF.

IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT IS NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO IT, WE END UP HAVING TO PUT A SIGNAL IN THERE. THEN WE'RE GOING TO SPLIT THAT COST. BUT WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO AGAIN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE PETITIONER TO GO WITH THE WITH THE STOP SIGNS AND HAVE THEM PAY POTENTIALLY PAY 100% OF THIS THING IF WE DON'T HAVE TO. BUT IF WE END UP NOT DECIDING TO PUT THE THE SIGNAL IN.

SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REALLY HAMMER THAT POINT HOME. HERE WE ARE. WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS GUYS.

IF IN FACT THE STOP SIGNS ARE THE WAY TO GO. AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THOSE ARE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE FROM A STANDPOINT OF HANDLING TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIANS.

SO LET'S NOT LET'S NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THAT. OKAY.

WHEN WE COME BACK, I JUST WANT TO ASK THE HOW YOU WILL ENTER THE HOTEL IF YOU ARE COMING EAST ON BROAD AND IF YOU ARE A GUEST OR A TRUCK, IF THAT PLAN HAS CHANGED, OR IF IT STILL REMAINS THE SAME, THAT THEY'LL BE ENCOURAGED TO GO TO THE GULF SHORE BOULEVARD, MAKE A U-TURN TO COME BACK, AND WHATEVER CHANGES WERE MADE, IF ANY, FROM WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ON BROAD TO THE MEDIAN. AND THE ACCESS FOR TURNING, IF THERE WERE CHANGES TO THAT.

AND THEN STORMWATER. I JUST NEED TO KNOW THAT WAS HAS BEEN HANDLED AND WHERE THAT DRAIN IS DRAINING TO AND HOW IT WILL BE FILTERED.

AND WITH THAT, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK. IT WILL SAY IT'S 1110 AND WE'LL BE BACK IN TEN MINUTES.

OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM OUR BREAK AND CONTINUING ON AND CONCLUDING WITH 13 A AND 13 B STAFF. THERE WERE THREE QUESTIONS OR FOUR QUESTIONS.

DO YOU HAVE THE ANY CHANGES THAT WERE MADE ON BROAD TO THAT MEDIAN? OKAY. SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE THE CHANGES SINCE THE LAST MEETING THAT WERE MADE.

THERE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CHANGES. SO I DON'T BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY HAD THE DESIGN FULLY LAID OUT AT THE LAST MEETING.

ANYHOW SO WITH THIS DESIGN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT'S WHERE THERE IS AN IMPACT OF THE PARKING.

THE MEETING WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE CURBING. WE HAVE IT SHOWN UP HERE.

DAVE AND I WERE ALSO JUST DISCUSSING MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S SIGNAGE THAT STATES NO U-TURN, SO THAT IS ENFORCEABLE AT THIS LOCATION AT BROAD AND GORDON.

AND THEN THE SO THE THE CURBING WAS BROUGHT BACK.

I THINK I HAD ORIGINALLY REQUESTED THAT IT BE EXTENDED SO THAT THERE WAS NO TURN.

THERE WAS DRIVERS DID NOT TURN IN INTO THE EXIT.

AND THAT MEETING OR THE, THE CURBING WAS EXTENDED TO BLOCK THOSE DRIVERS FROM PREMATURELY TURNING IN OR TURNING IN THE WRONG WAY, IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. YOU SEE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN IF YOU SEE IF YOU EXTENDED IT FURTHER TO THE EAST, THAT WOULD PREVENT THAT MOVEMENT. THE PROBLEM I, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND THE DISCUSSIONS WAS THAT IT WOULD ELIMINATE MORE PARKING. BY DOING SO. SO IN LIEU OF THAT THEY PRESENTED TO HAVE SIGNAGE THAT TO TO INDICATE PROPOSED DO NOT ENTER SIGNS FACING NORTH ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT EXIT.

SO THE TRUCKS WILL STILL THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO GO STRAIGHT INTO THAT GARAGE.

[02:40:06]

NO THE THE GARAGE IS STILL THEY IF YOU GO EVEN FURTHER EAST.

HERE'S THE ENTRANCE TO THE GARAGE OVER HERE. SO THEY ARE STILL ABLE TO TURN IN INTO THE GARAGE HEADING WESTBOUND FROM THE WESTBOUND DIRECTION. OKAY.

AND ANOTHER REASON WE LOOKED AT SHORTENING THAT ISLAND WAS ALLOWING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO HAVE ACCESS AND DIVE IN THAT WAY IF THEY HAVE TO.

SO THAT'S WHY WE KEPT IT A LITTLE FARTHER IN.

WHAT'S THE DEPTH OF THAT ENTRANCE THAT TRUCKS CAN GET IN THERE? THE WIDTH OF THE ENTRANCE? NO. THE HEIGHT. THE FIRE TRUCKS CAN GET IN THERE.

THEY WAIT UNTIL THEY CAN APPROACH IT, AT LEAST.

I'M NOT SURE IF THEY CAN CLEAR UP THAT CLEARANCE.

THAT CLEARANCE THERE. RIGHT. OKAY. AND THEN AS FAR AS CARS ENTERING THE HOTEL COMING FROM THE EAST, IF THEY'RE COMING FROM THE EAST AND THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MAKE A A U-TURN, AS NOTED.

SO, YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE BEYOND THAT INTERSECTION.

SO THERE WILL BE A U-TURN SIGN, WHICH YOU JUST INDICATED.

NO U-TURN RIGHT HERE AT THIS INTERSECTION AT BROAD AND GORDON.

OKAY. AND AND THE PLAN IS THAT THEY HAVE TO GO.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO GORDON OR FIND AN ALTERNATIVE OR GULF SHORE BOULEVARD.

BOULEVARD. I'M SORRY TO GO OFF SHORE BOULEVARD IS WHAT I MEANT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR.

YOU FINISHED THAT QUESTION THAT YOU HAD ABOUT.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. SO I'LL WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE OTHERS.

OKAY. ENGAGE IN. THANK YOU. I HAVE I HAVE CRISPIN AND THEN PENMAN ON REMOVING TO VALET.

I'M SORRY. ON WHAT? MAYOR ON THE VALET. ON THE VALET? OKAY, SO ON THE VALET. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.

THE. FIRST OF ALL, JUST A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THE THE PARKING IN THE BUILDING IS TO WHAT DEGREE? JUST REMIND US. TO WHAT DEGREE DOES IT ACCOMMODATE EMPLOYEE PARKING.

SO, PER THEIR 2018 REPORT, THE VALET PARKING PLAN.

THEY IDENTIFIED 91 PARKING VALET PARKING SPACES AND 33 EMPLOYEE OR VALET OVERFLOW PARKING SPACES.

33 EMPLOYEE OR VALET OVERFLOW PARKING VALET OVERFLOW MEAN.

I BELIEVE THAT IF THEY IF THEY ARE BEYOND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SPACES, THEY HAVE A TOTAL OF 2124 SPACES, AND THEN 91 ARE ESSENTIALLY SO TENDED TO BE DEDICATED TOWARDS THE VALET, AND THEN 33 FOR THE EMPLOYEE.

AND OR I GUESS THAT COULD BE UTILIZED FOR THE OVER THE VALET IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL VALET PARKING SPACES THAT ARE NECESSARY AND, AND THE AND THEN OVERFLOW PARKING IS ACCOMMODATED THROUGH THIS STACKING PLAN, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND IS THERE OFF SITE PARKING REQUIRED? IT'S NOT REQUIRED. I AM NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH I, YOU KNOW, I INCLUDED THE 2018 PARKING PLAN IN HERE.

BUT I, I DO KNOW THAT THEY ARE NOT PERMITTED TO PARK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

SO THAT WOULD BE AS FAR AS ANY OTHER APPLICANT THAT WAS COMING IN THAT NEEDED TO FIND ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE METHOD.

IF THEY'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH THE BUT THEY HAVE NOT IDENTIFIED AN OFF SITE PARKING.

THEY HAVE NOT BACKUP AND THE EMPLOYEE PARKING WOULD ALSO I MEAN IF YOU'VE GOT YOU'VE GOT FOUR VALET PARKERS.

CORRECT. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT. IT IT'S DEPENDENT ON THE, THE SERVICE THAT IS NEEDED NECESSARY AT THAT TIME THEY WON'T HAVE WHETHER THERE'LL BE ONE, TWO, THREE. BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EMPLOYEE PARKING, PARKING IN ON SITE THE VALETS WOULD BE AMONG THE EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD NEED TO PARK THEIR PERSONAL CARS, PRESUMABLY IN THE GARAGE, MOST LIKELY.

PRESUMABLY, UNLESS THEY HAD ANOTHER PLAN. IN SOME OTHER CASES, THEY'LL HAVE OFF SITE PARKING AND THEY'LL SHUTTLE IN THEIR EMPLOYEES.

BUT THERE IS NO OFFSITE PARKING PLAN THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF.

NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. AND NOW TO THE PETITIONER.

IS THERE ANY OFF SITE PARKING CONTEMPLATED? SO TO PERHAPS CLARIFY A FEW

[02:45:03]

THINGS. THE VALET ATTENDANCE PER THE 2018 RESOLUTION MUST PARK OFFSITE.

THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE EMPLOYEE BUCKET THAT GOES UNDER, UNDER, UNDER THE HOTEL AND THE GARAGE.

THE VALET ATTENDANTS MUST PARK OFF SITE AND WHERE THAT LOCATION IS TO BE DETERMINED.

BUT THERE ARE OPTIONS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR AS WE SPEAK TODAY.

THE HOTEL OPERATOR ACTUALLY OWNS EMPLOYEE HOUSING WITH PARKING PROVISIONS, WITH EMPLOYEE SHUTTLING THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE USED, AND IT ALL WOULD DEPEND ON THE RESIDENCES OVER TIME AS THEY CHANGE OF THE VALET ATTENDANTS.

SOME MAY CHOOSE TO RIDE AN E-BIKE, SOME MAY BE CLOSE BY THAT CAN TAKE RIDE SHARING.

SO IT'S IT'S AN ONGOING OPERATION WHERE WE WILL SATISFY THE 2018 REQUIREMENT TO PARK THE VALET ATTENDANTS OFF SITE.

YEAH, BUT VALET ATTENDANTS MUST PARK OFF SITE ACCORDING TO THE 2018 AGREEMENT, BUT OTHER EMPLOYEES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PARK OFF SITE.

THEY CAN PARK. THAT'S CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT.

ONLY THE VALET ATTENDANTS. CORRECT. AND HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE THERE AT THE HOTEL? AND AND IN TERMS OF WOULD BE WORKING IN ANY PARTICULAR SHIFT, SHALL WE SAY.

DO YOU CAN YOU ANSWER ANYBODY. ANSWER THAT. I'M BEING TOLD BY MISS RATTLER A MAXIMUM OF 20.

MAXIMUM OF 20. OKAY. COULD I COULD I ASK THE FIRE MARSHAL TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE? AND IF I MAY, MR. CHRISMAN? SURE. THE STACKING ISSUE.

TO BE VERY CLEAR, BY WAY OF CONTEXT, THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS DETERMINED CONSERVATIVELY, 124 SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED. THREE DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES WERE EMPLOYED.

ONE RESULTED IN 119. ONE RESULTED IN 122. ONE RESULTED IN 124.

THE MOST CONSERVATIVE WAS TAKING ASSUMING FULL 100% OCCUPANCY THAT PARKING NEEDS.

ANALYSIS INCLUDES A STATEMENT OF REMEDIES AS IS REQUIRED BY THE CODE.

ONE OF THOSE REMEDIES WAS STACKING ONE OF THEM.

OTHER REMEDIES INCLUDED WERE EMPLOYEE SHUTTLING, HOTEL GUEST SHUTTLING, RIDE SHARING, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THOSE REMEDIES NEVER INVOKE UNLESS A PROBLEM ARISES, WHICH WE DON'T ANTICIPATE BECAUSE THE ANALYSIS SUGGESTS WE WON'T EVER NEED TO ANTICIPATE.

WE WON'T EVER NEED ANY OF THE REMEDIES. SO WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY SAYING STACKING IS REQUIRED.

I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION, MR. BROOKER.

AND TO ME, I THINK THIS IS A CENTRAL QUESTION OF NOT ONLY DESERVES CLARITY, BUT UNDERSTANDING WITH RESPECT TO OUR FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND THEIR APPROVAL.

AND MR. ADAMSKI, WELCOME. AND SO COULD YOU TELL TELL US WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED IN TERMS OF A FIRE LIFE SAFETY PLAN FOR THE FOR THE HOTEL AND THE GARAGE? GOOD MORNING. THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE COREY DAMSKY, DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF.

THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW HAS GREEN SPACES, BLUE SPACES, AND THEN RED SPACES AS WELL. THE GREEN AND BLUE SPACES WERE APPROVED AS PART OF THE PARKING PLAN BACK IN 2018, AND THE RED SPACES WERE THE PROPOSED OVERFLOW OR ADDITIONAL SHOULD IT BE NEEDED.

THE RED WAS JUST AS AN OPTION, BUT NOT APPROVED AS PART OF THE PARKING PLAN.

AND AND AND THE RED COULD TAKE FORM. WHAT FORM DOES THE RED TAKE IF IT I MEAN ARE THESE ARE THESE SPACES THAT ACTUALLY EXIST IN THE GARAGE AND COULD BE USED FOR PARKING, OR COULD THEY ONLY BE COULD THEY ONLY TAKE FORM IF THERE WAS A STACKING OF THE CARS? THE RED VEHICLES ON THE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU WOULD BE IN DRIVE AISLES AND NOT IN MARKED SPACES.

NOT IN PARKING SPACES, BUT IN DRIVE AISLES. CORRECT.

BUT NOT STACKED NECESSARILY. THAT IS WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER STACKED WHEN YOU HAVE VEHICLES BLOCKING OTHERS IN PARKED ONE BEHIND THE OTHER.

THAT IS WHAT WE AS OPPOSED TO VERTICAL. YEAH RIGHT. THERE'S HORIZONTAL AND THEN VERTICAL.

THAT WOULD BE HORIZONTAL STACKING. YES, SIR. OKAY.

SO IN 2018, YOUR DEPARTMENT APPROVED A LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'M USING THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY, BUT A FIRE SAFETY PLAN, IS THAT CORRECT?

[02:50:01]

YES, SIR. YEAH. AND AND HAVE YOU HAVE YOU HAVE YOU APPROVED AN UPDATED PLAN HERE IN 2025, GIVEN WHERE WE ARE TODAY, OR ARE YOU REQUIRED TO OR IS THE 2018 PLAN STILL APPLICABLE? THE 2018 IS STILL APPLICABLE. WHILE IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IF IT WAS PRESENTED TODAY FOR ANOTHER PROJECT WOULD BE APPROVED.

IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M GOING TO GO BACK ON.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THE HOTEL PROVIDER AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO MAKE THINGS.

MAKE OUR RESPONDERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET TO VEHICLES THAT MIGHT BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STACKED AREAS.

AND, AND THE YOUR CONCERNS WITH THE 2018 PLAN.

DO THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT FIRE CODE STANDARDS HAVE CHANGED IN THE ENSUING YEARS? IS IT THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE VIEWS ON THIS THAT YOUR PREDECESSOR DIDN'T IN 2018? WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE SHALL WE SAY, THE THE FACT THAT THERE APPEAR TO BE SOME CONTINUING CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE.

SO THE WAY THAT THE PARKING PLAN IS SET UP RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE IN THE CENTER OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PARKING IS FOUR CARS DEEP BY 12 CARS WIDE, WITH NO DRIVE AISLE IN BETWEEN. AND REALISTICALLY SPEAKING, YOU HAVE A HANDFUL OF CARS IN THE CENTER OF THAT THAT ARE COMPLETELY BLOCKED IN WITH NO ACCESS. THE ROADS FIRE A COUPLE YEARS BACK WHERE THEY HAD ALL THE RENTAL CARS PARKED VERY SIMILARLY TO THIS, JUST OUT IN AN OPEN FIELD. I ACTUALLY RESPONDED TO THAT FIRE.

AND IN ORDER TO GET TO SOME OF THE VEHICLES THAT WERE BURNING, WE HAD TO WALK ACROSS VEHICLES, STAND ON VEHICLES, AND IT WAS QUITE CHALLENGING FOR ANYBODY WHO WAS THERE AMONG THE 100 OR SO OTHER RESPONDERS THAT WERE THERE.

IT WAS A CHALLENGE, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT WITH OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE COME FORWARD WITH STACKING OF VEHICLES, EVEN IN OUR CITY GARAGE. THE NEW CITY GARAGE OFF OF FIRST AVENUE SOUTH.

WE REVIEWED THAT VALET PLAN AND DENIED ANY VEHICLE STACKING, SUCH AS THE RED VEHICLES HERE.

IT IS A CHALLENGE AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE TO INCREASE THE DAMAGE TO A STRUCTURE OR OTHER VEHICLES AROUND.

SO THE THE THE CONCERNS YOU HAVE HAVE RELATE TO EXPERIENCES THAT OUR DEPARTMENT HAS HAD AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE HAD IN OTHER SITUATIONS OVER THE LAST PERIOD OF YEARS, SINCE 2018, WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

YES, SIR. BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR POSITION IS TODAY.

ARE YOU ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE 2018 PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IS STILL THEREFORE, BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED IN 2018, IT IS TODAY VALID. AND HOW CAN I SAY THIS A VALID, LEGALLY VALID OPERATING APPROVAL THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED AND THAT THE POSITION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT IS TO NOW WORK WITH THE HOTEL OPERATOR TO DO TO COME TO MUTUALLY AGREED UPON APPROACHES TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PLAN CAN BE IMPLEMENTED AS SAFELY AS POSSIBLE.

I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS OF DO WE HAVE A PLAN THAT AND THIS IS PERHAPS A QUESTION ALSO FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY AS WELL AS FOR YOU. DO WE HAVE A FIRE SAFETY, A LIFE SAFETY PLAN THAT WE CONSIDER TO BE VALID LEGALLY AND IN PLACE AND SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ABIDE BY AND SHOULD ABIDE BY.

SO THE BUILDING HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY ISSUES.

THE PLAN DOES MEET THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DERAILING THIS OR DENYING THIS PLAN TODAY WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF.

IT IS AN ADAPT AND CHANGE OUR RESPONSE MODALITY FOR THAT SITUATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY WITH.

SO ONCE THE VALLEY MANAGEMENT COMPANY IS IDENTIFIED, EITHER THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR VALLEY OR THE HOTEL OPERATOR, OR BOTH. YEAH. YES, SIR. SO THE SO SO WHAT? THAT.

WHAT THOSE ADAPTATIONS ARE, ARE TO BE DETERMINED.

ONCE THE EITHER THROUGH THE HOTEL OPERATOR THEMSELVES OR THROUGH SOMEBODY THAT THEY HIRE TO TO MANAGE THE VALLEY OPERATIONS, ONCE YOU'RE ABLE TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND TALK THROUGH THE DETAILS.

IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE TO BE SAID ON THIS QUESTION OF OF LIFE SAFETY AND FIRE SAFETY?

[02:55:02]

MR. ADAMSKI, FROM YOUR STANDPOINT? NO, SIR. CAN I JUST CLARIFY ONE THING? QUESTION. ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A LIFE SAFETY PLAN NOW FOR THE PARKING OF THE GARAGE.

NO. WE HAVE APPROVED LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR THE GARAGE.

BUT IT'S 2018. IT'S NOT UPDATED TO 2025. NO, MA'AM.

SO THIS PLAN WAS APPROVED IN 2018. AND THEN THE SUBSEQUENTLY THE BUILDING CAME IN FOR THE PERMIT OF THE WHOLE PROJECT.

AND THAT HAS ALSO BEEN REVIEWED TO THE TO THE FLORIDA FIRE PREVENTION CODE AND MEETS THE MINIMUM STANDARDS IN THE CODE.

SO ALL OF THE THE ENTIRE BUILDING HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED FOR LIFE SAFETY AND THE GARAGE, INCLUDING THE GARAGE. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU. AND. YEAH. AND THAT'S, THAT'S MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING SAID HERE.

IS IT THERE? THERE IS A I'M SORRY. IS IT IN THIS PACKET? THE LIFE SAFETY PLANS FOR EACH FLOOR GARAGE IN THIS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THE ACTUAL LIFE SAFETY PLAN FOR THE GARAGE IS IN THIS PACKET, AS THAT INVOLVES A LOT MORE THAN JUST THE PARKING.

BUT AGAIN, A LIFE SAFETY PLAN FOR THE BUILDING, INCLUDING THE GARAGE, HAS BEEN APPROVED BY YOUR DEPARTMENT. UPDATED FROM 2018 TO 2025.

IT'S IT'S IT'S CURRENT AND AND YOU HAVE APPROVED THIS.

YES, SIR. UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OPERATOR.

SLASH VALET OPERATOR. IN THE MONTHS AHEAD TO DETERMINE HOW WHAT ADAPTATIONS MAY NEED TO BE MADE TO, TO TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE PLAN? YES, SIR.

OPERATIONAL ADAPTATIONS. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? YES, SIR. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT.

WELL, I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT YOUR ANSWERS WERE GOING TO BE. CERTAINLY. BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER YOUR ANSWERS WERE, WE WERE CLEAR ON THIS, AND AND THERE WAS, BECAUSE I'VE HEARD QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THIS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES.

SO THANK YOU. THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I HAD ON THE VALLEY.

MAYOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTIONS.

AND I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THIS AS WELL, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT 109 ROOMS IN THE HOTEL AND ONLY 91 SPACES FOR VALET PARKING, WHICH I ASSUME MAKES AN ASSUMPTION ON THE PART OF THE HOTEL THAT THERE WILL BE SOME EMPLOYEES, I GUESS THAT WILL ARRIVE SOME OTHER WAY, OR THE GUESTS WILL ARRIVE SOME OTHER WAY.

SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT, TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST WITH YOU.

THERE ISN'T. I MEAN, IF THE HOTEL IS FULL AT 109 ROOMS SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO EITHER VALET OR THE THE EMPLOYEES. I GUESS IF THAT'S THE PLAN HERE, DO I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY? I THINK THAT MAY BE A PETITIONER QUESTION. I THINK SO.

I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT? MY CONCERN IS THIS.

IT'S 109 ROOM HOTEL, AND IT'S IF MY MEMORY SERVES CORRECTLY, IT'S THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN IN THAT PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN.

IT'S 109 ROOMS, AND WE'VE ONLY GOT PARKING FOR 91.

WE'VE ONLY GOT 91 SPACES FOR VALET. THE REST GOES TO EMPLOYEE AND SOME VALET.

OVERFLOW, OVERFLOW. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THERE'S SORT OF A SMALL PAUCITY OF PARKING HERE.

SO WE'RE GOING BACK TO A 2018 PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT WAS APPROVED AND WAS DETERMINED THAT 124 TOTAL SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THIS ENTIRE SITE PLAN. RESPECTFULLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS, AND THAT DETERMINATION OF 124 SPACES IS UP FOR DISCUSSION TODAY IN TERMS OF ITS VALIDITY OR NOT.

IT WAS APPROVED IN 2018. THAT WAS THE NUMBER APPROVED AND WE WILL COMPLY WITH THAT REQUIREMENT.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU AND AGAIN, I'M NOT A PARKING ENGINEER.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS IF YOU READ THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS OF THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS, THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW MANY GUESTS.

WHAT IS YOUR TYPICAL AVERAGE OCCUPANCY FOR A HOTEL AT ANY GIVEN TIME IN A YEAR?

[03:00:01]

HOW MANY GUESTS ARE ARRIVING WITH THEIR OWN CARS VERSUS ARE TAKING A TAXI OR A SHUTTLE, OR AN UBER FROM THE AIRPORT TO THE HOTEL.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THIS PARTICULAR PACKAGE INCREASED THAT NUMBER IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY DRIVING WITH THEIR OWN CAR TO THE HOTEL, VERSUS THAT NUMBER IS TYPICALLY 77%, BECAUSE NAPLES IS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE.

PEOPLE LIKE TO DRIVE THEIR OWN SELVES. I GUESS THEY INCREASE THAT NUMBER TO 90%.

SO CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADE THROUGHOUT THE METHODOLOGIES OF THE PSA THAT WERE APPLIED TO RESULT IN THE MOST CONSERVATIVE OF THE ANALYZES WAS 124 SPACES. ANOTHER WAY, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IS THE THE THE 33 SPACES THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS EMPLOYEE SLASH VALET OVERFLOW. WE'VE JUST HEARD A MAXIMUM OF 20 WOULD ACTUALLY BE NEEDED AT ANY ONE GIVEN TIME BY EMPLOYEES.

THAT GIVES YOU A DELTA OF 30 OF 13 EXTRA SPACES.

YOU ADD THAT TO THE 91, YOU'RE AT 104. IF YOU USE THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WERE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL AND THE NGA, WE'RE WELL ABOVE WHAT IS THE REASONABLE EXPECTED DEMAND OF NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE HOTEL GUEST.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, VICE MAYOR? THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO WRAP UP SOME OF THE QUESTIONS NOW RELATED TO THE VALET.

