>> mayor: good afternoon, everybody. We're going to go ahead and come to order.
we'll take care of some housekeeping things first before we get started with the formal presentation.
first of all, we cannot block the doors, so, madam manager, if we can get some help from gpd, we cannot block the doors.
also, as we're getting settled here, we do have live feed broadcast going on, both out in the hallway there's two tvs
and audio. Y'all, if you could come to order just so we can get through our housekeeping stuff.
okay. Ma'am, if we could come to order. So there are spaces out in the
hallway. If you can -- if you like, you can go out there and listen and follow and participate.
there's also plenty of room downstairs. We have a conference room down there.
it's got plenty of comfortable seating -- ma'am, we do not allow signs in the auditorium. Ma'am, we do not allow signs or
any signs of display inside the chamber. >> excuse me? >> mayor: we do not allow signs
or any kind of display inside the chamber. Anything that is said in here you can hear out in the
hallways, you can also watch on tv. And so you'll be able to come and go and participate that way.
one of our commissioners chose to leave because she is worried about the number of people in chambers here.
we do have an upswing in cases of covid so we want everybody to try to be as cautious and healthy as possible while
they're in this public meeting and participating. I will also give you a run of the order today so all of you
can be prepared for that. The first thing is we'll call our meeting to order and adopt our agenda.
this is a workshop meaning that no formal action will be taken by the commission today. This is an informational meeting
and an opportunity to hear from all of you. And then following the presentations we will hear
public comment and then following public comment we will turn back to the commission for any follow-up questions and for
the commissioners to share their views and thoughts. It is important for me to make sure that everybody is heard
from and nobody is excluded. And so there have been sign-up cards delivered to the clerk. I understood we had some more
printed up. We'll make sure that you're able to get your hands on one of those if you didn't turn one in
already. Hand those to the clerk and then she will call everyone up in the order in which she received
those comment cards. I also want to respectfully ask that we make sure this is an open and welcoming chamber and
civic space. We want everyone to feel that their views and respected and heard.
as our rules state and the rules adopted by the fuel commission, there's no cheering or jeering allowed.
that means no clapping or shouting or booing. We respect everyone to respectfully listen to everyone
else and make sure that everyone's views are accepted and greeted with the same level of decorum and decency and I
know my colleagues that will the same in terms of how we participate in this commission. We do have an agenda to adopt.
commissioner chestnut, did you want to speak before the adoption of the agenda. >> if the clerk could announce
when the cards arrive. If you could make an announcement. >> mayor: we'll get our staff
to -- there's room outside and people with circulate in and out if they so choose. When more cards come in, looks
like they are, lauren has them over there, we can circulate them around and pass them back up to the clerk.
I will tell you, and this is my responsibility but something the commission has asked me to do, we want to make sure that
everybody gets a fair chance to speak. We'll see how many cards have been turned in when we get to
public comment and make a determination about how long each speaker will get. We'll have to see how many
people turned the cards in and then do some simple math at that point. Commissioner chestnut, was that
the only -- okay. Very good. [off mic] >> mayor: okay.
so eight more seats. And again it's nice and comfortable down there and you'll be able to follow along
just as you would up here. Commissioner hayes-santos. >> I move that we adopt the agenda.
>> second. >> mayor: motion and second that we call the meeting to order and adopt the agenda.
all in favor say aye. [chorus of ayes] opposed? That motion passes with saco and
duncan walker absent. >> mr. Mayor, I'm just in my office for safety but I was trying to vote aye.
>> mayor: that was an aye as well. Okay. So we've got two closely-related
items on our agenda. The second affordable housing workshop inclusionary zoning really is a follow-up from the
workshops that we held, sort of a staff overview of the feedback that was received. But we'll start with the first,
exclusionary zoning item, discuss amendment to the comprehensive plan and land development code.
and it's really -- I need to make sure that when anybody is speaking, whether it's staff, members of the public or members
of the commission that we're not interrupting. And I'm sure there will be conversations that you all want
to have with one another as things come up. I just ask you to respectfully excuse yourself out into the
hall where you can have your conversation at a reasonable level and not sort of disturb or interrupt the broader
conversation. So with that, madam manager, I'll turn it over to you and you can introduce mr. Persons.
>> yes, mr. Mayor, members of the commission, mr. Person and his staff person are here to talk about this item.
but this item was presented to the commission prior to. We were asked to have some workshops in the community.
we had three workshops but we had one dedicated primarily to eziz, the other two workshops clearly included the topic but
beyond the one specific workshop that we had on exclusionary and inclusionary zoning there were some neighborhood workshops -- I
think commissioner chestnut suggested it, the commission supported that. We've had three of those and
we're scheduled to have more. We've reached out to all 80 of the neighborhood associations and many of them have asked even
beyond today's meeting to have those meetings. So we're three in and potentially many more to go as
requested by those neighborhood associations. But it has been an ongoing conversation and mr. Person is
here to introduce the items. >> mayor: thank you, madam manager. Mr. Persons, welcome.
>> andrew persons, director department of sustainability development. I'm having a strong deja vu
sense. It's bringing back fond memories. The manager sort of took the
words out of my mouth. Just stepping back a little bit, if you recall back in august of 2020 the commission heard a
comprehensive presentation about equitable development. Out of that there was a multipart motion that the
commission made. One aspect of that motion was directing staff to go out and find help to do both an analysis
of our codes related to the desire to end exclusionary zoning practice in our code as well as do a feasibility
analysis for adopting an inclusionary housing program which would essentially create a requirement for market rate
development to set aside a percentage of units for affordable housing. The hrna advisers were selected
by the commission. The report was delivered to the commission earlier this year, in january.
at that meeting the commission directed staff to implement the recommendations from the report related to ending exclusionary
zoning. That's what we're here in afternoon, to talk to you about that.
juan castillo and my department has been at the forefront working with the code changes. In addition to the neighborhood
and community workshops, the manager mentioned we've also had now three hearings with the city plan board where these items
have been discussed. There are several items that you'll talk about today that are yet to be taken up by the plan
board. But they have taken some action on a few of the items and mr. Castillo will talk about
that a little bit. With that I'll turn it over to mr. Castillo to walk you through the code items and of course
we're here for any questions. >> mayor: thank you, mr. Persons. Mr. Castillo, good to have you
with us. >> thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners and mayor.
for the record, my name is juan castillo, I'm a planner here with the department of sustainable department.
as mr. Persons mentioned, I'll be going through the proposals currently for the exclusionary zoning item related to the
recommendations from the hrna report. Next slide. >> mayor: mr. Mounts, could I
ask you to -- yeah. You're kind of right in front of the presentation there. Thank you.
>> so the next slide, I just wanted to give you a quick rundown as to our -- basically our itinerary.
we're going to be discussing seven items before you today. They range between proposals for land use amendments to our
comprehensive plan, our single-family land use, and amendments to our zoning, our zoning districts to allow for
small-scale multifamily development, as well as amendment to our compatibility buffers, occupancy limits,
bedroom limits within the university for the contact zone. We will be discussing the introduction of a new use which
we are calling neighborhood residential, and also definitions and regulations associated with that use.
so next slide, about three items down. >> mayor: I think too while we're sorting that out, if we
can get a full screen, too, that would be helpful. >> so while that's kind of being worked on, so just kind of a
little overview basically with our context with the city of gainesville. The current situation that we're
running into of course as you know, we're trying to create flexibility for the development of more housing within the city
of gainesville. We want more people to be able to have the ability to live within our city.
so we are proposing to have regulations that will facilitate the development of more housing. And these proposals have taken
the form of -- or have been inspired by some of the recommendations that the hrna report have given to us.
and I'm just going to go ahead and kind of go through them real quickly from memory. But the first proposal before
you is an amendment -- >> mayor: just pause a second. I think they've about got it sorted out there.
I think they're trying to reshare the screen and then it should be okay. >> sure.
>> mayor: like many people, I'm a visual person so the visual helps. >> I am likewise.
background architecture. >> mayor: there we go. >> there we go. So we could go to the, let's
see, three slides down, or over. One more. One more. Okay.
so one of the proposals before you this evening is the amendment to our land use district are our land use for
single-family -- or single-family land use. And just to kind of quickly go other.
properties within the city of gainesville are regulated through different layers. One of those layers is land use.
we have also the zoning district layers. So the land use is designed to, in essence, illustrate or
regulate what type of zoning are allowed within a specific property. Right now in the city of
gainesville we have a significant portion of the city that has a land use that will only allow for zoning that will
only allow for single-family development. 62% of the city to be exact is designated as single-family land
use. Again, within 63% of the city only a development of one house on a property can be developed.
next slide. So this is just to illustrate what that kind of looks like in the city of gainesville right
now. Large portions within the west-northwest part of gainesville, some portions on
the east side of gainesville, and over to is south part of gainesville. But again, 63% of the city
currently only allows for the development of one house on a large piece of property. And this is within the context
of an environment where we're looking for opportunities to create more housing in the city in order to be able to, of
course, house and give more options to people to find places to live. Next slide.
and so the proposal today -- there's actually two recommendations that staff is bringing before you that we
would like to get some discussion and some direction on. The first proposal is amending
the single-family -- the existing single-family land use to be -- to incorporate language that would allow for small-scale
multifamily development. And the small-scale multifamily is, basically it's a multifamily use that allows for two units
minimum and four units maximum. Meaning two units that would allow for two families or one family in each unit and then
four units that would allow for one family in each unit. In essence, you're creating a building that allows for a
maximum of four families to live within it. In a similar space, a single-family space would -- the
same space that a single-family house is designed to take. So the idea is to, again, allow for a small-scale,
neighborhood-scale multifamily that doesn't add an extreme impact to the existing structure of our city but that would allow
for the opportunity for more housing to be developed within the city of gainesville. Currently, again, single-family
land use only allows for one family within, within one lot. The proposal before you today would amend the language to
allow for developments between duplexes, triplexes and quadruplexes, but we would consider all of this
neighborhood residential small-scale multifamily. And this is an example of what that language would look like.
the density would not change, only allowed use, the land use would change. Next slide, please.
[inaudible] -- residential would not change but it would allow for higher density to be [inaudible] and that density is
50 units per acre. With the previous proposal the density would remain at 8 units per acre.
with this proposal it will go up to 15. And just kind of moving forward, a lot of these items are
intertwined with each other. If there's a question or a clarifying question that you may have, feel free to interrupt me
and ask it. But some things, for example, our next item will be the definition of neighborhood
residential that's intertwined with what the zoning is proposing and further development compatibility
proposals down the line as well. Next slide, please. So the next item before you is the definition of small-scale
multifamily. And mentioned earlier, one of the things that's being proposed is to incorporate a new use,
which we are labeling as neighborhood residential multifamily when what this use entails is to provide a building
that takes the same footprint as a single-family familiar or large-scale single-family home and within that same footprint
allow for a maximum of four families to live with that footprint. Currently a single-family home
allows one family to live within that footprint. The proposal now is to allow for four family to live within that
same footprint. Next slide. So this is some of the examples that we looked at to kind of get
an idea of what a small-scale, neighborhood-scale multifamily would look like. This section provides
regulations that would regulate the way the proposal looks, the height of the proposal, as well as the location for parking and
any type of orientation requirements. Next slide. So as I mentioned, the purpose
of this is for the structure to look like a regular house, just like a single-family home, but the difference is that this
single-family home allows now for four families to live within it. In order to do so we are
proposing regulations that would require things like 30% glazing so that the units are not boxy-looking but they look like
actual homes. Buildings that have a limit of two stories, off-street parking being limited to two parkings in
the front and the rest of the park in the rear. A minimum of one high-quality tree to be preserved on the
property. >> mayor: we can't have cheers or jeers so we're going to listen and be respectful.
>> that was laughter. >> mayor: we're not going to have interruptions. If we do I'm going to need to
adjourn the meeting until the order can be restored. We want everybody to be here and participate but we can't have a
disruptive atmosphere. That's all I'm asking for each of us. Mr. Castillo, please continue.
>> if a tree is not present, one will have to be provided or planted in the property associated with this type of
development. And of course last, the orientation of the building is important.
so there's regulation that basically allows for the main entrance of the structure to be on the first floor and the
building being oriented to the street, to the more primary street for entrance to this unit.
next slide. And this is just kind of an example as to the idea behind the neighborhood residential
multifamily. Again, the idea is to have a buildable area or a similar footprint of a large home but
instead of the large home serving only one family, it will serve four families. Next slide.
so moving on to -- now that we have defined the use and basically the land use amendments, we're going to now
turn our gears towards the zoning districts. Again, the idea behind this is to allow for provisions that
would facilitate a diversity of housing and to make the creation of more housing easier. A lot of what I will be
discussing here is design in order to facilitate the creation of more housing, not just with a small-scale multifamily but also
with a regular house. And I'll explain what I mean by that here in a second. Next slide.
so the first thing that you'll notice is that neighborhood, the use for small-scale multifamily will be -- is being proposed to
be an allowed use in rsf-1 and rsf-4. And the second thing rsf-1 to rsf-4 is to consolidate the
zones and make them one zone and there's a reason for that. Next slide. So a lot of the dimension
standards, setback standards, densities within rsf-1 through rsf-4 can seem a bit convoluted, a bill confusing and arbitrary.
and so staff was not able to find any type of reason as far as why there is a difference between -- a 10-foot setback
between rsf-1 and rsf-3 that would involve any type of safety concern or some type of mitigation.
and we know from looking at other zones, specifically rc, smaller setbacks is appropriate for development to occur.
specifically single-family in this case, duplexes in rc, but we do know that regulations that are not as extensive as the ones
found within rsf-1 to rsf-4 do provide the ability for housing to be developed as it is now. So the proposal before you this
evening goes into details that include the amendment to the density, to basically adopt rsf-4 density and which is a
density that would allow for the development of neighborhood-scale multifamily units, as well as adopt lot area
requirements of rc which [inaudible]. Currently single-family zones require a lot of space.
and by some estimates, when looking at specifically the cost of a house, it's estimated that about 20% of the cost of that
house is associated with the cost of the land. So by virtue of having larger property, you're in essence
making the house immediately that much more expensive. Also with the allowed use of a neighborhood-scale multifamily
development, you're distributing the cost of the land between four units. So four families are being --
the cost of the land is being distributed between four families that can either rent the unit or if they decide to
create a condo for that unit, that can happen as well, as opposed to a single-family which is the price of that
single-family home is reflective of the full cost of the property. On top of that is a larger
property at that. Next slide, please. So this is just a visual presentation of the current
situation and setbacks between rsf-1 and rsf-4. Also rc, but there's a reason why that's there.
so in rsf-1 through rsf-4 you'll notice that the setbacks, the front setbacks at the bottom of the little yellow squares,
they're all the same. So 20 feet basically throughout rsf-1 through rsf-4, 7.5 feet on the sides.
where the difference comes in is the rear setback. So you have the difference of 15 or 5 feet between rsf-1 and 2
and rsf-3 -- excuse me, rsf-1, rsf-2 and rsf-3, you have a difference of five feet there and then five feet more
difference between rsf-3 and rsf-4. But that's pretty much, as far as the set back is concerned,
the difference between the zones for single-family. So when we're looking at something that's existing that
allows for the development of housing, we can see that in residential conservation zone, one of our oldest zones here in
the city of gainesville, it has, for the most part, less setback requirements and, again, allows for the development of a house
just fine. And so the proposal would again consolidate rsf-1 through rsf-4 to eliminate some of the
redundancies associated with, again, separate zones which also shows arbitrary measurements in the rear of setbacks that have
had no real basis as to what exactly they are mitigating. With the proposal before you, the intent of the setbacks --
next slide, please. So the proposal of the setbacks would allow for the space of any type of like facility
infrastructure that can be associated with a neighborhood-scale multifamily. So that would be the idea behind
the requirement of a 5-feet setback on the sides, 10 feet in the front and 10 feet in the back.
just to give, again, that space that buffer for any type of a facility requirements associated with the development.
and also with the setbacks, just amending them in this way, it would create a larger space of buildable area that would again
allow for a more flexible use of a property for the development of housing. Next slide.
similarly with lot size requirements. So I mentioned earlier that currently within the city of
gainesville you have property that is zoned rsf-1 through rsf-4 where you can only developed one property per lot.
but the requirement is to have a large amount of space associated with this development. So in essence you have one
house. What's allowed within the city right now is you have one house that requires a large piece of
property in order for it to happen. Just to give you an example of current requirements within the
city, rsf-1 requires 8500 square feet of space in order to develop one house, along with a requirement of 85 feet and a
depth requirement of 90 feet. Rsf-2 requires 7500 square feet, a width requirement of 70 feet and 90 feet and so forth.
