[0:00] >> mayor: good afternoon, everybody. We're going to go ahead and come to order.
[0:04] we'll take care of some housekeeping things first before we get started with the formal presentation.
[0:09] first of all, we cannot block the doors, so, madam manager, if we can get some help from gpd, we cannot block the doors.
[0:20] also, as we're getting settled here, we do have live feed broadcast going on, both out in the hallway there's two tvs
[0:32] and audio. Y'all, if you could come to order just so we can get through our housekeeping stuff.
[0:44] okay. Ma'am, if we could come to order. So there are spaces out in the
[0:50] hallway. If you can -- if you like, you can go out there and listen and follow and participate.
[1:01] there's also plenty of room downstairs. We have a conference room down there.
[1:05] 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
[1:21] any signs of display inside the chamber. >> excuse me? >> mayor: we do not allow signs
[1:27] or any kind of display inside the chamber. Anything that is said in here you can hear out in the
[1:33] hallways, you can also watch on tv. And so you'll be able to come and go and participate that way.
[1:41] one of our commissioners chose to leave because she is worried about the number of people in chambers here.
[1:48] we do have an upswing in cases of covid so we want everybody to try to be as cautious and healthy as possible while
[2:03] they're in this public meeting and participating. I will also give you a run of the order today so all of you
[2:13] can be prepared for that. The first thing is we'll call our meeting to order and adopt our agenda.
[2:19] this is a workshop meaning that no formal action will be taken by the commission today. This is an informational meeting
[2:29] and an opportunity to hear from all of you. And then following the presentations we will hear
[2:38] public comment and then following public comment we will turn back to the commission for any follow-up questions and for
[2:47] the commissioners to share their views and thoughts. It is important for me to make sure that everybody is heard
[2:55] from and nobody is excluded. And so there have been sign-up cards delivered to the clerk. I understood we had some more
[3:05] 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
[3:10] already. Hand those to the clerk and then she will call everyone up in the order in which she received
[3:16] those comment cards. I also want to respectfully ask that we make sure this is an open and welcoming chamber and
[3:26] civic space. We want everyone to feel that their views and respected and heard.
[3:35] as our rules state and the rules adopted by the fuel commission, there's no cheering or jeering allowed.
[3:43] that means no clapping or shouting or booing. We respect everyone to respectfully listen to everyone
[3:50] else and make sure that everyone's views are accepted and greeted with the same level of decorum and decency and I
[4:03] know my colleagues that will the same in terms of how we participate in this commission. We do have an agenda to adopt.
[4:13] commissioner chestnut, did you want to speak before the adoption of the agenda. >> if the clerk could announce
[4:19] when the cards arrive. If you could make an announcement. >> mayor: we'll get our staff
[4:24] to -- there's room outside and people with circulate in and out if they so choose. When more cards come in, looks
[4:41] like they are, lauren has them over there, we can circulate them around and pass them back up to the clerk.
[4:47] I will tell you, and this is my responsibility but something the commission has asked me to do, we want to make sure that
[4:53] everybody gets a fair chance to speak. We'll see how many cards have been turned in when we get to
[4:59] public comment and make a determination about how long each speaker will get. We'll have to see how many
[5:04] people turned the cards in and then do some simple math at that point. Commissioner chestnut, was that
[5:09] the only -- okay. Very good. [off mic] >> mayor: okay.
[5:15] so eight more seats. And again it's nice and comfortable down there and you'll be able to follow along
[5:24] just as you would up here. Commissioner hayes-santos. >> I move that we adopt the agenda.
[5:27] >> second. >> mayor: motion and second that we call the meeting to order and adopt the agenda.
[5:32] all in favor say aye. [chorus of ayes] opposed? That motion passes with saco and
[5:40] duncan walker absent. >> mr. Mayor, I'm just in my office for safety but I was trying to vote aye.