FIRST, PROBABLY SINCE IT WAS JUST BROUGHT UP THE IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT VALET, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN OPTION TO EITHER HAVE AN EXTERNAL THIRD PARTY VALET COMPANY OR VALET PROVIDED BY THE THE HOTEL. AND IN THIS CASE, AND THIS IS A QUESTION, ARE WE SAYING THE VALET WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR? THAT IS THE CURRENT PLAN. BUT WE WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY LIKE TO REMAIN HAVE SOME CREATIVITY AND FLEXIBILITY IN THE EVENT A THIRD PARTY OPERATOR MAKES MORE SENSE.

WHAT I'M TOLD I'M NOT I'M NOT A 70 YEAR HOTEL OPERATING COMPANY, BUT WHAT I'M TOLD IS 109 ROOMS IS NOT A HEAVY HAUL WHEN IT COMES TO VALET SERVICE OVERNIGHT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ONE VALET GUY IS GOING TO BE IN THE HOTEL LOBBY ASLEEP, FRANKLY. YEAH. IF YOU HAVE TWO, YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING.

SO IF IT'S IF IT'S A MINIMAL A TASK THAT THE HOTEL OPERATOR ITSELF CAN ASSUME PROPERLY, THEY WILL KEEP IT IN-HOUSE IF THAT TASK, PER THEIR JUDGMENT, SHOULD GO TO A THIRD PARTY OPERATOR.

WE WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THAT ABILITY TO DO SO.

SURE, THAT MAKES SENSE FOR OUR. AND I'M GOING TO PROBE A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY IF BECAUSE THE VALET PLAN IS PART OF WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY. NO THIRD PARTY VALET OPERATOR IS HERE TO MAKE COMMITMENTS OR ANSWER QUESTIONS.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND IF IF IT'S THE WILL OF COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS, KNOWING THAT THE HOTEL OPERATOR IS GOING TO OPERATE THE VALET AS WELL.

WHAT IS REASONABLE IN TERMS OF IF A THIRD PARTY VALET COMES INTO THE EQUATION, WHAT KIND OF COMMITMENTS DO WE NEED FROM THAT ENTITY? GOOD QUESTION. I'M JUST GOING TO ANSWER THE FIRST PART FOR FIRST.

THE VALET PLAN IS NOT UP FOR REVIEW TODAY. THE VALET PLAN WAS APPROVED IN 2018.

THE USE OF THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE VALET.

THAT REQUIRES A PERMIT IS WHAT'S IN YOUR PEER REVIEW TODAY, ALONG WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION, WHICH ALSO REQUIRES A RIGHT OF WAY. PERMIT IS BEING REQUESTED TODAY.

BUT WE DID THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST ASKED. THEREFORE, WE ARE REQUIRING A CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FROM THE VALET OPERATOR IF THEY CHOOSE TO HIRE ONE THAT ALSO NAMES THE CITY AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED.

OKAY. AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE INTERACTION WITH THE VALET COMMITMENTS IS THE QUESTION, COMMITMENTS BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR IN TERMS OF WHAT IS BEFORE US, DOESN'T NEED ANY COMMITMENTS FROM A THIRD PARTY VALET. I MEAN, IT TRANSFERS.

HOW HOW DOES THAT ALL GET MANAGED? AS A LAWYER, I'M ASSUMING THAT IF THE VALET, IF THE HOTEL OPERATOR HIRES A VALET, THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO ENTER INTO A SIMILAR AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE ONE THAT THEY'VE AGREED TO SIGN AND HAS SIGNED FULLY INDEMNIFIES US,

[03:05:02]

MAKES ME FEEL LEGALLY COMFORTABLE FOR ANYTHING THAT OCCURS IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY.

SO I WOULD BELIEVE IT'S ON THEM TO SHIFT THAT RESPONSIBILITY TO A VALET OPERATOR SHOULD THEY CHOOSE.

GOT IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT VALET ATTENDANCE MUST PARK OFF SITE, MR. BARKER. WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THAT MEANS WHEN IT SAYS AN AGREEMENT THAT VALET ATTENDANCE AND IT GOES BACK TO 2018 MUST PARK OFF SITE.

WHO DOES THAT APPLY TO? ANY VALET ATTENDANT, WHOEVER IS OPERATING A VALET SERVICE, AN ATTENDANT WHO IS ACTUALLY TAKING THE KEYS OF A CAR AND DRIVING IT INTO THE GARAGE AND THEN RETURNING IT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

THAT PERSON OR PERSONS MUST BE PARKED OFF SITE SOMEWHERE, WHICH IS BEING EVALUATED, AND WE HAVE VIABLE OPTIONS UNDER UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER. WELL, THAT'S.

OKAY. IN THIS CASE, A VALET ATTENDANT WOULD BE PART OF THE STAFF OF THE HOTEL.

IT. YES. IF, IN FACT, THE HOTEL OPERATOR IS MANAGING THE VALET OPERATIONS ITSELF.

THOSE WOULD BE EMPLOYEES OF THE HOTEL, BUT THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED VALET ATTENDANTS.

THAT MUST PARK OFF SITE. RIGHT. OKAY. AND WE JUST DON'T HAVE THOSE LOCATIONS IDENTIFIED YET.

CORRECT? CORRECT. IT'S THE RESOLUTION IN 2018 SIMPLY SAYS THAT THEY MUST BE PARKED OFF SITE AND WE WILL COMPLY.

OKAY. AND IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY.

WE HAVE TIME TO DO ALL THAT. IT'S NOT PART OF THIS.

CORRECT? OKAY. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN FOR OUR CITY, I JUST WANTED.

I KNOW WE HAD THE FIRE CHIEF UP HERE. I JUST WANTED TO HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION REGARDING THE PARKING UNDERGROUND, PLEASE.

YES, SIR. YES, SIR. SO THIS LOCATION HAS SPECIFICALLY.

AND THE COMMUNITY KNOWS THAT EVERYONE KNOWS THAT AN UNDERGROUND PARKING STRUCTURE AT THIS LOCATION HAS FLOODED AND STAYED FLOODED FOR A LONG TIME.

RIGHT. PREVIOUSLY. DO YOU. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? I REMEMBER THE OLD GARAGE AT THE SITE. YES, SIR.

YEP. SO WE'VE BEEN THROUGH ENOUGH STORMS. NOW WE KNOW WHAT ELECTRIC VEHICLES, THE DANGER IT POSES WHEN ELECTRIC VEHICLES GET FLOODED, RIGHT? YES, SIR. YEAH. ON THIS, IN THIS SITUATION YOUR DEPARTMENT HAS LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES TO BE PARKED IN THIS GARAGE.

AND IS THERE A PLAN THAT PROTECTS THE RESIDENT, THE GUEST IN THE HOTEL AND OTHERS FROM SUCH AN OCCURRENCE IN PERIODS WHERE WE ARE EXPECTING FLOODING? THERE ARE CERTAINLY PROVISIONS BUILT INTO THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN THAT PREVENT THE SPREAD OF FIRE FROM THE GARAGE TO THE FLOORS ABOVE, WITH THE SUITES AND HOTEL ROOMS. THE BUILDING IS SPRINKLERED.

THERE'S A REQUIRED FIRE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO.

AND WE ALSO HAVE PURCHASED DEVICES THAT HELP US FIGHT ELECTRIC VEHICLE FIRES, INCLUDING A FIRE BLANKET THAT YOU CAN WRAP AROUND THE VEHICLE, IS TO SUPPRESS THE THE VAPORS AND THE THE FLAME AND HEAT AS WELL.

IS THERE ANY KIND OF AN OPERATIONAL PLAN THAT IS NECESSARY TO BE PUT IN PLACE BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR, AS IT PERTAINS SPECIFICALLY TO ELECTRIC VEHICLES? THERE WERE PROVISIONS FROM THE STATE THIS YEAR THAT SAYS THAT WE AS THE AUTHORITY HOLDING JURISDICTION, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, CANNOT REGULATE WHERE ELECTRIC VEHICLES CAN AND CANNOT PARK INSIDE OF STRUCTURES AND GARAGES.

IF THE HOTEL WOULD LIKE TO LIMIT THAT, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE HOTEL.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ENFORCE. OKAY, SO AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE THIS CLOSE TO THE GULF WHERE WE'RE OKAY WITH IT, IT'S NOT REQUIRED. PLAN TO PROTECT ELECTRIC VEHICLES FROM FLOODING AND THE INHERENT FIRE RISK THAT GOES WITH THAT.

THE CITY AND THE STATE AND THE COUNTY WILL ALL HAVE EVACUATION ORDERS.

AND AS PART OF THE EMERGENCY PLANS, WE WOULD ASSUME THAT ANYBODY WHO IS IN THAT AREA WOULD EVACUATE SHOULD AN EVACUATION ORDER COME TO FRUITION.

[03:10:04]

BUT ENFORCEMENT OF THE EVACUATION ORDERS IS CHALLENGING.

OKAY. AND DO YOU KNOW IF THIS THIS UNDERGROUND PARKING HAS FLOOD GATES AS PART OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION? I AM NOT AWARE OF FLOOD GATES. I DON'T REVIEW FOR FLOOD GATES, I APOLOGIZE.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THAT IS. I'M SORRY. YEAH. NO, I DID HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. AND THIS IS FOR STAFF. THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON THE RESOLUTION FOR THE THE VALET LICENSING AGREEMENT. THERE IS THIS LIST OF SPECIAL CONDITIONS ATTACHED, MISS BECKETT? YES. AND IN ITS CURRENT VERSION THAT WE HAVE IN OUR PACKET.

15 OF THEM. CORRECT? CORRECT. AND MY QUESTION IS THIS.

WHEN I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT WHAT WE HAD BEEN PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY, I GUESS BACK IN JUNE THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES.

AND THE MOST NOTEWORTHY TO ME WAS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION, NUMBER SEVEN SAID THE CITY MANAGER RETAINS THE RIGHT TO REVOKE OR SUSPEND VALET PARKING APPROVAL UPON FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH IN THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT, IN THIS DOCUMENT OR IN ANY OTHER APPLICABLE CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT BEING MET.

AND THEN YOU GO TO NUMBER 12, FORMER NUMBER 12.

THERE'S THIS APPROVAL IS FOR TEMPORARY USE OF A PORTION OF THE DESIGNATED PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR VALET SERVICE GOES NEXT SENTENCE.

THE CITY HAS SOLE DISCRETION, MAY ASK FOR ADDITIONAL OPERATING INFORMATION AS A CONDITION OF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF VALET OPERATIONS.

I DIDN'T FIND IN THE CURRENT VERSION EITHER OF THOSE ANYWHERE.

MAYBE I OVERLOOKED IT, BUT WERE THEY? I ASSUME THEY WERE INTENTIONALLY REMOVED.

AND IS IT BECAUSE YOU FELT YOU THE CITY HAD THOSE PROTECTIONS THROUGH OTHER LANGUAGE OR IT WAS REDUNDANT? OR CAN YOU? BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN WE TALKED BACK IN JUNE, THOSE WERE SHALL WE CALL THEM YOU KNOW, SEVERAL SEVERAL. THOSE WERE THAT WAS LANGUAGE IN SEVERAL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT THAT SEEMED TO GIVE THE CITY SOME ADDITIONAL COMFORT IN CASE PROBLEMS DID ENSUE WITH THIS.

AND ONCE IT BECOMES OPERATIONAL. MAY I? YES, PLEASE.

OKAY, SO SO WHAT WE NOTICED, BECAUSE THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT THAT OUR OFFICE CREATED PROBABLY A YEAR AGO, HAD SOME REDUNDANT TERMS WITH THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE INCLUDED AS AN EXHIBIT.

SO WE WORKED WITH MR. BROOKER TO KIND OF MORPH THE DOCUMENTS SO THAT THERE WASN'T REDUNDANCY UPON THE TERMS. THE PROVISIONS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE SLIGHTLY REWORDED, BUT THEY'RE IN THE ACTUAL VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT.

I BELIEVE UNDER 11 AND 12, IN WHICH, FOR LIFE SAFETY CONCERNS, WE CAN REVOKE THIS.

THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE IT, ETC.. AND THEN IT ALSO HAS THE ANNUAL REVIEW PERIOD FROM THE CITY MANAGER.

SO AND I'M RAISING THIS SIMPLY TO MAKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS DONE, MR. MCCONNELL. AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU FEEL IN THE LICENSING AGREEMENT ITSELF, THERE IS THE PROTECTIONS THAT WERE PERHAPS ENUMERATED IN THOSE TWO CLAUSES THAT I READ ARE ARE STILL AVAILABLE TO THE CITY.

AND TO INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE AS SPECIAL CONDITIONS WOULD BE REDUNDANT AND UNNECESSARY.

CORRECT. THEY'RE THEY'RE STILL PROTECTION THERE.

IT'S JUST MORPHED. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, THERE WAS REDUNDANT TERMS THAT WE KIND OF MORPHED.

BUT REMEMBER THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDES THE EXHIBITS BY REFERENCE.

SO ANY ONE OF THESE TERMS CAN BE VIOLATED THAT WILL TRIGGER THIS, INCLUDING THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND THE GENERAL CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO IT.

YEAH. BUT HAVING THAT LANGUAGE THAT I REFERRED TO YOU FELT IN THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS YOU FELT WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF OTHER LANGUAGE THAT EXISTS IN THE LICENSING AGREEMENT. CORRECT. OTHER PROTECTIONS IN THE LICENSING AGREEMENT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.

SO IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH IS NOT FILLED OUT AS OF YET.

AND THEN EXHIBIT B. WHERE IT STATES COMPLY WITH THE JULY 28TH,

[03:15:02]

2025 ANTICIPATED OPERATIONS PLAN. ARE THESE EXHIBIT B THE SAME AS IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT? THAT EXHIBIT B IS ACTUALLY AN EXHIBIT TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.

WHICH EXPLAINS.

BECAUSE THIS IS THE APPLICATION. IS IT EXHIBIT B? WE DISCUSSED THAT THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT WOULD BE A PART OF THE RESOLUTION ONCE.

APPROVED. CORRECT. CORRECT. BUT EXHIBIT B. IS NOT MATCH THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. EXHIBIT B IS IN ADDITION TO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.

SO THE LICENSE AGREEMENT, EXHIBIT A, WHICH IS THE DIAGRAM.

AND EXHIBIT B WHICH IS A SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH GOING ON TO GENERAL CONDITIONS.

ALL OF THOSE TERMS MAKE UP THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.

SO THAT DIAGRAM IS BEING USED AS A LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

THE DIAGRAM IS BEING USED AS I CAN RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S I DON'T KNOW. IT'S NOT BEING USED AS A LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

THAT'S A SEPARATE DOCUMENT. OKAY. SO AND THIS IS ONLY FOR THE OPERATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

I'M NOT CORRECT. OKAY. SO THIS ON PAGE THREE OF SEVEN.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT ATTACHMENT IS. THAT'S ON THE SCREEN.

NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S WHAT'S WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN NOW IS FROM THE 2018 PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT WAS APPROVED AT THAT TIME.

AND THE ONLY REASON THAT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION.

AND IT WAS FLAGGED. IT WAS PART OF, THE RESPONSE LETTER FROM MR. BROOKER THAT I MENTIONED IN THE REPORT AND DISCUSSIONS.

HE HAD SUBMITTED A LETTER BACK IN ON JULY 28TH TO MR. YOUNG AND THIS WAS INCLUDED. AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD ALL THE INFORMATION BEFORE YOU TODAY.

SO WHAT IS IN OUR PACKET, WHICH IS A LETTER FROM MR. BROOKER, IS GOING TO BE INCLUDED AS THE PARKING AND VALET OPERATIONS.

THIS IS IT. THIS PIECE OF PAPER RIGHT HERE. IT IS PART OF IT IS ONE OF SEVERAL DOCUMENTS THAT IS REFERENCED AND REFERRED TO AS PART OF THE OPERATIONS PLAN FOR THE VALET. AND THE OTHER ONE IS THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.

THE LICENSE AGREEMENT? THE APPLICATION. ROTATION.

YES. AND THEN THERE WAS ACTUALLY A IN ADDITION TO ALL THAT, THEY DID HAVE A SUBMITTED VALET OPERATION PLAN.

AND THEN THERE'S REFERENCES TO THE 2018 APPROVALS.

THE OPERATIONS PLAN IS IS AN ATTACHMENT IN YOUR IF YOU GO TO 13 A, YOU'LL SEE A DOCUMENT THAT WAS ATTACHED IDENTIFIED AS SUBMITTED VALET OPERATION PLAN.

CAN YOU JUST PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN JUST SO I CAN MAKE SURE THAT'S PART OF THIS RESOLUTION? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT. IDENTIFIED AS AN EXHIBIT.

I MIGHT NEED SOME HELP BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT ONE THAT I DROPPED IN THE FOLDER.

DAVID CAN YOU PULL FROM THE AGENDA ITEM 13 A THE SUBMITTED VALET OPERATION PLAN DOCUMENT. I CAN PROBABLY RUN IT FROM THERE. IT'S ABOUT THE FIFTH ONE RIGHT THERE. YES. THANK YOU. THIS IS THE DOCUMENT THAT I'M REFERRING TO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT LISTED AS AN EXHIBIT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT AS AN EXHIBIT BECAUSE THIS IS THE OVERALL PLAN.

[03:20:04]

IT. MR. MCCONNELL. I MEAN, THE OPERATION PLAN, WE CAN.

BUT AGAIN, THIS RESOLUTION IS SPECIFIC TO THE VALET OPERATIONS, SPECIFICALLY ON OUR RIGHT OF WAY.

WE ALREADY ATTACHED THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT TO THE RESOLUTION.

WE ALREADY ATTACHED THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT TO THE RESOLUTION.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE THE CLERK TO ATTACH THE OPERATION PLAN.

THAT'S FINE, BUT THAT OPERATION PLAN HAS NOT CHANGED FROM 2018, WHICH WAS PART OF THE APPROVAL SEVEN YEARS AGO.

BUT DID YOU NOT SAY THAT THEY HAD ON STREET PARKING? BUT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ON STREET PARKING. THEY LOST 11.

YES. SO APPROXIMATELY 11 PARKING WOULDN'T BE THE SAME AS APPROVED IN 2018, IS THAT CORRECT? THE. WELL, WE HAVE A REVISED PLAN AND THAT AND SO THERE ARE SOME REVISIONS FROM THE YOU'RE TALKING REFERRING TO THE SITE PLAN, THE RIGHT OF WAY PLAN, WHICH IDENTIFIES THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT INCLUDE THE TURN LANE AND THOSE IMPACTS.

AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY FROM THE TURN LANE IMPACTS THAT REMOVED THAT ON STREET PARKING.

SO WE'RE OKAY. SO CLEAR. WE'RE OFFERING A VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN A NON ENTITY OR THE NAPLES HOTEL MANAGEMENT COULD BE THE MANAGEMENT OF THE HOTEL, AND WE'RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE THAT.

AND THEY CAN'T GET THEIR CEO UNTIL THEY UNTIL THEY HAVE PROOF OF INSURANCE AND HAVE IDENTIFIED WHO THE OPERATOR IS, BECAUSE IT JUST SAYS IN SECTION FOUR, THE VALET OPERATOR FOR THE HOTEL SHALL PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR INSURANCE FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHO WE'RE GOING INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH, UNLESS IT'S JUST WITH THE HOTEL MANAGEMENT. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, MADAM MAYOR, WHICH WHICH DOCUMENT ARE YOU REFERRING TO? I'M JUST READING THE RESOLUTION. I'M ON TO APPROVE THE ACTUAL IN THE RESOLUTION.

SO THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT IS SIGNED BY THE HOTEL OPERATOR.

IT IS BINDING. ONCE WE SIGN IT, IF THEY WISH TO TRANSFER THAT LIABILITY TO THE VALLEY OPERATOR, WE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. WE REQUIRE ANOTHER CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE FROM THE VALLEY OPERATOR, ADDING THE CITY AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED. HOWEVER, INDEMNIFICATION THEY CAN FIGHT THEIR VALLEY OPERATOR FOR BECAUSE WHATEVER HAPPENS, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO INDEMNIFY THE CITY FOR WHATEVER HAPPENS ON OUR RIGHT OF WAY PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT.

OKAY. AND TO ME, THE EXHIBIT A IS THE VALLEY PICK UP DROP OFF AREA SITED ON MASTER PLAN 2025 FROM JOHNSON AND ENGINEERING, AND IT SAYS THERE SHALL BE NO PARKING OF VALET ALONG THE ROADSIDE VEHICLE STACKING OF THE VALET OPERATIONS INTO THE ROAD.

CORRECT. OTHER THAN THAT IS DAVIDSON ENGINEERING.

BUT YES, THAT'S EXHIBIT A, THE VALET PICKUP DROP OFF AREA.

THANK YOU. SO THAT'S EXHIBIT A, EXHIBIT B IS THE APPLICATION.

AND WHAT IS. AND THEN THERE'S THE LICENSING AGREEMENT.

CORRECT. AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THIS RESOLUTION.

EXHIBIT B IS A SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF THE. I THINK SHE'S REFERRING TO WHAT THE EXHIBITS OF THE RESOLUTIONS ARE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, YES I AM. SO THE EXHIBITS OF THE RESOLUTION ARE IN SECTION TWO, THE VALET LICENSE AGREEMENT, WHICH INCLUDES THE EXHIBIT A YOU JUST REFERRED TO BY DAVIDSON OR BY BY DAVIDSON, ALONG WITH THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AS EXHIBIT B.

THAT'S ONE WHOLE DOCUMENT. THEN IN SECTION THREE, THE RIGHT OF WAY APPLICATION WILL ALSO BE AN EXHIBIT ON FILE WITH THE CLERK TO THE RESOLUTION. OKAY. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT IN THE WHEREASES.

IT'S IN SECTION TWO AND SECTION THREE OF THE RESOLUTION.

I SEE THE AGREEMENT. I SEE THE APPLICATION. CORRECT.

OKAY. AND THE PLAN IS THE ONE NOTED THAT'S DATED AS THE OPERATIONS PLAN FOR SEPTEMBER HAS THE SEPTEMBER 2025. THAT IS AN EXHIBIT TO THE VALLEY LICENSE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS REFERENCED IN SECTION TWO.

SO THAT PLAN WILL BE PART OF THE OVERALL AGREEMENT, WHICH WILL BE PART OF THE RESOLUTION.

OKAY. CONFIRMING THAT AND GOING TO THE PERMIT FOR.

DESIGNING THE RIGHT OF WAY. OR THE RESOLUTION.

[03:25:05]

EXCUSE ME. AGAIN SECTION TWO INCLUDES THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT APPLICATION.

SECTION THREE INCLUDES THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS.

ALL WILL BE PART OF THE RESOLUTION. AND SHOULD INCLUDE THE I MEAN, IT'S NOT GOING TO INCLUDE THE CONFIRMATION OF WHAT STAFF CONFIRMED AS OR COUNCIL CONFIRMED AS THE COMMITMENTS.

OR IS THAT A SEPARATE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED TODAY? WILL THAT BE ADDED? MY APOLOGIES. MAYOR. I DON'T REMEMBER HEARING ANY ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS.

I THINK THERE WAS A, THAT THERE WOULD BE. THE ONLY THING I DID HEAR WAS COUNCIL MEMBER KRISEMAN ON NUMBER FOUR.

THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THE LANGUAGE THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL AN EVALUATION REPORT CONDUCTED AND AUTHORED BY A LICENSED TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

THE ONLY THING I HEARD WAS THAT THERE WAS A SUGGESTION TO HAVE THAT REPORT PREPARED BY ONE OF OUR VENDORS, BUT PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPER. EXCUSE ME. THAT RELATES.

THAT'S ON THE INTERSECTION 13 B. CORRECT. I'M ON B NOW.

I'M MOVED TO THE RESOLUTION. BUT, MR. CHRISMAN, WEREN'T YOU REFERRING TO ONCE THE STUDY WAS PRESENTED TO BE EVALUATED TO THE PAYING THE ENGINEER AND WHETHER THEY STARTED ENGINEERING OUR INTERSECTION OR WHETHER WE TOOK THAT ON OURSELVES? I THINK EXACTLY. OKAY. I WAS SUGGESTING THAT WE WE WE WE CHANGE THAT, MODIFY THAT CONDITION SO THAT IT WAS ONE WHERE WE WOULD RETAIN THE ENGINEER TO DO THE STUDY AND AND THERE WOULD BE BUT I THINK THIS SHOULD BE DONE AT, AT THE AT THE COST OF THE PETITIONER OR AT MINIMUM, THAT COST SHOULD BE SHARED, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE THE CITY'S INITIATIVE TO RETAIN THE ENGINEER AND CARRY OUT THE STUDY.

OBVIOUSLY, THE RESULTS OF WHICH WOULD BE SHARED WITH THE PETITIONER.

MR. BROOKER. ANY OBJECTION TO MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE IN NUMBER FOUR? I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS FROM COUNCIL, SO.

YOU CAN. YEAH. THAT CHANGE TO PARAGRAPH FOUR OF THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT IS FINE.