so again looking at existing zoning that we have within the city, we know that rc has allowed for and is still
allowing the development of single-family within a much smaller, much smaller requirement of space.
much smaller requirement of land. And that's important, especially when we're talking about
creating more housing. Because first of all, you can -- say if you're a homeowner or a property owner, were to decide
to split their property, say rsf-1 into two properties. Right now they would not be able to do that because the
requirement of our zoning says they have to have 8500 square feet. So they wouldn't be able to
split the property in a space that we know can already support two houses. So say that this is passed.
the requirement would drop down to 3,000 square feet. So all of the sudden that 8500 square feet piece of property
can be divided into two properties and now you have two houses where you could only develop one before.
and even if the neighborhood-scale multifamily use is not something that is agreed upon just by amending
these lot sizes and lot setback requirements, we can already see the implications of creating more housing that way.
and just to give you an idea, rsf-1 through rsf-3 would be able to, in essence, be split into two properties and be
allowed for the development of a single-family unit, you know, following the example of rc. Wouldn't be able to do that with
rsf-4, but that's still a significant portion of the city that could, in essence, double the allowed density.
next slide, please. And so the proposal, the neighborhood residential new zone would adopt the land and
requirement for rc. It would provide language within the zoning that would extend the width requirements to 70 feet if
a development is proposing to add a neighborhood-scale multifamily to the property. So if a single-family home is
being developed, they would need 35, at least 35 width of space. If a small-scale multifamily is being proposed, that would be
extended to 70 feet. Again, that's just to provide more flexibility and more space in between the neighborhood
residential single-family and existing single-family development. Next slide, please.
and this is just a quick representation of the density allowed within current zoning, single-family zoning.
right now rsf-1 through -- well, rsf-1 is for basically 3.5 units per acre. 4.6 units per acre would be
allowed in rsf-2 or is allowed in rsf-2. 5.8 in rsf-3 and eight units in rsf-4.
rc allows 12 units per acre but staff is proposing to keep it as eight units per acre which in essence -- it means that a unit,
a small-scale multifamily unit would want to develop, they would need half an acre to do so.
next slide, please. And that's just a representation. So in similar fashion, zoning
within the city of gainesville that allow -- restrict development to one single house per lot takes up about 60 -- a
little bit over 60% of the city. We're running into the same situation where a significant portion of our city is
designated to only allow for the development of one house within a large piece of property. Next slide.
so switching gears just a little bit, the next proposal and based on the recommendations from the hrna report is to remove the
occupancy limit. Currently within the city of gainesville we have an occupancy limit which says that only one
family with two unrelated people can live within a single-family development. We're proposing to premove that
to allow for a more diverse, more flexibility of housing for people that may not be related. So say three roommates or four
roommates that are not related but are still able to live together in the same house or in the same apartment area.
next slide, please. And that's just basically a quick overview. This would affect rsf-1 through
rsf-4 and rc zoning. Next slide, please. Following along, the next proposal before you is amending
the bedroom limit within the university of florida context zone. Currently the regulations allows
for a multiplier of 2.75 limiting how many bedrooms can go into a development within the university of florida contact
zone which limits the amount of bedroom a multifamily development can produce. >> mayor: mr. Castillo, real
quick before you get into this, there was a quick clarifying question back on occupancy limits if you would pause for
that. >> sure. >> thank you, mayor. There's still a state health
code occupancy limit. I don't know if mr. Persons has that. Just to clarify, you can't have
a million people who live in the house. There are state limits that would then become the default.
>> mr. Mayor, the florida building code sets minimum habitable space. Generally speaking we're talking
about 250 square feet. When you include all of the required fixtures and livable area for an adult.
for example, a thousand square foot house, you could only have four adults living there, is that correct?
>> that is correct. >> so there's still -- it can't be extreme. >> right.
>> thank you, mayor. >> mayor: thank you. Please continue. >> so within the university of
florida contact zone we do have a regulation that limits the amount of bedrooms that a multifamily development can
propose. And that regulation limits or poses a multiplier of 2.75. And that's multiplied based on
the proposed density of the area. And so there's two proposals before you today.
next slide, please. The first proposal is to amend the existing multiplier from 2. 75 and increase that to 3, which
would again just increase the amounts of bedroom that a multifamily development can produce.
and the second, that is literally the only amendment to the existing language as of now. The second option is to remove
the bedroom limit all together and allow the market to dictate how much bedrooms the multifamily development would
want, similar to what already happens outside the university of florida context zone. Next slide, please.
moving on, now we are looking at the compatibility standards, amending the compatibility standards.
and the idea behind this is to not just limit the development but also provide and limit any compatibility standards that may
be seen onerous or at least increase the cost of development for a multifamily structure, which would then be passed on to
the tenants or the potential buyers of a condo if the development were to be condo'd out.
next slide, please. So this one, the primary -- there's two proposals -- not proposals.
there's two main items being amended. The first one is a requirement for a masonry wall between a
[inaudible]. This is done again to kind of recognize the fact that small-scale multifamily is
designed to fit in within the landscape of a single-family neighborhood. A wall separating a small-scale
multifamily and a house is not really something that's common or would be viewed as compatible in the sense of the looks of the
area. And so that's one of the things that we feel is something that could be removed, especially
since our code already has buffer regulations, which in the event of a multifamily or small-scale multifamily in this
case would require a, more of a substantial vegetative buffer which involves the planting of trees and shrubs, et cetera.
the second one involves the elimination of a requirement that in essence says for a development within a transect
area that are proposing zero setback, if they can only do that if there's already an existing development that has
zero setbacks already in existence. So this development will be limited to having a zero setback
or the opportunity of having zero setback in the adjacent development has similar setbacks for -- within the transect area.
so those are -- next slide, please. And that's what that would look like in the code.
the rest of the amendments that you see highlighted in blue is recognizing the neighborhood residential use and
incorporating that into the language so that that's more consistent with the rest of the proposed before you.
next slide, please. This is showing you the elimination of the language that would require the masonry wall.
next slide, please. So now we're moving into our lot split and minor subdivision regulations.
currently within the land development code, a lot of what we're amending is primarily to just clarify some of the
language. Lot splits of minor subdivisions have been a bit confusing as to where and how services and
facilities are required when an applicant is submitting for a lot split or a minor subdivision.
the language being amended currently just clarifies that as not requiring developers to have those facilities present or
proposed but allowing those facilities to be developed when a proposed development goes on the property.
and next slide, please. And again, just simplifying language so that it's obvious and more readily navigatable as
to proposed lot split and what that would look like for an applicant. Next slide.
this is just some of that language that I was discussing. Again, just clarifying some of the language so that it's
obvious that a lot split -- or when a lot split is appropriate and how that will look. And just clarifying that lot
split must meet certain standards which are detailed in the next slide. Next slide, please.
but again, nothing outside of the box or too substantial here. Again, it's just clarifying language.
next slide. Again here we're highlighting the fact that an applicant will have to have a prestaff meeting
with us in order to discuss their proposed lot split or minor subdivision. Next slide.
nothing too much here, just again clarifying language. Next slide. Clarifying language again.
in this particular case we are just highlighting that the resulting block from a lot split has a -- cannot exceed a maximum
block perimeter of 2,000 feet, but also providing regular violation that ties in with the existing zoning and allows the
flexibility of providing whichever is lesser of the two for the lot perimeter associated with the lot split.
next slide, please. This is a repeat. This is just basically saying what we just said in a more,
just a broader view. Next slide, please. Yeah, again, clarifying language.
this is just basically clarifying that the director of the department of sustainability development or the director of
public works has the authority to provide the review and the approval of the lot split being submitted.
next slide. And this will conclude my presentation. I'm sure you may have some
questions, but we are here to answer any questions that you may have. >> mayor: all right.
thank you, mr. Castillo, and mr. Persons, all of staff who put the work into getting this to us.
it's very much appreciated. We will now go over to members of our public and hear from them.
madam clerk, how many people, approximately, do we have signed up to speak at this point? [off mic]
>> mayor: about 50? [off mic] >> mayor: if you don't have your card in right now, you'll still
get an opportunity. There's not a cutoff. So if everybody is efficient and we have no space between
speakers, that's about 2 and a half hours. So we'll go ahead and try to stick to three minutes.
it seems that we have an amount of time. What I would ask you to do is be succinct and efficient with your
comments and then please don't go over. Because everybody deserves the same chance and the same
opportunity that nobody receives preference to anybody else. So, madam clerk, what I'll ask you to do is call out the next
two names after the one that's up to speak. That way if anybody is outside or downstairs, they can make
their way up here and they'll know that they're up and at the ready so right when the last person gets done with their
comments, they can come right up. If you're new to public comment here at the city, there is a
little black box with a red, yellow and green light on it. So when you start your comments, the green light will come on.
mr. Gainey is demonstrating right there. When you have one minute remaining, a yellow light will
come on. When the red light comes on your three minutes have expired and I'll invite the next person to
come up and speak. Keep an eye on that. And then if you do go over your three-minute allotment, I will
ask you to let the next person come up, that your time has concluded. With that -- and again, you are
a both hand some and kind group and I see that and know that. But I would like to remind you to be respectful of one another,
no cheers, no jeers, no laughing or booing, anything like that. We want everyone to feel welcome to give their comments without
any intimidation. We're going to all politely listen to one another until everybody gets a chance to
speak. And if you haven't turned in a card yet, that's fine. Turn it in to ms. Gainey and
we'll get you in the queue. >> jennifer reeves followed by [inaudible] and teresa bright. >> mayor: and we do have a
pretty good mic. You're welcome to keep your mask on. If you feel like taking it off,
you can do that. We and the folks at home can hear you. >> so start now?
I didn't think I would be first. First of all, thank you for being respectful and listening to us.
I'm going to defer and let other people who can say what I want to say more succinctly like kurt johnson and gary gordon and
others. I just hope -- so often it seems as though the commission may have already made up their mind
about this issue. I get the distinct impression that some of you have made up your mind.
I hope you will listen with respect to everyone who talks here who is interested in preserving balance in
gainesville. I was born here, raised here, have visited other places. Always come back because I like
the balance here. I like the option of knowing I worked my entire life to be able to keep my house in my
neighborhood. And I choose to live there because I don't want to live with students or multi-- or
apartments. So I hope that you all can go back to the planning stage. These are all great ideas.
anecdotal create these ideas in a more balanced way rather than just wiping the slate clean of, you know, an option that some
people want to have. The last thing I would like to say is I've been in leadership roles myself personally and
professionally. And one of the hardest things to do is to be able to change your mind when you've been locked
into something. When you think you've already got the answer. I hope that we have a group of
leaders who can listen to this plea from most of us here for balance and maybe even change your mind if you thought you
already had it made up. It's okay to lead by saying wait a minute, I want to listen to something and have other options
and go back to the board and try again. It looked like there's a lot of residential housing, and I get
that that it's 60-something percent. But I know also that there's plenty of empty apartment
buildings right now that absentee landlords own and rent to students or stay empty. So again I hope you'll be
leaders who are representing not just your own and still listen to us. Thank you.
>> mayor: thank you. >> carrie parker warren followed by teresa bright followed by karma debose.
>> thank you for the opportunity. I'm carrie parker warren and I'm representing azalea trail here
in gainesville, the old hollywood community as it with us called at one time. At this point I would like to
say we do -- in my community we do support affordable housing, we just don't want to support something that if you have
chosen to make your decision today, you know which way you're going to vote. We ask that when the motion was
made next week or in the future that we have one of our commissioners that will say it will be done equally.
twenty-five percent on the east side, 25% on the west side, 25% south and 25% north. We ask that you do that.
in addition to putting that in your motion, whomever is responsible for doing so, we also want you to put in your
motion that you're going to promise us better policing, better advantages, better fire protection, better sidewalks,
better roads, traffic light near our schools and just make our communities better. This vision will not affect the
city equally. What we need to do also is to move forward rather than backwards.
we need to move forward without destroying the integrity of our communities. We need to go forward with more
benefits and more resources, especially for the east side of town. We need to go forward with
opportunities for the east side, forward with being the best that we can be. And hopefully you can understand
that we want it done equally. If you have already chosen and if we would not like to see it but if it is voted upon, we want
you to take all of that into consideration. As your vision, this will be responsible for decreasing our
property values. That's number one. Also, it would -- the vision will not affect the city
equally. Some communities will just fade away. And we chose this city and we
chose our communities because it is a family. In the community that I'm representing you can knock on
anybody's door at night and someone will come to your aid because we want it to stay like it is.
the disparities that -- >> mayor: thank you. I'm afraid your time has expired and we have to be fair to
everybody. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Madam clerk.
>> teresa bright followed by carmen dubose followed by chip williams. >> good afternoon.
my name is teresa bright and of course I live in the azalea trail neighborhood. And we purchased that property
in 1992 and we took our time in building our home there. And the property is located -- the new part of azalea trail is
located on southeast 12th avenue and it goes over to southeast 13th avenue. Now, building houses in that
area, the one section there, it was a dumping ground for a roadway that was put there to expand williston road.
but my husband decided to go ahead and buy it. And we had to take out all of the debris that was on that
property. And six other families that live in that area had to do the same thing.
now, as the zoning presents itself now, single, we spent a lot of time and money to develop an area that's beautiful.
and to change an area -- no. We don't want that. In fact the whole neighbor area where I live definitely do not
want it. And I ups all of the codes that some things are going to change. But there are other
neighborhoods that need housing, affordable housing. And right now we control our area in that neighborhood.
we know each other, casually and personal. So when you have a neighborhood like that, you don't want to
destroy it. And not knowing who is going to come in to your neighborhood -- by the way, there's only one lot
in that neighborhood now. And I know the owner is not going to sell it for any reason. What I'm saying is we need a
safe place to live still. There is an area that's semi retired. Like I said, we're comfortable
with each other. Streets on 11th, 12th, good streets, even though the community has been there for a
very long time, but all of the streets in between is poorly paved -- >> mayor: thank you, ma'am.
I'm afraid your time has expired. Thank you for being with us. >> next speaker is carmen
dubose, followed by chip williams, followed by james mcfarland. >> mayor: welcome.
>> good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm also from the azalea trail neighborhood.
[inaudible] and the removing of exclusionary zoning within our neighborhood. My family brought up the
thoughts of destroying the integrity of our neighborhood. Most of us have lived and invested in our neighborhoods
for more than 50 years. My family moved into in 1967. We've been there a long time and we want it to stay as it is.
we have worked hard in our neighborhood, invested in our neighborhoods and for the future of the generation to come.
we want to keep the heritage of azalea trail. There were resources mentioned in one of our meetings that
could come along with the inclusions. How would that benefit azalea trail.
that's what we want to know. We need more jobs created in gainesville, businesses, warehouses/factories in east
gainesville. This will cut down on crime because the citizens will have better-paying job opportunities
which will make better citizens in gainesville. The second highest city in the state when it comes to gas
taxes. Our neighborhood was mentioned. Some of us went through a lot of difficulties when we built our
houses to get them established. And so we don't want that hard work to go undone. There have been some promises by
past commissioners that haven't -- they haven't kept their promises and we want to know if we can trust you all to
keep a promise when you make a promise. We don't want the crime to come through this change.
the change will bring vandalism to azalea trail. The property value will be diminished.
I know if there is no struggle, there is no progress. But we have to work together on this, like some of the previous
speakers said, if you got your mind made up already, think about what you citizens are pleading.
>> mayor: thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. >> chip williams followed by james mcfarland followed by
jim mcfarland. >> just a point of order. There's a very old friend of mine that has to go back to
work. Can I switch cards with him? Is that okay with you? >> mayor: I don't have a
problem. >> I'm retired. >> mr. Fields. >> I do have to go to work.
thank you. [off mic] >> mayor: glad you're with us. Thank you.
>> my name is wayne fields and I've been a resident of southeast gainesville for over 60 years.
I'm here to speak in favor of exclusionary zoning, to be more specific residential single-family zoning.
in my lifetime I have seen lincoln high school closed because white parents at gainesville high school didn't
want their kids to go toe a predominantly black school, lincoln high school in 1970. I've seen two schools built and
the decision to build those schools around a city dump was not in support by the residents in azalea trail.
on the east side of gainesville I've seen when dixie, food lion, southern charm restaurant come and go.
it's interesting when you bring up the word food desert because that's what southeast gainesville is.
the words gentrification, food desert, affordable housing does not exist in heal plan station, oakmont, town of tioga, turkey
creek and arbor greens. In my lifetime I would like to see the land use law of exclusionary zoning bring to
east gainesville a movie theater, a grocery store, insurance agencies, clothing stores and please don't take the
thought that I am against affordable housing. But I am for affordable housing in a reasonable manner, such as
section 8, an assistance program, that's rental as is tans programs that I'm sure the city of gainesville and the
county has a budget for. And even more so, would like to see some improvements of an athletic facility second to none
in southeast gainesville. So today, commissioners, I would like for you all to look in the mirror and ask yourselves is
there anything that I can do to assist southeast gainesville. I say yes. Help southeast gainesville to
flourish instead of flounder. I'm trying to do my part with businesses, teens work summer youth employment program, ogr
after school and the endowment committee. So I ask you, please, make the right decision and support the
development of east gainesville. >> mayor: madam clerk. >> chip williams, james mcfarland and jim mcfarland.