[5:48] >> mayor: that was an aye as well. Okay. So we've got two closely-related
[5:53] items on our agenda. The second affordable housing workshop inclusionary zoning really is a follow-up from the
[6:00] workshops that we held, sort of a staff overview of the feedback that was received. But we'll start with the first,
[6:08] exclusionary zoning item, discuss amendment to the comprehensive plan and land development code.
[6:15] and it's really -- I need to make sure that when anybody is speaking, whether it's staff, members of the public or members
[6:24] of the commission that we're not interrupting. And I'm sure there will be conversations that you all want
[6:29] to have with one another as things come up. I just ask you to respectfully excuse yourself out into the
[6:34] hall where you can have your conversation at a reasonable level and not sort of disturb or interrupt the broader
[6:43] conversation. So with that, madam manager, I'll turn it over to you and you can introduce mr. Persons.
[6:50] >> yes, mr. Mayor, members of the commission, mr. Person and his staff person are here to talk about this item.
[6:56] but this item was presented to the commission prior to. We were asked to have some workshops in the community.
[7:04] we had three workshops but we had one dedicated primarily to eziz, the other two workshops clearly included the topic but
[7:14] beyond the one specific workshop that we had on exclusionary and inclusionary zoning there were some neighborhood workshops -- I
[7:25] think commissioner chestnut suggested it, the commission supported that. We've had three of those and
[7:30] we're scheduled to have more. We've reached out to all 80 of the neighborhood associations and many of them have asked even
[7:38] beyond today's meeting to have those meetings. So we're three in and potentially many more to go as
[7:46] requested by those neighborhood associations. But it has been an ongoing conversation and mr. Person is
[7:52] here to introduce the items. >> mayor: thank you, madam manager. Mr. Persons, welcome.
[7:56] >> andrew persons, director department of sustainability development. I'm having a strong deja vu
[8:03] sense. It's bringing back fond memories. The manager sort of took the
[8:08] words out of my mouth. Just stepping back a little bit, if you recall back in august of 2020 the commission heard a
[8:17] comprehensive presentation about equitable development. Out of that there was a multipart motion that the
[8:25] commission made. One aspect of that motion was directing staff to go out and find help to do both an analysis
[8:37] of our codes related to the desire to end exclusionary zoning practice in our code as well as do a feasibility
[8:47] analysis for adopting an inclusionary housing program which would essentially create a requirement for market rate
[8:56] development to set aside a percentage of units for affordable housing. The hrna advisers were selected
[9:03] by the commission. The report was delivered to the commission earlier this year, in january.
[9:09] at that meeting the commission directed staff to implement the recommendations from the report related to ending exclusionary
[9:20] zoning. That's what we're here in afternoon, to talk to you about that.
[9:24] juan castillo and my department has been at the forefront working with the code changes. In addition to the neighborhood
[9:32] and community workshops, the manager mentioned we've also had now three hearings with the city plan board where these items
[9:39] have been discussed. There are several items that you'll talk about today that are yet to be taken up by the plan
[9:48] board. But they have taken some action on a few of the items and mr. Castillo will talk about
[9:57] that a little bit. With that I'll turn it over to mr. Castillo to walk you through the code items and of course
[10:04] we're here for any questions. >> mayor: thank you, mr. Persons. Mr. Castillo, good to have you
[10:10] with us. >> thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners and mayor.
[10:13] for the record, my name is juan castillo, I'm a planner here with the department of sustainable department.
[10:19] as mr. Persons mentioned, I'll be going through the proposals currently for the exclusionary zoning item related to the
[10:28] recommendations from the hrna report. Next slide. >> mayor: mr. Mounts, could I
[10:39] ask you to -- yeah. You're kind of right in front of the presentation there. Thank you.
[10:49] >> so the next slide, I just wanted to give you a quick rundown as to our -- basically our itinerary.