SO I MEAN, THE IDEA IS TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENCE OF SEPARATION FROM THE DEVELOPER.

SO WE'RE NOT COOKING THE BOOKS. RIGHT. JUST MAKES THE OPTICS BETTER.

OKAY. DID I COVER EVERYTHING THAT WE DISCUSSED? AND DO I HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? MADAM CLERK.

COUNCIL. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OKAY.

MR. BOOKER. CLOSING REMARKS. NOTHING FURTHER.

I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE ATTENTION AND AND THE DETAILED CONVERSATION.

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. COUNCIL.

NO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR 13 A MAYOR? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FOR 13 A APPROVING A LICENSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND OLDE NAPLES HOTEL MANAGEMENT, LLC INCLUDING THE ALL OF THE ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS TO THE RESOLUTION, AS DISCUSSED HERE TODAY.

SECOND MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRISMAN AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER.

YES. THANK YOU. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER PENNYMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHISON. NO. MAYOR. HEITMANN. NO. IT PASSES 4 TO 3.

THANK YOU. I'M MOVING TO 13. B. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR MAYOR? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION.

APPROVING A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. PERMIT APPLICATION.

PRR 2505442. WITH STANDARD AND SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY DESIGN PLAN TO IMPROVE FUTURE TRAFFIC DEFICIENCIES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL AT 200 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH WITH

[03:30:09]

ONE ADDITION TO THE ACCOMPANYING AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE THAT THE THE A STUDY OF, OF THE NEED FOR A SIGNALIZATION OF THE INTERSECTION, IF SO DETERMINED BY THE CITY AND OR THE PETITIONER TO BE NEEDED IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE CARRIED OUT BY A CONSULTANT IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY WITH THE COSTS BORNE BY THE PETITIONER.

SECOND. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISMAN FOR APPROVAL.

A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL.

VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. NO. MAYOR. HEITMANN. NO. AND I LOST TRACK.

I THINK THERE WAS FOUR. FAILED. 3 TO 4. 3 TO 4.

OKAY. NOW COUNCIL. OKAY, SO WE NEED TO REVISIT THIS AT THIS POINT NOW THAT THAT'S FAILED BECAUSE THERE'S A CONDITION THAT THEY NEED TO PAY FOR 50% OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.

YOU ALL AT THE PRIOR MEETING AGREED TO THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THAT WAS BEING PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY.

SO WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ON WHERE TO GO FROM HERE. YEAH.

MAYOR. KRAMER. MR. MCCONNELL, DIDN'T WE ALREADY TALK EXTENSIVELY ABOUT THIS IN ANOTHER MEETING AND AGREE THIS IS THE DIRECTION WE WANTED TO GO.

YES, AS A COUNCIL. AS A COUNCIL. THIS IS JUST APPROVING THE PERMIT AND THE AGREEMENT.

AND WE'VE ALREADY GONE FROM THE BEST SOLUTION WAS AROUND ABOUT TO PREVENT THIS WAS BEFORE I WAS EVER ON COUNCIL.

WE WENT FROM THAT TO NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT TO WHATEVER TYPE OF LIGHTS TO NO, WE'LL JUST DO STOP SIGNS NOW.

BUT WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THAT HOURS ON THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT PUBLIC SERVICE TO KNOW HOW YOU CAN GET THAT FAR DOWN THE ROAD AND THEN REVERSE COURSE AND WHAT LIABILITY THAT IS FOR US WHEN THE PETITIONERS IS INVESTED AS THEY ARE, HOW DOES THAT WORK? AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE DECIDED TO TAKE THESE TWO TOGETHER, I DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND ONE THING.

I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU OPERATE THE VALLEY PLAN THAT YOU JUST APPROVED WITHOUT THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS, BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE NO TURN LANE TO COME OUT OF THE THE GARAGE OUT OF OR INTO.

I ONLY WANT TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT.

NOW, IF THERE'S MODIFICATIONS WE NEED, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN'T EXECUTE 13 A WITHOUT 13 B IN SOME FASHION FORM OR ANOTHER.

AND I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. AND SO THEN THE OTHER THING WAS AT ANY ARE WE.

BECAUSE WE DON'T WE HAVE TO TALK IN THE SUNSHINE. IS THERE A POINT AT WHICH OUR COUNCILS, WHAT DO WE CALL THAT WHEN WE WANT TO REVOTE? RECONSIDER? YEAH, RECONSIDER. SHOULD WE NOT HAVE RECONSIDERED ALL OF THIS BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS POINT? IF THAT'S THE CASE? I THINK IT'S TO RECONSIDER.

MR. MCCONNELL, PLEASE PUT THAT ON. WHAT WOULD CREATE A RECONSIDER? SOMEONE THAT VOTED NO WOULD HAVE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

NO, I KNOW WHAT IT IS I'M SAYING BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS POINT WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY NO AFTER THEY PUSHED THE BALL THIS FAR DOWN THE ROAD, SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE ALREADY? I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT OUR LIABILITY RIGHT NOW AS IT MY, MY BIGGEST CONCERN WAS THE ACTUAL ENTERING INTO THE HOTEL AND PEOPLE MAKING U-TURNS AT GULF SHORE BOULEVARD TO BE ABLE TO COME AROUND AND ENTER THE HOTEL.

PERSONALLY, I, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN TOLD WE CAN'T MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THESE AGREEMENTS BECAUSE IT WAS 2018.

I AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

BUT WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM 13 B, WHICH IS THE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT APPLICATION.

FOR PRR W 2505 442. OKAY. WE NEED A SECOND ON THAT.

I NEED A SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. AND IT CAN BE FROM SOMEONE THAT WASN'T IN.

INCORRECT. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. YEAH. ON ITEM 13, BE SOME CLARIFICATION.

[03:35:07]

SO, VICE MAYOR, JUST REAL QUICK, ANY COMMENTS RIGHT NOW ARE SIMPLY ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

OKAY. AT SOME POINT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN OR SHOULD BE OR WILL BE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM. EVEN THE RECONSIDERATION. SO I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

IF YOU WERE LIMITED ON JUST THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER RIGHT NOW.

NO. SO JUST THE VOTE OF RECONSIDERING, NOT THE MERITS OF THE ITEM.

CORRECT. BECAUSE IF THIS MOTION PASSES, THEN YOU WILL REOPEN THE ITEM AND ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION THAT.

CORRECT. THAT'S GOOD. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CUSHMAN. THIS IS. THE VOTE IS ON WHETHER TO RECONSIDER.

SO A YES VOTE IS TO VOTE FOR RECONSIDERATION.

CORRECT? CORRECT. CORRECT. SO MY VOTE IS. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BURTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. MAYOR.

HARTMAN. YES. SO IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? CORRECT. MR. MCCONNELL? YES. RESOLUTION. PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.

APPLICATION PRR 2505442. I MADE THE MOTION BEFORE, AND I'LL MAKE IT AGAIN WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF THE HOW THE THE THE POTENTIAL STUDY FOR.

IMPROVING THE INTERSECTION AT SOME POINT IN TIME FROM A FOUR WAY STOP TO A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION WOULD BE HANDLED WHICH WOULD INVOLVE THE CITY CHOOSING THE CONSULTANT AND THE PETITIONER.

THE THE OPERATOR OF THE HOTEL BEARING THE COST.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMAN, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND. BY COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER.

DISCUSSION. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. JUST A FEW POINTS, AND I BELIEVE IT'S ON THIS ITEM INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUS ITEM.

BUT THERE WAS DISCUSSION. I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE MOTION, BUT WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT INSTALLING NO U-TURN SIGNAGE.

IS THAT PART OF THE MOTION? DOES IT NEED TO BE PART OF THE MOTION IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS? THANK YOU. THAT'S WHERE I GOT IT CAN BE, BUT IT'S NOTED THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT FROM OUR STREET STAFF THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT IT'S INCORPORATED IN. AND THEN THE RAPID FLASHERS, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALSO NOTE.

AND WITH SUPPORT OF THAT WE IT'S OUR ROADWAY SYSTEM.

SO WE DO HAVE THE RIGHTS TO INSTALL THEM. AND FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY THESE ARE THINGS THAT FOR FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY PORTION OF THIS, THESE ARE THINGS THAT TO GET MY VOTE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE NOT PROPOSED.

BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT I WANT PART OF THE THE RESOLUTION, DOES IT NEED TO BE PART OF THE MOTION OR JUST THE FACT THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IT? IS IT GOING TO HAPPEN BASED ON THAT? I THINK EITHER WAY, BUT IF IT'S NOT A BAD IDEA FOR THE MINUTES TO MAKE IT, TO ASK THE MOTION MAKER IF HE WILL AMEND IT TO INCLUDE THOSE TWO SPECIFIC REQUESTS.

OKAY. AND THEN ANOTHER POINT OF CONFLICT WITH TRAFFIC IN AND AROUND THIS INTERSECTION. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC GOING DUE WEST ON BROAD AVENUE, WE IN OUR DRAWINGS, IN OUR PACKAGE, WE SEE A MEDIAN THAT'S PROPOSED.

THE MEDIAN PREVENTS ANYONE FROM TURNING AS THEY GO DUE WEST ON BROAD FROM TURNING INTO THE VALET AREA. RIGHT. AND WE'RE ADDRESSING THE PROBABILITY THAT SOME WILL WANT TO MAKE A U-TURN.

WE'RE ADDRESSING THAT WITH SIGNAGE. THE PORTION THAT I'M REALLY NOT IN FAVOR OF IS WHERE YOU CAN MAKE YOUR TRAVELING DUE WEST ON BROAD BEFORE THE RAISED MEDIAN, BUT IN FRONT OF THE PARKING GARAGE WERE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO TURN LEFT INTO THAT RAMP GOING DOWN INTO THE PARKING GARAGE.

[03:40:01]

MY QUESTION IS THIS WHAT? ARE THERE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES? BY EXTENDING THE MEDIAN TO WHERE TRAFFIC IS NOT QUEUING UP TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN INTO THE PARKING GARAGE? REMEMBER, THAT'S AN ARM ACTIVATED ENTRANCE.

SO TRUCKS AND OTHER CARS THAT WHOEVER'S GOING TO BE TRYING TO MAKE A LEFT AND GO DOWN INTO THAT PARKING GARAGE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE STACKING UP TRAFFIC ON BROAD AVENUE SOUTH.

IS THERE ANY REASON WE WOULDN'T EXTEND THE MEDIAN TO PREVENT PEOPLE MAKING A LEFT OVER THAT DOUBLE YELLOW LINE AND A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE. WHAT IS A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE SAYING ANYWAY? WHAT IS IT SAYING YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS.

OH, BUT WE'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO CROSS. SO THAT'S WITHOUT THAT I'M NOT BECAUSE IT WILL HAPPEN.

GO AHEAD. THEN. DO YOU HAVE ANY? WHY WOULDN'T WE EXTEND THE MEDIAN? WE WOULD PROBABLY END UP LOSING ADDITIONAL PARKING.

WHERE WOULD WE LOSE IT? BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S SHIFTED OVER.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCREEN, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS, OOPS, SEVEN PARKING SPACES UP HERE. AND THEN BY SHIFTING THAT AND YOU'RE SAYING ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE GARAGE ENTRANCE.

MY OTHER CONCERN WITH THAT WOULD BE PERHAPS AS TO MADAM MAYOR'S COMMENT, AS FAR AS MAKING U-TURNS, THAT WOULD ALSO IN THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE MORE TRAFFIC WOULD MOST LIKELY BE MAKING THAT U-TURN IN ORDER TO MAKE IT AND COME BACK HEADING EASTBOUND ON BROAD AVENUE TO TURN IN, BECAUSE THAT IS ALSO INTENDED FOR THERE'S LOADING SPACE THERE FOR DELIVERIES.

SO THAT I BELIEVE WOULD WOULD BE WHERE I WOULD HAVE SOME CONCERNS, NOT AS MUCH AS THE PARKING, BUT THE THE U-TURNS AND ADDITIONAL. THANK YOU MISS.

SO COUNCIL FOR ME EDUCATING OR TRAINING TRAFFIC THE DELIVERY TRUCKS THAT WOULD TYPICALLY MAKE THAT LEFT RIGHT THERE.

IT'S MORE PROBLEMATIC FOR ME FOR TRAFFIC TO BE MAKING LEFT AS THEY'RE HEADING DUE WEST ON BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, CROSSING A DOUBLE YELLOW LINE THAT IS INTENDED TO DETER PEOPLE FROM MAKING A LEFT.

OR JUST IF WE JUST ALLOW IT, WE'RE JUST ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO IGNORE ALL THE SIGNS.

SO IT'S OKAY FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE THE BLOCK, MAKE RIGHT HAND TURNS RIGHT AT BROAD AND GORDON OR SECOND, AND THEN GO DOWN AND MAKE A RIGHT INTO WHATEVER THE GARAGE IS.

IT'S NOT OKAY, IN MY OPINION, TO ENCOURAGE TRAFFIC TO MAKE THAT LEFT, CROSS THE DOUBLE YELLOW LINES AND CREATE PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE PROBLEMS WILL OCCUR RIGHT THERE. SO WITHOUT THAT IT'S I DON'T YOU WON'T HAVE MY SUPPORT.

I'VE GOT MAYBE A SOLUTION. I DON'T KNOW, MADAM MAYOR, MAY I? YES, PLEASE.

WHAT IF WHAT ABOUT CAN WE DO LIKE THE STANDING REFLECTORS? THAT WOULD THAT WOULD GO BEYOND THAT. THE CURB THAT'S GOING THERE.

BUT WE DON'T WANT TO EXTEND THE CURB BECAUSE WE MIGHT BE LOSING PARKING. RIGHT. AND YOU KNOW, THE STANDING REFLECTORS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER STANDING THREE FEET HIGH OR FOUR FEET HIGH OR WHATEVER THEY ARE. PUT A SERIES OF THOSE DOWN THERE THAT PREVENTS PEOPLE FROM TURNING LEFT.

AND AS FAR AS IS THE CONCERN ABOUT, OH, WELL, THE DELIVERY GUYS CAN GO UP HERE AND WANT TO TAKE YOU.

THEY WORK. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING. THEY DRIVE, THEY DELIVER STUFF AND THEY PICK UP STUFF.

THEY'RE GOING TO LEARN THAT THEY DON'T GO INTO THIS PARTICULAR BAY FROM THIS DIRECTION.

THEY NEED TO GO AROUND THE BLOCK AND COME BACK UP.

GORDON I MEAN, THAT'S THEIR JOB. THAT'S THEIR JOB IS TO DRIVE AROUND TOWN AND FIGURE OUT HOW THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GET TO THE TO THE DELIVERY BAY AREA. RIGHT. THEY MAY SCREW IT UP ONCE, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SCREW IT UP ALL THE TIME. AND THERE MAY BE MAYBE A NEW DELIVERY GUY.

HE MIGHT SCREW IT UP ONCE, BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO SCREW IT UP ALL THE TIME. SO I NOW I ASK TO YOU GUYS IF THAT'S IF THAT'S AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO PUT THOSE STANDING ONES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT EXTENDING THE CURB, BUT WE'RE PUTTING THOSE STANDING THINGS THERE TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM COMING LEFT. THEY'RE CALLED THE LINEARS. AND YES, I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THEM THERE. BECAUSE EVEN IF YOU BUMP INTO THEM, THEY'LL COME BACK UP AND THEY WON'T HURT A CAR.

SO A TRUCK DOESN'T HAVE TO TURN RIGHT AWAY. IF COUNCIL WOULD SUPPORT THAT.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. SUPPORT. BARTON PLAN TWO PARKING DRIVING ISSUE.

NO, I MISSED MY CALLING. OKAY, SO MOTION TO ADD THOSE FEW ITEMS. JUST ADD TWO ITEMS. COULD I JUST IF YOU WANT, COULD I JUST ADD AS A CONDITION THAT WE WISH

[03:45:07]

TO ELIMINATE STUPID HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND THAT WE COVER ALL ASPECTS OF THIS? I'LL. I'LL AMEND MY MOTION. LET'S SEE IF I HAVE IT ALL THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE AS CONDITIONS THE INSTITUTION OF THE LATEST, GREATEST VERSION OF THE BARTON PLAN TO TO DEAL WITH THE TO TO MITIGATE THE CHANCES THAT, REDUCE THE CHANCES THAT VEHICLES WILL BE TURNING LEFT OFF ABROAD ACROSS THE YELLOW LINES THROUGH USE OF THESE DEVICES. AND ALSO THAT WE WOULD PUT FLASHERS ON WHAT, THE CROSSWALK ON ON ON ON GORDON AND I AND NO U-TURN AND A NO U-TURN SIGN AT AT AT THE INTERSECTION OF GORDON AND BROAD.

SO I'LL ADD THOSE THREE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO MY MY MOTION.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER COUNCILMAN, FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THAT.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION AND A SECOND BY KRAMER, MADAM CLERK.

COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON.

YEAH. I NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS. THANK YOU.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MARTIN.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRAMER. YES. MAYOR. HEITMANN. YES. THANK YOU.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MANY HOURS. THANK YOU STAFF.

THANK YOU. PETITIONER. AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE CONCLUDED 13 A AND 13 B, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ 13 C MR.

[13.C) Announcement of an Executive Session Regarding Compagnone, Richard v. City of Naples, Case No. 23-CA-003045, 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida.]

MCCONNELL? YES. THANK YOU MAYOR. SO PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 286 .011, SUBPARAGRAPH EIGHT, YOUR CITY ATTORNEY IS ANNOUNCING HIS REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING ADVICE CONCERNING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPENON, RICHARD VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES, CASE NUMBER 23 003045, IN IN FOUR, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ON OCTOBER 15TH, 2025, AT APPROXIMATELY 1230, IN THE CITY'S CONFERENCE ROOM ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR.

THE ENTIRE SESSION WILL BE RECORDED BY A COURT REPORTER.

NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN. ANY FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED BY THE COUNCIL WILL BE TAKEN AT A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARING OR ONCE WE RECONVENE.

THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS TERRY HUTCHISON, RAY CHRISTMAN, BETH PETRANOFF, BILL KRAMER, LINDA PENMAN, BURN BARTON, CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ATTORNEY JEFFREY HURCOMB, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM DEAN'S COURT REPORTING. WOW.

THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, IT TAKES US TO ITEM 13 D.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A HALF AN HOUR BREAK FOR LUNCH AND RETURN AT 105.

OKAY. WE'RE BACK IN. STARTING WITH ITEM 13 C D MR. MCCONNELL, WE DID SEE 113 D, CORRECT. OH. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. 13. MR. MCCONNELL. THANK YOU.

[13.D) Discussion regarding a Pre-Suit Notice challenging Resolution 2025-15651 received September 18, 2025.]

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 202515651 REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CODE OF ORDINANCES AS IT PERTAINS TO THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY'S AIRPORT UTILIZATION PLAN AND SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING FOR SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. SO. THIS IS, AS YOU KNOW, WE DO THINGS IN PUBLIC.

THERE'S A DRAFT COMPLAINT ATTACHED TO THE PRE-SUIT NOTICE WE GOT.

I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST TO ARTICULATE WHY WE'RE HERE WITHOUT CONFIRMING OR DENYING THAT THE PERSON AND THE GROUP THAT SENT THIS DID IT THE RIGHT WAY.

AND WITHOUT GETTING TO ANY ARGUMENTS THAT I WOULD MAKE IF THERE WERE TO GO FORWARD IN THE COURT OF LAW.

SO IF I PAUSE A COUPLE TIMES, THAT'S WHY I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT I THINK OF THIS THE RIGHT WAY AND SAY IT THE RIGHT WAY, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DENY OR ADMIT ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE, AND I DON'T WANT TO CONFIRM ANYTHING THAT I COULD POTENTIALLY DETER ME FROM ARGUING IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. SO ACCORDING TO THEIR PRE-SUIT NOTICE, AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 18 OF SENATE BILL 180, BEFORE A PLAINTIFF MAY FILE SUIT IF THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION THAT BURDENS THEM AS MORE BURDENSOME OR RESTRICTIVE AND THAT IMPACTS THEM,

[03:50:03]

THE PLAINTIFF SHALL NOTIFY THE IMPACTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT BY SETTING FORTH THE FACTS UPON WHICH THE COMPLAINT OR PETITION IS BASED, AND THE REASONS THE IMPACTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS VIOLATE THIS SECTION.

UPON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE, THE IMPACTED LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL HAVE 14 DAYS TO WITHDRAW OR REVOKE THE ACTION AT ISSUE OR OTHERWISE DECLARE IT VOID.

SO I RECEIVED THIS LETTER ON SEPTEMBER 18TH. TODAY IS OCTOBER 1ST.

IT'S WITHIN THAT 13 DAY WINDOW. DO WHICH IS WHY IT'S PART OF THIS AGENDA.

NOW, WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, A LITTLE BACKGROUND.

OUR OFFICE, ME AND ANDREW WERE TASKED WITH DRAFTING AN OPINION TO ANSWER A FEW VERY SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US BY COUNCIL.

AND WE DID SO ON MAY 19TH. AND WE HAD A FULL ON DISCUSSION ON IT AT COUNCIL ON WHAT TO DO FROM THERE.

AND IF YOU'LL RECALL, THAT WAS A MONTH BEFORE WE BROKE FOR SUMMER BREAK.

SO IN ORDER TO MEMORIALIZE THAT, AND IN ORDER TO WHAT I WOULD REFER TO AS PROVIDE A QUICK FIX WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR OPINION LETTER SUGGESTED THAT WE ACTUALLY ADOPT ORDINANCES. RIGHT.

CLARIFYING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CLARIFYING SOME OF THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE AND NOMENCLATURE, AND CLARIFYING THE PROCESS AND THE CODE THAT WE BELIEVE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CURRENTLY STANDS FOR.

WE DEVELOPED THIS RESOLUTION. IT WAS PROCESSED AND IT WAS ADOPTED.

NOW FAST FORWARD OVER THE LAST THREE MONTHS, AS YOU ALL WILL RECALL, BECAUSE TWO MEETINGS AGO, WE WE WE SHOWED YOU SOME VERY, VERY ROUGH DRAFTS OF SOME OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON WITH THESE ORDINANCES AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH THE NRA ON AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES NOW IN AN EFFORT TO BE FULLY TRANSPARENT, HAD I DRAFTED AFTER THOSE CONVERSATIONS, HAD I DRAFTED THIS RESOLUTION NOW IT WOULD LOOK DIFFERENT.

THE REASON BEING IS THERE'S BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SOME AMENDMENTS, THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCESSIONS, THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD NOT ONLY WITH OUR AIRPORT COUNCIL BUT WITH THE NRA, BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE WHOLE THEME OF THIS IS TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS FOR BOTH SIDES.

THEY WANT CLARITY. CITY WANTS CLARITY. APPLICANTS WANT CLARITY.

THAT'S WHAT THESE ORDINANCES ARE DOING. AND THAT'S WHAT OUR OPINION STANDS FOR. THAT BEING SAID.

THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT RESCIND THAT OPINION.

I STAND BY THAT OPINION, AND I WILL CONTINUE TO STAND BY THAT OPINION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT.

THIS RESOLUTION DOES NOT PREVENT US FROM CONTINUING ON TO WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHICH IS THE BIGGER, MORE PERMANENT FIX OF THE OF THE ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.

SO RESCINDING THIS IN MY OPINION, DOESN'T CHANGE OUR OPINION.

OUR AIRPORT OPINION DOESN'T CHANGE THE ROUTE THAT I'M GOING.

AND EDITING THE ORDINANCES DOESN'T CHANGE THE WORK THAT STILL GOES ON TO IT.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE CONCESSIONS WE MADE, WHEN THOSE ORDINANCES DO COME FORWARD, THEY WOULD HAVE SUPERSEDED THIS RESOLUTION AND THIS RESOLUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN NULL AND VOID AT THAT POINT ANYWAYS.

SO I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT BASED ON MY REQUEST.

BUT LET'S SAY WE'RE HEARING THESE ORDINANCES IN DECEMBER OR JANUARY I WOULD HAVE REQUESTED BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT.

REMEMBER, WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS.

I DIDN'T WANT COMPETING LANGUAGE RIGHT. OR LANGUAGE THAT DIFFERS A LITTLE BIT TO BE IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION AND AN ORDINANCE.

SO THE PRE-SUIT NOTICE ALSO HINTS AT WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR SEPTEMBER 3RD.

AGAIN, I FEEL CONFIDENT IN OUR OPINION. I FEEL CONFIDENT IN DEFENDING THE CITY.

I WOULD MUCH RATHER DEFEND THE FINAL PRODUCT, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCES, THAN THE FIRST DRAFT, WHICH WAS THIS RESOLUTION THAT WE PREPARED WITHIN THREE WEEKS PRIOR TO THE AGENDA TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING DONE BEFORE SUMMER.

THEREFORE, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE I DON'T SEE A NEED FOR THIS.

I DON'T SEE THE NEED IN EXHAUSTING CITY RESOURCES RIGHT NOW.

I WOULD PREFER TO USE THOSE RESOURCES AND FOCUSING ON THE BIGGER PICTURE AND THE FINAL PRODUCT.