>> I was going to speak on two things, possibly. >> mayor: madam clerk, I think they were going to switch places
so when you come to -- >> okay. >> mayor: go ahead. >> when you start putting a
bunch of families in a single-family residential area, it's the same problem it was when we addressed it 20 years
ago. It is unfair for someone who has single-family residence that's been in a family for a long time
to have it wiped out and changed by this. Now I have to step back for a moment.
I can make a lot more money if you'll go with this zoning and you'll allow me. When you think about driving
down that road to mary helen's lake place you all have been at and you look at my nice landscaping, that takes that
stretch and allows me to put four units right there. Four family units. I'll tear my house down and I'll
do it and build it. I have been trying to save that property since I was there and many of you have been on it when
you skipped gainesville high school and ran over there for a break on the lake. [laughter]
it's beautiful. I was going to save that property to give to the city for a park and hopefully marihelen
would do the same then and you would have something of value. I have to step back further. What do we have as a plan.
do we have a 50-year plan? No. Do we have a 30-year plan? No.
do we have a ten-year plan? No. We keep wanting to jump in and change the zoning of somebody
that's lived there at this point suddenly like that. That is totally wrong. When I present in new york they
understand it but around here you don't catch on. You need a 50-year plan. You need to understand
sustainability. And not call it the department of fake development sustainability.
we have got to get the right terminology of what's going on in this community. We're at the apex of the water
flow in the three water management districts. We're in a critical spot that was proud of 60% tree cover.
while we have nations now setting mandates of maining the 60% tree cover, we're wanting to tear it all down and put in more
concrete. We need to expand, I'll tell you, by 2050 it's going to be so hot here we'll be miserable.
we're going to want houses. Our watershed will be destroyed because right now, hey, let's think about it, we are on water
restrictions. We don't have enough water to water our yard. So we want me to have eight
families living on a single-family resident lot sucking in all of that water and destroying the aquifer much
quicker. It is time to stop, not develop until we have a plan and we have impact fees for any development.
we need a moratorium on those developments today. We need to put this on a plan for a 50-year plan, at least 30
because I'll be dead and won't come back. [laughter] it's time that you start
thinking ahead, not do this to a single-family resident. I have lived on that property for over 60 years.
>> mayor: thank you, sir. Appreciate it. >> next speaker is jim mcfarland, sharon power and
heather jewel. [off mic] >> mayor: no, equal for everybody.
>> sharon bauer, heather jewell and chip williams. >> good afternoon. The commission first began
trying to eliminate single-family zoning in 2018, not by rezoning neighborhoods and identifying -- and notifying
owners but by simply redefining single-family to include multifamily city-wise. After the first large turnout of
opponents, commissioner johnson made this comment on october 4th. We weren't engaging or listening
to the community and if we are at some level it's not effective. Because if it was it would not
have people showing up outrages with would not have people in our offices, having people stop me in the grocery store saying
they're not being listened to. It's not the way the government works. Here's some commission reports
in response to her. There are some folks who fully intend to bring chaos on government and society and show
up and act that way consistently. There's people who do it because they have something to gain from
it. I can't speak to motivations and I won't speak to motivations. If we're going to do big things,
we're going to get big pushback and we're picking up bigger things to work on that a lot of commissioners prior to us have.
when we talk about affordable housing there are predictable arguments. When we start the changes you'll
see people who come here and complain to high heaven about it no matter how much we talked to them before hand about it
because they're uncomfortable with the change. It's our responsibility and what we get paid for is to filter
when somebody comes up there how much of that is that I need to vent. It's predictable that people are
going to be upset when we try to do big things because change is hard and we know we have to do it.
in august when you made containers of alcohol city wide permanent, there was a large number of people in the audience
to object and commissioner ward said if you cared about the increase of violent crime you would have been here this
morning on gpd instead of coming here to grand stand on tv. In january he shared a photo of his legal pad because someone
had taken a picture of it when he left his seat. On it he listed people who commented and the number of
agenda items they made a three-minute comment on. Not what they said, how many items they spoke on.
his contempt for engaged citizens is well documented and his mind is closed. This workshop was described by
the city as designed to help the public better understand the impact of two proposed zoning changes, ie, it's for you to
lecture and not listen. What this city does is not citizen engagement and I believe it violates the statute
requirements for citizen input. We cannot have six more years of this or our city will be destroyed.
>> mayor: thank you. Next speaker. >> heather jewell, followed by chip williams, followed by peggy
carr. >> heather jewell, I live in university park. I moved to gainesville about a
year ago after careful consideration of where I wanted to live. I chose gainesville because of
its urban forest, historic character, walkable and bikeable nature. I have not been disappointed in
my choice until now. The proposals of zoning in the name of creating affordable housing is disingenuous and
manipulative. By your own data provided in the gainesville housing action plan, the home vacancy rent is 4.7%
and the rental vacancy rate is 17%, both well above the u.s. Median. To say we have a housing
shortage here is false. In the same report you make claims about income levels and impact on people's abilities to
afford housing but the presentation of data is manipulated because you have included students in the
analysis. You show the area around university of florida as a low-income area.
I think we both know that that's a large student population there. This leads me to wonder whom
this proposal is really meant to benefit. Is it the students? Is it unit of florida?
or it is alumni that want to come here to have rentals on game weekends, or is it developers.
please consider the wishes of the full-time, permanent residents and lay this issue to rest now.
>> chip williams, followed by peggy carr, followed by debra martinback. >> I live in the golf view
neighborhood which is right next to the university of florida. We've been there 39 years. We've had students live there.
students in our neighborhood have not been an issue. We've had issues from time to time but they've been resolved
by communication and such. In my view the students are not an issue here. It's this -- in my view, in the
same thought that we're going to change all of the zoning in gainesville on these single-resident areas.
people here have spoken to this and others have spoken to it too. You're coming in and destroying
savings and such that people have put together for all of their lives. In one fell swoop it seems that
there could be a step measure of doing this instead of one action. Earlier in the meeting today
commissioner hayes-santos indicated that, to put us at ease, there are state laws that say you can have x number of
people in a house. We're getting rid of the number of people in the house is because we can't enforce it.
we haven't talked about any enforcement today. If you can't enforce that now, ho are you going to enforce two
cars proposed earlier in the new zoning stuff. This has not been thought through.
it feels rushed to me. Some are going to say we've kicked this can down the road for years and years, but it's
too fast. The proposal earlier today was interesting but there were so many holes there that I saw just
through sitting here this one time. I try to keep up with you guys watching tv or read the paper
and such. I would go back to what the first speaker said today, please, please, please listen to
all of the folks that are in front of you today and have been in front of you before this. We are people coming from all
different neighborhoods, all different walks of life. Candidly, when someone came up here and started talking about
affordable housing, what we're talking about today has nothing to do with affordable housing. Somehow we've merged these two
things together and what I saw in that presentation earlier today has nothing to do with affordable housing.
take a long hard look at that. If that's your goal, that's your end goal, please revisit that. Thank you.
>> okay. Our next speaker is peggy carr, followed by debra martinback followed by gary gordon.
>> mayor poe and commissioners, thank you for the opportunity. I am a little confused and I want to ask for clarification.
is this the early comment period where we make general statements? Because I had gone through the
agenda and had specific statements about each of the agenda items -- >> mayor: it's on the first item
from the agenda. >> pardon? >> mayor: it's on the first item from the agenda.
not general public comment. >> in is about the comp plan language change, is that correct?
>> mayor: yes. >> and then I will have the opportunity to speak about the other items later, correct?
>> mayor: there will be general public comment at the end of the meeting. No, I'm sorry.
it's just this. Can we start her clock over. This is on the item -- do you have your agenda?
it's on the first item on the agenda, exclusionary zoning. >> and specifically though on the agenda it says that people
will have the opportunity to speak for early comment and once that is done if speakers would like to speak we can speak for
three minutes to each agenda item. >> mayor: that's for our regular meetings that we -- we just got
right into the item. If you want to speak about the item, now is your opportunity to do so.
>> this is my only opportunity to speak? >> mayor: there's another item that comes after that, you can
speak to that one as well. >> thank you very much for the clarification. So specifically then to the
proposed change, the comprehensive plan amendment, let me make a couple of comments.
point one about option one, the creation of the neighborhood residential category is not acceptable or needed.
and let me point out that in option one as presented in the agenda today, it is not at all clear what is being proposed for
the future land use map under this option. Would all single-family areas being neighborhood residential?
if so, this is an absolutely breathtaking proposal. Any student of new urbanism knows that the concept of
transect zones allows for a diversity of housing types in an orderly transition from high density to lower density.
by adopting a future land use change that would allow multifamily smack in the middle of what was traditionally a
single-family neighborhood flies in the face of solid new urbanism thinking. One consideration for strategic
choice of higher density development is the presence of transect. A concept known as
transit-oriented development. There's a logic for the density, but the blanket proposal to increase density in all
single-family zoning categories is nonsensical. Point two about option one, it is not at all clear why a new
land use category is required when the existing residential conservation category comes quite close to meeting the same
design standards as those being proposed for neighborhood residential. I guess the rationale is with
the new land use category the future land use map can easily be changed. The proposed sweeping change to
the future land use map is antithetical to democratic engagement. All of the changes being
considered today can now be achieved by the rezoning process. Oh.
but that will take time. And public participation, which is costly. Well, democracy is a costly form
of government, isn't it? About option two, the proposal to eliminate all single-family category and replace them with
residential low density is utterly unacceptable. Because it bumps up the potential density in all current
single-family categories from a maximum of 8 units per acre to 15 units per acre. This is twice as unsatisfactory
as option one. Thanks you for the chance to comment about this particular agenda item.
>> debra martinback followed by gary gordon followed by cindy gordon. >> debra martinback represents
multiple properties owners, over a hundred. One of the things that we've asked from you way back when we
first started talking about the landlord permits and zoning is that we allow the owners to use their houses, the number of
bedrooms that they have in the house and allow them to rent out as individual bedrooms, as a group and they not all have to
be related. I ask that you definitely include getting rid of the requirements that it's only
three unrelated people. Thank you. >> gary gordon, followed by cindy gordon followed by jane
berman holten. >> gary gordon, full disclosure, candidate for mayor. Near we are again.
people have filled this meeting room to say stop it. Stop working on ways to subvert or eliminate single-family
zoning. Stop working on way to further turn the city over to investors and into rent bill.
stop claiming one unit in ten and any development in a serious affordable housing program. Stop claiming the majority of
you didn't vote for these ideas, proposals or programs when you did, either in outright votes or with half and half suggestions
or by continually sending it back to staff to return half-baked, stirred and served up as virtually the same dish.
we know hayes-santos didn't do all this by himself or just poe or saco. That's not a majority.
stop claiming it wasn't you who's responsible for this coming up. You are responsible.
you never said outright overtly kill it. Didn't give us the hem and how tap dance, don't give us
denials, don't preach or lecture. Don't quote any of this as a grand solution to historic
racism. Don't deny the trouble you've caused or the fear and anger you've created among local
homeowners. Only desmon duncan-walker and cynthia chestnut's hands are clean.
stop trying to remake gainesville into your distorted version of new urbanism. Stop trying to remake
gainesville into your pr slogan new american city. Most of us like it here. Other residents -- older
residents and newer ones, the newer ones comes because it's not jacksonville, atlanta or miami.
stop trying to turn it into one of those cities. Stop kicking things we don't want back to the plan board or
staff or to some out-of-town consultant to be rewritten, sloganized, regurgitated to be brought back to you and stop
dragging us out to tell you over and over again stop it. Stop trying to ram any of this through before the election.
the majority of us don't want this. The majority of you have done enough damage.
the majority of us want you to stop it. I'm gary gordon, candidate for mayor.
[laughter] >> our next speaker is cindy gordon followed by jane berman holton, I believe, followed by
cindy harrington. >> I should start off just by motioning to my husband and saying what he said.
but there is plenty to be concerned about this blanket rezoning of the city. I'll try to just give you the
high points. Ever since gainesville rise was presented to the city and 90% of the people who have spoke on
that were against it, the city has continued to bring it up piecemeal in various forms in various guises.
and it continues to fail because so many people just don't want it. The fact it's peddled as new
urbanism or environmental or anything like that illusory, mass transit. How are we going to get this
many people from here to there. How do we plan to get them out of their cars and doing a more environmental transportation.
there is nothing in these propositions that goes near that. In fact, there has been no
environmental feasibility study. In a lot of places, there is an environmental feasibility study that goes over what's going to
happen with the infrastructure. This plan does not quantify in any meaningful way what will happen with the infrastructure,
what will happen with the roads, with the plumbing, and what will happen. It does not speak to the stress
on the aquifer. Most of all it's being peddled as an affordability plan, a plan for affordable housing and it
does not touch affordability. There have been no facts and figures coming out of any of these presentations we sat
through that have given us a bottom line. All affordable at x amount of people at x amount of income
level. It also doesn't touch any other tools in the toolbox for affordable housing.
where is any mention of federal funding from the build back better plan. Federal fundinges one of the
main ways it has ever gotten built for those that remember the great society. There's no mention of sandusky
which some think is their private piggy bank. Most of all people of gainesville aren't in favor of
this. You guys work for the people of the city of gainesville not the developers.
>> thank you. >> thank you. >> james followed by cindy harrington followed by terry.
>> good afternoon, city managers, staff, audience. I think what we need to do is step back and throw it out.
so I'd like to give a justification to do that. It's very simple. I studied the fact, the
comprehensive plan is not required to be updated until '24, '26. I don't think this is how to do
it. The consultants hired experience no communities. One thing gainesville has that's
very important, we're a university community, 50 percent that live here are students. When we talk about family and
housing and rentals, you can't keep students out. It's not allowed. But you're basically pandering
to students. Another aspect is that the neighborhood impacted have in the been informed.
I've asked over and over for the 69 neighbors to be informed. I do feel the neighborhood should be able to have a sloat,
those with home owner's association should be able to have a vote by association as to whether we approve this project.
basically it's the way the train running down the tracks, like a runaway train. You have the right to step back
and say no. Staff pushed to do all these documents and create this and change this and change that.
many through the processes, 2018 or before. It doesn't solve affordability, doesn't address what you're
trying to do. I'm not a racist. I'm auto single family property owner who enjoys my peaceful
enjoyment of my home, who does support affordable housing but I support plans that are realistic.
there's a realism here. I heard the word family, I've heard units per acre, changing from 3.5 units per acre to 15 is
unheard of. Furthermore with 5 foot setbacks and put cars in the rear, how do you get through people.
how do you get a car through 5 feet? Let's go back and say is this rational, realistic, sensible?
there's nothing in here -- I could put holes in it all day, okay? Many of us could.
occupancy. We talk about units. What's a unit? Four bedrooms.
I just heard six bedrooms. Six bedrooms in a unit times two people each, which you could allow two people if the bedroom
is big enough. I call back to the icmp, international property management association suggested
some numbers based on size of facility, size of bedrooms. I'd like to hear bedrooms not units, decent size bedrooms.