[10:58] we're going to be discussing seven items before you today. They range between proposals for land use amendments to our
[11:10] comprehensive plan, our single-family land use, and amendments to our zoning, our zoning districts to allow for
[11:21] small-scale multifamily development, as well as amendment to our compatibility buffers, occupancy limits,
[11:30] bedroom limits within the university for the contact zone. We will be discussing the introduction of a new use which
[11:38] we are calling neighborhood residential, and also definitions and regulations associated with that use.
[11:48] so next slide, about three items down. >> mayor: I think too while we're sorting that out, if we
[12:17] can get a full screen, too, that would be helpful. >> so while that's kind of being worked on, so just kind of a
[12:35] little overview basically with our context with the city of gainesville. The current situation that we're
[12:44] running into of course as you know, we're trying to create flexibility for the development of more housing within the city
[12:50] of gainesville. We want more people to be able to have the ability to live within our city.
[12:54] so we are proposing to have regulations that will facilitate the development of more housing. And these proposals have taken
[13:05] the form of -- or have been inspired by some of the recommendations that the hrna report have given to us.
[13:18] and I'm just going to go ahead and kind of go through them real quickly from memory. But the first proposal before
[13:25] you is an amendment -- >> mayor: just pause a second. I think they've about got it sorted out there.
[13:31] I think they're trying to reshare the screen and then it should be okay. >> sure.
[13:36] >> mayor: like many people, I'm a visual person so the visual helps. >> I am likewise.
[13:41] background architecture. >> mayor: there we go. >> there we go. So we could go to the, let's
[14:44] see, three slides down, or over. One more. One more. Okay.
[14:54] so one of the proposals before you this evening is the amendment to our land use district are our land use for
[15:06] single-family -- or single-family land use. And just to kind of quickly go other.
[15:14] properties within the city of gainesville are regulated through different layers. One of those layers is land use.
[15:18] we have also the zoning district layers. So the land use is designed to, in essence, illustrate or
[15:28] regulate what type of zoning are allowed within a specific property. Right now in the city of
[15:34] gainesville we have a significant portion of the city that has a land use that will only allow for zoning that will
[15:42] only allow for single-family development. 62% of the city to be exact is designated as single-family land
[15:50] use. Again, within 63% of the city only a development of one house on a property can be developed.
[15:58] next slide. So this is just to illustrate what that kind of looks like in the city of gainesville right
[16:11] now. Large portions within the west-northwest part of gainesville, some portions on
[16:18] the east side of gainesville, and over to is south part of gainesville. But again, 63% of the city
[16:24] currently only allows for the development of one house on a large piece of property. And this is within the context
[16:34] of an environment where we're looking for opportunities to create more housing in the city in order to be able to, of
[16:39] course, house and give more options to people to find places to live. Next slide.
[16:47] and so the proposal today -- there's actually two recommendations that staff is bringing before you that we
[16:53] would like to get some discussion and some direction on. The first proposal is amending
[16:59] the single-family -- the existing single-family land use to be -- to incorporate language that would allow for small-scale
[17:08] multifamily development. And the small-scale multifamily is, basically it's a multifamily use that allows for two units
[17:19] minimum and four units maximum. Meaning two units that would allow for two families or one family in each unit and then
[17:26] four units that would allow for one family in each unit. In essence, you're creating a building that allows for a
[17:33] maximum of four families to live within it. In a similar space, a single-family space would -- the
[17:40] same space that a single-family house is designed to take. So the idea is to, again, allow for a small-scale,
[17:48] neighborhood-scale multifamily that doesn't add an extreme impact to the existing structure of our city but that would allow
[17:59] for the opportunity for more housing to be developed within the city of gainesville. Currently, again, single-family
[18:05] land use only allows for one family within, within one lot. The proposal before you today would amend the language to
[18:16] allow for developments between duplexes, triplexes and quadruplexes, but we would consider all of this
[18:24] neighborhood residential small-scale multifamily. And this is an example of what that language would look like.
[18:32] the density would not change, only allowed use, the land use would change. Next slide, please.