I'M NOT AFRAID TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. I WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. I KNOW WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE GROUP HERE HAVE NO PROBLEM SAYING THAT IN PUBLIC.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS, BUT YES.

KRAMER. MR. COUNCILWOMAN AND. COUNCILWOMAN.

YES. IF WE GO THE ORDINANCE ROUTE COULD WE GET A, YOU KNOW, TIME COMMITMENT ON THAT, LIKE WHEN, WHEN IS A REASONABLE TIME TO HAVE THOSE COMPLETED OR, I GUESS, I GUESS IT'D BE TWO ORDINANCES,

[03:55:05]

ONE FOR SITE PLAN, ONE FOR POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY.

THERE PROBABLY BE A THIRD ONE. THERE'D BE A COUPLE, BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING SOME CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WE COULD DO WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EDITS SO I COULD BE ABLE TO I COULD BIFURCATE THOSE TWO.

BUT IF WE DO GO THAT ROUTE, I THINK I'VE WORKED WITH STAFF.

THEY'VE BEEN GREAT. YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH THE NA AT THIS POINT.

IN MY OPINION, THESE ORDINANCES ARE IN OUR OFFICE TO MAKE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT AND PUT AN ORDINANCE FORMAT WITH RECITALS.

I UNDERSTAND THE NA HAS A MEETING IN NOVEMBER.

IDEALLY, YOU WOULD GIVE DIRECTION TO ME AND THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY MANAGER TO TO CONTACT ROZANSKI DIRECTLY TO ADD THIS TO THEIR AGENDA.

I'D BE THERE TO PRESENT IT IN NOVEMBER. AND THEN ONCE WE GET INPUT FROM THE NA, IT WOULD COME BACK IN FIRST READING TO COUNCIL.

BECAUSE AGAIN, I BELIEVE THIS IS A GROUP EFFORT. I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE BOTH BOARDS.

AGAIN, I'M ALSO LEANING TOWARDS THE MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE MORE DUE PROCESS.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE AFFECTED BY WHAT'S COMING TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM, WHETHER IT'S THE NA OR CITY COUNCIL AND SPEAK THEIR PIECE.

SO I THINK A TIMELINE, A REALISTIC TIMELINE, ASSUMING THAT WE MAKE THE NA MEETING IN EITHER NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER WOULD BE DECEMBER OR FIRST OF OF THE YEAR. THANK YOU. MY PLEASURE.

WHEN YOU SAY NOVEMBER NA MEETING, I MEAN THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO MEET WITH THE NA TO DISCUSS THIS.

OR ARE YOU SAYING WE'RE GOING TO GO OR YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO THE NA MEETING? I WAS SUGGESTING THAT THAT I GO TO THE NA MEETING WITH THE ORDINANCE AND, AND PRESENT IT AND GET FEEDBACK FROM THE NA.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE. BUT I THINK IF THEY CAME HERE AND WE COULD GET HAVE A MUTUAL CONVERSATION, I THINK THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE. I'D BE OPEN TO A JOINT MEETING AS WELL.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST AGAIN, WHATEVER. COUNCIL. I'VE NEVER SEEN AN ATTORNEY GO AND TRY AND NEGOTIATE WITH THEM ON WHAT THE PROPER PROCEDURES ARE. OR TO MAYOR MAYOR CAN I CAN I INTERJECT SOMETHING HERE? JUST. I JUST WANT TO INTERJECT TO TO BE CLEAR SO JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

IT WAS THE MAY 21ST MEETING, SO I JUST WANTED TO REFERENCE THAT INSTEAD OF THE 19TH AND I'M SORRY, JUST BECAUSE IT PASSED ON JUNE 19TH, BUT THE MAY 21ST WAS WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED THAT WE WOULD DO THE RESOLUTION JUST FOR THE RECORD, SO THAT IF ANYBODY WANTED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT BUT IN THERE IT WAS MISS MR. MCCONNELL DEPICTED EXACTLY THAT WAY AS THERE CAN BE, AND IT WAS EVEN DEPICTED BY HIM IN SUCH A WAY AS TO SAY THERE WOULD BE A QUICK FIX, NOTING THAT THE MORE PERTINENT CHANGES COULD BE MADE THROUGH THE UPDATES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CITY CODE.

SO THE ONLY REASON I'M INTERJECTING AT THIS POINT IS BECAUSE ANY REFERENCE TO.

I THINK THAT FROM THAT POINT ON, AS YOU KNOW, AND WE PRESENTED ALREADY ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, WHERE WE SAID THAT WE GOT TOGETHER AS A GROUP.

CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. CITY ATTORNEY, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND MR. REPRESENTING OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. AND WE WORKED ON THIS COLLECTIVELY.

WE HAD MEETINGS OVER THE SUMMER. WE MET WITH YOU ON SEPTEMBER 3RD.

WE HAD A FOLLOW UP MEETING WITH THE NA. AND SO IN TERMS OF PRESENTATION, WHETHER WHETHER IT'S A JOINT MEETING OR NOT, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT I RESPECTFULLY WOULDN'T ASK MR. MCCONNELL TO GO ON HIS OWN. IT WOULD BE A MATTER OF US HAVING CARRIED THE MESSAGE FROM THE SEPTEMBER 3RD MEETING AND WORKING TOGETHER TO DO THIS.

AND SO I JUST IN ANY PERCEPTION THAT I DON'T THINK THAT CERTAINLY THAT HE MEANT IT THAT WAY.

BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF DEVELOPING THE ORDINANCES, IN APPRECIATION OF THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE TO GET THE COMP PLAN AND THE CODE IN ALIGNMENT, WE WOULD GO LOCKSTEP IN WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, WHETHER IT'S IN A JOINT SESSION OR WHETHER IT WAS INDIVIDUALLY.

I JUST WANTED TO HAVE SAID THAT BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT THERE TO BE THAT THERE WAS ANY DISCONNECT ON THAT, THAT WORKLOAD. SO I HOPE YOU AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION I HAVE THE WE'VE GOT THE QUICK FIX IN THAT.

WE'VE GOT A DRAFT OF IT. THAT'S SOME PERCENTAGE DONE.

THAT'S A RESOLUTION. AND THEN WE'VE GOT A START OF SOME ORDINANCES.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WE'VE GOT A COUPLE ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE STARTING TO TO WORK ON RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE PEOPLE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY DO SITE PLANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE POINTS OF VIEW ON ON WHAT THAT IS.

AND THEN I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO DO THE, YOU KNOW, THESE THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS, WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE ON DRAFTING THAT THING.

SO THEY WOULD ERIC AND OR MISS MARTIN AND OR OR THE LIKE AND AND YOU WOULD BE WOULD GO HAND IN HAND TO DO THOSE ORDINANCES.

[04:00:06]

THE ONE THING I DON'T WANT TO DO IS HAVE THE LONG TERM THE LONG TERM SOLUTION BE ROLLED OUT WHEN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TRANSMITTED, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS, I THINK. NO.

AND I JUST WANT TO ASSURE YOU THAT THAT MY REASON OF SPEAKING UP IS I WANTED TO ASSURE YOU THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE.

THERE WAS NO THERE WAS NO SEPARATION AND ARE MARCHING TOWARDS THIS ORDINANCE.

IN MY OPINION, IF MATTHEW DISAGREES, HE'S WELCOME TO.

SO QUICK, QUICK FIX IS A RESOLUTION. THAT IS WHAT WAS PUT BEFORE US.

QUICKISH FIX OR RATHER MORE PERMANENT FIX, OR ARE HAVING A A SET OF ORDINANCES THAT WILL COME BEFORE US, WE HOPE, IN DECEMBER AND THEN AND THEN THE LONG TERM, YOU KNOW, ADDITION IS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S EMBEDDED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I THINK THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT. AND JUST TO CLARIFY THE WORK THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO WITH PLANNING AND THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE ATTORNEY HAS KIND OF HAPPENED OVER SUMMER, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE GOT TO A PLACE WHERE NOW.

WITH OUR LAST MEETING. THEY'RE IN A POSITION WHERE ME AND ANDREW HAVE TO SIT DOWN, DRAFT THE, MAKE THEM A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT DOCUMENT, IN OUR OPINION.

RIGHT. OBVIOUSLY WITH WORKING WITH STAFF AND LIKE WE'VE BEEN DOING.

AND THEN PRESENT AN ACTUAL ORDINANCE OR TWO TO THE N AA WHETHER THAT'S A JOINT MEETING, WHETHER THAT'S GARY AND I WORKING TOGETHER. HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

AND THERE'S A REASON BEHIND THAT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET THE BUY IN FROM THE NA BECAUSE IT'S THEIR PROPERTY.

IT'S THEIR LAND TENANTS THAT ARE THE ONES COMPLAINING.

IT IS THEIR LEASES THAT THEY HOLD WITH THESE PEOPLE.

RIGHT. WITH THESE BUSINESSES OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM.

SO THEY SHOULD HAVE TO ALSO BE INVOLVED. THEY CAN'T JUST SIT BACK AND SAY, WELL, THAT'S THE CITY'S DOING IT ON THEIR OWN.

NO, WE'RE DOING THIS TOGETHER TO CLARIFY A PROCESS THAT NEEDS CLARIFYING.

SO EVERYONE SHOULD BUY IN. I AGREE. I AGREE WITH THAT.

I ALSO AGREE WITH THE NOTION OF, YOU KNOW, THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS SEE ANOTHER.

ANOTHER ISSUE THAT COMES UP BECAUSE WE HAVE CONFLICTING THINGS, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING'S DIFFERENT IN OUR CODE AND, AND WE'RE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO I'D RATHER HAVE IT HARMONIZED AND ROLL IT OUT.

RIGHT. THAT IS MAKES SENSE. IT'S GOT PUBLIC INPUT AND IT IS DEFENSIBLE.

AND I'M FINISHED. THANK YOU. KRAMER. THAT WAS GOOD AND GOOD.

CLARIFICATION ON THE TIMELINE, I. THE QUESTION FOR ME IS, DO I TRUST OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND I.

AM I GOING TO LISTEN TO THE ADVICE HE'S GIVING ME RIGHT NOW? SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN MY END. THERE'S NOT MUCH DISCUSSION. AND THE ANSWERS ARE YES.

AND I THINK WE. NEED TO LIKE WE DO IN SO MANY INSTANCES, RELY ON HIM.

YEAH. I I'M SORRY. I JUST NEED TO. YES. THANK YOU.

AND I'M SORRY TO GO BEFORE YOU BUT I BELIEVE THAT THIS PROCESS WAS LATER LOST THROUGH A CHANGE IN SITE PLAN WITH DEVIATIONS. AND I THINK A CHANGE IN HOW STAFF PRESENTED OR CHOSE TO GO FORWARD IN THIS PROCESS. I THINK I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE WITH POLICY AND THE ADMINISTRATION JUST, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT COMES BEFORE COUNCIL WHAT IN THE PAST, THE WAY IT'S COME AND THAT IT'S RIGHT AND JUST WAY TO BRING IT FORWARD FROM NOW ON.

SO YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T THINK WE NEEDED THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS VERY CLEAR IN THE COMP PLAN AND IN THE CODES, THE DETAILS WERE LEFT BEHIND AND HOW AND THE STAFF AND HOW WHAT BOARD IT WENT THROUGH. AND INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH COUNCIL, IT WENT THROUGH DRB.

AND DRB DOES NOT LOOK AT A REDEVELOPMENT OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

SO I THINK THOSE POLICIES AND AFFIRMING THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES IS IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT.

AND I AGREE THAT WE AND I'M HAPPY THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE NOAA, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT SHOULD BE,

[04:05:05]

THAT WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD BE DONE IN THE SUNSHINE.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING FOR YOU TO GO AND DISCUSS WITH THEM.

AND COUNCIL GETS THE FEEDBACK FROM YOU. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT FOR THE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

YOU'VE BEEN MEETING. YOU SEE? PROGRESS. I THINK THAT IF WE MEET, WE SHOULD ALL MEET TOGETHER WITH WITH WHERE WE'RE GOING.

SO I'LL TAKE KRISEMAN. THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO KNOWING THAT THIS ISSUE WAS GOING TO BE ON OUR AGENDA AND THINKING ABOUT IT, I PROBABLY GONE BACK AND FORTH IN MY OWN MIND AS TO WHAT WHAT THE RIGHT WAY TO GO IS AND WHERE I COME DOWN FINALLY, IS THAT I THINK WE SHOULD RESCIND THIS RESOLUTION FOR A COUPLE REASONS.

NUMBER ONE YOU KNOW. I JUST WANT TO WHEREVER IT MAKES SENSE.

IF WE CAN AVOID ENGAGING IN LITIGATION ON ONE SIDE OF THE MATTER OR THE OTHER AND PUT OUR RESOURCES INTO MORE PRODUCTIVE THINGS, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. YOU KNOW, IF THIS PROCEEDS ALONG THE LINES THAT MR. MCCONNELL HAS DESCRIBED IN TERMS OF THE ORDINANCES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, WE MAY AT THAT POINT HAVE THE SAME PARTIES CHOOSING TO TO SUE US UNDER THE SAME ON THE SAME BASIS. BUT YOU KNOW, CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN YOU GET TO IT.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER BASED ON UNDERSTANDINGS AT THE TIME IT WAS DRAFTED BACK IN MAY AND JUNE THAT OUTLINED HOW WE WERE GOING TO PROCEED ON APPROVALS IN THE FUTURE. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT'S CHANGED BASED ON THE FURTHER THINKING WE'VE DONE IN THE MEETINGS WE'VE HAD WITH THE FAA, AND IT'LL CHANGE FURTHER BY THE TIME THE ORDINANCES GET DRAFTED.

AND THAT'S WHAT MATTERS, TO HAVE A DRAFT ORDINANCE OR ORDINANCES THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AND, AND DECIDE WHAT WE THINK OF THEM.

AND AND THAT'S WHERE THE SO THAT'S POINT ONE.

POINT TWO, THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS UNDER WHICH THESE APPROVALS WHEN, WHEN, WHEN APPROVALS ARE REQUIRED ON AIRPORT PROJECTS.

WE NEED TO IMPROVE THAT PROCESS AND CLARIFY THAT PROCESS.

EVERYBODY SEEMS SEEMS TO AGREE TO THAT. IT'S NOT JUST ON THIS DAIS, BUT WITHIN OUR STAFF AND I THINK AT THE AIRPORT AS WELL. AND WE EVEN HAD ONE OF THE MOST WELL KNOWN LAND USE LAWYERS IN THE COUNTY WHEN WE HAD THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE PRIMARY MEETING THAT WE HAD ABOUT THE NAPLES JET CENTER STAND UP AND IN PUBLIC COMMENT SAID, IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO HAVE CLARITY IN YOUR IN YOUR IN YOUR ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS.

CLARITY IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY, BUT MOST PARTICULARLY IT'S GOOD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

AND I, I BELIEVE THAT AND AND I THINK WE WOULD BE BENEFITING EVERYONE IF WE COULD GET TO THE, THE RIGHT OUTCOME ON THAT. AND THEN THE FINAL THING I'LL SAY IS I THINK IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THAT THIS BE DONE.

AND I KNOW MR. MCCONNELL SAID THIS VERY WELL, BUT I JUST WANT TO PUT AN EXCLAMATION POINT BEHIND IT.

WE NEED TO DO THIS COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE FAA AND NOT JUST WITH THE NA, BUT WITH THE NA'S TENANTS AND AND OTHER BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT CARE ABOUT THE AIRPORT. AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE MAXIMUM OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT INTO THIS YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH, IF IT'S NOT ADOPTED BY THE NA OR AT LEAST ENDORSED BY THE NA AND AS WELL AS BY US.

IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S VALUE WILL BE GREATLY DIMINISHED.

AND YOU ALSO WANT SOMETHING THAT YOU NEVER HAVE, SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY AGREES WITH IN EVERY DETAIL, BUT SOMETHING WHERE NOBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO SAY THEY DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR POINT OF VIEW.

SO I REALLY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ARTIFICIAL TIMELINES ON GETTING THIS DONE.

I THINK WE WANT TO GET THIS DONE RIGHT. AND AND SO I, I WOULD SUPPORT YOU KNOW, RESCINDING THE RESOLUTION SO THAT WE'RE NOT WASTING OUR TIME ON, ON A LAWSUIT AND AND THEN PUTTING OUR ENERGY INTO GETTING THESE ORDINANCES DRAFTED.

PARDON? YEAH. I JUST SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE A FOOTBALL ANALOGY BEFORE COACH DID.

[04:10:04]

SO YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AT HALFTIME OR IN THE FIRST QUARTER.

AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING AND MATTHEW, PLEASE JUMP IN AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

BUT FROM WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU'RE IN YOUR LEGAL OPINION, THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH THIS ISSUE AND STILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT OUR ULTIMATE OBJECTIVES ARE HERE. AND WHEN I SAY OURS, IT'S NOT JUST OURS, IT'S IT'S IT'S MORE THAN JUST THIS DAIS AS AS COUNCILMAN CHRISTINE HAS JUST MENTIONED.

SO I ALSO WOULD WOULD SUPPORT RESCINDING THE RESOLUTION.

PENMAN, ANY COMMENTS? NO. I WOULD SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION, BUT I DO WANT A DATE ON WHEN IT'S GOING TO COME FORWARD. I THINK WE CAN. I. I DO SUPPORT RESCINDING THIS AS IT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE TEMPORARY STOPGAPS.

I WANT TO SEE A CLEAN RESOLUTION. I THINK IT'S A PRIORITY FOR OUR FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

I THINK IT'S A PRIORITY FOR THE FOR US, I THINK IT'S A PRIORITY FOR THE VENDORS THAT THE TENANTS, THE REALTORS THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT ARE YOU KNOW, MAKING MONEY ON, YOU KNOW, AT THE AIRPORT.

AND FOR THE NA WHO ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, GUIDES US.

I THINK THEY'RE ANXIOUS TO DO SO TOO. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS AT LEAST A DRAFT OF IT BEFORE YEAR END.

THE ORDINANCES AND I, YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND AND TO AND TO HAVE YOU, OUR CITY ATTORNEY, TAKE THE LEAD AND WORK ON WITH THE AIRPORT TO COMPLETE THE DETAILS INCLUDING SOME, YOU KNOW, EVALUATION CRITERIA THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON HOW WE WILL REVIEW SITE PLANS AND UTILIZATION PLANS AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL NO LATER THAN YEAR END. IF AND MAYOR. ARE YOU GOING TO ENTERTAIN A SECOND OR CAN I ASK FOR SOMETHING? I HAVE TO ENTERTAIN A SECOND. OKAY. I KNOW, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING, CAN I GET CLARIFICATION WITH WHAT THAT ONE STATEMENT SAID? OH, YOU WANT ME TO READ IT? WELL, I JUST I WANT I WANT TO MAKE SURE.

OKAY. WHAT WHAT WHOSE DIRECTION WAS DIRECTING CERTAIN STAFF.

BECAUSE THERE'S A THERE'S A CHARTER ISSUE IF YOU DO CERTAIN THINGS.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. WELL, I WAS THINKING THINKING OF IT THIS WAY.

AND, YOU KNOW, I WROTE DOWN LITTLE NOTES JUST TO BECAUSE I WAS WORKING ON ALL WEEKEND, BUT I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE RESOLUTION.

THAT'S PART ONE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY TAKE THE LEAD AND WORK WITH THE AIRPORT TO COMPLETE THE DETAILS, INCLUDING THE EVALUATION CRITERIA ON HOW WE WILL REVIEW THE SITE PLANS AND THE UTILIZATION PLAN AND BRING IT, BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL NO LATER THAN YEAR END.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN, YOU KNOW YOU WILL ENGAGE.

YOU KNOW MY MOTION ENDED. THEN YOU KNOW TO YOU THAT YOU WOULD ENGAGE APPROPRIATE PEOPLE, WHETHER IT BE COUNCIL OR PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR YOU KNOW, WHOEVER YOU NEED. AS THE NA AND THE AIRPORT WILL ENGAGE, THEY'LL ENGAGE THEIR ATTORNEY.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, HE'S BEEN BILL OWENS HAS BEEN PRETTY GOOD AT YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT THIS AND HE'S HE'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.

OKAY. SO, MAYOR, DO YOU WANT TO I DO WANT TO QUESTION, BUT DO YOU WANT TO ENTERTAIN A DO I HAVE A SECOND? MORE DISCUSSION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE A SECOND, SO WE'LL CONTINUE.

I'LL SECOND IT. BUT I THOUGHT WE'D FINISHED DISCUSSION FIRST. I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE WAY THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE DISCUSSION. BUT YOU HAVE TO SAY THE MAYOR'S RIGHT. YOU NEED A SECOND FIRST, AND THEN YOU CAN. OKAY. I'LL SECOND.

THANK YOU. DISCUSSION. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. SO I APPRECIATE WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER HAVE SAID.

I BELIEVE THAT THE ORDINANCES DEVELOPED BY THE CITY OF NAPLES DOES NOT REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

RIGHT. THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OR ANY THIRD PARTY ENTITY.

WE DON'T NEED APPROVAL FROM OTHER PEOPLE TO DEVELOP CERTAIN ORDINANCES.

THE CITY STILL NEEDS TO DO WHAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES AND DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPING A STRATEGY WHICH ALLOWS US TO STRENGTHEN OUR POSITION IN PROTECTING OUR INTERESTS. PART OF OUR STRATEGY, IF APPROVED BY THIS COUNCIL, WILL BE TO MAXIMIZE OUR TIME WHILE OTHER RELATED MATERIALS ARE BEING FULLY DEVELOPED. BY ACTUALLY RESCINDING THIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION.

SO THIS STRATEGY WORKS IN OUR FAVOR IN NUMEROUS WAYS, SOME OF WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARY TO BE DISCUSSED OPENLY.

[04:15:01]

RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THE MOTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COME UP WITH THE ORDINANCES I COULDN'T NEGLECT NOT HAVING THE CITY MANAGER, MR. YOUNG, GIVE HIS INPUT TO HIS STAFF AND HOW HIS STAFF ARE GOING TO WORK IN PRODUCING THEIR PRODUCTS FOR PETITIONS.

SO I AND THAT'S THAT'S A CHARTER ISSUE. BECAUSE MR. MCCONNELL IS CLEARLY NOT OVER CITY STAFF, AND MR. YOUNG NEEDS TO MAKE SURE THAT HE IS IN SYNC WITH OUR CHARTER, WITH OUR ATTORNEY.

AND I, I THINK HE WOULD I THINK HE WOULD BE YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST IT'S NICE TO HAVE A POINT PERSON.

I THINK THAT HE'D BE CRAZY NOT TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, CITY STAFF AND SAY, YOU KNOW, DOES THIS MAKE SENSE ON CRITERIA ETC..

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, MR. MCCONNELL, BUT JUST JUST TO CLARIFY, MAYOR AND MR. YOUNG WILL AGREE WITH ME BECAUSE IT'S THE TRUTH.

THIS HAS BEEN COLLABORATIVE FROM THE BEGINNING. EVERY MEETING I'VE BEEN IN, THERE'S BEEN ERIKA, THERE'S BEEN GARY, THERE'S BEEN BRUCE. THAT'S JUST WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING.

SO I DON'T SEE THAT CHANGING. BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT THE ONLY.

I AM GOING TO HAVE TO DEFEND THESE ORDINANCES.

THEREFORE I HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT. WE ARE AT THE POINT NOW WHERE WE'VE COLLABORATED, ELABORATED, COLLABORATED ENOUGH AND WE MAY HAVE ONE MORE MEETING WITH NA THAT THEN I AND ANDREW WILL HAVE TO ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES, CRAFT THE RECITALS, AND PUT AN ORDINANCE FORMAT.

THAT'S THE ONLY POINT THAT I THINK I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.

AND MY ONLY POINT IS THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATING THAT AND THE STAFF POLICY.

SO IT GOES WITH THAT. CORRECT. AND YOU ALL APPROVED POLICY THAT IS THEN IMPLEMENTED BY YOUR CHARTER OFFICIALS, CHARTER OFFICES. RIGHT. SO IF YOU ARE ADOPTING A POLICY ON HOW TO PROCESS AN APPLICATION, THEN MR. YOUNG STEPS IN AND ENSURES STAFF PROCESSES IT THAT WAY.

SO THIS ALL TO GET INTO THAT DETAIL OR IS THIS GOING TO BE I MEAN I THINK WITH THE ORDINANCE.

WELL FIRST OFF ON THE TIMELINE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THE NA HAS A MEETING ON NOVEMBER 20TH.

OKAY. AND MAYOR, WHEN I SAID WORK WITH THE NA, I DID NOT MEAN IN PRIVATE.

I MEANT AT THE PUBLIC MEETING. AT THE MEETING THAT THEY MEET RIGHT IN THE SUNSHINE, A PRESENTATION.

NOW, IF YOU WANT A JOINT MEETING, THEN I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT BECAUSE THEN SCHEDULES COME IN, TIMELINE MAY CHANGE, ETC.. BUT IF MY IDEA IS TO GO TO THE NA MEETING WITH CITY STAFF INCLUDED, WHOEVER'S BEEN WORKING ON IT AND WORK WITH THE NA, I'M NOT HERE TO NEGOTIATE.