>> thank you. Your time is up. >> thanks. >> sandy harrington followed by
jenny boy mer. . >> good afternoon. I actually was trying to faulk
about the no more than three unrelated rule and I ended up in this group but that's okay. Mayor and city commissioners,
thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is cindy harrington. I'm a realtor in gainesville.
like most people I've seen the huge increase in rentals over the last few years. Those increases primarily affect
those who can least afford higher housing costs creating an additional burden at an already financially unstable or at the
very least financially fragile rental community. No more than three unrelated rule is outdated.
from what I understand it was used to discourage fraternities in neighborhoods. Others say it was designed to
discourage brothels. I'm not sure if that's a fact or an urban legend. The number of persons occupying
a dwelling if increased above three unrelated persons is detrimental and hazardous to public health, welfare, safety
and morals of the citizens of this community. Really? The morals of the citizens if we
increase it to four or five? Will we be burning books downtown any time soon s&p look, people live together.
some even raise a family together without the benefit of marriage. I make no judgment on them.
some folks bring in renters to offset the rising cost of maintaining a home. How is that detrimental to a
community. Now if they are having keg parties at all hours, that should be addressed where it
blocks. You called gpd. But let's not muddy the waters with what if this, what if that,
there are remedies to address those issues. We are at a time when people are being forced out of their
community because they cannot afford the rents in this city. We have now burdened landlords with additional expenses that
will be passed down to tenants. Why not consider easing that burden by eliminating an archaic law that really has no
legitimate reason being on the books in the first place. Or at the very least increase the number to four, at the very
least. Wow, we can actually improve the lives of renters without costing the city a dime.
thank you for your time and attention. >> terry followed by jenny boymer, followed by janie
williams. >> good afternoon, mr. Mayor and commissioners. I'm sure you feel the air of
what the community is feeling right now. But I want to ask you something. How would you feel about sharing
20 feet of backyard with your kids on a saturday afternoon with four other families? How do you think that would
work? Have you even experimented with this before bringing it to the community?
the city and the county have an opportunity with the properties that haven't had taxes paid in a number of years, who had
municipal liens on them, and you have the power to take those properties with as -- and make a development on there and an
experiment to see if this would actually work before taking across the entire city and changing the zoning.
have you thought recreational areas. What about the flow of water. Go outside of gainesville and
see 23 west after they chopped down those trees and the water flooded middlebrook golf course. I don't think we've had enough
thought into what you're doing here. We live here because we like the backyard effect.
we want our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren to grow up in neighborhoods they can be
proud of. They can play basketball in the street and annoy every other neighbor.
but think about this. No for rechanging the zoning. We have the opportunity. Try using some of the properties
available. Experiment with them and see how that works. Thank you.
>> jenny wimer, jenny williams and casey fitzgerald. >> jenny williams. I don't know the other person.
hello, I'm jamie williams. I am a personal property owner. I personally own 43 single family houses in gainesville.
I started buying them right when I graduated university of florida 20 years ago. I lived in a single family house
over by campus. I had four girls that lived in it. We all got along great, and we
got along with our neighbors and we were very respectful. I'm here in favor of getting rid of the three nonrelated people.
it is a very hard thing as a landlord to enforce. I have tried to enforce it. I have tried to tell our
residents, hey, there can only be three people on this lease. Only three people can live here. The truth of the matter is if
it's a four bedroom or five bedroom house, they are going to put four and five people in that house whether I want them to or
not. I have been back and forth with codes like how am I supposed to enforce this?
it is a hard thing to enforce. I am just telling you flat out in pure honesty, it is hard. It's very hard to enforce.
so some of the code enforcement people say you have to go count toothbrushes or do this. Who has time for that?
I am not going to take roll call at all my rentals when I go in there. What I will tell you is I'm
against having a brothel or six frat boys that are going to throw keg parties every day, I'm against that.
it's hard to police it if I can only put three on the lease. If it's a six bedroom house and I put six on the lease, I know
who is parking there, who is living there, then I can hold them accountal. I can't hold them accountable if
there's only three people and they say that's my friend, that's my boyfriend. It's hard.
my suggestion would be to adopt hud housing guidelines of two people per bedroom. It doesn't even have to be a
four bedroom house with eight people. I'm asking four people to live in a four-bedroom house.
they are going to do it anyway. I know that's a sad reason to ask for it but it is the truth. As a personal property owner,
I'm telling you it's hard. It is just a hard thing to enforce. The other thing is the tenants
rights and responsibilities. As a tenant, it's not fair for me to tell a tenant that they think they are related to
somebody through partnerships or whatever kind of family bond they have formed, I can't tell them -- it's hard to get into a
house to do a showing with a 24-hour notice. It's going to be even harder for me to try and get into that
house and prove there's four people living in a three unrelated. So that's what I have.
>> one more time for jenny boymer. Casey fitzgerald followed by scott parker followed by clara
joharry. >> good afternoon, mr. Mayor and commissioners. My name is casey fitzgerald.
my wife pamela and I are 28 residents of a very pleasant ridgewood neighborhood in northwest gainesville.
first let me say we fully recognize the city has been working on this issue for a very long time.
we also recognize and appreciate the city commission and staff are very well intentioned in promoting the changes being
discussed. We concur afterwardable housing is indeed warranting the city's attention.
given today's time constraints I'm just going to mention a few concerns, however. The over arching concern and
primary reason for being here today is the package of decisions, discussion would not only eliminate single family
zoning classification in gainesville but numerous adverse for neighborhoods without generating additional affordable
housing in gainesville. We say this mainly because there is a disturbing lack of data, analyses and evidence in support
of these proposals. Despite the city's years long focus and this worthy cause, including the engagement of
national consultants, absolutely no credible evidence presented to show the suggested approach will be successful.
in the gainesville community many credentialed knowledgeable citizens, some here with relative experience in urban
regional planning, architecture, land use, et cetera, that are willing to be convinced if credible etched is presented.
however, until such evidence is made available, the proposed sweeping citywide approach is not supportable.
the fact the adoption of petitions I is irreversible due to harris implications, the stakes are quite high.
relying as this approach does exclusively on market forces is another concern because trying to achieve the desired
affordable housing outcomes by this mechanism does not seem like a prudent, reliable strategy.
finally, concern number three, it's a troubling technical issue. The higher density development
that would result from the proposals would create more impervious surface area, pollution loads to creeks and
ultimate receiving water florida aquifer where we get our drinking water. We have seen no indication the
proper engineering analysis and modeling done to assess these impacts. So in conclusion based on the
lack of evidence provided by the city to date, we encourage to table the unsupported wide ranging proposals under
consideration and direct staff to further evaluate alternative affordable housing approaches and return with strategic
workable options and accompanying credible evidence. Thank you for your time tapped thoughtful consideration.
>> scott parker followed by claire joharry followed by darlene -- >> no, ma'am.
I'm sorry, you have to be here to get your statement in person. Sorry, carrie. Thank you for being willing to
do that, though. >> claire joharry. >> good afternoon. First of all, I agreed with my
community. I lived in my home across from the university at college park for 40 years.
my parents built the home. You probably know it. It's a beautiful mediterranean home, electric gates, and we
loved it. We attended university of florida. We're all in medicine but we
stayed where we live because we love that area, love seeing the children grow up, our neighbors. But recently I want to give my
point of view of living there for 40 years of what's going on. Since they have built new apartments there, majority has
not filled, a lot aren't created, we've had an increase in crime. We've had theft.
we've had drugs. We've had speeding, hitting and running. We've had people run into our
neighbors' gates. It's out of control. Parties from the fraternities are crazy.
they are in our yards. The floors three streets behind are vibrating. My home is vibrating.
my mother, who is 90 years old, lives with me. I care for her. I called the police station five
times. We can't live like this, it's loud. They said video them.
I went across the street and videoed them. I went to the police station and said if anything happens,
gainesville will be in trouble. That's when they came. I want you to take in consideration as you grow, add
these apartments, consider these single homes with families, there's a school. Kids won't be able to ride their
bikes there to go to school. There's a big park there. Every saturday there's soccer, there's baseball.
I love watching them as I take my walk. That area is beautiful. I could live anywhere.
recently a lady from ft. Lauderdale offered me over a million dollars, 1.7, crazy amount, 1.3.
I said hell to the no. Okay? I love where I live. Now, all I ask you is put
yourself in my shoe. I was raised there. I went to medicine, created -- I could live anywhere.
my parents built that home with pride. That area is historic of gainesville.
it's a hot piece of land. It was safe but now it's not. The more you build there, it's going to get worse.
that's all I say. Please think about it. I understand where you're coming from.
gainesville is pretty big. You've got the v.a. Hospital, there's room to grow there. It doesn't need to be where all
the bars is and all the apartments and all that. Yes, we want gainesville to grow, but this is out of
control. Thank you. >> thank you. I want to remind you the school
is now called carolyn parker. We want to make sure our language stays as family friendly as possible.
>> darlene followed by nicole followed by sherry hughes. >> commissioners, mayor, I moved here in 1985.
there's been a lot of changes, unfortunately for some. Even though I'm a realtor, it's important to have affordable
housing. Just a few statements. When I listened to your preparation as the gentleman
spoke, this came out of his mouth, density will not change. Fifteen units per acre, I think density will change.
I think that's outrageous. I can't even imagine 15 acres unless you go five stories high. Maybe you complain do 15 units
per acre. It's sad to say this, single family home is the american dream.
I've been a realtor over 45 years. Everybody I help with the home, that's this american dream.
their american dream is when they raise a family, they have a pack yard for their children or their babies and it's not 15 by
15 feet. Where are these pictures that we saw, these beautiful pictures? Where were they taken?
did the gentleman that gave the presentation, did he visit those pictures and go by and see what they are and what's around it?
pictures are great but where are they? Are they in gainesville or what city are they coming from?
we have a lot of cities in this country. Last but not least, cost of building.
when you say cost of building is expensive, it is, especially when 20 to 30% of a house that's being built are taxes that the
city and the state, they pay for, the builders. I wish their builder here to speak to you about what you're
trying to do here, which is take away the single family home and stick four or five units in one lot or two acres -- two houses
in one lot. This is outrageous. Y'all need to be replaced, because elections have
consequences. >> nicole cords followed by sharie hughes followed by nancy morris.
>> miss portis, hughes -- >> nancy or tom morris. >> they are downstairs. >> okay.
we'll get them when they pop in. Go ahead. We'll come back to them. >> dana silva.
my neighbors and I talked to each other about we couldn't afford to live in the city if we didn't have our homes, pleasant
street, been there 27 years. We have humble little houses on small lots. It's residential conservation
zoning we were told wouldn't be affected by some of these ordinances would affect us. This is a time line presented by
the city of all this stuff the city has been doing for affordable housing. None of it has -- there are some
errors in that. Be that as it may, I see a different time line. It goes back to 2014, 2015,
brought in zones, certain area of gainesville. Shortly after that, 2016, the re -- I don't know what to even
call it. People in city governance cut out a lot of public participation.
2017, the base code was implemented and it led to the destruction of the neighborhood because it was done in a
dishonest way. I'm just going to say that. What this is all kind of still reverberating from those years
to deregulate development especially in the neighborhood surrounding university and downtown, the central
neighborhoods. To call this about affordable housing is incorrect. There's no link to affordability
in any of these proposals. To say that someone who couldn't already afford their rent could move to a new rental apartment
in another neighborhood is not logical. As far as saying it's racist to have single family zoning, I
just can't even go there. You want to hear about racism, I'll tell you. 27 years of watching it close
up, law enforcement, selective enforcement and then the city coming in and colluding to get rid of seminary lane and to
destroy kennedy homes and put hartwood, highly expensive properties, single family hoa there.
now here we are with these proposals that the city has paid. >> mayor: thank you.
>> more than half million dollars to support. >> mayor: I have to have everybody the same.
next up. >> tom morris followed by jackie davis. >> this proposal seems to be
half baked. It strikes me we need to slow down on this whole thing and think about it a little bit
more. I'm just going to bring up a couple of things, and I'll make this quick.
mason manors, now outless subdivisions off 16th avenue and live up in the woods. I raised three kids there.
I always, and I think most parents feel that you give a progressive long leash to children, right?
when you live in a neighborhood where you pretty much know all the neighbors, you can turn those kids loose.
every year they get a little bit older, go a little bit further from home. When there's 15 people, 15 units
per acre, you're not going to be able to do that. You're not going to know the neighbors.
the other problem I see, the jewel to gainesville is pretty much these creek valleys. I haven't seen anything that
looks like environmental assessment of what this plan is going to cost the degradation of those.
that's it. >> nancy morris followed by jackie davis followed by virginia moore.
>> hi there. I would like also ask you to reconsider, to slow down. I think people are making
assumptions. They are assuming the people that want to build these multifamily units are going to
be folks that want affordable housing. We don't know that. That's an assumption.
I think it will destroy the neighborhoods. That was my husband that spoke just before.
I agree. We know our neighbors. We've been in our house for 35 years.
we bought there for that reason. So to just change the whole integrity of it is very upsetting.
I also, again, the infrastructure has not been evaluated. We have flooding two streets
over when there's a major reinoehl event. We put in bigger. Types to stop flooding, it is
worse. When it rains our poor neighbors have sewage come up into their streets.
I feel really badly for them. So I think we need to do a lot more studies, slow down. Why would you implement that all
over the city. If you insist on doing it, I like the idea that the one man had about liens that are on
houses, look at those and study those and make sure we can support it. Thank you.
>> jackie tavis followed by virginia mauer, followed by dr. Leanetta nealy. >> I think miss davis left.
I did see her walk out a while ago. >> my name is jenny mauer, and I thank you for holding this work
hop and for the opportunity to speak. I want to address a serious problem that you have with
restrictive covenants. Not the outrageous ones excluding most races and nationalities, the enforcement
of which violates the federal constitution, they cannot be enforced and they are not an issue, but rather I mean the
deed restrictions, deed covenants, that restrict development in the neighborhoods to single family homes only.
these covenants apply not only -- to all whoever buys the property as long as it is in effect.
these restrictions are in deeds and chains of title all over gainesville. Some may not be enforceable.
others are current and enforceable. There are matters of public records and deeds in the county
courthouse. I am told andrew persons has told the public that the proposed changes in the
comprehensive plan will not affect neighborhoods with deep covenants that restrict use of the land to single family
housing. I understand that realtors and others try to quell fear and public opposition by telling
home owners in neighborhoods like colony park or forest ridge, for example, that they will be protected by their
restrictive covenants and the proposed changes will not ever affect them. Unless that is indeed the
commission's intention, it is ill-advised and dangerous to make these claims. If it is what the mayors and
commissioners intend, please tell that to the public unambiguously and immediately. Direct city staff and change
city ordinance that comes back to the commission clearly excludes properties covered by a deed covenant restricting land
to single family houses. Florida courts are separate and independent branch of government, and they decide
legal conflicts. Neither the commission nor these other people who offer their personal opinions control how
florida courts will rule in a conflict between otherwise valid deed covenants and a municipal comprehensive plan.
consider this, however, and I think this is important, that if you exclude these properties, you are treating neighborhoods
unequally, once again privileging white affluent over property values that fall, there are strong racial implications
to that. If you do not exclude them, this will signal you do not intend to do so, and you will ignite a
firestorm in this community even greater than the opposition you already face. In the end, one way or another,
you will not achieve your otherwise very public goals. >> mayor: thank you. I'm afraid your time has
expired. I appreciate you being here with us. >> dr. Mcnealy followed by kim
tanzer, followed by melanie barr. I do believe she had to leave. If she's not here, mr.
millimeters. Mr. Mayor, you might suggest there's chairs available. >> mayor: if you're outside
there are some chairs that freed up or if you would like to stay out there you are welcome to do that.
welcome, doctor mcnealy. >> thank you. I'm leanetta mcnealy. I am excited, can you believe
that, to be here with you this afternoon, and I have a long board meeting tonight. Anyway, I wanted to say good
afternoon, mayor poe and honorable city commissioners and city manager curry. First of all I'd like to thank
commissioner chestnut for insisting on having neighborhoods coming together to hear the proposed zoning
changes. I don't know if she hadn't said that that the vote wouldn't have been taken by now.
I want to thank commissioner ward, commissioner duncan-walker and also city manager curry as well as city staff who came to
our neighborhood and met with us. You heard from quite a few people today from azalea trail,
formerly known as hollywood but we have stuck together and we have decided what we certainly want as far as the zoning
proposal. My ultimate problem is I know the city needs housing for the number of people who live here
and have no roof over their heads or can afford where they live. Where is the cheapest land east
of gainesville. We are very -- meaning those of us who are in a neighborhood, we are very vulnerable to losing
what we have worked so hard for through the years and change our neighborhood from single family homes, multileases, duplexes,
apartments, whatever. If this new zoning passes, we will certainly be at a loss. Increased people definitely put
a burden on us. East gainesville will disproportionately be impacted. Extra resources we don't have
already. As was stated earlier by mr. Fields, we live in a food desert.
no shops. No restaurants. How many of you will accept this.
more people, large amount of people put in -- >> mayor: thank you, dr. Mcnealy.
>> I'm so sorry. I need to come back next time. >> mayor: good luck on your meeting tonight.
>> miss tanzer followed by melanie barr, todd williams and brittany corbit. >> mayors and commissioners,
thank you for your time. This is a page from your own report by your real estate consultant hra, and it says the
city of gainesville should complete in-depth land use analysis to consider the following changes.
the changes that you've been presented today are here. However, you have not done in-depth land use analysis
that's necessary to go forward. I ask that you do that. Also from that report, just to clarify, we're not all on the
same page about numbers. You heard today that 63% of the city's land was unresidential single family, that's incorrect.
63% of the residential parcels are single family, which is quite different. But when you do the math, you
find that that's 20% of the area's land. That may be too much, that may be not enough, I don't know.
we're not even on the same page about our data. The minneapolis 20/40 plan was very clear about their strategy,
so they looked at transportation corridors. They looked at cities with existing density at a higher
occurring rate and then they looked at the areas to up zone, which is what we're talking about.
taking that same area in minneapolis, which is far from the university of minnesota and applying that in gainesville,
what we see is that if we did the same thing here as was done in minneapolis, this entire area would be excluded from any
upzoning. That has to do in gainesville with the fact that our student population is very, very
disproportionate relative to other places. Let's look at that zoning area. This is one of your maps as
well. We see a few vacant lots in the northwest, and we see a whole lot more in the east.
reinforcing what self people have said. If you blanket up zone the city of gainesville, you will be
exacerbating existing racial problems in the city, not improving them. Finally, I'd like to remind you
that if you're interested in affordable housing, you have plenty of land to work with yourself.
the power district, which has been laying vacant for at least a decade I'm aware of is 16 1/2 acres.
there's a property south of depot park. These could be zoned at, say, u6 zoning, and that would provide
an additional 1,000 units or so of housing. You've just essentially given away lot 10 for what I thought
would be housing but in fact now it's going to be a grocery store, parking four stories of office and then a little bit of
housing. That could have been 100 units of housing. As we proposed in 2001 as we
presented depot area plaster plan, this is another 77 acre zoned to provide -- >> I don't believe I've seen
melanie barr pop back in, so we'll go to todd williams, 505 corbit, 505 larry reamer. >> thank you.
I'll be as quick as I can, but I'll turn the affidavit over because -- [ inaudible ]
>> I'm todd williams. I'm a landlord and a property manager. I wanted to point out not only
absentee but everything I manage either I own or manage for other local people. We do take care of our
properties. We spent the last year upgrading insulation, appliances, do parking plans, all of that.
and the three nonrelated, you say you don't want more development, well, what could be more affordable than allowing an
extra person to live in a four bedroom house. Have you a five bedroom house, let five people live there, then
you wouldn't have to develop more housing. So there are landlords that do care for it.
I would put any of my properties up against any one of these houses that are privately owned. That's all I have to say.
>> mayor: thank you for your comments. Madam clerk. >> corbit followed by larry
reimer followed by robert mounts. >> mayor: welcome. >> I'm a property manager in
gainesville. >> say your name for the record. >> brenton corbit. I'm a property manager and
college student, so I understand the possible negative side because you've got a bunch of young kids who everybody for
some reason puts this negative thing on they are all going to throw keggers and destroy property.
I've been doing this for serve years. I haven't seen that. But what we do have is this
unfortunate no more than three unrelated parties thing that's been going on for who knows how long it's been going on.
older than me. It doesn't make common sense to me. If you have a five bedroom
house, why can't five people be living in it. Talk about affordable housing, it's just basic math.
if you have a house an owner wants to charge $5,000 because expenses are $4,000, if you pack five people in you can charge
more than you can if you put three people in it. It doesn't change the owner's expense, property taxes go up,
they have to pay a rental permit every year. Everything goes up. So the owners are really the
ones that suffer. Really the people that are best to gain were the apartment complexes that come in and slap
300 units and they can benefit from all of this. So my main focus, my main thing, three unrelated parties.
I feel like college students -- I'm not one, I know I look young, 28 years old, I have six kids.
I feel like they get a bad rap when really we as single family home owners around the campus, we can't deny it.
maybe we have a duty to be better neighbors to these college students to teach them the right way to live rather
than assume they are going to live the incorrect way. Also want to say appreciate you guys.
I thought my job was hard. This is the first time I've ever done this. I can't imagine what you go
through on a daily basis. That was all I had to say. Thank you for your time. >> larry wimer followed by jean
galligan. >> I think larry left. If you're still here, larry, still outside somewhere, you can
come back. >> robert mounts followed by gene galligan followed by matthew umanos.
>> mr. Mayor, commissioners, I'm robert mounts, retired attorney from the neighborhood parks association.
a memo included with this proposal city planner juan castillo cited various provisions as a comprehensive
plan to show these changes will be internally consistent with the plan such as the future land use which says neighborhoods
should retain diversity of housing types to enable a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live in the
boundaries. Mr. Castillo cherry picks policies and objectives showing consistency with the housing
element including provisions ensuring zoning and other housing regulations do not unduly limit opportunities for
lower income groups to secure housing and locations. I'm engaged in a little bit what about -- not to distract but
what about the policy that says the city's future land use map should strive to accommodate increases in student enrollment
in areas designated for multifamily development within a half mile of the university and innovation square but outside a
single family development neighborhoods. What about the future lapped use zone that protects neighborhoods
and tree canopy. What about instruction to ensure city proposals in keeping with surrounding contract and
appropriate sites. What about the housing elements goal to maintain sound, viable neighborhood and revitalize
those that suffered disrepair or neglect. What about the housing policy requiring the city to work with
neighborhoods on housing issues. What about the policy which requires cities to help neighborhoods to develop plans
to promote conservation and restoration of housing that has special historic, architectural or historic values.
what about the requirement to facilitate communication and dialogue with neighboring groups?
what about the obvious interest to porters quarters and fifth avenue pleasant street and gentrification and displacement.
lastly, what about the housing element provisions that increase level and desirability of owner occupancy and home ownership in
the university context area. Do you really think allowing developers and out of town corporations to build
quadruplexes primarily available to rent to students by the room and family neighborhoods close to university promotes owner
occupancy and home ownership? We hardly think so. It's not a slam-dunk. >> gene galligan followed by
matthew umanos followed by abe goldman. >> hi, my name is jean galligan. I've heard so many people come
up and speak that know the ins and outs of policies and effects of policies, educated people, people with phds.
and I don't know if you have a recording of all this, because I can't remember them all right now, but I hope that you will
look over what they said and consider it. I hope you're open to other plans, because it seems to me
there's so many other ways of achieving what you're trying to achieve. We do need to grow.
we do need more housing. We need more ways for young families and single people to own where they live.
I don't think this the way to do it. The first gentleman that spoke, mr. Castillo, talked about
leaving something to market forces and that terrifies me, because market forces are for the profit of the people who are
the force. That's not necessarily good for anybody. It's not good for inhabitants or
poor people or middle class people or homeless people or anyone else. I hope you will really listen to
the people that have been up here speaking so knowledgeably and so -- with so much education but I'm discouraged, because
since this all has become a possibility, I hear people in the paper, I hear small discussion groups.
there are people with e-mail, zoom meetings and so on but I've never heard the county commission budge one inch or
consider any other possibility other than we've got to get rid of all single family homes or single family home zoning.
I think there are so many better ways to do it than way more educated people and informed people than I will have brought
up today. I hope you'll consider. Like said when she first came up here, I hope you're willing to
hear other opinions, more informed opinions, and maybe tailor what you're trying to do. Everybody here is kind of aghast
at what could happen. There's no proven outcomes. There's no plan, there's no data.
we should consider that h it's really bad. Thank you. >> abe goldman followed by
frederick davis junior. >> mayors, commissioners, thank you for taking the time to participate in the workshop.
I'm in favor and gainesville alachua realtors in favor of removing no more than three related or occupancy as
recommended by the city's planning commission. This is an exclusionary zoning practice.
think about a few young couples, none of which are married or the friends tv show or golden girls. Any and everything in between is
currently not allowed. These are various living arrangements, helps cost of living making hoursing more
affordable. Removing no more than three occupancy limit would also increase available rooms.
we need the inventory. Supply is not meeting demand. While alachua add 300 rental units between 2000 and 2019, we
lost rental units of $1,000 or less, fell in 2019. Now adding growth. We are growing and we should be
proud of growth. People want to join our great community. By not approving, we are not
allowing neighborhoods to evolve to meet the needs of growing community. Removing the no more than three
unrelated or occupancy limit will create more density without any construction. Owners are individuals and
rentals are often a tight investment. We don't want them selling or increasing rent.
we need to ensure current affordable rentals are kept, removing no more than three unrelated or occupancy limit may
encourage investment and make more properties viable to be rentals and increase the rental inventory.
I have heard some concerns. We have some point to noise, trash, yard maintenance and similar but that's why we have
codes. We don't need to focus on rentals. Some owners are just as bad at
being loud, parking and the like. Parking is bad for three plus when they have kids driving as
well. Rentals should not be targeted any differently. Property value has been a
concern but values in the duck pond neighborhood with various housing types and various living arrangements continue to
increase with no shortage of demand. The keating memo provides that as general rule considers an
occupancy policy of two people per bedroom under the federal housing administration. The international property code
management suggests 70 square feet per bedroom per individual and 50 square feet. I urge you to make a motion to
remove no more than three unrelated or city occupancy as city consultant and commission recommends.
thank you for your consideration. >> we'll go back through anybody we call who wasn't here at the
moment. We'll go back before we close public comment and come back to the commissioners.
I understand, yes. >> patrick davis followed by john kobler. >> mayor: you also can get a
parking pass from the oif you go through the glass doors on this side, you can get a pass for parking out front.
>> I'm frederick davis, jr. I hear you have a proposal to increase our property values. I've lived in gainesville 37
years. I've seen a lot of changes. When I first came here it was called the tree city.
gru had the second lowest utilities rates in the entire state of florida. While needless to say some
things have changed and not for the better, we're not called the tree city. Maybe needenharbor used to be
canopyist and she did a terrific job. As you can see now, everything is getting clear-cut.
the beauty, distinctiveness of this college town has disappeared too great an extent. I hate going down krispy kreme
and looking across the street and seeing those big, ugly apartment buildings, they look like government, like no one has
any imagination or any sense of aesthetics. I would be willing to bet most people that live in the city for
any period of time are not in favor of what's been happening to gainesville. Anyway, I know we're a
university city and we try to be avant-garde and all this sort of thing. Well, we tried that with the
biomass plant. Remember when that was going to be so cool and progressive? Remember how that's turned out.
we're all paying for that with the second highest utilities rates in the state. You go from second lowest to
second highest. That's not progress in my opinion. All these eclectic spots that
make gainesville cool. I don't know if any of you are hip enough or whatever but there was this place called the jam on
west university avenue. If you could find a place to park, you go through this really narrow bar.
it was about this wide. You get into the backyard of this establishment, and there are all these giant oak trees
everywhere, the stage they erected. Musicians would go back there and jam.
it was the coolest place. They had a fire pit and everything. It's been completely leveled.
all the trees have been cut down. Another one of those multidimensional, multistory,
unimaginative apartment buildings. So people pretty much lived in the neighborhoods they want to
live in. If they don't, they inch their way toward that goal and hopefully achieve it most of the
time. Where I live, we're not rich enough to attract attention across town.
we're not poor enough to attract attention of neighbors. We're beautiful. We have an owner rental that
works out just fine. >> mayor: thank you. >> goldman followed by john kobler followed by -- torkelson.
>> could I get -- >> mayor: you'll need to put it next to it over here. >> all right.
so I want to just add to the many, many interesting, important things people have said.
I'm writing a longer piece about this but I want to touch on a couple of things. This is really not a progressive
proposal. If you consider yourselves progressive politically, generally you don't believe in
rampant deregulation, and you don't believe in letting the free market, the capitalist free market take over and achieve
whatever goals you think might happen. Aside from that, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me there
are three main broad objectives of the set of proposals. One of them is to create more affordable housing.
another one in terms of social justice is to proof racial and economic equity in housing. The thirst one is to talk about
environmental impacts, a number of which have been mentioned and previously a number of proponents here have talked
about reducing their carbon foot present by creating more density by using lower energy use transportation.
as quite a number of our other neighbors have pointed out, really where the like lip outcomes are going to not only
fail to achieve these objectives but in most cases make things worse than at present. There's likely to be more, not
lessed affordable housing. Everything building now with increased construction materials and labor is going to be more
than everything that exists at the moment. So we're likely to get higher rents.
at best we might get a slightly reduced rate of increase of rents. In terms of racial equity, as
our neighbors have said, there's likely to be gentrification and displacement because you've created the incentives for that
in many lower income and below market rental rates. But there's also likely higher carbon emissions and increased
carbon footprint. Because not too many people have talked about that, I'm going to talk about that and also the
inclusionary zoning, so-called inclusionary zoning. So gainesville's inclusionary zoning is going to be based on
median how old income. These are sort of the official u.s. Census figures for 2020. Gainesville's median housing
income is 38,000. That means half of the households here apparently earn less than that.
yet what's peculiar is the median household income in ocala is 11% higher the median household than gainesville.
the median is -- >> mayor: thank you, I'm afraid your time has expired. We appreciate your sharing this
with us. >> let me just say -- >> mayor: okay, perfect, thank you.
>> john kugler, followed by terry torkelson, followed by -- [ inaudible ] >> mayor: mr. Kugler.
we'll go through all the names one last time before we close comment in case swap was out. >> thank you.
so many people are in fear over the destruction of their lifestyle and neighborhood style.
but if what you're talking about is infill development, these are the few sparse openings that exist in the areas.
if you can manage to install some controls against people going in and demolishing good existing housing, single family
housing in those areas in order to take profits for premium multifamily, then it's not going to change the neighborhood to
have a few sparse, scattered blocks developed in this way. It's fear of much of nothing, I think.
what we have now, something like 80 plus percent of black african-americans, and this is nationwide, live in communities
that are less than 5% white. Almost 70% of white americans live in americans that are less than 5% nonwhite.
this pattern was created historically through jim crow subprime lending and other dirty means.
but now that those things are supposed to be illegal, segregation -- racial segregation is illegal, subpar
lending illegal but still around, why has the pattern persisted? It has persisted because of the
economic segregation of housing. Our history has also linked income levels and race. That has not been solved.
do we want to continue to have two americas, separate and unequal, two gainesvilles separate and unequal?
we have to develop -- your major impact is going to be on new developments, new subdivisions need to be mixed income housing.
undo the pattern of economic segregation of housing that has supported, that has taken on the dimensions of historic racial
segregation. It's going to be a better city if you manage to break that pattern.
disperse the demand for mass transportation. You're going to even out the levels of tax income base --
property tax base supporting schools. You're going to have a model of policing that has to be the same
everywhere because the city looks the same everywhere. We need to -- we'll get rid of food deserts and economic
deserts. The hartwood complex somebody mentioned, that's a good thing if infill in prosperous
neighborhoods includes affordable housing. Those are reciprocal and both must have it.
high-income housing in poorer neighborhoods and affordable housing in more prosperous neighborhoods.
>> mayor: thank you. Appreciate it. >> jane, victoria hall followed by -- machado.
>> hi, everyone, thank you. My name is victoria machado. I've lived in gainesville for about 15 years.
I purchased my home in 2017. I really appreciate making room for afterwardable, equitable housing.
it's really needed here in our community. But I do have several questions. It's mainly about
implementation. I'm asking what will ensure this housing does, in fact, reach the people who need it.
I asked this because soon after I purchased my house, the house next door to mine went up for sale.
I was really excited about getting a new neighbor, a new family or just a if you person. But the person who purchased the
house never moved in. Instead they turned it into a fulltime airbnb. Every weekend I get new
neighbors. It's been positive and negative, mostly negative for me. The shared driveway has been a
problem. It's exacerbated by the fact the owner does not live in the neighborhood.
the city can't do anything about my grievances because airbnbs are regulated on a state level. So this leads to my question,
what will prevent an investor from buying up one of these multifamily homes and turning it into a fulltime airbnb.
who will make sure this is actually implemented in a responsible, sustainable way that promotes community.
I'm 32 years old. I'm not saying I'm the youngest person in this room but I do represent a new generation of
people who want to support equity and justice and who are open to the possibilities of growth in a sustainable way.
I'm open to moving away from single family homes, right? Toward building a dynamic and diverse community.
what I don't want is for this to support a facade. Like others in the crowd, I question whether this will
support low income folks or will just be a nice side hustle for the rich folks who already live there.
thank you. >> lynn seals, and I have a tim w. I don't have his full last name
there. And followed by curt johnson. >> thank you for having your ear.
I'm lynn sorrels. My husband and I have raised our children here. They have gone to school here,
uf. We've lived in the community and really enjoyed it. I decided to make a point from
the home owner's standpoint that when people come to gainesville, they come because they buy into take community.
they buy into a city. They buy into a neighborhood. I live in a really nice multicultural neighborhood right
here in the city limits. As most neighborhoods, I'm sure people enjoy the rhythm of the neighborhood.
I believe all people should have housing. I believe in affordable housing. But I don't think I believe
these coming into single-family neighborhoods is the answer. I guess I want to say I worry about the impact it could have
on single-family units, like traffic increase, decrease in property values, noise. I just would ask you to keep in
mind that when you're making your plans, the city planners, I believe that rather than using these quads or increased units
that maybe the future neighborhoods, the new constructions might be used to have many of these multiunits
and just that we could do more with new construction. We could do more with the limits -- the occupational
limits for housing as well. Many good points were made in that. So thank you for your time.