I'M HERE TO PROVIDE DUE PROCESS TO ALL THE AFFECTED PARTIES AND GET AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WHATEVER WE APPROVE IS THE BEST PRODUCT POSSIBLE FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. COULD YOU CLARIFY FOR ME THAT YOU CREATED THIS RESOLUTION AND ASKED THE NA FOR INPUT, AND THERE WAS NOT INPUT UNTIL AFTER WE APPROVED THE RESOLUTION? CORRECT. THE RESOLUTION WAS CREATED WITHOUT INPUT FROM NA, BUT NOT BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T ASK.

OKAY. FULL TRANSPARENCY. I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY.

FULL TRANSPARENCY. I ASKED AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED.

SO IT WAS ALREADY THE RESOLUTION WAS ALREADY DONE.

I DIDN'T ASK MR. KIRSCH FOR HIS OPINION. I SENT IT TO HIM AS AN FYI.

IF YOU IF SINCE YOU'RE ASKING AFTER THE AGENDA WAS PUBLISHED FOR THIS RESOLUTION.

SO THERE WAS NO BACK AND FORTH, THERE WAS NO COLLABORATION LIKE WE'RE DOING NOW WITH THE ORDINANCES. BUT THE NA DIDN'T COME TO US AND SAY THEY HAD A ISSUE WITH WHAT WAS PROPOSED.

AN OUTSIDE GROUP DID. NO, THE MR. YOUNG CAN PROBABLY SPEAK ON THIS TO THE NA IN OUR FIRST MEETING.

ACTUALLY DID HAVE A FEW CONCERNS WITH THE RESOLUTION AS WRITTEN.

OKAY, THIS IS KIND OF THE THIS IS WHY I THINK WE NEED TO BE INVOLVED.

I APPRECIATE THE FOOTWORK AND THE PRE-WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE.

BUT SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE NA DID HAVE ISSUES PRIOR TO IT BEING PUBLISHED.

NO TIMELINE. OPINIONS ISSUED IN MAY. RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED IN JUNE.

OUR FIRST MEETING WITH THE NA IN JULY. AT THAT MEETING, THEY EXPRESSED SOME CONCERNS WITH THE VERBIAGE AND THE RESOLUTION.

WE START WORKING ON THE ORDINANCES. WE'RE COLLABORATIVE.

WE ISSUE SOME CONCESSIONS. WE CLARIFY THEIR CONCERNS.

WE'RE TRYING TO WORK TOWARDS A FINAL PRODUCT. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMAN.

[04:20:07]

SO THE A COUPLE THINGS I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSONAL VIEWPOINT. NUMBER ONE, I DON'T SEE WORKING WITH THE NA OR HAVING OPPORTUNITIES TO GATHER PUBLIC INPUT FROM RESIDENTS, BUSINESS INTERESTS, ANYBODY AS BEING IN ANY WAY DIMINISHING OUR AUTHORITY AND PURVIEW OVER THIS MATTER IN THE END.

WE WILL PRESUMABLY HAVE TO REVIEW AND VOTE ON, ON, ON ONE OR MORE ORDINANCES IF ANYTHING IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. AND I AGREE WITH MR. HUTCHINSON THAT IT'S NOT IN A POSITION TO ADOPT ORDINANCES.

IT'S OUR JOB TO DO THAT. BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL, IN MY OPINION, THAT WE WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE NA THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND HOPEFULLY HAVE A MEETING OF MINDS.

AND I WOULD THINK THAT IT'S QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE NCAA BOARD MAY WISH TO ASSUMING WE GET TO AN END POINT WHERE WE'RE IN AGREEMENT, THEY MAY WISH TO ENACT CERTAIN POLICIES OR I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD, BUT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER MAKES SENSE FROM THEIR STANDPOINT, THAT WOULD BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING SO THAT THERE'S SOMETHING THERE THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE FIRST POINT I WOULD MAKE.

THE SECOND POINT IS I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH SUPPORTING A RESOLUTION, A MOTION THAT PUTS A SPECIFIC TIMELINE ON WHEN THIS IS GOING TO BE DONE, SUCH AS THE END OF THE YEAR.

I'M NOT SURE THAT'S FAIR TO OUR STAFF. WE'RE IN PUTTING THIS DOING THIS WORK.

WE'RE DEPENDENT ON OTHER PARTIES, NOT JUST ON OURSELVES.

IT'S ONLY THREE MONTHS TO THE TO THE END OF THE YEAR.

AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR BOARD SCHEDULE HERE, IT'S REALLY TWO AND A HALF MONTHS.

AND I DON'T WANT TO COUNT THE MEETINGS, BUT IT'S A VERY SHORT TIME.

AND I THINK THE WAY I'VE SEEN US GET INTO TROUBLE IN OTHER CONTEXTS WHERE WE SAY WE, WE'RE SAYING THIS DEADLINE, WE WANT TO SEE IT DONE BY NOW. I THINK BEST EFFORTS SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO GET THIS DONE SOONER, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BUT I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PUT THAT KIND OF A SPECIFIC TIMELINE ON OUR STAFF'S PLATE TO TO COME BACK TO US WITH SOMETHING, PARTICULARLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF A JOINT MEETING WITH THE AND AA AND OTHER THINGS THAT, AS I SAY, ARE NOT TOTALLY WITHIN OUR CONTROL.

AGREED. BUT WE ALSO HAVE ON OUR BOOKS THAT WE HAVE NOT FULFILLED IS A JOINT MEETING WITH THEM THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH THEM, WHETHER IT'S THIS CONVERSATION OR NOT. WE WE.

ARE BEHIND IN SCHEDULING THAT MR. MAKE A SUGGESTION.

MADAM MAYOR, JUST FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE US, REGARDLESS OF THE MOTION, NOT INCLUDE ANY DATES, BUT FOR US TO CIRCLE BACK TO YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING.

HAVING ESTABLISHED A TIMELINE, HAVING REACHED OUT TO THE FAA WHEN THEIR AVAILABILITIES MAY BE WE HAVE TO WORK OUT LOGISTICS, WHETHER IT'S NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER, I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING UNTIL WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SIT DOWN AND COORDINATE THAT TOGETHER.

AND INCLUDING APPRECIATION OF MR. MCCONNELL AND HIS TEAM'S TIME TO, TO, YOU KNOW, DO THE FINAL DRAFTS AND EVERYTHING.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO DO THAT AND SHOOT FOR COMING BACK TO YOU REGARDLESS OF AND ON EITHER THE OCTOBER 13TH WHEN IT'S A WORKSHOP OR CHOPPER OCTOBER 15TH TO GIVE YOU SOME KIND OF BETTER TIMELINE RATHER THAN MAKE UP A TIMELINE TODAY.

AND IT GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALSO LOOK AT THE NA'S, THEIR CALENDAR, AND MAYBE HAVE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS ON THAT SAME TOPIC.

AND YOU ARE RIGHT, MAYOR IN TERMS OF THE NA JOINT MEETING IS IN WAS IN THE PRIORITY LIST THAT THAT I INHERITED THAT WILL BE DISCUSSING ON ON.

NO. AND I DIDN'T MEAN THAT FACETIOUSLY, BUT THAT WE WILL BE FOLLOWING UP ON.

SO IF IT WORKS OUT I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A PERFECT SCENARIO AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU. AND AS THE MOTION MAKER, I CAN LIVE WITH THAT.

IF WE PUT SOMETHING ABOUT BEST EFFORTS ON TIME BECAUSE THINGS I DON'T KNOW, THINGS JUST TAKE SO LONG TO GET DONE.

[04:25:01]

I THINK THAT WE CAN THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

YOU KNOW, LET'S MAKE IT A PRIORITY. MAYBE PUT LANGUAGE INTO YOUR MOTION IN REFERENCE TO THE TIMELINE BEING THAT YOU WILL COME BACK TO US AT THE NEXT MEETING OR NEXT, NEXT NEAREST OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US SOME TYPE OF TIMELINE. JUST TO CLARIFY, MAYOR, MAY I.

YES, KRAMER, I WANT TO CLARIFY. I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE NA IS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH MATTHEW GOING ON NOVEMBER 20TH, BECAUSE THAT MAKES SENSE THAT HE WOULD DO THAT.

THE TWO ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, RIGHT? HE WOULD DO THAT. AND IN ADDITION, WE DO NEED ANOTHER JOINT. YEAH. I'LL DEFER TO YOU GUYS AND YOUR INTERACTION BACK AND FORTH AS TO EXACTLY WHICH WAY YOU PREFER. SO I THINK LET'S PLAN THAT.

I AGREE, I DON'T REALLY THINK WE NEED TO PUT A TIMELINE IN IN THE MOTION.

THE ONLY REASON BEING IS BECAUSE THIS IS SO MUCH OF A PRIORITY.

I'M GIVING YOU MY WORD THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY THIS.

WE WROTE THE OPINION FOR A REASON. WE CANNOT LET THIS LINGER FOR TOO LONG BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO START GETTING OUT LIKE WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING HERE.

THE ONLY REASON WHY I EVEN OFFERED THE JOINT MEETING WAS BECAUSE THE MAYOR MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT ME GOING TO THE MEETING DIRECTLY. I STILL THINK TO MR. YOUNG'S POINT, OCTOBER 15TH IS ONLY 14 DAYS AWAY.

IF I STILL HAVE TO, IF THE DECISION THEN IS FOR ME TO GO TO THE NOVEMBER 20TH, I'LL GO TO THE NOVEMBER 20TH.

BUT BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION ON TIMELINE, ALLOW US AN OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT, BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'RE WILLING TO JOIN ME IN NOVEMBER AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR ME TO GO NOVEMBER 20TH BECAUSE WE'RE MEETING BEFORE, RIGHT? THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING VARIABLES HERE. YEAH, I DID NOT SAY FOR YOU TO GO TO THE MEETING.

I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY TO GO TO THE MEETING, AND I HAD AN ISSUE WITH THAT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT MR. ROSANSKY AND THE NA CAN RESPOND TO THE THEIR CONCERNS, AND WE SHOULD LISTEN.

I DON'T THINK THAT OUR ATTORNEYS SHOULD BE GOING.

AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOU GOING TO NEGOTIATE? I MEAN, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF YOU ATTENDING THEIR MEETING? IT'S IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S JUST LIKE I ATTENDED THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE THE OTHER DAY AND GAVE A PUBLIC RECORD PRESENTATION, OR ME ATTENDING CODE ENFORCEMENT. I MEAN, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

IT'S AN ORDINANCE. I'M THERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

IT'S MY OPINION. IT'S OUR OPINION. STAFF WILL BE THERE TOO.

IT'S A COLLABORATIVE. IT'S A PRESENTATION. THAT'S ALL IT IS.

IT'S NOT A NEGOTIATION. IT'S A PRESENTATION. EVERYONE CAN WATCH IT AGAIN.

I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. I'D PREFER A JOINT MEETING.

REALLY? I'M JUST ASKING THE INTENT. THE INTENT IS TO GET FEEDBACK AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU ALL AT A PUBLICLY TELEVISED MEETING, AND HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND MAKE IT AN AGENDA ITEM SO I CAN GET AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS POSSIBLE.

WE CAN AS A CITY. THAT'S THE INTENT. THERE'S NO AGREEING TO ANYTHING.

I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. AND I THINK IT'S DRAFTING CONTRACTS IS IS VERY CLUNKY IF YOU TRY TO GET A BIG PUBLIC MEETING WITH A THOUSAND PEOPLE IN IT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE MORE SERIOUSLY WITH YOU TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE ULTIMATELY WILL SEE IT ANYWAY, AS WILL THE PUBLIC.

IT'S JUST MORE EFFICIENT THAT WAY. IT'S I DO WANT TO HAVE ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION THOUGH.

WOULDN'T, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY MADE CHANGES FROM THE SEPTEMBER 3RD MEETING PRIOR TO GOING TO NA.

YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE IT ONE MORE TIME, WOULD YOU NOT? SO THAT THE FINAL THAT VERSION WAS VIEWED IN ITS FORM BEFORE? BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO LEAD TIME FOR THAT IN THE SCHEDULE AS WELL. BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I SEE A LOT OF HEADS ON IT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN, AND THAT WE BUILD THAT INTO THE EQUATION. AND IF I CAN SAY, I THINK THIS IS WHY, YOU KNOW, BEING READY TO DO THAT BY NOVEMBER 20TH, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT THE ONLY NA MEETING THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR.

AGAIN, THESE ARE ARTIFICIAL TIMELINES WE'RE PLACING ON OURSELVES.

I THINK THE PROCESS THAT'S BEING SUGGESTED IS SOUND, BUT I THE AND WE WANT TO DO IT AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS WE CAN, BUT WE WANT TO DO IT IN THE RIGHT WAY AND WHERE WE KNOW WHAT IS BEING WHEN IT COMES TIME TO PRESENT SOMETHING, WHETHER IT'S A JOINT WORKSHOP OR AN. AND NA PUBLIC MEETING.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST BEEN ABLE TO GIVE AN INITIAL REVIEW TO.

BUT NOW, JUST TO CLARIFY, IT WASN'T JUST A WORKSHOP FOR CHRIS COUNCILMAN KRISTEN KRAMER, NOT US AT THIS TIME.

WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT US SEEING WE CAN BRING IT BACK UNDER.

WE CAN BRING IT BEFORE IT'S AN ORDINANCE. WAIT ONE SECOND. SORRY.

WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT US SEEING IS JUST FOR OUR OWN SATISFACTION, BECAUSE THE FACT IS THE REASON THAT WE WOULD HAVE THE JOINT MEETING OR THAT STAFF, MATTHEW AND STAFF WOULD GO THERE IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO IMPLEMENT IT AND IT DIRECTLY AFFECTS WOULD NEED TO WEIGH IN.

[04:30:01]

IN MY VIEW. I DON'T NEED TO SEE IT BEFORE THEY WEIGH IN.

YEAH, BECAUSE THERE'S THE EDITING WILL HAPPEN AFTER THEY WEIGH IN.

SO WHY DO I WANT TO SEE THE EARLY DRAFT? WE KNOW WHAT THE RESOLUTION WAS.

WE KNOW OUR INTENT IS. I TRUST THEM TO WORK TOGETHER, WHICH THEY'VE BEEN DOING.

IF WE WANT TO MOVE THE PROCESS FORWARD, THEN AND I WHAT MATTHEW JUST SAID AGAIN, WE GOT TO TRUST HIM OR NOT TRUST HIM, I TRUST HIM. AND IF HE SAYS, OKAY, WE'LL GIVE US A TIMELINE IN TWO WEEKS AND AND WE'LL WORK FROM THERE, THAT'S FINE. IN THE MEANTIME, LET'S RESCIND THIS THING.

TRUST HIM ON THAT AND THEN TRUST HIM HOW WE MOVE FORWARD.

AND AS FAR AS AND SO I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH MR. YOUNG THAT WE NEED TO OR ANYONE ELSE THAT WE NEED TO SEE IT BEFORE. I THINK I HEAR YOU AND I THINK YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT.

I WOULD I WOULD AMEND WHAT I SAID EARLIER FROM, FROM THAT STANDPOINT.

THERE'S NO REASON FOR COUNCIL NOT TO SEE IT. IT'S JUST SEND IT BY EMAIL.

THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. BUT THE ONLY REASON TO SEE IT IS TO SELF-GRATIFICATION.

IF WE DO NOT HELP THE PROCESS WHATSOEVER SEEING IT BEFORE HE MEETS WITH THEM.

IT'S JUST SELF-GRATIFICATION. I THINK THE POINT IS THAT THAT IT WOULD BE A LITTLE ODD IF SOMETHING WAS PRESENTED BY OUR STAFF AT THE END TO THE NA THAT WE HADN'T EVEN SEEN A COPY OF RIGHT NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'VE EMAIL AND EMAIL IS FINE.

YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE A HALF HOUR CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.

YEAH, BUT BUT BUT THE POINT IS THAT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCILMAN KRAMER, IS, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO TO YOUR POINT, COUNCILMAN BARTON, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE HAD TO SPEND HOURS TALKING ABOUT IT AND REACHING AGREEMENT ON SOMETHING THAT'S A DRAFT BEFORE IT WOULD DO THIS.

THIS IS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS AND AND IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO EVERYONE.

SO I'M WITH YOU. OKAY. SO I WILL AMEND THE MOTION TO SAY AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL AT THE SOONEST POSSIBLE DATE, WITH THE PRELIMINARY DATE GIVEN BY CITY MANAGER.

IN TWO WEEKS. SO, SO. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MR. YOUNG FEELS, BUT I PROMISE YOU, WE'LL BRING IT BACK IN TWO WEEKS.

I DON'T REALLY NEED IT. PART OF THE MOTION. YOU KNOW WE WILL COORDINATE AND BRING YOU BACK DATES ON OCTOBER 15TH.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT PART OF THE MOTION, THAT'S FINE. BUT WHAT I DO NEED THE MOTION TO CLEARLY SAY IS THAT WE ARE RESCINDING THIS RESOLUTION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I WILL REPEAT IT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RESCIND THE RESOLUTION.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT OUR CITY MANAGER TAKE THE LEAD AND WORK WITH THE AIRPORT AND PARTIES WITHIN THE CITY TO COMPLETE THE.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN? DID YOU MEAN CITY ATTORNEY? I'M SORRY. DID I SAY CITY? OH, THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND TAKE THE LEAD TO WORK WITH THE AIRPORT TO COMPLETE THE DETAILS, INCLUDING THE EVALUATION CRITERIA ON HOW WE WILL REVIEW THE SITE PLANS AND THE UTILIZATION PLAN AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL AT THE SOONEST POSSIBLE DATE PERIOD. SECOND, WHAT WORKS FOR ME MOTION.

BY THEN I'LL SECOND IT. MEMBER PETRANOFF IN A SECOND.

BY COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

OH, WAIT. DO I HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES.

THANK YOU. YES. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. MARTIN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. YES. NOW THAT THAT'S OUT OF THE WAY IT IS THE WHOLE REASON FOR THIS WAS TO CLARIFY THIS PROCESS OF HOW WE DO SITE APPROVAL AND HOW THE AIRPORT IS, HAS THEIR SITE APPROVAL.

AND YOU STATED CLEARLY AND MR. DICKMAN STATED CLEARLY THAT IT WAS DEFENDABLE.

THAT YOU HAD A LETTER AND AN OPINION THAT SAID THAT IT WAS IN OUR PROCESS.

SO WITH THAT, GOOD LUCK, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT ALL ALONG WE HAVE HAD THIS WITHIN OUR OWN CODES AND WITHIN THE COMP PLAN. AGREED.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MY OPINION SAYS. HOWEVER, CLARITY IS GOOD FOR BOTH PARTIES.

FOR ALL PARTIES, REALLY, I AGREE. THANK YOU. MR. YOUNG. DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YEAH, BECAUSE WHERE THE OPINION LINES CUT CODE WITH COMP PLAN, YOU HAVE TO READ THE OPINION IN ITS ENTIRETY AND SAID THEY DO NOT ALIGN.

THUS THE MOTION THAT ON MAY 21ST. THAT SAID TWOFOLD WE CAN DO A TEMPORARY FIX OR A QUICK FIX,

[04:35:04]

BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL TO BRING THOSE TWO DOCUMENTS INTO ALIGNMENT.

SO WHERE YOU HAVE IS STAFF AND HOW THEY OPERATED HISTORICALLY AND AMBIGUITY BETWEEN THE TWO.

SO YOU'RE IN THIS QUANDARY AREA WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE UNTIL THE ORDINANCES ARE COMPLETED.

AND I JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT BECAUSE AS TO TO BOTH THE MAYOR'S POINT, IN MATTHEW'S POINT, THE CONTENTS OF THE EXISTING ORDINANCES WHEN THEY'RE PASSED WILL GIVE YOU THE POLICY AND GIVE YOU THE CRITERIA.

BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, RIGHT NOW, YOUR CODE AND YOUR COMP PLAN DON'T HELP EACH OTHER OUT IN SOME REGARD.

SO I ONLY SAY THAT WHICH FURTHER EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

EXACTLY. I HOPE I SUMMARIZED IT PERFECTLY. WE FEEL THE NEED FOR SPEED.

AGREED. BUT TO CLARIFY WITH THE ATTORNEY OF THE GROUP IN THE AUDIENCE, MY OPINION DID NOT CHANGE CODES AT ALL OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE. IT CLEARLY INTERPRETED THINGS.

COULD WE CHANGE THE TERMINOLOGY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL DEPICTING AND REFERRING TO THE CORRECT PLAN? YES, BUT I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. I DID NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.

I SIMPLY INTERPRETED WHAT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1999 TO 2004, IN SOME SITUATIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. MAYOR. YES. COUNCILMAN.

WHILE WE'RE ON THIS ITEM I HAVE ANOTHER AIRPORT ISSUE THAT I WANT TO RAISE THAT I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT TO TO GET ON THE TABLE.

AND IT'S IT'S BEEN OUT THERE IN A LOT OF WAYS FOR A LONG TIME NOW.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT AND ADDRESS IT.

AND I HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR HOW WE DO. AND THAT IS THE ISSUE OF AIRPORT GRANTS.

I SENT AROUND AN ARTICLE TO YOU ALL THROUGH SANDRA, ABOUT THE SITUATION IN BOULDER THAT I HAD BOULDER AIRPORT THAT I COME ACROSS. AND IT HAD TO DO WITH A COURT DECISION AROUND THE ABILITY OF THE AIRPORT TO TAKE GRANTS OR NOT.

AND THE COURT DECISION WAS REALLY NOT A WHICH IS NOT WHAT WAS RELEVANT THERE IN THAT ARTICLE IN THE SENSE, BECAUSE IT WAS DECIDED ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, NOT SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS.

AND SO IT'S STILL AN OPEN ISSUE AS FAR AS THE COURT'S CONCERNED.

BUT WHAT WAS RELEVANT AND CAUGHT MY EYE WAS HOW THIS BATTLE BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOULDER AND THE AIRPORT OVER MANY YEARS HAD WEAKENED THAT AIRPORT FINANCIALLY AND PUT THAT AIRPORT IN DIRE FINANCIAL STRAITS, SERIOUS FINANCIAL STRAITS, WHICH HAD IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF BOULDER.

NOW, IN TERMS OF WHAT WHO WAS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE IF IF THE AIRPORT ACTUALLY BECAME INSOLVENT OR CONTEMPLATED BANKRUPTCY? THE, THE, THE MATTER OF, OF GRANTS HAS BECOME WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON WITH THE AIRPORT HERE.

THAT'S THAT'S FACE IT, IN TERMS OF LAWSUITS OR PROPOSED LAWSUITS OR LEGISLATION.

AND AND ONE OF THE AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS WHAT I'LL CALL LARGELY A PERCEPTION WITH, WITH A LITTLE BIT OF REALITY SPRINKLED IN THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS INSTRUCTED AND, AND, AND FORCED THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY NOT TO TAKE GRANTS.

IS IS SITTING THERE AS A MAJOR ISSUE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE DID AND I DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT, BUT BACK IN 2022, WE PASSED. WE ACTED BY CONSENSUS.

NOT AN ORDINANCE, NOT EVEN A RESOLUTION THAT INSTRUCTING THE AIRPORT THAT WE DIDN'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE TAKING GRANTS IN THE FUTURE.

NOW, I THINK THEY DID CONTINUE TO TAKE GRANTS UNTIL RECENTLY WHEN THEY HAD THIS SPLIT VOTE THIS EARLIER THIS SUMMER.

MY VIEW FROM THE BEGINNING, AND IT CONTINUES TO BE MY VIEW THAT THERE ARE THREE REASONS WHY THIS IS A BAD WAS A BAD DECISION BY US EVEN TO HAVE THIS CONSENSUS VOTE BACK IN 2022.

FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE THE DECISION ON WHETHER THE AIRPORT SHOULD TAKE GRANTS OR NOT IS THEIR DECISION, NOT OURS. THEY RUN THE AIRPORT. WE DON'T, AND THEY HAVE THE AIRPORT BOARD, BASED ON THEIR STAFF ADVICE, NEEDS TO MAKE THE DECISION, AS THE AIRPORT OPERATOR, AS TO WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO ACCEPT A GRANT, TO APPLY FOR A GRANT AND ACCEPT A GRANT OR NOT.

NUMBER TWO, TAKING ADVANTAGE OF GRANT OPPORTUNITIES IS SIMPLY A SOUND BUSINESS PRACTICE, AND IT REDUCES THE NEED FOR HIGHER FEES AND CHARGES THAT,

[04:40:03]

BY THE WAY, DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT THE LITTLE GUY AT THE AIRPORT.

IF YOU THINK YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE PUNISHING THE BIG GUYS, THE BIG JET OPERATORS.

I THINK YOU'RE KIDDING YOURSELF. IF THIS IS YOUR STRATEGY, IT'S THE GENERAL AVIATION PLANE OWNERS AND THE SMALLER BUSINESSES THAT ARE AT THE AIRPORT WHO GET HIT HARDEST BY HIGHER FEES AND CHARGES AND AND THE GRANTS, IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED CAN HELP REDUCE THE NEED FOR THOSE HIGHER CHARGES.