>> tim w. Followed by curt johnson followed by monique moss. >> greetings.
I live in the porters neighborhood. We just were visited last thursday at our neighborhood
meeting by the team here that started the presentation. They told us we didn't have any single-family zoning when I knew
my household is single-family zoning in the neighborhood. People say we assume that the students are going to be doing
these things. We don't have to assume. We have to assume. We have a mix of multifamily
housing and single-family housing in the neighborhood. The new developments that are happening, we're already seeing
the problems we're stating are assumptions. We see the keggers that happen all the time.
we see the people parking in our front yards because the developers didn't provide for enough parking for all the
people that are living in this house. It's interesting the proposal uses certain wordings, the
intentions of what's being proposed. They say things like exclusionary when they really
mean single family house protected. They say inclusionary when they really mean pro developer.
we're seeing the parking -- we're seeing the traffic even in the process of building these developments, the contracts are
ruining our roads, sidewalks. You can see the cracks. There's a claim this was made for affordable housing.
but during the presentation, there was no mention of I believe it's a 10% ratio. A 10% ratio on four units on a
quarter of your property is going to result in zero affordable housing units when eight might result in one.
that's all we could round up. Every time you state families, you don't mean families. You mean units.
when you increase it to four unrelated individuals, and I see many of the commissioners aren't paying attention to me, you
really mean four different students that can be rotated at any given time so that the developers can profit.
they are profiting on the houses and homes that we live in, and they are making us feel uncomfortable.
you say you need more density, well, that means we're going to be crowded. You say things are expensive
when you're actually telling us we're being greedy for having value in our homes that we live in.
you don't think of the crowding and value in having that space to live. >> mayor: appreciate it.
it's come up a couple of times. I just want to be clear that inclusionary zoning starting with an I, where you require
affordable housing and new development, that's not what we're discussing today, which is why it wasn't mentioned in the
presentation. We're going to take that up at a future meeting. Today it's about exclusionary
housing, zoning that excludes certain housing and development. That's why you haven't heard a discussion about that.
>> mr. Mayor, if I could clarify that, I think some people were speaking earlier saying they were unfair, exclusionary
housing. I want to be sure, exclusionary housing here takes away single-family housing.
>> mayor: we'll get -- those two are interchanged. I want to make clear when we are talking about exclusionary
schoening today, which would change in residential neighborhood. Inclusionary seasoning require
affordable housing. That's not what we're talking about today. We will at a future meeting.
thank you. >> curt johnson followed by monique moss followed by janie williams.
>> my name is curt johnson. I want to follow up on some points the previous person was mentioning, the wording that's
used and the pictures that are produced seem to be camouflaging the true intent, talking about -- juan was up here and
kept using the word home owners. We're going to do this for home owners. Home owners can split their lot.
most home owners, if they want to split the lot, it would be right down the middle of their house.
that is really for developers who will buy the cheapest houses they can find, which are mostly going to be in historic black
neighborhoods, for instance, because they can tear the house down. Then they can split the lot in
half and build two units. Presenting that as something for the home owners is deceptive. Quickly, I think there's been
some good cases made for raising it to four or five but there's a big swing between four and five. Someone said don't worry about
unlimited because we have to stay here to protect us. We have to rely on tallahassee to protect us from you folks.
this is a picture of a half acre lot. Using your setbacks we still have a buildable footprint of
17,550 square feet. Multiply that times three stories, which we're also allowing, divide that by 250
square feet per person, hundreds of people. I think if you allow something, the market forces which you're
relying on here, will find a way to use it. If you allow it, they will build it.
I think that is totally unnecessary. You don't need that many square feet to be buildable.
so I think the argument for setbacks is moot. I want to point out one thing in your plan says the neighborhood
should contain a diversity of housing, citizens and all ages. Yes, ideally, that would be true.
the inescapable reality is financial will preclude that from happening. I think you need to consider
tham. >> monique moss followed by janie williams followed by chris billy.
no monique moss? Janie williams. >> mayor: she spoke earlier. She was in the back and had the
bright print dress on. >> chris billy? Cody galligan. Are you chris?
okay. Followed by code galligan followed by -- [ inaudible ]
>> I wasn't planning on speaking but I do feel so moved. I came at this originally, I've been here since '94.
I own a house in porters I bought in 2004. I've been there every since. I used to be exactly like I
would say you guys in the sense of thinking we should upzone and create density. I always saw porters being like
a brooklyn, needing brownstones. That's what I hoped would happen, until I lived there. I started to kind of listen more
to my neighbors. Honestly, I even up until very recently I still thought, you know, we really need to densify,
densify, densify. I still believe that in some way. I started to hang out more to
use the verbiage of nimby opponents and I've been kind of convinced they are right. I don't think they are the bad
guys that I used to think they were. I think there's some anti-growth people, and I don't agree with
them. For the most part, I think we can grow gainesville from gainesville.
I don't think this is the right way to do it, but I think we have to do it. I think if we listen to
everybody here, we can grow from what we have. There is a real danger in allowing -- to run rampant.
they will obvious trample on what exists, what beauty we have here. So I think it's not going to be
easy. I think these things can be achieved through the community. For instance, I can't stand the
setbacks. I want to build on the side of my house. I can't.
why shouldn't I go to my neighbor and say, hey, can I build closer? If the neighbor says no, then,
you know, these are like -- these are things -- why aren't we doing this in I live in gainesville because we have
appear community. I love all you people up this. I've met most of you. All all awesome, including the
people back here now. I have no problem with all of you. Why don't we try to work this
out instead of blanket one size fits all thing, which scares people and I understand why. Money doesn't talk, it swears.
it's a bob dylan quote. It's the absolute truth. I want us to be talking, and I want us to build from the beauty
that is gainesville and the people here. That is our asset. It will get squashed if we don't
do it right. The state of florida is very pro land rights, so we have to be really careful with what we do.
>> mayor: thank you. >> cody galligan, lee and gina zetman and ronnie lauer. Nobody is here on that list?
ann hazily. -- brill followed bid esha brill followed by elizabeth hurst. >> I'm ann hazily.
I just really wrote and wasn't going to plan to speak but I have to say a few things, as usual.
the idea of turning our neighborhoods into little squash buckets of people with no room is just a way to lower the
values of our homes so that -- this has been said to me directly, personally by a commissioner several years ago,
and I spoke about it at that time at one of these meetings. At the time mayor poe instituted the plan of not allowing
clapping because I got a lot of collapse. He instituted the plan at that time instead of -- because
people complained, put your hands up and twiddle your fingers and don't clap. I spoke again.
the second time people still wanted to clap. They reached under the table underneath them and clapped
their hands, so they wouldn't be taken out by the police as the mayor had warned them. So what I did was I talked about
the direct conversation that I had with one of the commissioners, the man that said, yes, that's good if the
values of your oem goes down, even if your families worked very hard to develop that family value and money.
the reason is because then my wife and I can afford one of your homes when the prices go down.
that's been the plan for all these years, and that's still the plan. >> esha brill followed by
elizabeth hurst. Miss jean chalmers. >> miss hurst, go ahead. When your name is called, go
ahead and come up. >> good evening. I'm not going to speak about the issue because I'll just second
kim tanzer. We're so lucky to have a nationally renowned expert in the community.
so I just second professor tanzer's remarks. I want to make a couple of comments.
I'm a realtor. I've been doing this for 33 years. I used to have a long list of
people who wanted to move in from those places out west and return to a real city. There's no one on that list
anymore. People don't want to come because of an uglification of the town.
I want to complain about these awful, awful buildings that are going up. I know you feel you can't
control fdot, because they own the sidewalk and the street in front of them but you can. I promise you you can.
when I was a commissioner, we went up against fdot and we won. How could a city like vancouver where a 26-story building, for
every two stories you put on, you have to have a tree, or you have to dedicate a park. You have to do something to make
it beautiful. You go up one level, and you have to have it landscaped. The second level you have to
have chairs and umbrellas. Then you enter a lobby. It's a beautiful city. We are doing so many ugly things
in this city. I'm sure niederhauser isn't sleeping well. I would like you to be strong
and try to get some beauty back in this town. Thank you so much. You have a tough job, and we
appreciate you. >> miss hurst followed by christine coopman. >> good afternoon, mayor,
commissioners, my name is betsy elizabeth hurst. I was born years ago in alachua hospital.
I grew up in gainesville. I call gainesville my home. I've been lucky to live in beautiful places in this country
and other countries, pre-covid, I admit. I had a hard time deciding to come today because I joined the
hopeless. I didn't think I would. I've been extremely active with the county city commission
school board since 1989 dedicating quite a bit of my life and my time usa I cared and I wanted to make this community
better. I loved growing up with the creek system, tree canopy, the parks, and I frankly agree with
what jean chalmers just said. I have been appalled. Even my open son, who is 30 years younger, has reached that
point. I have been disgusted with the highrises, the lack of planning, the lack of walkability, the
lack of tree canopy p gainesville used to be inviting. It was a community people wanted to move to.
we had a culture, funky buildings. We had the swamp. We had the st. Francis house,
almost 100-year-old building. I can't even find a place to park. I have a bad back.
I have a a terrible time driving around gainesville right now. I take all my routes to figure out which way is the least
painful. This community would be a better place. Imin special ed, I've worked as
a psychologist. What you are building is not affordable. I've spoken to some of you in
the past. It's not. We have torn down affordable housing, we could still have a
community before it's gone. Gainesville was a great place to grow up. I hope it can continue to be a
better town. I hope all of you will think very hard. I know I hear you talk about
affordable housing, and there are lots of ways to do it. There's lots of other choices and still keep this a nice
community. Thank you very much. >> our last speaker thus far is christine coopman.
>> e-mail the last. I'm not going to speak about the housing. I'm not going to speak about the
neighborhoods. Everybody here is so smart, so educated, so well prepared. I would like to talk about how
offended I am by your sanctimonious announcement that single-family housing is racist. How dare you.
how dare you presume that all of us who enjoy our neighborhoods, enjoy our homes, that we are inherently racist.
I'm offended. I'm offended that commissioner saco was so frightened to be in the room of so many people that
she fled to her office and couldn't even sit here in front of us -- because she's afraid of the number of people that may
have opposition to her. I'm offended that you, mayor poe, that you call me racist. >> mayor: I have never called
you racist, ma'am. >> you said single-family housing is racist. >> mayor: no.
>> it was written and printed in the paper. It was printed in the "gainesville sun."
>> mayor: no, ma'am. >> I just want you to know that we are homeowners. We worked hard for this.
we love this city. But to have you preach to us about what you think we should be doing, I think the very first
speaker said it very clearly. We need some balance and we're not sure that you're really listening, that we know that you
are embracing the new american city model. We know that the study that we paid for, a lot of money with
the people from new york compared us to minneapolis and portland. We're not minneapolis.
we're not portland. We're gainesville, florida. We are a unique city. And I think we are honorable.
and I do know that we are not inherently racist just because we own our own homes. Thank you.
>> do you want me to go back through? >> mayor: sure. >> reesha brell, one last call.
cody galigan. Lee and gina zetland, ronnie lauer, jamie s. Williams, monique moss, amelia hall.
okay. Just kidding. Jane morrowski, terry torkelson, john kuegler, larry rimer,
melanie barr, jackie davis, sherry hughes, nicolle courtis, scott parker, and jenny boymer. >> I have a question.
>> mayor: okay, thank you. >> I have a question. Are you going to read the things of the people who --
>> mayor: the clerk will put everything into the record, yeah. We'll get copies of all that.
thank you all for taking the time this afternoon to come down here, share your thoughts with us.
of course, if you chose not to speak today but you still want to share some ideas or perspectives with us, you can do
that via the e-comment or emailing us or phoning or whatever your preferred method of communication is.
still plenty of time to do that, but we do appreciate you taking the time this afternoon. So we are going to now turn to
members of the city commission to ask any follow-up questions or share their thoughts. Again, this is a workshop today
so there will be no motions made or voted on. But we can give direction to our staff for any follow-up that we
might like to see based on that conversation. So we'll start with commissioner hayes-santos.
>> thank you, mayor. And I'm sorry. >> mayor: commissioner hayes-santos, madam clerk.
[inaudible] >> mayor: very good, thank you. Go ahead, commissioner. >> thank you, mayor.
and I printed out my thoughts. The clerk has them. Okay. My kind of thoughts are on the
table there. I want to thank you all for speaking and sharing your thoughts.
I certainly do appreciate it. I have lived here since 1990 -- is when my mom moved here to go to the zoo technology program at
santa fe college. Pretty much been here ever since. I have lived north, south, west,
east in all different portions of our city. I have lived in malone, simpleton apartments, I have
lived in single-family homes, I have lived in duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes. Single-family homes with
roommates and have not had roommates. I have lived in homes that are 120 years old and I have lived
in newer homes. I love our city and it's a city with a diverse housing. But the status quo is not
working. We have to look at how we can make adjustments to that. We have a housing supply issue.
there is not enough housing available in our city to meet the increases in our population. Last year, our area population
increased by 6,000 people which means that we would have had to build 2,400 new homes just to meet the demand of new people
moving here. We are in essence running out of developable land inside the city.
that's why you're seeing all these great spaces in the city kind of going away because there's not much left.
I think someone mentioned there was one lot left in their neighborhood. Many neighborhoods there's not
many empty lots available and that's why you're seeing an incredible amount of sprawl happening to the west because
that's where available land is. I hate sprawl. I think it's the worst thing possible.
and people mention orlando and atlanta and other cities like that. Those are cities that just --
those are kind of horrible sprawling cities. I don't want gainesville to be a horrible sprawling city like the
rest of florida. They have just built single-family homes in urban development.
and I am more supportive of protecting our environmental land and keeping that natural where you can have bears and
foxes and other things going around. And then develop inside the city where we are having people in
keeping the animals and people separate. That's why I believe we should look for infill in the city and
this will help make our city more affordable. I believe the proposals are balanced and an incremental
approach. We call ourselves a welcoming city, something we take a lot of pride in.
but we need to take action with that and we need to have housing available for new people moving here.
we're also seeing climate refugees. We're seeing heat waves across the world and we're already
seeing refugees coming from the florida coastal areas moving to the inland. We are going to see a
significant amount of people moving from between orlando and probably lake city in the core of our state and moving from the
coast as sea levels rise over the next 40 years. That is a reality. And we have to be ready for
that. It can't just put our head in the sand and pretend that climate change isn't happening,
because it is. And we are going to be the place where those refugees are going to come.
I first want to be clear that this will not affect many historic neighborhoods, the density and the neighborhood
multi-family. It will not affect pleasant street, porters quarters, 5th avenue and the majority of the
duval neighborhood. I also say the changes before us are in line with the biden administration's proposals.
this is what he is saying we need to do as a city to help make our cities more affordable. He's asking all municipalities
around the country and counties to put in proposals like this to help deal with our national housing supply issue.
these proposals are supported by progressives like a.o.c., senator booker, senator warren, among many other progressive
policy makers in our country. There's also proposals to give cities in biden's proposal, give cities who enact these types of
proposals more money for affordable housing. Cities who actually make these changes will give more federal
dollars. Cities who don't won't. So we can make our city more affordable and we'll get those
federal housing dollars that have been spoken of if we make changes. We have to make those changes to
be able to get those dollars. I also want to make a clarification, kind of that none of these proposals will stop
someone from building a single-family home. If you want one, you still can. If you have a single-family, no
one is stopping you from living in that single-family home. You can keep your property how you want it.
let's see. Another person said in neighborhoods that have multi-family, you can't know
your neighborhoods. I grew up many years living in multi-family, I played in the streets and I knew my neighbors.
it's not about the type of housing. It's being a welcoming person and I think you can even find
meeting neighbors no matter in a single-family home or multi-family home. As a commission, we have to do
what is best for our city. Even if there are hard choices. The status quo is not working and inaction is not an option.
getting to the proposals that are in front of us, the land use portion I believe that we should move to the residential land
use. And the reason why moving to that land use of the two questions of the neighborhood
residential land use or residential low that staff is asking us to make a decision on is because that's the same land
use that is in residential conservation zoning. And the residential conservation zoning is what is mainly used in
our historically black neighborhoods. Fifth avenue, pleasant street and duval.
and I think that we should not have -- in the past, we have created separate land uses for historically white areas and I
don't think that's appropriate. I think we should have the same. When it comes to the zoning density, neighborhood
residential zoning should have the same density as residential conservation zoning r.c. Which I mentioned before is in pleasant
street, duval and fifth avenue. Historically black areas of town shouldn't have to have higher density than historically white
neighborhoods. Currently, pleasant street, fifth avenue, duval and porters quarters neighborhoods have a
higher departments than historically white neighborhoods in town. That's not fair and that's why
you're seeing more development in those neighborhoods. And that pressure. We need to change that incentive
around making it a level playing field with our historic neighborhoods. I believe we need to set the
neighborhood residential zoning set at a max of 12 units per acre which would be the exact same as a residential
conservation zoning that we see in pleasant street, fifth avenue and in a portion of the duval neighborhood.
I also think that we should have the neighborhood residential zoning, the minimum lot size the same for all uses.
I believe we should go with option 2 on the bedroom multiplier section that we remove the bedroom multiplier.
I also believe that we should allow cottage, bungalow and tiny home neighborhoods. This is allowed in the county
and in the kind of pictures on the back it shows you what kind of tiny home neighborhood or cottage neighborhood may look
like and allows more diverse housing options. For the neighborhood scale multi-family development
section, I think we should have the building height for those small scale multi-family at the same height restriction as the
neighborhood around it. That would keep it the same scale. I do hear there are other
commissioners who want to keep it at two floors and I'm open to that for sure. I also want to bring up the u-1
single-family zoning district that is not being discussed but it is a single-family zoning district.
it is not zoned on any lot in the city, but it is in our zoning code and I believe we should make changes to it while
we're making changes to other ones. We should change that zoning to 12 units per acre for the same
reason I said before, residential conservation that's in our historically black neighborhoods should be the same
zoning in the other neighborhoods. I also think we should allow small scale neighborhood family
as allowed use in the u-1 neighborhoods. Getting to another transect zone, I see some pictures in
here. This is not in any single-family zoning area. I want to make that sure.
this is the u-4 and u-7 transect zones that I believe we should allow individual row houses and townhouses to create another
form of missing middle housing and u-4 and u-7 should have zero foot interior setbacks. Right now, townhomes are
inherently more affordable. In 2021, the average single-family home in gainesville msa sold for
$299,600. While the average townhome sold for $147,500 during the same period.
our code currently allows large scale developers to build row houses and townhomes in these zoning districts but doesn't
allow a homeowner, one person, to build one row house. This doesn't make sense. Also many of the historic
structures in these zoned areas have zero foot setbacks already. I believe that we should move forward with the changes that I
have proposed and that staff has brought forward and that we should schedule an ordinance hearing in july.
the mayor should schedule one for a special meeting at that point. Thank you, mayor.
>> mayor: thank you. Commissioner ward. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. And thank you to those of you
that have been willing to sit through this and are still here. I don't know about y'all, but I'm exhausted.
there's a lot to talk about here. I will start off as I started an email that I use to respond to
everyone who contacted me in the last week or two. If all you need to know is whether I support removing
single-family or not, the answer is no, I don't. There's a lot of nuance there. There's a lot of reasoning
behind that that I'll go into some of now. If not, it's up on facebook and some of you have it in email
format right now. We need to start all these discussions, I believe, with a question of what problem is it
we're trying to solve. Some of us have an assumption that the problem we're trying to solve is current affordable
housing as well as affordable housing five, 10, 20 years down the road -- a generation or two ahead.
it is absolutely true that building patterns that were created in the 1970s and 1980s in our city and which
were widely celebrated created sprawl and created lots of very uncomfortable things that we are now I won't say stuck with, but
are what we deal with right now. Some of those are good. Some of those are not so good. I have been told we shouldn't be
planning for who's going to live here in 20 years. Well, we have to. That's part of the job.
when you don't do that, you're leaving the job undone. We also have to govern for people who are here right now.
we have -- our planning staff has done a tremendous job of putting together a lot of detail and had some exceptionally good
ideas. What we haven't done is made the case throughout the community of exactly why we are doing this.
we said here are the things, we're going to do these things and a case is made against doing those things primarily out of
discomfort for what's going to happen with those things and why we should do them. I used to be in sales and I
spent a lot of time in fund-raising. And what we have here is a classic example of selling
features and not benefits. We need to make sure people understand the benefits of something before we say we're
going to do it. We didn't do that. And that's nobody's fault because it isn't really
anybody's job to do that. Our planning department has done -- our sustainable development has done a remarkable job of
laying out what's possible and what arguably ought to be done, but I believe that a rip the band-aid off approach is the
wrong way to approach this. And that's why I don't support it. I would have liked to see us
spend four hours this afternoon and lots of other meetings talking about very specific tools in our toolkit that can
address affordable housing more quickly. The most ardent supporters of what we're talking about this
afternoon would generally agree it's not going to add a lot of housing quickly. It's a slow growth approach.
it's something that I believe would probably add good affordable housing opportunities in a generation or two, over the
course of a generation or two. But we can't prove that. We also can't prove that it will be a disaster.
I don't think it will be. But there's this big chunk of folks in the middle who kind of like me think, well, there's a
lot we could work on that does reach the goals that we're trying to reach now. And we talked a fair bit about
some of those things in other meetings. We just haven't talked about it today.
so we should always be starting with what problem are we trying to solve instead of assuming that everyone agrees that we're
trying to solve the same problem because that clearly is not the case. A lot of folks know and believe
that we're trying to solve a problem and then a whole lot of other folks are thinking but what does that do to my property
value. I hear that. I understand. And that's why I don't support
that. I'll move on to another thing. With occupancy limits, that question again, what problem are
we trying to solve by having occupancy limits? I think the problem we're trying to solve -- and I grew up here,
so I was around, I think, when we implemented some of those limits. I was a kid, but I remember
hearing about them on tv and reading about it in the paper. I think we're trying to solve noise and garbage issues.
I think. But I don't really know what we're trying to solve with those because they have been on the
books for a long time. Just because something has been on the books doesn't mean it should stay on the books.
I would like a more robust conversation about that, but it has to start with what are we trying to solve.
and I think that what we're trying to solve is noise and disruption. Maybe there's a different way to
solve that because it is absolutely true that occupancy limits are not enforced because they are impossible to enforce.
we're not going to go do bed checks. We don't do it already. We're not going to start doing
it, nor should we. So we can contend this is a thing that works or we can be honest with ourselves and
consider some other things. I think probably we could achieve a solution to the problem that we're trying to
solve of noise and garbage by better funding code enforcement and by giving party patrols at gpd a little bit more funding
and direction. But I don't know. These are things we need to think about and talk about.
I understood in lot splits, I have had local folks, small-time developers -- developer is not a bad word by the way.
we all, most of us, live in a home that was built by a developer of some sort. I do.
I think most of us do. Mr. Filly is a developer. There are local good folks trying to do good things with
small pieces of land and we need to do something to empower those folks. I'd like to see us be able to do
that. One of the ways is considering how we deal with lot splits. I have heard from folks that
that is a problem. One of the things I was hoping for is we would have some folks here today to talk about that
who have personally experienced it. I'm not a builder. It would be great to hear from
those folks. I was hoping that we would have some of them here or at least, you know, have them write in to
be specific about their concerns instead of just having staff bring solutions. It's always good to have folks
from the community who have experienced the problem come in and talk about their experience as well as folks who just oppose
it because. There's a lot to think about. We still have true city u.s.a. Designation.
our tree canopy is robust. The first or second highest percentage of trees in florida, it moves around.
but if you look at pictures from the 1970s of big chunks of gainesville like, say, downtown, there are no trees.
we have added a whole lot of trees. There are places trees have been taken down and I miss it every
time they get taken down. But we have also added a lot of trees in other places. So let's not spread that untruth
because we do have that designation still. I want to also hit another item. The biomass plant, deerhaven
renewables is our least expensive source of energy right now and has been for a good little while.
we have been paying about 3.5 cents a kilowatt for energy production in that. That's an important thing that
folks need to know. We talked earlier about a very confusing titles of all this stuff.
exclusionary zoning, that sounds like something nobody wants to do but you don't know what it really means.
you have to remind yourself what it actually is over and over. Inclusionary zoning is an entirely different thing.
we shouldn't use them in the same presentation, but they are different things. I'm glad we're going to have a
different discussion about inclusionary zoning. We haven't established exactly what we're trying to accomplish
and gotten buy-in from the community. Thank you, mr. Mayor. >> mayor: thank you.
commissioner arreola. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. What we are trying to accomplish is to create more mixed income
added throughout gainesville. That is the benefit of passing these ordinances. I also want to be very clear
because I think there is a lot of confusion going on. We are talking about small scale multi-family housing.
we are not talking about large high-rises in neighborhoods. And as I have spent the better part of the last two and a half
months talking door to door with people about what this all means, I think there are a lot of people who are interested in
having this conversation. And I think what they want to know is how can I be certain about what is going to change in
my neighborhood. There are plenty of limitations being put into these ordinances. The most important thing that I
want to get across today, I support the recommendations and I support the additions from my colleague, but there is one
thing that every time I express it, it gets almost unanimous support from neighbors. And that is a two-story limit
for the neighborhood scale multi-family. I think that this is an appropriate measure to take.
I think that it sets a great example. And I think that it reflects what you see mostly in
gainesville. And most people aren't building three stories anyway. Single-family housing is not
being eliminated. In fact, with these recommendations, you can now build single-family housing on
smaller lots that you previously could not. What we are going to do, I hope, is we are going to end the
wealthy monopoly of one type of zoning across this city. And I have heard people say, well, why don't we try this in
this neighborhood or why don't we try this in that neighborhood. That would only lead to complete
inequality. The only equitable thing to do is to not give special treatment and to not give carve-outs.
this has to be equitable across the city. I am very glad to see support on the commission for removing the
unrelated persons limitation. I have always found that to be discriminative. And I believe that this is going
to change the status quo for housing in gainesville. Like everyone up here, I grew up here.
I have -- actually when I was a kid, my parents left, brought me back and then I left for college and then came back.
and we are choosing to live here just like everybody else. The census has shown us a lot more people are choosing to live
here, too for various different reasons. Some of it I have heard from individuals.
some of it has to do with climate change. Some of it has to do with the fact they like living here.
gainesville has more to offer now than it ever has before. But we have a problem. We have a problem with housing
supply. And that takes time. It cannot be fixed with a magic wand.
it does take time to fix. The ending of exclusionary zoning is not a silver bullet. It is one piece of the puzzle
that we have to tackle to make housing affordable and available for all. And that is the most important
thing -- that there are more housing options available to more income levels all throughout our city.
if there was one comment that came up about short-term vacation rentals. This commission, actually we
were writing an ordinance and passed an ordinance to regulate short-term vacation rentals. The very next week tallahassee
passed a law that said no city can have any regulation over any short-term vacation rentals. I believe airbnb helped write
that law. [laughter] so what I would say to folks -- because I get calls all the time
about complaints. If you are in my district, I'm willing to reach out to those companies because they always
say we want complete customer satisfaction in all the neighborhoods and I put them to the test on that.
so I really appreciate everyone coming to express their thoughts. Whether we agree or disagree,
that's the nature of a democratic society. It means a lot to me that we have the opportunity to have
these discussions in the public because in many countries we don't. Thank you.
>> mayor: thank you. Commissioner saco. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. I think I want to start off with
I think one of our neighbors misunderstood why I had to leave my office. I am visiting -- rather, I am
having family visit me who are in their 80s and 90s and I'd rather not put a dozen very elderly folks in danger by being
in a room with unmasked people of uncertain vaccination status. I'm trying to take care of my family and that's why I'm in my
office trying to still do my job. As for the actual topic, I will agree briefly that I do support
removing the three unrelated person cap. Just a few short years ago in law school, you don't make a lot
of money and you have a lot of expenses. And you can't find a lot of places affordable with people
your own age that want a quiet place to be. A lot of folks tried to rent out homes, but it would get capped
at three and it made it really difficult and more expensive for young people to really start I don't want to say adulting, but
moving forward. I think lifting that cap lets folks have roommates of their choice in homes of their choice.
that way they have a little bit more control over their personal finances and where they can go. They aren't just limited to one
of those bedrooms in a by the bed apartment building. That gives a lot of freedom of choice back to our neighbors.
as for the bigger topic at hand, I will support it. And that is all I will say on that because I think plenty has
been said tonight. Thank you, mr. Mayor. >> mayor: thank you. Commissioner chestnut.
>> thank you, mr. Mayor. I have a few questions and then I have some comments. I think mr. Castillo started out
with 63% of city single-family -- city zoned for single-family housing, correct? What is the occupancy rate
there? Of that 63%, how much of it is already occupied? Single-family occupied.
>> mayor: for those watching at home, there's a discussion going on between mr. Persons and mr. Castillo to try to get the
number right. >> is my question clear? >> I believe so. It sounds like you are wanting
-- so the two questions, what percent single -- >> so in gainesville, would you say that 40% of our housing is
single-family occupied and 60% student occupied? >> I'm sorry. >> would you say that is pretty
close to it? >> mr. Mayor, we are roughly about -- like roughly about 60% renter, 40% owner occupied.
>> that's what I wanted. 60% and 40% or 39%. So, mr. Persons, if you could stay at the podium for just a
moment. Thank you. I think that when you give a report, that is a very important
distinction to make in any report you give. When you talk about single-family housing, thank
you. Dr. Jenny mauer mentioned something disturbing and I'd like to get some clarity on it
because it has racist overtones. She said that there's a single-family deed covenants and I think she said you commented
on it at some point. >> perhaps they are referring to deed restrictions in the public record.
can I answer any questions about that? >> well, I wish she was still here.
oh, there she is. Okay, there she is. Mr. Mayor, would you allow her to come back to the podium?
because I'd like to get some clarity on this very issue. >> mayor: yeah, that will be fine.
>> yeah. >> well, I'm not advocating. >> I know, I know. >> okay.
what is the question? >> well, the question is, these deed covenants for single-family housing, you're saying that
these still exist in gainesville? >> oh, heavens yes. Yes.
in fact, I'm pretty sure that the plat that my house is on -- that would be a significant neighborhood -- probably -- I
know there's still language. The question is, are they enforceable or not? We know the racial and
nationality ones are not. But the restrictions to single-family housing, you have to deal with that one way or
another. Either you exclude that or you don't exclude it. And you've got one set of
problems if you do and a different set of problems if you don't. And if you don't already know
exactly what you think of that, then this needs a great deal more analysis and research. >> all right, okay.
>> mr. Mayor, could I -- >> mayor: yeah. >> could I add to that? So there are deed restrictions
in the city of gainesville in a lot of neighborhoods. Some are expired. Some are still, you know, in
effect. Those are private arrangements. They do not change the city's ability to zone property, to
issue building permits. They are essentially civil contracts between other people who own property in the plat.
so any sort of enforcement of those restrictions, you know, with a large majority of those would come from one private
property owner in that plat against another. But the city wouldn't be party to it.
it's not something that -- we are sort of separate on those issues. >> all right.
thank you, thank you. Okay. >> mayor: well, okay, if you want to go on --
>> yeah, I do want to continue. >> mayor: I will defer to the commissioner here. >> we will discuss it later.
thank you, thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Growing up in tallahassee, my mother always said to me learn
the rules of the game. And when you learn the rules of the game, then you can walk in on your own merit.
no special exceptions. And so one of the rules was to get an education. A second one was to buy a home
because that's the american dream. As an african-american, you will use your home to build
generational wealth. That's why single-family homes are so important. That's why you heard the people
from azalea neighborhood talk and speak about that so because that's -- they received the same amount of information.
that's what they worked for -- to own that home and build that wealth so they can pass it on to their children.
and that is how we will get ahead. But when I ran for the city commission, it was on
neighborhood preservation. And neighborhood preservation to me means maintaining single-family neighborhoods
because that is where people have their property. That's where they have their worth.
so I think that today we have only just begun to hear from people. And I appreciate the four hours
we have spent because this has been very enlightening. And I think this is only the second meeting we have really
had to discuss exclusionary zoning. I think what we have discovered today is that people want more
information. So I'm not ready to support the recommendation from staff. I'm not ready to support the
recommendations from my colleague because I don't think we have enough information. I just want to comment on a few
things that people said. Jane berman holton brought up a very important point. She said the comprehensive plan,
we don't need to rush into this at this point. That there's no need for the rush -- for us to move with all
deliberate speed to change gainesville, change what we are doing because the comprehensive plan, as she said, is not due
really until '24, '26. Peggy carr talked about the environmental degradation that will occur here.
we haven't taken the time to look at the environmental impact of this massive zoning change. The infrastructure has not been
evaluated. Then we have not -- I think dr. Tanzer raised an important point.
and I think it's one that we should look at in terms of looking at affordable housing. When she said that the city
should look at the property that it already owns and perhaps that's where we could do a pilot to begin to address affordable
housing. The power district, that we have the property. So I think what needs to happen
is we need to look at how we can take the property that we already own to a public-private partnership to experience in
terms of getting affordable housing out to the people. That is why it is so important to be able to earmark the arpa
dollars so that we would have dollars for which to do that with in terms of getting affordable housing.