AND THIRD, WE'VE ALSO LEARNED THROUGH TESTIMONY FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES, PARTICULARLY PEOPLE LIKE PETER KIRSCH, THAT THE ACCEPTANCE OF GRANTS BY OUR AIRPORT REALLY DOES NOTHING TO WEAKEN OUR NEGOTIATING ASSOCIATING POSITION WITH THE FAA ON ANY MATTER, OR TO DEAL WITH ISSUES LIKE THE LEASE THAT WE HAVE.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT.

AND IN FACT, BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT ABOUT THE, THE, THE REGULATORY WORLD OF AIRPORTS, THE FAA ACTUALLY VIEWS MORE FAVORABLY THOSE AIRPORTS WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF GRANT OPPORTUNITIES TO SECURE GREATER PUBLIC SAFETY AND ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE AIRPORT.

AND IF YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT WANTING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION SOMEDAY, WHICH IS LONG OVERDUE WITH THE AIRPORT, WITH THE FAA ABOUT HOW WE ACTUALLY MIGHT REDUCE NOISE, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A THOUGHTFUL WAY, THE FAA IS GOING TO LOOK MUCH MORE FAVORABLY BOY ON ON NAPLES. IF THEY SEE US AS AN AIRPORT THAT'S BEING WELL RUN, TAKING GRANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AIRPORT STAYS MODERN, SAFE AND OPERATIONALLY SUCCESSFUL. SO THOSE ARE JUST THREE REASONS, AND I PROBABLY COULD BE MANY MORE THAT YOU COULD ADD TO THAT.

WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO DO AND WHAT I WOULD HOPE WE COULD HAVE AGREEMENT ON HERE, IS TO ASK OUR STAFF TO COME BACK TO US WITH A PROPOSED RESOLUTION WHERE WE WOULD STATE CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE THE APPLYING FOR AND RECEIVING GRANTS BY THE FAA IS SOMETHING THAT IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO PURSUE THAT THIS IS A MATTER FOR THE BOARD AND TO DECIDE AND WHEN, IF THEY WANT TO DO THIS AND THAT, WE ARE TAKING YOU KNOW, NO POSITION. OF ANY KIND TO STAND IN THE WAY OF THIS, OR TO DISCOURAGE THIS AS A CITY COUNCIL.

AND AND I'LL BE FINISHED IN A SECOND. AND I THINK THAT I AND I SAY THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE WAY IT STANDS NOW WHERE THERE IS A AT AT AT AT AT AT, AT A PERCEPTION OR A BELIEF IN REALITY THAT WE ARE TAKING A DIFFERENT POSITION IN THIS REGARD. AND STANDING IN THE WAY OF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HURTS US AND OUR ABILITY TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN TRYING TO REDUCE SOME OF THE ADVERSARIAL ACTIONS TOWARD, TOWARD THE CITY AND THE AIRPORT THAT ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED ARE ACTUALLY BEING TAKEN BY PEOPLE.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG STEP FORWARD IN TERMS OF BUILDING MORE COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS IF WE IF WE IF WE CLARIFY OUR POSITION ON THIS THE RECORD CLARIFIES ITSELF. NO ONE INSTRUCTED THE NA NOT TO TAKE GRANTS.

IT WAS, AS YOU SAY, A CONSENSUS TO ASK. AND WHAT GOOD CAME FROM THAT? I THINK THAT WE SHOULD GET THE MINUTES BECAUSE IT MADE THEM GO THROUGH AN EXERCISE.

MAYOR. THANK YOU. I HAVE THE MINUTES. IT SAYS CONSENSUS TO INFORM THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY THAT CITY COUNCIL URGES IT TO TAKE A COURSE OF ACTION THAT WOULD MAKE IT ECONOMICALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT, MEANING NO GRANTS.

WHICH DOES IT SAY? THAT ECONOMICALLY SELF-SUFFICIENT COMMA, WHICH INCLUDES NO LONGER ACCEPTING FAA GRANTS.

NOW, THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR. AND THAT IS FROM OUR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2022.

SO WE HAVE SAID THIS AND AND IT'S A CONSENSUS.

AS I SAY, IT'S NOT EVEN A RESOLUTION. BUT IF YOU WE HEARD A COMMENT FROM ONE OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS THIS MORNING ON THIS.

AND AND SO IT'S A PERCEPTION BASED ON REALITY.

AND WE NEED TO FIX IT IN MY OPINION. WELL, I HAVE A.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. I VIGOROUSLY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS.

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE WE TOOK A CONSENSUS THAT, YES, WE WOULD NOT WANT THEM TO TAKE A GRANT BECAUSE WE GOT FROM OUR ATTORNEY,

[04:45:07]

WHO IS NOT KERSH. AND HE MADE IT VERY CLEAR IN THE LAST MEETING THAT KERSH DOES NOT REPRESENT US.

HE REPRESENTS THE AIRPORT, WHICH IS OFTEN AT ODDS.

RAY. BY THE WAY, IT'S A RED HERRING. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A RED HERRING.

AND AND THE GRANTS ARE 20 YEAR HANDCUFFS PUT ON US TO NOT ALLOW US ANY SORT OF LOCAL CONTROL TO TO ON THINGS LIKE HAVING A HARD CURFEW OR ANY OF THE OTHER MEASURES THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M NOT A LAWYER. YOU'RE NOT A LAWYER.

NONE OF US IN THIS ROOM ARE ATTORNEYS. AND THAT'S WHY WE MADE A UNANIMOUS MOTION TO GET THE LEGAL COUNSEL THROUGH OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE WHAT OUR RIGHTS ARE AND WHAT OUR, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING A VERIFICATION ON THESE GRANTS. BECAUSE WE I, WE HEARD VERY CLEARLY THAT IT IS A PATHWAY TO TO PULL OFF THE HANDCUFFS, EXCEPT FOR THE CASE WHERE THEY BUY PROPERTY AND THEY DID BUY A SMALL PARCEL IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.

THAT REALLY IS MORE LIKE ON THE PLAYGROUND. SO WE NEED TO KNOW THAT FOR SURE TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WHAT WE WHAT TOOLS ARE IN THE TOOLBOX TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF THE AIRPORT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, WITH THE DESIRES OF THE COMMUNITY.

THIS THIS, YOU KNOW, AND AS THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, I DON'T CARE.

YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE ARE IN OUR JOBS TO DO SOMETIMES DIFFICULT THINGS.

THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT, THORNY PROJECT. AND WE NEED TO DETERMINE WHO OUR, WHO OUR PRIMARY CUSTOMERS ARE AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHO WE REPRESENT. AND AND IT IS MY MY TIME.

SORRY. AND IT IS A, IT IS A BALANCING ACT THAT WE, WE NEED TO DO.

IT'S IT'S SORT OF THE SAME KIND OF ISSUE THAT, THAT WE HEAR ABOUT ON, ON A LOT OF THINGS WHERE THERE ARE TWO SIDES AND WE NEED TO GET UP TO SPEED WITH OUR ATTORNEYS ON DETERMINING WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

AND THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SIDES.

I THINK IF WE COULD PROCEED IN THIS KIND OF A WAY.

AND WE'VE HAD ATTORNEYS MORE THAN ONE TELL US THAT THEIR, THEIR OPINION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF TAKING GRANTS, OR THE LACK THEREOF OF THAT IMPACT. WE'RE ACTUALLY THIS IS NOT AIMED AT TRYING TO BENEFIT THE ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF THE AIRPORT, ONLY IT'S ACTUALLY BENEFITING OUR COMMUNITY IF WE MOVE IN THIS DIRECTION.

THAT'S MY STRONG BELIEF. OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO DEBATE THIS.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE CLERK GET THE MINUTES ON HOW MR. ROZANSKI RESPONDED TO THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEST THING, AND WE CAN BRING THAT UP AGAIN.

I THOUGHT IT BROUGHT UP GOOD DISCUSSION FOR HIM, AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, HE HAD A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, AND I WON'T QUOTE ANY MORE. I REMEMBER WATCHING IT.

SO I'D LIKE TO GET WHAT HE SAID BEFORE WE START GOING OFF ON OUR OWN.

BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT WE DO NOT DIRECT THEM NOT TO TAKE GRANTS.

IT WAS THEIR CHOICE NOT TO TAKE THOSE GRANTS FOR WHATEVER REASON.

IT WAS NOT CITY COUNCIL INITIATED OR TOLD TO DO.

WE MADE A CONSENSUS REQUEST, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

CAN I GET CLARIFICATION? YES, SIR. YOU JUST SAID A CITY COUNCIL DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

HE JUST READ THE MINUTES, SO. WELL, WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT THE MINUTES OF THE PEOPLE THAT WHAT HE JUST READ FROM THE MINUTES.

LET ME CLARIFY. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THEY DID NOT. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. THANK YOU. AND IF WE IF THEY DID THAT ALL THE TIME, THEY'D BE IN A LOT BETTER SHAPE, BY THE WAY. OKAY. AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS TOO.

WELL, I'M JUST THE RED HERRING TO ME IS SAYING THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE HANDCUFFED.

WE'LL HAVE MORE LOCAL CONTROL. AS IF IF WE HAVE LOCAL CONTROL, WE ACTUALLY COULD SAY, YOU CAN'T FLY AT NIGHT.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT. I DON'T CARE HOW MUCH YOU HAVE FULL LOCAL CONTROL.

THE FAA IS NOT LETTING YOU SHUT DOWN AIRPORTS ANYMORE. YOU CAN SHUT DOWN I-75.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. AND WHEN THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE GRANT, THEY READ IT IN THE PAPER.

ACTUALLY, HERE'S WHAT I THOUGHT. AND THIS THIS IS FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HATE NOISE AND HATE THE AIRPORT AND WANTED TO MOVE IT EVEN THOUGH THEY DENY IT NOW OR SHUT IT DOWN, IS WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO. THERE'S NO MOVING.

THEY'RE JUST SHUTTING IT DOWN. BUT THAT'S ALL REVISIONIST HISTORY NOW. NOW THAT THEY'VE CREATED A BACKLASH, A BLUDGEON THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH NOT TAKING GRANTS THAT THAT ARE FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS

[04:50:02]

PHYSICAL THINGS THERE AT THE AIRPORT IS LIKE, YOU GOT A TOOTHACHE.

THAT WOULD BE FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT QUITE AS QUICK ON THE UPTAKE.

THE TOOTHACHE IS NOISE AND AIRPORT THAT YOU HATE.

THAT'D BE LIKE HAVING A TOOTHACHE. AND SO SLAMMING YOUR HAND IN THE CAR DOOR SO THE TOOTHACHE DOESN'T HURT YOU.

THERE'S NO SENSE IN NOT TAKING GRANTS. YOU CAN FIGHT THE FIGHT.

WE CAN WORK TOGETHER WITH THEM TO TRY TO AMELIORATE ALL THE THINGS THAT FOLKS DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S ABSURD. JUST LIKE IMAGINE THE CITY NOT TAKING GRANTS.

WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT. FIX THE PIER BECAUSE THERE'S FOLKS THAT THINK IT'S ENDANGERING WILDLIFE OR WHATEVER.

LIKE IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. AND TO AGAIN, REVISIONIST HISTORY TO GO BACK AND SAY THERE WASN'T PRESSURE APPLIED OR PEOPLE APPOINTED TO THAT BOARD WHO WE KNEW HAD THAT POSITION. WE KNEW THAT WAS THE CASE OR SOME UP HERE KNEW THAT IS IT'S DISINGENUOUS AT BEST. YEAH. AND I JUST FOR THE RECORD, MR. ROZANSKY WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING IF HE HAD TO TAKE GRANTS FOR SAFETY REASONS.

HE'D DO IT, AND I BELIEVE THAT HE WOULD. MR..

IT'S WHAT IT IS IS REPAIR, REPAIRING LIGHTS, REPAIRING RUNWAYS.

CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT. IT'S PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

WHAT THE GRANTS ARE FOR. THANK YOU. THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT BUILDING. I THINK I THINK THE QUESTION I THINK I THINK THE QUESTION IS THAT.

HOLD ON. I HAVE VICE MAYOR, AND THEN I'LL. OKAY.

OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. SO JUST QUICKLY AND I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY HAS CONTROL OVER GRANT ACCEPTANCE OR NOT PURSUING THOSE GRANTS.

RIGHT. YOU CAN ELECT PEOPLE TO THOSE BOARDS. THEY CAN THEY CAN MAKE THAT CHOICE.

GRANTS. AND AS FAR AS GRANTS GO, TERMS CHANGE AS IT RELATES TO GRANTS.

SO THEY HAVE TO BE EVALUATED INDEPENDENTLY. THE CITY HAS TO EVALUATE GRANTS, WHICH WE WANT TO PURSUE.

THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THOSE GRANTS MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

IF YOU THINK THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON GRANTS ARE THE SAME EVERY TIME, THEN YOU'RE DELUSIONAL.

IT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. OUR GRANTS DON'T HAVE THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

IF GRANTS ARE USED IN A WAY TO FACILITATE HIGHER AIRCRAFT OPERATION VOLUMES.

SO YOU'RE TAKING MONEY TO EXPAND AIRCRAFT PARKING.

MAKE CHANGES TO RUNWAYS THAT ACCOMMODATE HIGHER, EVER INCREASING, UNCHECKED FLIGHT OPERATION VOLUMES. AND BY THE WAY, NO ONE. EVEN WHEN THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE A CAP TO WIN OR THE AMOUNT OF AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS WE'VE SEEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY TREE.

WHEN AIRCRAFT FLIGHT OPERATIONS ARE MISMANAGED, IT RESULTS IN FATALITIES.

IT RESULTS IN SAFETY RISKS TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE PASSENGERS ON THOSE AIRCRAFTS.

SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT GRANTS, YOU HAVE TO GET INTO THE DETAILS AND FIGURE OUT IF IT IS CONTRIBUTING TO THAT EVER INCREASING, UNCHECKED FLIGHT OPERATION VOLUMES.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THE SAFETY OF NAPLES RESIDENTS, WE'VE HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT SAFETY, AND I BELIEVE THAT BOTH THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY, WE BOTH HAVE RESPONSIBILITY IN TERMS OF SAFETY.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE HEART OF EACH SIDE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY, OF THIS MANAGING OF OUR AIRPORT. I THINK THE SAFETY IS THE, THE, THE HIGHEST PRIORITY.

AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK THAT GRANTS HAVE TO BE PROPERLY EVALUATED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND I'M GOING TO MOVE ON.

YOU CAN CLOSING REMARKS BUT WE HAVE TO MOVE ON.

OKAY. MY MY QUICK THING IS THAT WE HAVE TWO SIDES ON THE DAIS HERE ON ON ABOUT GRANTS.

ONE IS WE SHOULD, YOU KNOW, TAKE THEM BECAUSE THEY, THEY REALLY DON'T ALLOW FOR ANY LOCAL CONTROL.

[04:55:04]

THEY DON'T ALLOW FOR ANY THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP CREATE A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN HAVE THINGS LIKE CURFEWS, VOLUME, ETCETERA. CAPS. THERE'S ANOTHER SIDE THAT SAYS YOU CAN AND IT'S THE FIRST STEP TO GETTING SOME LOCAL CONTROL.

SO THAT'S WHERE OUR POINT OF DISAGREEMENT IS.

I FOR ONE, RECALL THAT MEETING AND I YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE SAID, I WANTED THEM TO STOP TAKING GRANTS.

I MEAN, I'LL JUST FESS UP. I WANT BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD BY OUR ATTORNEY THAT IT WILL HELP WITH LOCAL CONTROL.

SO I THINK WE HAVE TO WAIT AND AND HAVE OUR ATTORNEY GET BACK TO US ON WHAT OUR RIGHTS ARE SO THAT WE CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS WITH CLEAR EYES AND GET, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE GETS DATA THE SAME WAY.

AND, AND WE'RE LEVEL SET WITH OUR ATTORNEYS BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING TO OURSELVES OTHERWISE.

THANK YOU. I NEED TO MOVE ON. AND WITH THAT, SINCE I BROUGHT THIS UP, LET ME JUST SAY I I APPRECIATE THE PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS ON THIS. AT MINIMUM, THIS IS A MATTER THAT COUNCIL SHOULD NOT WEIGH IN ON.

AT MINIMUM, IT'S IT'S A MATTER FOR THE NCAA TO DECIDE AND MAKE DECISIONS ON.

BUT WE CERTAINLY, IN MY OPINION, DO NOT WANT TO.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE US IN A POSITION OF TRYING TO PUT OUR THUMB ON THE SCALE IN ONE DIRECTION, WHICH IS THAT THE MOST RECENT WHAT THE MOST RECENT STATEMENT BY THIS CITY COUNCIL FROM THE 1920 22 MINUTES I JUST READ TO YOU SAY WE WE HAVE OUR THUMB ON THE SCALE AND I WILL TELL YOU IF THIS MATTER IS JUST SORT OF PUT ON THE BACK BURNER, I WILL, AT A FUTURE MEETING, MAKE A MAKE A MOTION.

AND IF I GET A SECOND, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE AND WE WILL SEE WHERE EACH PERSON ON THIS DAIS STANDS ON THIS MATTER.

AND I PROMISE YOU THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, WE HAVE CONCLUDED WITH ITEM 13 D MOVING TO 14 A THANK YOU, MAYOR,

[14.A) An Ordinance Amending Section 26-3 – Firearms Discharge, Chapter 26 – Offenses, of the Code of Ordinances, City Of Naples for the Purpose of Updating the Code of Ordinances Pursuant to Florida Statutes; Providing for Codification; Conflicts; Severability; Correction of Scrivener’s Error; Construction; Publication and an Effective Date.]

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20 6-3 FIREARMS DISCHARGE.

CHAPTER 26 OFFENSES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. CONFLICT. SEVERABILITY. CORRECTION OR SCRIVENER'S ERROR. CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS REQUEST CAME FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FAR TOO LONG AGO.

FINALLY GOT TO IT. THERE WAS A STATUTE THAT PREEMPTS THE REGULATION OF FIREARMS. FLORIDA STATUTE 790 .33. IF YOU SEE FROM PAGE TWO, THE CHANGE TO THE SECTION IS VERY MINOR.

JUST STRIKES THROUGH FIREARMS, UNDERLINES AIR PISTOL AND AIR RIFLE, WHICH WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO REGULATE AND CLARIFY SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT ACROSS PUBLIC ROADS, RIGHT OF WAYS, ALLEYS, ETC.. SO WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS.

BUT THIS WAS REALLY SOMETHING THAT ONCE I STARTED, WAS TOLD NEEDED NEEDED TO BE UPDATED WITH PRIOR CITY ATTORNEYS.

JUST NEVER GOT TO AND HERE WE ARE. THIS IS ONE OF THE EFFORTS IN CLEANING UP OUR CODE.

QUESTIONS? COUNCIL. THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL.

OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION? SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BURTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISTMAS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHINSON. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO DEFAULT TO YOU.

IT'S YOUR ORDINANCE. ALL RIGHT, SO WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE TITLE? YES, SIR. OKAY. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO

[14.B) First Reading of an Ordinance Relating to Administrative and Approval Procedures and Site Plan Review. An Ordinance of the City of Naples, Florida, for the Purpose of Amending Regulations Relating to Administrative and Approval Procedures and Site Plan Review; Amending Section 46-33, Site Plan Review, Section 46-34, Approval of Conditional Uses, Section 46-35, Expanding, Enlarging or Changing a Nonconformity, Section 46-37, Variances to Zoning Requirements, of Chapter 46, Administration, Procedures and Enforcement; Section 50-154, Determination of Required Dedications and Improvements, of Article VI, Right-of-Way Acquisition and Standards, of Chapter 50, Development and Design Standards; Section 52-151, Applicability of Article, of Article VI, Development of Environmental Impact, of Chapter 52, Resource Protection Standards; Section 54-31, Approval Procedure, of Article II, Plats, and Section 54-68, Recreation Areas and Facilities, of Article III, Design Standards and Improvement Requirements, of Chapter 54, Subdivision Standards; Section 56-48, Satellite Antennas, Towers and Masts, of Article II, Standards Applicable to All Districts, of Chapter 56, Supplemental Standards; and Section 58-503, Conditional Uses, of Division 17, Highway Commercial District, Section 58-533, Conditional Uses, of Division 18, C1 Retail Shopping District, Section 58-563, Conditional Uses, of Division 19, C1-A Commercial Dore District, Section 58-593, Conditional Uses, of Division 20, C2 General Commercial District, Section 58-623, Conditional Uses, of Division 21, C2-A Waterfront Commercial District, Section 58-653, Conditional Uses, of Division 22, C3 Heavy Commercial District, Sections 58-682, Uses Permitted, and 58-683, Conditional Uses, of Division 23, C4 Airport Commercial District, Section 58-713, Conditional Uses, of Division 24, I Industrial District, Section 58-773, Conditional Uses, of Division 26, O Office District, Section 58-833, Conditional Uses, of Division 28, PS Public Service District, Sections 58-864, Designation of Districts; Identification of District Boundaries, 58-868, Review of Submittals by City, of Division 29, C Conservation and TC Transitional Conservation Districts, Section 58-933, Conditional Uses, of Division 31, BP Business Park District, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, Approving Text Amendment 25-T1; Providing for Codification, Conflicts, Severability, Correction of Scrivener’s Error, Construction, Publication, and an Effective Date.]

ADMINISTRATIVE AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES FOR AND SITE PLAN REVIEW.

AMENDING SECTIONS 4633. SITE PLAN REVIEW SECTIONS 4634 APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USES.

SECTION 4635 EXPANDING, ENLARGING, OR CHANGING A NONCONFORMITY.

SECTION 4637 VARIANCES TO ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 46 ADMINISTRATION, PROCEDURES AND ENFORCEMENT.

SECTION 5154 DETERMINATION OF REQUIRED DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS OF ARTICLE 46.

RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION AND STANDARDS OF CHAPTER 50 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS.

SECTION 50 2-1 51 APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE SIX ONE SECOND.

THAT IS SIX. RIGHT? OKAY. DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CHAPTER 52 RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS.

[05:00:08]

SECTION 5431 APPROVAL PROCEDURE OF ARTICLE TWO PLATS AND SECTION 5468.

RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES OF ARTICLE THREE DESIGN STANDARDS AND IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 54 SUBDIVISION STANDARDS.

SECTION 5648 SATELLITE ANTENNAS, TOWERS AND SUB AND MAST OF ARTICLE TWO STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL DISTRICTS.

CHAPTER 56 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS IN SECTION 58 503 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION SEVEN TEEN HIGHWAY.

COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. SECTION 58 530 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 18 C1 RETAIL SHOPPING DISTRICT.

SECTION 58 563 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 19 C1, A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

SECTION 58 593 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 20 CT.

GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. SECTION 58 623 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 21 C2, A WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

SECTION 58 653 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 22 C3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

SECTION 58 682. USES PERMITTED IN 58 SIX. 83 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 23 C FOR AIRPORT.

COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. SECTION 58. SEVEN. ONE. THREE.

CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 24. INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

SECTION 58. DASH 773 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 26.

OFFICE DISTRICT. SECTION 58. DASH 833. CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 28 PS.

PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT. SECTION 50 8-8 64 DESIGNATION OF DISTRICTS.

IDENTIFICATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES 50 8-8 68 REVIEW OF SUBMITTALS BY CITY OF DIVISION 29 C CONSERVATION AND TK TRANSITIONAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT SECTION 50 8-9 33 CONDITIONAL USES OF DIVISION 21 BP BUSINESS PARK, DISTRICT OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT 20 5T1 PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION.

CONFLICT. SEVERABILITY. CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS. CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. I'M SORRY, I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? SECOND. THE NEXT ONE.

THANK YOU, MR. MCCONNELL. HE GETS TO DO THIS AGAIN.

THE NEXT ONE, TOO? YES. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL.

I'M ERICA MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. SO THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO ORDINANCES YOU'LL BE REVIEWING THIS AFTERNOON.

AND THESE ARE ALL A PRODUCT OF, I GUESS, WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO AS THE PROCESS OPTIMIZATION INITIATIVE THAT WE'VE BEEN WE'VE BEEN UNDER FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO 20 STARTED IN 2023. SO THROUGHOUT 2023 AND 2024, THERE WAS A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS WITH CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. KIND OF FROM START TO FINISH. WE ALSO HAD SOME I THINK WE REFERRED TO THEM AS FOCUS GROUPS.

WE HAD SOME MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN COMMUNITY, MEMBERS OF THE BUILDING COMMUNITY AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS THEIR, THEIR GET THEIR INPUT ON WHAT, HOW THE PROCESS IS WORKING, HOW IT'S NOT WORKING, AND ANYTHING WE CAN CHANGE.

WE DID AMEND. WE DID ADOPT AN ORDINANCE IN APRIL OF 2024 ACTUALLY CODIFYING SOME OF THOSE CHANGES.