I think that we need to have more workshops with our neighbors because I think people are just beginning to understand
what's going on. To have this room filled to capacity today and the downstairs filled with capacity,
people, our neighbors are quite concerned. They are in fear of what this commission is about to do to
their property. And one reason they are in fear of it is because of the bert harris law.
it is my understanding if this passes, it will take an act of congress to undo it. It is just so devastating.
and it's so devastating to this community, we need to take our time, move cautiously. There may be some who are
concerned with creating a legacy or making their mark on housing. But I think that this is not the way to proceed.
I think it is unfortunate -- it is quite unfortunate that single-family housing and the word racist are used in the same
context. Because single-family owners, housing owners are not inherently racist.
I am a single-family owner. I'm not a racist. And I think that we definitely need to uncouple those terms.
at this point, I think that we need to proceed with continuing listening, hearing from our neighbors, knowing that there is
no need to rush to amend the comprehensive plan at this point because this commission doesn't need to do that.
perhaps the next commission should look at it for '24, '26 but we should not put our community at risk because people
want to leave a legacy. A legacy that we make our neighbors and proceed in an affordable housing plan with the
dollars that the biden administration has passed on to us. Now, I don't think that if
president biden was to look at gainesville, I think they would be disappointed to hear that the racist term and the
single-family homeowner are in the same sentence, that's one. I think he would say to us you need to look at the community
and listen to your citizens. And if you've got people coming out to discuss this, you need to provide more opportunities for
them to discuss it. But that you do not need to move with all deliberate speed and destroying their neighborhood as
they know it and destroying the community as they know it. Thank you. >> mayor: thank you.
commissioner duncan-walker. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. I jotted down several notes throughout the course of our
neighbors speaking to us. And I just want to, first of all, start by saying thank you to all of you who took the
opportunity to come out today and express your concerns. They are legitimate concerns. Every single person that stood
up and spoke today expressed a legitimate concern. And there were some things that just kind of resonated with me
in terms of some of the words that I heard used today. I heard the word "heritage" used.
I heard "equality" used. I heard "jobs" used. I heard businesses and east gainesville and food deserts and
affordable housing and so many other words that we should indeed be focusing on. When I ran, I ran on the
platform of equitable development. And when our city manager was pulling together the framework
for affordable housing, I asked that definition be included. And I ask that it be included for a very specific reason.
and it is because equitable development allows for each community to be considered and brought to the table and
developed equitably. We say the equity is important to us. And this very commission
committed, I believe, a couple of years ago to a racial equity toolkit. And I believe several hundreds
of thousands of dollars were spent on that, and that was great. Inside of that was a toolkit for
equitable development. And I made mention of it before. I know we have not necessarily been using -- we're not dealing
with gare any more. We have not utilized the tools therein. But they still belong to us.
and those are things that I do not believe we should abandon. The environmental protection agency has resources that I
think we could benefit from. And frankly shake some policy around because I am a little uncomfortable with piecemealing
decisions like this. I think it's important for us as a body to not just say that equity is important to us, but
to show that it's important to us. And I think you do that through the creation of policy.
but the environmental protection agency has a particular tool for creating equitable healthy and sustainable communities.
strategies for advancing smart growth, environmental justice, and equitable development. And I think that's part of what
I've been hearing in here today -- the marriage of all of those components. They could potentially move us
toward the affordable housing that we know that we need, that would move us toward being able to maintain single-family
zoning. And all of the other things that our community members in here have addressed.
my problem right now is that we don't have a plan. We don't have a plan. And I appreciate staff for
bringing this forward, but right now I am uncomfortable with this. The level of analysis that I
believe needs to be put into this, I don't yet see. I would love to see us not just continue these conversations,
but I would love to see us do that in a very meaningful and intentional way in terms of allowing our neighbors input to
be implemented. I sound a little dangerous, but I think that's what we are looking at.
I don't know whether it's an equity analysis. I'm not sure whether it's an equitable development framework.
I feel the city manager getting tight. [laughter] and that's okay.
that's okay. At the end of the day, what I'm suggesting is that these types of decisions that have long-term
impact, immediate impact but also long-term impact -- I want to be sure that we think very, very long and hard about and
that we hear meaningfully from our neighbors. This strategy that I mentioned from the epa, in that they
practice meaningful community engagement. There were sessions where the community had a chance not just
to come in and say what they don't want, but there were visioning processes where they got to say this is the
gainesville that we want to see. And I think right now that's the piece that we're missing. And I don't believe we need to
miss that. And perhaps that's a part of your plan. I see you.
[laughter] and that would be wonderful if it is. >> mr. Mayor, if I might
respond. >> mayor: let's wait until the commissioner is done and then I'll certainly recognize you.
>> sure, sure. >> thank you. Madam manager, I hope that is what you are going to say.
but at any rate, equitable development is something that I want this commission to reach back to.
we have a toolkit. We have a framework or at least some tools that have already been provided for us and
something that we paid for. And I think we don't need to ignore it. I think as we move forward, that
should be one of the principles that propels us forward in all of the decisions that we make that are development oriented.
I'll sum up my comments by saying I just I believe we need some sort of overarching policy or guide that helps us to make
these decisions. And it should be equity. That equity should be racial. That equity should be social.
that equity can be applied in a number of different ways. But if equity is not meaningfully applied in these
decisions, we're going to end up with a gainesville that a lot of us will not benefit from, that a lot of us will not like, and
that a lot of us won't want to live in or be able to live in. And that's certainly not what I want to see.
thank you. >> mayor: thank you. Madam manager, did you want to jump in there?
>> yes, mr. Mayor. I think the overarching piece, commissioner duncan-walker, that you may be looking for is, in
fact, the comp plan that the city has been working on prior to my even coming to the city. Mr. Persons can step forward.
but I believe that it is a comp plan that covers all of the elements of a sustainable community, if you will.
and it is based on equity. I know it is still moving. It had a very serious community engagement process around it
with visioning. I mean I saw the schedule of community engagement meetings that took place.
I was here for the presentation before the commission. I know that process still needs to go through some other steps.
but I believe that plan, if you will, has been presented to the commission. It covers almost every element
of what makes a community an equitable healthy sustainable community. And it had the involvement of
the office of equity and inclusion. >> mayor: correct. >> and it is based on equity.
so you may want to just expand on that since it was a process that took place prior to my coming.
and I do know that is what the commission is already aware of. >> you did an excellent job for the record.
but, right, the comprehensive plan specifically as it relates to equitable development and then, you know, it is the sort
of overarching plan for the city. Its intent is really to help guide decision making.
and as we have sort of talked about a little bit, the comprehensive plan that the city has been working on the past
year or so is baking equity in to the core foundation of it. Equity issues and concerns are in every chapter.
it is the direction of the commission for us and staff to produce a plan, a comprehensive plan that's very different than
what we have today, that has -- that takes into account social and environmental justice concerns that we simply don't
have in our existing plan and haven't as a community for a very long time. So I think that is the sort of
guiding framework because it both has a decision-making component to help the commission make decisions as well as staff.
but it also sets priorities for how we spend public dollars for funding. It's a legal document in the
state of florida, so it has a lot of benefits for that being the sort of overarching plan. >> thank you very much for that.
and I'm actually glad to hear that because I remember speaking with you about that, mr. Persons, when it was not a part
of that. So I'm glad to know it has been implemented. >> yes.
>> and I know it was prior to the interim manager's arrival. I remember also asking that we have a very clear and concise
definition for equitable development. I see that has been included. I will still say I believe there
is room for us to dig a little deeper. >> always. >> always, you're right.
I think if equitable development were at the core of us doing business, then this presentation today would have been a little
different. So that's one of the reasons that I mentioned that. I need us to move from just
talking about it. So with that being said, I'm looking forward to more meaningful engagement.
I'm looking forward to hearing more community members. Your degree doesn't necessarily mean that's the only thing that
qualifies you. But living in a community and knowing what it is that you and your family need, as you look
into it. So I'm grateful to hear that it's there. I want to see it applied.
and I'll go ahead and stop there. Thank you. >> mayor: thank you.
thank you, madam manager. Before I go back around to everybody for a second opportunity to speak, I've been
around big difficult issues. This is one of them. I have learned there's an important issue.
everything is moving too slowly. And if you oppose the issue, you're rushing it. That's been consistent depending
on what side of the issue you're on and how you support it. We cannot say we're rushing this issue.
it has been something that we have been working and focused on for years now. And it is absolutely rooted in
equity and equitable development. That is why we are doing this. The status quo has led to abject
in our community. The status quo is not working. I agree with my colleagues and members of the public who have
pointed out this is not a panacea. It's not as if the commission passes this and within six
months we're going to see the affordable housing crisis disappear. That's not going to happen.
it's going to be very gradual and incremental change over a long period of time. Because most people that live in
single-family neighborhoods are going to stay there. And even if somebody decides to move out or, you know, moves
into assisted living, the cost of razing a house -- buying it and then destroying it and building something new make the
economics unlikely to work out. But it will over time allow more families to choose where they live in our city and what kind
of housing they want to live in. And, you know, I guess we've all given our anecdotes from our youth in this conversation and
that's good. That grounds us. I have lived in all these kinds of houses as well around the
city. I've been as poor as one can get while still being housed. I've been homeless.
I've been so poor I was not able to afford a home for many months. But I remember one particular
house -- and it just brought me a lot of joy. It still is in fifth avenue. It was originally a
single-family home. And then at some point it got converted to four apartments, four small apartments.
so my brother and his roommate lived in one of them. A married couple lived upstairs in one of them.
a single guy lived upstairs and another couple of guys lived downstairs. All in this one house.
and it was a great place to live. None of them owned a car. They were able to get to work
and to school. They loved their neighborhood. They were active participants. And that is illegal to build
right now. It offered an opportunity for all of those people to live in a place and in a situation that
brought them joy and kept them safe and connected to their community. And it's illegal to build right
now. So I don't want this commission or the next to see us taking action on this and in my opinion
hopefully passing it as the solution to all the problems. We've got to dedicate much more of our money toward public
housing. And I agree. One of the things I'm most disappointed in my tenure is the
lack of movement in the power district. That has created an opportunity and I am so so disappointed that
we have started and stopped so many times. But that opportunity remains. We've got to use our public
money for public-private partnerships to create that significantly affordable housing for the 80% and below ami folks.
we have got to continue to find ways to invest more and more money in our community land trust.
we have got to look at how we can preserve an existing housing stock. All of those are part of a
framework that the city manager put together and hired mr. Harris or our housing expert, our senior housing strategist to
implement. But when you take 63% of the residential area in our city and disqualify it from anything, but
the most exclusive type of development, you are never going to be able to get -- plus you can continue very exclusive
housing patterns. Literally within a stone's throw -- I mean if I have like an 8-ounce rock, I can hit the roof
of three houses from my driveway that are all vacant. That does nothing for my neighborhood.
that adds no value to my neighborhood. Certainly adds value to people that own them.
but they have been vacant for years. I so, so wish that those were two-family homes where families
of modest means and their children could live there, could go to, in my opinion, the best school in the city -- carolyn
beatrice parker, I'm biased. That they could live within biking or transit distance to the major job hubs in our city.
that's not legal right now. It's illegal for that to exist in our city. So we do benefit from more
diverse housing stock to create more diverse neighborhoods. This is one but an important step in that direction.
so I encourage us to continue having the neighborhood outreach meetings, madam manager. The folks that are interested in
this are very interested and will continue to participate. And I fully intend to work with the clerk to schedule two
meetings in july, two special meetings where this will be the only item up for discussion to continue to move this forward.
our city must take these modest but important steps if we are to allow for, as commissioner duncan-walker often reminds us
-- and I'm thankful for that -- that we've got to take the action through policy to make sure we're equitable and not
just talk about it. That to me is exactly the next step we need to take. We'll go back around.
and then, of course, again we're taking no action today. So we do have another item on our agenda, believe it or not,
that has to do with -- I think just a recap of the workshop. So that I think will be brief. Commissioner hayes-santos.
>> thank you, mayor. Commissioner duncan-walker, you brought up a great point about equity being a part of this.
and that's why when we hired the consultant for this and we asked to look at inclusionary zoning and bring back the
recommendations that are before us, we asked them that equity be at the core. That was our direction -- that
they look at equity and have an equity lens of looking at exclusionary zoning and that they look at that equity.
that's what we are seeing today. I do want to kind of clarify things. I know we can't make a motion
but I think staff wants clear direction. I believe there are four votes for this.
the mayor call special meetings in july when we get back to hold the ordinance's readings, that we move forward with staff
recommendations with a couple of changes, the proposed changes I brought forward. And accept that we include
commissioner arreola's proposal to cap neighborhood multi-family scaled neighborhoods to two stories.
>> mayor: thank you. Commissioner saco. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. And I know we can't make a
motion, but I would certainly back that ask and suggestion of staff. My comment is more about --
okay. I can see mr. Nee. The bert harris act has been brought up a few times.
and the last time it was brought up, I spoke to one of my law professors who is a premiere scholar on the constitutionality
of it. I asked him his opinion on it after my own analysis. His analysis is it would not
apply because we are not restricting the use of any one property. We are amplifying the land use
applicable -- the uses of that land applicable. I want to confirm with mr. Nee before we keep saying this and
then people will be afraid or hopeful that they can do that. I wanted mr. Nee's opinion. >> mayor: mr. Nee, if you wanted
to opine today or at least be prepared by the next time this comes up. >> I will accept a memo at some
point. >> I will be more than happy to come back at a later time with a more full explanation.
I would agree that's more understanding that the general bert harris would stand to address a regulation adopted by
the government that would inordinately burden the existing right. To say it's burdening your right
when you up-zone, that's the issue really that you would want to look into and be more specific about.
I think part of the concern raised by a citizen was that if you take this action, thinking that you could then go back to
the way things are, then you would have potential problems. So it's a broader issue than I think a quick answer might be
able to give. But I'd be happy to be ready for that broader explanation I think when the time comes.
>> mayor: yeah, we appreciate that. Thank you. >> thank you, mr. Mayor.
thank you, mr. Nee. >> mayor: are those all, commissioner saco? >> yes, sir.
>> mayor: okay, thank you. Commissioner chestnut. >> okay, thank you, thank you. So if the broader explanation is
going to be that once this ordinance that you all are putting together takes place, it can be undone.
is that what I'm hearing? >> mayor: I think that's what he's going to come back to us with an opinion on.
>> so that is quite refreshing. Now, what I'd like to clarify with the manager or mr. Persons -- thank you -- is when is the
comprehensive plan mandated that it arrives in tallahassee from gainesville? >> we are on our -- with respect
to the comprehensive plan, we are on our own schedule essentially. >> so then there is no rush?
there is no rush to get it to tallahassee? >> not for the comprehensive plan, no.
>> okay, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir. >> mayor: thank you.
I answer to anything. [laughter] I'm happy to do so. Commissioner arreola.
>> thank you, mr. Mayor. I just want to make a plug for my district 3 town hall which will include this discussion.
that will be 2:30 to 6:00 p.m. Here in chambers. You know, let it not be said that the district 3 commissioner
is doing everything I can to talk about what this is, what it isn't. There is every effort being made
on my part. I know the staff is working very hard but it's also incumbent on us, commissioners, to make it as
well. >> mayor: thank you all for the discussion, including all the folks that showed up today and
took time out of their afternoon. We do have this other item, affordable housing workshop on
inclusionary and exclusionary zoning. I think this is a recap of what that is.
madam manager, I think we are all tired. We don't want to rush anything as we said but we don't want to
unduly delay things. >> no, mr. Mayor, members of the commission. We simply put a summary together
on the meetings that we had. Mr. Harris is here. We tried to put the summary together in a way that, you
know, was clear, you know. We had reasonable attendance at most of those meetings and we tried to authentically capture
the comments that came from everybody at those meetings. Mr. Harris, if you want to add to that, just simply making sure
that, you know, we included that. >> mayor: yeah. And those comments were included
in the backup as well as in the previous item. A lot of those neighborhood workshops were included as well.
[inaudible] [laughter] mr. Harris, are you going to fight for the microphone?
no, no. I think it was there for informational purposes. It's not -- yeah, it's not a
discussion point so much. But I did not want to leave it unsaid. Okay.
thank you for that. Any member comment? Okay. Then we have reached the
conclusion of our business. Y'all have a good summer, be safe out there. And we will see you in july.
we are adjourned. [pounding of gavel]