THOSE WERE MORE RELATED TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. IT WAS MOVING THE DESIGN CRITERIA FROM CHAPTER 50 INTO CHAPTER TWO ADDING A THREE DIMENSIONAL STREET VIEW RENDERING TO THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL MATERIAL AND THEN AMENDING THE SECTIONS TWO, DASH 472 AND FOUR SEVEN, THREE, WHICH WERE TO CLARIFY THE ROLE AND AUTHORITY OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD.

AND THEN AND ALSO THE WITHIN THE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE DRB ROLE IN THAT DISTRICT.

WE HAVE MADE A COUPLE OF CHANGES AT THE STAFF LEVEL, ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY CHANGES AS WELL, JUST TO KIND OF STREAMLINE THIS PROCESS. AND THEN AS WE CONTINUE ALONG THROUGH THESE WORKSHOPS, THERE WAS A MEETING WE HAD A MEETING AT ON JUNE 19TH AND OCTOBER 14TH WITH COUNCIL TO DISCUSS SPECIFICALLY SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE COULD, CONTINUE TO MAKE. AND AT THE OCTOBER 14TH, 2024 WORKSHOP, COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING ITEMS AND RETURN WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO CODIFY THEM. THE FIRST WOULD BE RENAMING THE SITE PLAN TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO CLARIFY THE CONFUSION BETWEEN THE ACTUAL REVIEW PROCESS VERSUS THE DRAWING THAT IS TITLED A SITE PLAN, AND REDEFINING THIS AS A MORE GENERAL LEVEL OF REVIEW.

THE SECOND IS ALTERING THE SEQUENCING OF APPROVALS WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONAL USE AS ALI VACATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.

ET CETERA. THE THIRD IS LIMITING PAB REVIEWS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REVIEWS TO REZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND TEXT AMENDMENTS, SITTING AS THE LPA AND SITE PLANS AND PLAN DEVELOPMENTS.

THE FOURTH IS ELIMINATING THE PAB REVIEW FROM APPEALS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, AND THE FIFTH IS HIRING SOMEONE ON CITY STAFF WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN EXPERIENCE.

THE FIFTH ONE HAS BEEN AMENDED IN THIS BUDGET CYCLE.

WE ACTUALLY WERE ALLOCATED MONEY TO CONTRACT WITH A THIRD PARTY ARCHITECT.

[05:05:01]

WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THAT RFP. SO TO REVIEW THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTAL SO IT WOULDN'T BE A STAFF MEMBER WITH ARCHITECTURAL EXPERIENCE.

IT'S GOING TO BE A THIRD PARTY ARCHITECT. BUT THE FIRST THE THE OTHER INITIATIVES HERE THAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO BRING FORWARD ARE WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. SO THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE ACCOMPLISHES TWO THINGS.

AND THAT IS RENAMING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROCESS.

LIKE I SAID, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION OVER THE YEARS BETWEEN THE PROCESS.

OR WE'LL START WITH THE THE SHEET THAT WE REFER TO AS THE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS JUST THE PLAN DEPICTING THE SITE AND THEN THE PROCESS WHICH INCLUDES A REVIEW OF EVERYTHING FROM ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, FIRE PLANS, STORMWATER PLANS AND EVERYTHING.

SO IT'S A MUCH MORE INVOLVED REVIEW THAN JUST THE SITE, JUST THE SITE PLAN.

SO WE WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. AND THEN ALSO.

KIND OF MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T ANY CONFUSION BETWEEN THOSE TWO. SO GENERAL, THIS IS ALSO COMING FULL CIRCLE.

ANYONE WHO'S BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, WE HAD THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN PROCESS CHANGE THAT TO SITE PLAN.

AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. BUT WE JUST THINK THIS IS A BETTER FIT FOR WHAT IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING THERE.

AND THEN THE SECOND MAJOR CHANGE IS RELATED TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD IS EXACTLY THAT. THEY'RE ADVISORY TO CITY COUNCIL.

SO THERE ARE NO, NO ACTIONS THAT END AT THE PAB.

THEY DON'T TAKE FINAL ACTION ON ANY OF THESE OTHER ITEMS, BUT THEY DO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL DENIAL CONDITIONS OF THESE ITEMS. AND SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE, AND THE REASON WHY MATTHEW JUST READ THE TITLE FOR 45 MINUTES IS BECAUSE THAT SHOWS UP IN ALMOST EVERY ZONING DISTRICT AND ALSO IN A LOT OF THE SECTIONS. CHAPTER 46 IS YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION.

IT LAYS OUT ALL THE DIFFERENT PROCESSES. SO CONDITIONAL USES, VARIANCES, NONCONFORMITIES ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

SUBDIVISIONS ARE ALL LAID OUT IN CHAPTER 46. SO IT WAS GOING THROUGH EACH ONE OF THOSE SECTIONS AND EACH ONE OF THOSE PROCESSES.

AND, AND DIRECTING ALL OF THOSE ITEMS TO GO DIRECTLY TO CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.

AND THEN ALSO GOING INTO EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THEY REFER TO CONDITIONAL USES AS APPROVED, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. SO IT'S A LOT OF SECTIONS, BUT IT'S THE SAME CHANGE IN ALL OF THOSE SECTIONS, IF THAT'S EASIER. AND YEAH, I'M, I THINK MATTHEW HAD ONE THING HE WANTED TO ADD TO THE SITE PLAN SECTION.

DO YOU WANT ME TO. SO THIS IS A BIG ORDINANCE.

SO WE CAN GO. WE CAN HANDLE THIS. HOWEVER, COUNCIL WANTS TO ERICA'S POINT 80% OF IT.

ONCE YOU GET PAST 46, 44 IS JUST STRIKING THROUGH PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ANY OTHER UNDERLYING CITY COUNCIL OR HAVING A GO DIRECTLY TO CITY COUNCIL.

THE ONE THING I WILL REMIND YOU ALL OF, THOUGH, IS, IS WHEN WHEN I GOT INVOLVED IN THIS, INITIALLY, THERE WAS THERE WAS A TIMELINE OF OF DOING THESE THINGS.

AND THE FIRST STEP WAS RESCINDING THE ORDINANCES THAT WE WEREN'T ENFORCING, WHICH COUNCIL DIDN'T DO.

AND THE REASON I'M BRINGING THAT UP IS BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TO 46, 33, WHICH IS THE SITE PLAN, THAT'S ONE OF THOSE SECTIONS WHERE IF YOU LOOK UP THE LANGUAGE IN OUR CODE, IT'S THE VERSION THAT WE'RE NOT ENFORCING.

SO YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO BACK TO THE PRIOR VERSION.

STRIKETHROUGH, UNDERLINE. IT'S VERY EFFICIENT.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAD TO ACTUALLY GO, HOW DO I EXPLAIN THIS? WE HAD TO GO BACK TO THE ONE THAT WE'RE ENFORCING IN ORDER TO MAKE THE CHANGE ON THE CURRENT PROCESS THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING.

WE CANNOT AMEND WHAT IS ON THE BOOKS TODAY. IF YOU OPEN MUNICODE, WE HAD TO GO BACK AND AMEND CORRECT THE LANGUAGE PRIOR TO 2023 BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ENFORCING. SO I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE.

BUT WITH THAT, AGAIN, WE'RE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH PAGE BY PAGE OR THIS WAS REALLY A RESULT OF THE MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS AND THE CONSENSUS THAT WE RECEIVED. AND THEN I BELIEVE WE RECEIVED FURTHER CONSENSUS AND CONFIRMATION EITHER RIGHT BEFORE OR RIGHT AFTER BREAK, I CAN'T REMEMBER. THERE WAS A MEETING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

YES. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS. I'M SORRY, CAN I ADD ONE MORE THING, WHICH I JUST BREEZED RIGHT OVER, AS USUAL. THIS DID GO TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

SO SORRY. THIS ITEM DID GO TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

AND THEY REVIEWED THE ORDINANCE EXACTLY AS IT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY.

THIS WENT TO THEM IN APRIL, ON APRIL 9TH, 2025, AND THEY VOTED 5 TO 1 TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE ORDINANCE.

THEY FOUND THEY HAD SPECIFIC WORDING THEY WANTED TO PASS ON TO COUNCIL.

THEY FOUND THAT IF PASSED, THE ORDINANCE WOULD DILUTE THE POWER OF THE PAB AND DEPRIVE CITY COUNCIL OF VALUABLE INPUT IN THEIR DELIBERATIONS OVER QUASI JUDICIAL LAND USE

[05:10:05]

MATTERS. ACCORDINGLY, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS AWARE OF THEIR FINDINGS AND TO FURTHER EXPRESS THEIR INTEREST IN RETAINING REVIEW OF QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS, THE PAB PROFFERED AND PASSED A SECOND MOTION, VOTING 5 TO 1 TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION THAT NOT ONLY SHOULD THE PAB CONTINUE TO HEAR ALL PLANNING ITEMS QUASI JUDICIAL AND DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, BUT THAT THEY SHOULD BE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER WITH CITY COUNCIL HEARING THEM ONLY ON APPEAL. SO THAT WAS THE THE MOTION MADE BY THE PAB.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU ADDING THAT I'LL ALSO ADD THAT THAT SECOND MOTION THAT WAS MADE WAS MADE IN CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS, WHICH YOU DO NOT MAKE MOTIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS.

I JUST WILL START OFF I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE SITE PLAN CRITERIA AND HOW IT'S JUST A NAME CHANGE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE GET CONFUSED ON WHEN DOES THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN GET APPROVED? SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THAT.

THE WHEN DOES THE SITE PLAN GET APPROVED? SO SITE PLANS ARE ALL REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE DISTRIBUTE THEM OUT TO ALL THE OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS FOR REVIEW.

ONCE THEY ARE FOUND SUFFICIENT BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, IF THEY ARE NOT WITHIN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THAT IS THE THAT'S THE END OF THE SITE PLAN. IT IS FOUND SUFFICIENT ADMINISTRATIVELY CURRENTLY BY CODE.

WHAT WE ARE ENFORCING IS IF THE PROJECT IS IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THEN IT GOES TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR REVIEW AND CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

AND WE ARE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT. THAT IS STILL A PROCESS THAT WILL GO THROUGH THE RIGHT AND BECAUSE OF OUR CODE.

HELP ME OUT. THE DRB SEES PETITIONS PRACTICALLY 90% OF THE PETITIONS.

WHERE COUNCIL DOES NOT SEE THE PETITIONS, THE DRB SEES 100% OF NEW DEVELOPMENT PETITIONS FOR DESIGN.

SO THEY DON'T THEY'RE NOT REVIEWING THE SITE PLAN CRITERIA THAT ARE IN THIS SECTION.

BUT THEY DO SEE THE DESIGN OF ALL THE PROJECTS.

AND THEN A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THOSE PROJECTS, WHEN THEY SUBMIT THEIR SITE PLAN, GO TO CITY COUNCIL, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THE ONES THAT ARE IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S BY CODE.

THAT IS CODE, RIGHT? SO, ERICA, YOU SAID 100% OF ALL DEVELOPMENT, NEW DEVELOPMENT, SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

NO I'M SORRY. MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL. THANK YOU. YEAH.

SORRY. GOOD CALL. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

I JUST WANT TO LAY SOME OTHER THINGS OUT FOR YOU.

CAN YOU OH. LOOKED AT CRAMER AND FORGOT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.

OH, CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION ON. WE'VE WENT OVER THIS MANY, MANY TIMES, BUT FOR THEIR BENEFIT, WHY? THE DRB HAS A RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL, AND IT TAKES DRB RESOLUTION IN ORDER TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT.

SO THE DRB RESOLUTION IS, AS YOU'VE SEEN, NOT A RESOLUTION IN THE SAME FORM AS WHAT YOU SEE.

SO THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE RECITALS AND ANYTHING. IT'S REALLY RESOLUTION IS JUST THE TERM.

THAT IS THE WAY IN WHICH WE MEMORIALIZE THE DRB ACTION AND ANY CONDITIONS THAT COME OUT OF OUT OF THAT APPROVAL.

SO THEY ARE IT'S JUST THEIR DESIGN APPROVAL. THE DRB RESOLUTION IS NOT WHAT ALLOWS SOMEONE TO BUILD A PROJECT. THE CODE COMPLIANCE IS WHAT ALLOWS SOMEONE TO BUILD A PROJECT.

ALL THE DRB RESOLUTION DOES IS IT SAYS THAT THE DRB REVIEWED THIS AND AND FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE CITY.

IT IS NOT A ZONING APPROVAL NOR AN ENTITLEMENT.

WELL, AND I JUST REAL QUICK BECAUSE THESE ARE TWO MASSIVE ORDINANCES.

BUT MAYOR, YOUR POINT IS ON THE NEXT ORDINANCE, DRB IS I WOULD JUST THERE'S A LOT GOING ON.

I MEAN, WE CAN HANDLE THEM ALL TOGETHER, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO WE SHOULD TRY TO FOCUS ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ONE AND THE CODE.

BUT I HAVE TO LAY OUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN MY HEAD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, SO BUT I WAS I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THAT RESOLUTION IS INTERPRETED AS A DEVELOPMENT ORDER. IT IS NOT YOU COULD NOT DEVELOP A PIECE OF PROPERTY IF IT DID NOT MEET THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BASED ON THE DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND THE BUILDING CODE.

OKAY. I HAVE A CONFLICT OF OPINION BETWEEN MY COUNCIL SO I CAN GET THAT ORGANIZED LATER.

DO YOU DISAGREE WITH ME? SHE'S TALKING AND SHE'S MENTIONED IT BEFORE, THAT SHE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ANDREW ONE TIME THAT SAID,

[05:15:05]

IT SEEMS LIKE A DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AND YOU HAVE AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THE CODE SPECIFICALLY HAS LANGUAGE IN IT THAT SAYS THESE APPROVALS ARE NOT A DEVELOPMENT ORDER. I DON'T KNOW HOW I ARGUE AGAINST.

CAN YOU SHOW ME THAT? SURE. OKAY, GOOD. I THINK THAT WAS WHEN WE CHANGED THE CLARIFICATION IN THE CODE 2-4, SEVEN NINE. YOU'RE CORRECT. EXACTLY.

OKAY. SO HOWEVER IT'S STILL BY. GOT A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION ON WHETHER IT'S A GRANT OR NOT.

A GRANT. WE TAKE IT OR WE DON'T TAKE IT ON WHETHER IT ACTUALLY IS A DEVELOPMENT ORDER OR NOT.

SO WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT AT ANOTHER TIME FOCUSING IN ON THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION.

I JUST THE SITE PLAN AND THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN ARE VERY CONFUSING.

THAT'S WHERE I WAS ASKING YOU ABOUT THAT SITE PLAN CRITERIA, BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY.

WHAT'S THE CODE SAY? I'M SORRY, I WAS GOING TO TAKE A BREAK AND GO GET MY CODE BOOK, BUT IT SAYS LIKE THE STANDARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW.

RIGHT? BUT IT'S NOT IN ANY TYPE OF MEASURABLE.

WHAT DOES IT SAY? I'M SORRY. DO YOU ARE YOU ASKING ME TO TELL YOU WHAT THE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW ARE? WELL, I CAN SO IT SAYS THE PURPOSE. SO STANDARDS ARE IT'S SUBSECTION G STANDARDS FOR REVIEW SAYS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT NOW WILL BE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW IS TO ONE DETERMINE THE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CODE AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.

NO. I'M SORRY. WHAT IN 4633 DOES IT SAY ABOUT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND WHAT THAT CRITERIA WOULD BE? THOSE ARE THE CRITERIA. THE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW ARE THE CRITERIA FOR A SITE PLAN OR NOW A GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

OKAY. I MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE A BREAK AND GO GET MY NOTES. SO COUNCIL, I JUST I'LL KICK OFF.

I'M STILL KIND OF CONFUSED ABOUT THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN, ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE ERICA'S RIGHT.

PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED, AND WE NEED TO CLARIFY IT.

AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION OF OF WHAT THE CRITERIA WAS AND WHEN IT WOULD BE COMPLETE.

I BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING THAT TAKES AWAY REVIEW BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WORD STARTING AFTER SECTION TWO. I AM NOT IN AGREEANCE WITH, I BELIEVE THAT THE PAB MEMBERS AND VOLUNTEERS ACTUALLY CAN BENEFIT US IN MAKING DECISIONS IF THEY ARE PRELIMINARY REVIEW.

SO FROM THE BEGINNING PART, I'M OKAY UNTIL IT GETS TO SECTION THREE.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT PAB SHOULD BE ELIMINATED IN ANY OF THOSE OTHER SECTIONS.

I'LL START WITH QUESTIONS. COUNCILMAN CHRISTMAN SO THE WHEN YOU STRIP IT ALL DOWN THE ORDINANCE, MISS MARTIN REALLY? THERE ARE TWO IN ITS PROPOSED FORM.

TWO MAJOR ACTIONS. ONE IS TO RENAME THE THE SITE PLAN, THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND NUMBER TWO, TO REMOVE CERTAIN APPROVAL APPROVALS FROM THE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.

BUT YES. PARDON ME, THEY DON'T APPROVE ANYTHING BUT REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.

RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. IS THAT. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT OKAY.

ON THE FIRST ONE THE SITE PLAN TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN I DON'T I NEVER HAVE HAD A STRONG OPINION ON THIS.

I'LL BE YOU KNOW I, I KIND OF UNDERSTAND I MEAN CALLING IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S CONFUSION OR A LACK OF CLARITY IN SOME PEOPLE'S MINDS, AND THERE'S BENEFITS TO IT, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I, THAT I YOU KNOW, I'LL GO WITH THE MAJORITY WILL OF COUNCIL ON THIS ON THAT ONE, ON THE SECOND ONE BUILDING ON WHAT THE MAYOR JUST SAID YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, BUT I'LL SAY IT AGAIN IN TERMS OF HISTORY HERE A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF AGO, THE PAB, WHICH AT THAT TIME HAD A DIFFERENT MEMBERSHIP THAN IT DOES TODAY. NOT ENTIRELY, BUT SIGNIFICANTLY.

SAID TO US THIS WAS UNDER THE TIME WHEN JOHN CROSS WAS THE CHAIR.

BUT THE CHAIRMAN THEN AND OTHERS SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST OVERWHELMED WITH WORK.

WE'VE GOT SO MUCH ON OUR AGENDA. IT'S JUST IT'S KILLING US.

AND, AND, AND SUGGESTED THAT WE THE COUNCIL LOOK AT WAYS TO LET THEM FOCUS ON THE MOST IMPORTANT

[05:20:05]

THINGS AND PERHAPS LESS SO ON SOME OF THE LESS IMPORTANT, WHAT WAS IN THEIR MIND LESS IMPORTANT.

AND THAT LED TO A CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD THROUGH THESE VARIOUS MEETINGS WHERE WE LOOKED AT BOARDS AND COMMITTEES OF BASED ON WHAT STAFF SAID, WHAT STAFF INFORMED US OR REMINDED US THAT THERE WERE ONLY CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF, OF ORDINANCES THAT OUR LOCAL PLANNING BOARD HAD TO REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON UNDER STATE STATUTE. AND THAT'S THE REZONING, THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS AND THE TEXT AMENDMENTS.

AND AND, AND A FEW OTHER THINGS. AND WE SAID AT THAT TIME, OKAY, THAT'S REMOVED WHAT CONDITIONAL USE AND 2 OR 3 OTHER THINGS FROM THE FROM, FROM, FROM THEM GOING TO, TO, TO THE PAB.

BUT IT REALLY CAME AT THE PAB INITIATIVE. NOW, OVER TIME, THERE'S BEEN NEW PEOPLE ADDED TO THE PAB.

NEW CHAIRMAN. AND APPARENTLY THEIR VIEW NOW IS THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH THAT POINT OF VIEW.

AND THEY WANT TO KEEP THESE, THESE RESPONSIBILITIES.

AND I GUESS, AS I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, I COME DOWN PRETTY MUCH WHERE THE MAYOR IS.

IF YOU KNOW THEY'VE DONE THIS KIND OF REVIEW FOR YEARS.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM CONTINUING TO. THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE A PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR.

SO I'M, I'M QUITE COMFORTABLE WITH REVERSING WHAT OUR EARLIER GUIDANCE WAS TO REMOVE THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AND LET THEM CONTINUE TO, TO REVIEW THOSE PETITIONS WHEN THEY COME IN AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.

WHAT I CERTAINLY DON'T AGREE WITH IS HAVING THE PAB HAVE FINAL AUTHORITY AND FINAL ACTION ON ANYTHING THAT SHOULD ALWAYS COME TO COUNCIL, SO I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT. BUT SO THAT'S MY VIEW.

THANK YOU. I HAVE PETRANOFF AND KRAMER, AFTER HAVING A HEALTHY DEBATE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MEMBER KRISEMAN, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. OH MY GOSH, I THINK I WATCHED THE PABS RELIGIOUSLY.

IT'S THE ONE BOARD I ALWAYS WATCH BECAUSE THERE IT'S A BUNCH OF REALLY SMART PEOPLE THAT HAVE THAT ARE SORT OF DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS, AND THEY ALWAYS COME UP WITH DIGGING INTO THE DETAILS THAT I MIGHT NOT HAVE THOUGHT OF.

SO IT REALLY INFORMS, IT HELPS INFORM MY DECISIONS.

AND, YOU KNOW, CONDITIONAL USE IS THEY'RE REALLY IMPORTANT.

SITE PLANS OR WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO CALL THEM. THAT'S IMPORTANT.

NONCONFORMITIES ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT FLUSHES OUT ISSUES WITH LIKE FLAG LOTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WE MIGHT NOT PICK UP IN A STAFF REPORT.

SO I, I AM I REALLY WOULD MISS, YOU KNOW, THAT CONTENT THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S RICHNESS OF THE DETAILS THAT THAT HELP. BUT I ULTIMATELY WE ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE DECISIONS ON.

I WOULD LIKE THEM TO CONTINUE TO BE AN ADVISORY BOARD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. KRAMER. YEAH. MY THOUGHT ON IT IS THIS THE LONGER THE MEETINGS, THE THE MORE STRESS ON OUR STAFF. THEY CAN'T BE IN THOSE MEETINGS AND DOING THEIR JOB THAT EVERYBODY REALLY THINKS THEY'RE DOING.

AND THE FACT IS, LIKE RAY SAID, THEY CAME. THEY DIDN'T WANT IT.

THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN THE CODE FOR THEM TO ADDRESS.

AND MY CONTENTION IS THE STUFF'S COMING TO US ANYWAY.

IF IT'S CONDITIONAL USE, WE'RE GOING TO SEE IT ANYWAY. AND SO I ALSO I'M REALLY SENSITIVE TO HOW FOLKS HAVE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY, AND YOU'RE MAKING THEM JUST GO TO ANOTHER MEETING, TAKE LAWYER UP THERE, LAWYER UP HERE.

AND THERE'S AN EXPENSE TO THAT. IT'S NOT IN A VACUUM.

AND AND SO I'M WONDERING, SO WHEN NEXT TIME WE HAVE A ROUND OF FOLKS AND THEY WANT, WE GOT TOO MUCH ON OUR PLATE.

IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, I THINK I TALKED I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THIS, BUT LIKE, MEETINGS WOULD GO TWO DAYS.

IS THAT THE CASE IN 2022 OR 2023? WE HAD A SERIES OF 2 TO 2 FULL DAY MEETINGS.

WE WOULD HAD TO HAVE TO ADVERTISE FOR A WEDNESDAY AND A THURSDAY OR A WEDNESDAY AND A FRIDAY.

AND AND THAT'S I TO BE FAIR, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THIS CAME FROM INITIALLY FROM THE PAB OF SAYING, WE WANT TO GET INTO THE COMP PLANNING AND WE WANT TO GET INTO THESE, YOU KNOW, MORE BROAD PLANNING ISSUES, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE 43, YOU KNOW, QUASI-JUDICIAL ITEMS ON OUR AGENDAS AND WE'RE SPENDING DAYS TO GET THROUGH THEM.

SO. SO JUST FOR THOUGHT FOR COUNCIL JUST CONSIDER OUR STAFF TIME OUR THE FACT THAT WE ARE UNDERSTAFFED IN THIS AREA

[05:25:06]

SIGNIFICANTLY 60 40% OR WHATEVER IT IS. AND IF WE WERE TO MAKE THIS CHANGE AND BY THE WAY, I ALSO MY HISTORIC THIS GOES BACK AS PART OF THIS RECORD AS WELL, THE MAYOR MEETING WITH FOLKS IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY AND THEM WANTING THIS THING STREAMLINED AS WELL.

AND AT THE TIME I THOUGHT THAT WAS EXCELLENT OLIVE BRANCH. AND I THOUGHT WE HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION. AND AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE REVERSING COURSE ON SOMETHING WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND AFTER ALL THIS WORK. SO CONSIDER THAT HISTORY, CONSIDER STAFF TIME AND CONSIDER THE EXPENSE TO THE PETITIONERS.

THANKS. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR, THANK YOU. SO I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE DESCRIPTION, SITE PLAN, REVIEW PROCESS VERSUS GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE WERE AT ONE PLACE, WENT TO ANOTHER. NOW GOING BACK I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT HAPPENED, BUT IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT IT'S HAPPENING OR PROPOSED TO BE HAPPENING. WHEN I START THINKING ABOUT THE PAB AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ROLE THAT IT TAKES ON. I LIKEN IT TO WHAT IT TAKES TO PROPERLY FILL OUT A PERMIT, WHATEVER KIND OF PERMIT YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT. THERE ARE IT TAKES SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME JUST TO GET A PERMIT FILLED OUT COMPLETELY BECAUSE DETAILS ARE MISSING.

AND THAT'S HOW I SEE THE ROLE OF PAB BEFORE IT BECOMES PRIME TIME AND APPEARS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

THEY FLESH OUT A LOT OF DETAILS, A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE JUST NECESSARY FOR THE PROCESS.

AND I APPRECIATE THE PAB FOR DOING THAT. I DON'T SUPPORT ELIMINATING THE PAB OR SHRINKING OUR PROCESSES FOR US TO CONSIDER. AND THERE'S PROBABLY THINGS THAT ARE NOT AS CRITICAL AS THIS.

BUT IF WE ELIMINATE A CRITICAL FUNCTION, AND THEN WE CIRCLE BACK.

LET'S SAY WE RECOGNIZE WE MADE A MISTAKE. NOW WE WANT TO PUT THAT LAYER BACK IN.

IS THAT MORE BURDENSOME AND RESTRICTIVE? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE YOU PREVENTED? OR DOES IT MAKE IT MORE PROBLEMATIC TO FIX A PROBLEM THAT DIDN'T EXIST? RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE PUTTING A THE PAB BACK IN THE MIX.

I DON'T THINK THAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IF WE SO CHOOSE TO DO THAT.

SO I SUPPORT I DO NOT SUPPORT ELIMINATING THE PAB.

I'D LIKE THE PROCESS AS IT WORKS. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE COUNCIL, THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, THE LOCALLY, THE LOCALLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ARE IN AN APPROPRIATE ROLE TO HAVE A SAY ON THAT FINAL DECISION. SO I THINK THAT SUPPORTS SOME OTHER COMMENTS ALREADY MADE.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU, MR. BARTON.

I'M JUST GOING TO SAY REAL FAST. PAB HAS A VERY VALUABLE ROLE HERE, AND THAT IS WITH ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

ULTIMATELY, THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ANALYSIS NEEDS TO COME TO US AND WE NEED TO MAKE DECISIONS BECAUSE THAT IS THAT IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN ELECTED TO DO TO REPRESENT THOSE THAT, THAT, THAT ELECTED US TO, TO SIT UP HERE AND MAKE, MAKE THE TOUGH CALLS AND TOUGH DECISIONS ON, ON, ON THEIR BEHALF ON WHAT IS THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR COMMUNITY.

SO AGAIN, PAB HAS THAT ROLE AND WE DESPERATELY NEED IT.

AND I VALUE IT CONSIDERABLY, SIGNIFICANTLY. I TAKE TO HEART WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND THEIR OPINIONS IN REFERENCE TO THE ITEMS THAT COME IN FRONT OF US.

CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? I THERE'S THREE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, BUT AND I HAVE COUNCIL. I, I AGREE THAT WITH EVERYTHING YOU'VE SAID, WHERE I GET FIDGETY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE USING STAFF TIME, AND I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO YOU COACH SUGGESTING THAT, HONESTLY, WE'RE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN HAVE TWO TABLES OR FOUR TABLES OUTSIDE OF.

THAT'S WHERE I THINK THAT'S WHERE I THINK THERE COULD BE SOME REAL USE AND TIME PUT IN ON WHAT DOES COME BEFORE US AND WHAT NEED NOT COME BEFORE US. AND THAT'S A CLASSIC EXAMPLE, THANKS TO YOUR REMARKS THAT ONE PARTICULAR DAY.

[05:30:08]

SO I'D LIKE TO I'D LIKE FOR US TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE KINDS OF THINGS THAT COULD BE DECIDED ADMINISTRATIVELY AND NOT HAVE TO COME BEFORE ANYBODY.

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. EXCEPT FOR IN PAST HISTORY, AS GARY PRICE WOULD SAY IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHERE OUTDOOR DINING IS GOING AND WHERE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IS GOING.

AND HOW IT LAYS OUT ON THE SIDEWALK. AND TALK ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS. HONESTLY, I THINK THAT ERICA MAKES ALL THE DECISIONS AND HAS ALL THE PRESSURES WITHIN THE CITY AND DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH STAFF TO SUPPORT HER AND, AND THOSE ISSUES.

I KNOW WE'RE WORKING ON IT AND GETTING THAT STAFF, BUT YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE A JACK OF ALL TRADES, BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE SET UP THAT DEPARTMENT.

WE JUST NEED TO GET THE GOOD PEOPLE IN THERE.

SO, MARY, I'LL TAKE YOUR REMARKS TO HEART. BUT COULD IT POSSIBLY THEN COULD IT POSSIBLY BE OBVIOUSLY THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, BUT IT'S GOING TO ALWAYS COME TO US? SO THAT'S, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE HYBRID HERE THAT I THINK COULD WORK IF USING AGAIN, OUTDOOR DINING, DINING AS AN EXAMPLE. I THINK THERE'S THERE'S WAYS I THINK IN THE INSTANCE, IF COUNCIL REVIEWS THE INITIAL PERMIT, ESTABLISHING THE NUMBER OF TABLES AND CHAIRS, IF THAT CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP COMES IN AND THEY STAY EXACTLY WITHIN THE APPROVED LIFE SAFETY PLAN, STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT REQUIRES A SIX MONTH REVIEW.

WELL, THE WAY THAT'S WRITTEN IN THE CODE IS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ON OCTOBER 15TH, I'M GOING TO COME IN WITH FIVE FULL AGENDA ITEMS, JUST TO TELL YOU THAT AFTER SIX MONTHS, THERE HAVE BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO ISSUES WITH 6 OR 5 DIFFERENT ESTABLISHMENTS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES IN THERE WHERE IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY, BUT IT COULD MAKE THIS A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT. AND I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF THEM COME FROM YOU.

I MEAN, IT JUST HAPPENED TO COME UP SERENDIPITOUSLY DURING ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, BUT THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD MIMIC EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S RARE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE IF WE'RE DEALING WITH, AGAIN, OUTDOOR DINING AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT IT HAS TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF US BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THEY'RE USING LESS SQUARE FOOTAGE OUTDOORS AT LESS TABLES AND LESS SEATS.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO APPROVE THAT. I MEAN, SO CAN WE CAN WE PUT THAT AS A TOPIC TO DISCUSS? YES. BECAUSE I AGREE WITH MISS WITH COUNCILWOMAN PENMAN.

WHAT SHOULD WE SEE AND WHAT SHOULD WE NOT SEE? AND I BELIEVE THAT AND I'VE SAID THIS TO OUR STAFF.

PEOPLE COME TO ME AND SAY, WHY DID YOU APPROVE? ROOMS TO GO. WHY DID YOU APPROVE ALL OF THE PROJECTS ON 41? FROM SEVENTH TO EIGHTH. THEY'RE SEVEN FEET IN BETWEEN.

AND MY RESPONSE IS, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE CODE.

AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THAT. ON WHETHER WE WANT TO REVIEW THOSE THINGS THAT ARE OF CONCERN THAT I HAVE HEARD. THIS MAY NOT BE YOUR CONCERN. WE NEED TO TAKE THIS, BUT I THINK DRB SEES MORE THAN THE ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND IT'S NOT JUST COLOR AND ARCHITECTURE. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS WHERE THEY HAVE HAS NOT COME TO US, AND I WON'T GET INTO THOSE SPECIFIC THINGS RIGHT NOW.

OKAY, I WILL THE THEY SAW THE 40 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT RENOVATION.

THAT'S 1000FT² OVER. YOU KNOW, IT'S. WE DIDN'T SEE IT.

OKAY, I DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT, BUT DRB SAW IT.

BUT WE DID NOT. SO MR. MAYOR, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE THE JET CENTER. OH, NO, WE'RE WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT.

RIGHT? I THINK THAT IF WE WOULD. I MEAN, AND MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN JETSON, OR MAYBE IT SHOULD BE LIKE I FORGET THE LAST PROJECT THAT WENT THROUGH DRB THAT WE DIDN'T SEE. THE ONE ON FIFTH AVE.

FIFTH AVE. I'M JUST THROWING STUFF OUT THERE. I MEAN, WE CAN.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS AND HAVE OUR STAFF PRESENT.

THERE'S TO ME, DRB IS SEEING 90% OF THE PETITIONS, AND WE SEE TEN THAT'S THAT'S NOT WHAT AN ELECTED

[05:35:07]

BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL WITHIN CODE. WELL ACTUALLY BECAUSE WE ALSO MADE A CHANGE IN, IN OUR, OUR IN 13, WE MADE A CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT WE PROCESS THINGS.

BUT I WANT TO I WANT TO TAKE THAT ON AS THE NEXT OPTION.

LET'S STAY FOCUSED WHERE WE ARE TODAY. WE'VE GOT OUTDOOR DINING AS A CONCERN.

WE'VE GOT THE DRB AND WHAT THEY'RE REVIEWING AS POTENTIAL FUTURE.

WHO IS NEXT? OH, CAN I ASK ERICA? YES. THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO ASK IS AT THE LAST MEETING COUNCIL MEETING WE REVIEWED VERY QUICKLY, BUT IN MORE DEPTH. PRIOR TO THAT, AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMITY RELATED TO A HOME THAT WAS BEING ELEVATED.

YOU'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS FOLLOWING IAN AND THE SUBSEQUENT STORMS. YOU'VE SEEN MULTIPLE REQUESTS FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMITY.

FOR SOMEONE TO RAISE A HISTORIC STRUCTURE UP TO FEMA.

WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS UP HERE. I THINK MR. KRISEMAN HAS BROUGHT IT UP A COUPLE OF TIMES.

IS THERE A WAY TO STREAMLINE THAT NONCONFORMITY PROCESS IN INSTANCES LIKE THOSE? THAT'S PART OF WHAT IS ADDRESSED IN HERE TODAY.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THOSE NONCONFORMITIES CURRENTLY GO THROUGH THAT FULL PAB AND COUNCIL PROCESS. AND I WAS PREPARING, AT MR. CHRISTMAN'S REQUEST AND CONSENSUS FROM COUNCIL SOMETHING TO COME FORWARD, REVISING THAT NONCONFORMITY PROCESS TO MAKE IT EASIER SO THAT THESE, YOU KNOW, OLDER HISTORIC HOMES THAT JUST WANT TO LIFT UP TO FEMA HAVE A QUICKER PROCESS.

SO JUST KEEP THAT JUST FOR NONCONFORMING HOMES TO FEMA NONCONFORMING RAISING.

YES. RAISING A NON-CONFORMING HISTORY. WELL, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT CONVERSATION.

SO THE MOST BROAD STROKE YOU COULD TAKE WOULD BE WHAT'S IN THIS ORDINANCE TODAY, WHICH SENDS IT DIRECTLY TO COUNCIL.

BUT THAT APPLIES TO ALL NONCONFORMITIES. IT DOESN'T SPECIFY HISTORIC AND IT DOESN'T SPECIFY SINGLE FAMILY.

BUT BUT YOU COULD I JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE THAT THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TODAY.

IF YOU WANT TO REFINE THAT FURTHER, I CAN COME BACK IN THE FUTURE.

I JUST I HEARD SOMETHING TODAY THAT IT TAKES SO LONG TO GET EVERYTHING DONE.

SO GIVE ME THE SECTION ON ALL ALL NONCONFORMITIES COMING TO US ANYWAY.

THEY DO. THEY JUST THEY GO TO PAB FIRST AND THEN THEY COME TO COUNCIL. SO THIS WAS JUST. I WILL FIND THAT FOR YOU, MAYOR.

IT'S 46, 34. NOPE. DON'T LET ME. LET ME LOOK.

35. 46. 35. SO WE APPROVE THIS, AND YOU COME BACK WITH AN AMENDMENT TO 46.

WELL, IF YOU APPROVE IT, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT JUST SENDS ALL NONCONFORMITIES DIRECTLY TO COUNCIL WITHOUT GOING TO PB.

BUT YOU'RE BEING SPECIFIC ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR NONCONFORMITY.

NO. I COULD BE. I'M SAYING YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF IN THE INTEREST OF ACTING QUICKLY, BECAUSE I DID, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO SAID IT, BUT I DID HEAR SOMETHING ABOUT HOW LAMENTING THAT IT TAKES A LONG TIME AS AS IT DOES TO GET SOMETHING CHANGED.

SO IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY.

NOT NOT. I HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. YOU GAVE ME ONE EXAMPLE OF OF A HOUSE BEING RAISED AND I SUPPORT THAT.

I THINK WE ALL DID, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE.

4 OR 5 SINCE IAN COME FORWARD. WE HAD THE LITTLE HOUSE RIGHT OVER HERE.

THE GUEST HOUSE. RIGHT. BUT THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NONCONFORMITY, I MEAN, WE HAVE LOTS THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING.

THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT. THAT WAS DIFFERENT.

THAT WAS BROUGHT TO YOU AS A SUBDIVISION, TALKING ABOUT THE RAISING OF THE HOME AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD THAT WE COULD WAIT.

YEAH. HOLD ON. YOU COULDN'T. YOU COULDN'T DO THAT TODAY. BARTON, WHAT YOU COULD DO TODAY IS JUST RELATING TO ALL EXPANSIONS OF NON-CONFORMITIES ACROSS THE BOARD. IF YOU WANT IT TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, I CAN COME BACK IN THE FUTURE WITH SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC.

I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH. MORE SPECIFIC.

OKAY. YES. KRAMER, I THINK JUST TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, THE I'M, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS FIRST READING AND THEN AND I WANT TO APPROVE IT AS WRITTEN.

AND THEN WHOEVER'S GOING TO PICK IT APART WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THAT AFTER THE MOTION.

CORRECT. YOU CAN. AND THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A SEPARATE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION.

RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. YOU CAN OKAY. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AS THIS.

DO I NEED TO READ IT. YOU CAN JUST YOU KNOW YOU CAN SAY IT HAS A TEXT AMENDMENT NUMBER.

YOU I HAD A CONSENSUS COUNCILMAN KRAMER, AND YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO NOT ADOPT THIS AS IT'S PRESENTED. SO JUST KNOW THAT THAT'S I WAS GOING DOWN THE LINE HERE AND I HAD EVERYBODY.

[05:40:09]

BUT YOU SAY THAT YOU WANTED IT AS AS WRITTEN.

OKAY, WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO MOVE IT FORWARD. SO THEN HOW DOES IT GO FORWARD IN THAT CASE? WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP IN THAT CASE? WELL, I WAS ABOUT TO MAKE A MOTION BASED ON WHAT I WAS HEARING FROM THE GROUP, WHICH WOULD BE TO APPROVE APPROVE OF A FIRST READING OF THIS? I MEAN, IF THIS IS KOSHER, MR. MCCONNELL, I'M ABOUT TO SAY TO APPROVE A FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE RELATING TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCEDURES, SITE PLAN REVIEW WHICH WOULD RENAME THE SITE PLAN TO THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT WOULD NOT INCLUDE ANY LIMITING OF THE PAB REVIEWS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IF THAT'S. I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION THAT WAY.

NO YOU CAN. OH I CAN YEAH. THAT'S IF ONCE THERE'S A SECOND, I'LL JUST I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. MAY OR MAY I CLARIFY SOMETHING? I NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING ALSO, BUT.

YES. GO AHEAD. LADIES FIRST. NO. OKAY. SO IT WOULD BE THE FIRST PART.

AND THEN, ERICA, TO YOUR QUESTION, IT'S ANYWHERE WHERE WE UPDATED THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS TO BE 1000FT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THAT SHOULD STAY, BECAUSE THE 1000FT NOTICE IS SOMETHING THAT WE IMPLEMENTED THAT JUST DIDN'T GET CARRIED OVER. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. YEAH. I ASKED YOU YESTERDAY IN THE CHARTER MEETING WHAT WAS THE AREAS THAT AFFECTED PAB. AND YOU SAID AFTER SECTION THREE IN THIS ORDINANCE.

SO CORRECT. OKAY. BUT AGAIN, IT HAS TO COME BACK.

BUT ON PAGE 11 THERE'S A SECTION THAT AFFECTS PAB BUT ALSO AFFECTS THE NOTICE FEE.

THE FEE RADIUS OF NOTICE. AND I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT CORRECT.

SO I DON'T WANT IT TO BE BLANKET AFTER SECTION THREE IS THE ONLY POINT I WAS MAKING.

MAYOR, MAY I ASK THIS QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION? YES, SIR.

SO WE JUST WE ASKED YOU GUYS TO COME UP WITH THIS, CORRECT? BECAUSE PAB WANTED A CHANGE AND WE WANTED A CHANGE AND WE WERE GOING TO STREAMLINE STUFF AND TAKE IT OFF THEIR PLATE.

YES. IS THAT. AND THIS IS FOR MATTHEW TOO. IN OCTOBER 2020.

RIGHT, RIGHT. SINCE I WAS ON COUNCIL. SO THEN.

SO JUST BALLPARK. HOW MANY HOURS DO YOU HAVE IN DOING THIS WORK THAT WE'VE ASKED YOU TO DO? THESE ORDINANCES I HAVE EASILY PUT IN PROBABLY 35 TO 40 HOURS.

SO A FULL WORKWEEK AND SAME. SO TWO FULL WORK WEEKS FROM A CHARTER MEMBER AND A DIRECTOR THAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO THAT WE'RE GOING TO THROW IN THE GARBAGE CAN.

AND I JUST HAVE TO SAY THAT HAS THAT'S I HOW MANY TIMES IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN FROM THIS COUNCIL? MAYBE PEOPLE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. WELL, THEN WE'D BETTER DO A BETTER JOB OF UNDERSTANDING IT BECAUSE WE ARE FLUSHING OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY.

YES, WE TAKE TIME. SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO TAKE TIME. THAT'S RIGHT. I AGREE WITH YOU. BUT THAT IS FLUSHING TAXPAYERS DOLLARS DOWN THE DRAIN.

IT'S STRESSING DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDERSTAFFED AND THERE IS NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR US FOR THAT.

THEY'RE THE ONES THAT FREAKING DON'T GET TO SLEEP AT NIGHT AND DON'T GET TO SEE THEIR FAMILIES. OKAY, WAIT. I'M SORRY. I HAD A MOTION OR NOT. I SECONDED THE MOTION.

BUT IS IT COMMENT TIME OR YOU I MADE THE MOTION AND COUNCILWOMAN PETRANOFF SECONDED.

OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY KRISEMAN AND A SECOND BY PETRANOFF AND DISCUSSION QUICKLY.

OKAY. THE QUICK DISCUSSION THAT I HAVE IS ON SECTION C ON PAGE 11, WHERE WE WENT FROM 500 TO 1000FT SINCE OF NOTIFICATION SINCE WE ARE DOING THIS AND WE ADDED THIS IN. IS THIS GOING TO HIT 250 AND THEREFORE WE CAN'T DO IT.

IS THIS MORE RESTRICTIVE AND BURDENSOME? IT'S ACTUALLY NOT THAT WE AMENDED CHAPTER FOUR OR SECTION 4645 A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, WHICH IS YOUR NOTICING SECTION OF THE CODE THAT APPLIES TO 1000FT INSTEAD OF 500.

THIS IS JUST CLEANING UP TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT. WE'VE BEEN ENFORCING THE 1000FT.

WE NOTICE EVERY APPLICATION. WE NOTICE 1000FT.

WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR YEARS. ALL RIGHT. THEN MY SECOND STANCE.

THANK YOU. AND FURTHER DISCUSSION. IF NOT. YES.

VICE MAYOR. YEAH. ON THIS ON THIS ITEM. AND FOR THE MOTION MAKER IS IT IS IT UP FOR CONSIDERATION THAT CITY COUNCIL WILL ONLY HEAR THESE MATTERS ON APPEAL, OR WILL IS PART OF THE MOTION, OR IS PART OF.

BECAUSE I'M JUST TRYING TO MATCH THIS UP WITH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ACTION IN THE MEMO,

[05:45:08]

DOES EVERYTHING STAY THE SAME? YES. WITH RELATION TO HOW THE CITY COUNCIL HANDLES THESE MATTERS PURSUANT TO THE MOTION, THESE ITEMS WOULD STAY THE SAME. THEY'D GO TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THEN TO CITY FOR A RECOMMENDATION, AND THEN CITY COUNCIL FOR A FINAL DECISION ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTERS.

CORRECT. DOES THIS DEAL WITH THE IS IT THIS ORDINANCE OR THE NEXT ONE THAT DEALS WITH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD APPEALS PROCESS? NEXT ONE. THE NEXT ONE? OKAY, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

SO THIS ONE THIS IS JUST VARIANCES NON-CONFORMITIES CONDITIONAL USES.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. YEAH. OKAY. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

VICE MAYOR HUTCHISON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CHRISTMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. IT PASSES 6 TO 1.

ERIC, I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION. I THOUGHT THERE WERE THREE THINGS ON THIS ITEM SITE PLAN AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE PAB. WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE YOU ASKED? I THINK MATTHEW MENTIONED JUST THE NOTICING.

THERE'S A COUPLE LITTLE CLEAN UP. PERFECT. DO YOU MIND IF WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? OKAY. UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO READ THE TITLE.

NO. I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A BREAK. WE'VE BEEN AT IT FOR TWO HOURS, SO AT THAT, IT'S 305.

WE'LL BE BACK IN TEN MINUTES. OKAY, COUNCIL, WE'RE BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK AND CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM 14 C 14 C C AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOARDS AND COMMITTEES OF THE CITY OF NAPLES AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE TWO CITY COUNCIL DIVISION THREE BOARD OF APPEALS.

[14.C) An Ordinance Relating To Boards And Committees Of The City Of Naples, Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article II City Council Division 3 Board Of Appeals Section 2-84 Appeals Of Administrative Decisions Of City Manager Relative To Land Development Code; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 3 Citizens’ Police Review Board Sections 2-451 Created; Composition, And 2-452 Jurisdiction, Powers And Duties; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 4 Design Review Board Sections 2-474 Organization; Quorum; Rules Of Procedure, 2-475 Applicability Of Design Review; Prohibitions; 2-476 Procedure For Review Criteria; Review; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 5 Community Services Advisory Board Sections 2-502 Officers; Meeting Dates; Minutes, 2-503 Duties, 2-506 Soliciting And Receiving Gifts Or Bequests; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 7 Planning Advisory Board Sections 2-552 Jurisdiction; Powers And Duties, And 2-553 Organization; Rules Of Procedure; Testimony Or Contacts By Council Members; Amending Chapter 2 Administration Article V Boards, Commissions And Committees Division 8 Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board Sections 2-572 Composition; Term Of Office; Quorum, And 2-573 Duties, Of The Code Of Ordinances, City Of Naples For The Purpose Of Updating The Powers And Duties Of These Boards And Committees Of The City Of Naples; Providing For Codification, Conflicts, Severability, Correction Of Scrivener’s Error, Construction, Publication And An Effective Date.]

SECTION TWO DASH 84 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS OF CITY MANAGER RELATIVE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION ARTICLES FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION THREE CITIZEN'S POLICE REVIEW BOARD SECTION TWO, FOUR, FIVE ONE CREATED COMPOSITION AND 2-452 JURISDICTION, POWERS AND DUTIES.

AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION FOUR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. SECTION 2-474 ORGANIZATION QUORUM. RULES OF PROCEDURE 2475. APPLICABILITY OF DESIGN REVIEW PROHIBITIONS 2476 PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW CRITERIA REVIEW.

AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE FIVE.

BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION FIVE COMMUNITY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD, SECTIONS 2-502 OFFICERS.

MEETING DATES MINUTES 2-503. DUTIES 2-506 SOLICITING AND RECEIVING GIFTS OR BEQUEST.

AMENDING. CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION SEVEN PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. SECTIONS 2-552 JURISDICTION, POWERS AND DUTIES TWO, FIVE, FIVE THREE ORGANIZATION, RULES OF PROCEDURE.

TESTIMONY OR CONTACTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION. ARTICLE FIVE BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES. DIVISION EIGHT COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADVISORY BOARD SECTIONS TWO, DASH FIVE, SEVEN, TWO COMPOSITION TERMS OF OFFICE QUORUM AND 2-573 DUTIES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF UPDATING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THESE BOARDS AND COMMITTEES OF THE CITY OF NAPLES. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION.

CONFLICT. SEVERABILITY. CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS. CONSTRUCTION, PUBLICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN. THEY'RE BOTH. THEY'RE BOTH US. BUT I'LL TAKE THE LEAD HERE.

AGAIN, THIS STEMMED FROM THE MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS WE HAD.

THE MULTIPLE DIRECTION WE GOT FROM COUNCIL. ONE WAS TO DO WHAT MISS MARTIN SAID.

THE OTHERS. IF YOU'LL RECALL, WERE PRESENTED TO YOU AS SOME OF SOME OF IT IS CLEANUP, SOME OF IT IS PREEMPTION.

AND THEN THE BIGGEST I WOULD SAY QUESTION IS AND DECISION WAS RELATED TO THE DRB.