[18:37] [inaudible] -- residential would not change but it would allow for higher density to be [inaudible] and that density is
[18:59] 50 units per acre. With the previous proposal the density would remain at 8 units per acre.
[19:06] with this proposal it will go up to 15. And just kind of moving forward, a lot of these items are
[19:15] intertwined with each other. If there's a question or a clarifying question that you may have, feel free to interrupt me
[19:22] and ask it. But some things, for example, our next item will be the definition of neighborhood
[19:27] residential that's intertwined with what the zoning is proposing and further development compatibility
[19:35] proposals down the line as well. Next slide, please. So the next item before you is the definition of small-scale
[19:48] multifamily. And mentioned earlier, one of the things that's being proposed is to incorporate a new use,
[19:53] which we are labeling as neighborhood residential multifamily when what this use entails is to provide a building
[20:04] that takes the same footprint as a single-family familiar or large-scale single-family home and within that same footprint
[20:12] allow for a maximum of four families to live with that footprint. Currently a single-family home
[20:20] allows one family to live within that footprint. The proposal now is to allow for four family to live within that
[20:26] same footprint. Next slide. So this is some of the examples that we looked at to kind of get
[20:33] an idea of what a small-scale, neighborhood-scale multifamily would look like. This section provides
[20:43] regulations that would regulate the way the proposal looks, the height of the proposal, as well as the location for parking and
[20:51] any type of orientation requirements. Next slide. So as I mentioned, the purpose
[21:04] of this is for the structure to look like a regular house, just like a single-family home, but the difference is that this
[21:11] single-family home allows now for four families to live within it. In order to do so we are
[21:18] proposing regulations that would require things like 30% glazing so that the units are not boxy-looking but they look like
[21:30] actual homes. Buildings that have a limit of two stories, off-street parking being limited to two parkings in
[21:39] the front and the rest of the park in the rear. A minimum of one high-quality tree to be preserved on the
[21:48] property. >> mayor: we can't have cheers or jeers so we're going to listen and be respectful.
[21:59] >> that was laughter. >> mayor: we're not going to have interruptions. If we do I'm going to need to
[22:06] adjourn the meeting until the order can be restored. We want everybody to be here and participate but we can't have a
[22:15] disruptive atmosphere. That's all I'm asking for each of us. Mr. Castillo, please continue.
[22:22] >> if a tree is not present, one will have to be provided or planted in the property associated with this type of
[22:30] development. And of course last, the orientation of the building is important.
[22:34] so there's regulation that basically allows for the main entrance of the structure to be on the first floor and the
[22:42] building being oriented to the street, to the more primary street for entrance to this unit.
[22:50] next slide. And this is just kind of an example as to the idea behind the neighborhood residential
[23:01] multifamily. Again, the idea is to have a buildable area or a similar footprint of a large home but
[23:08] instead of the large home serving only one family, it will serve four families. Next slide.
[23:13] so moving on to -- now that we have defined the use and basically the land use amendments, we're going to now
[23:23] turn our gears towards the zoning districts. Again, the idea behind this is to allow for provisions that
[23:34] would facilitate a diversity of housing and to make the creation of more housing easier. A lot of what I will be
[23:40] discussing here is design in order to facilitate the creation of more housing, not just with a small-scale multifamily but also
[23:50] with a regular house. And I'll explain what I mean by that here in a second. Next slide.
[23:57] so the first thing that you'll notice is that neighborhood, the use for small-scale multifamily will be -- is being proposed to
[24:08] be an allowed use in rsf-1 and rsf-4. And the second thing rsf-1 to rsf-4 is to consolidate the
[24:21] zones and make them one zone and there's a reason for that. Next slide. So a lot of the dimension
[24:32] standards, setback standards, densities within rsf-1 through rsf-4 can seem a bit convoluted, a bill confusing and arbitrary.
[24:46] 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
[24:58] between rsf-1 and rsf-3 that would involve any type of safety concern or some type of mitigation.
[25:10] and we know from looking at other zones, specifically rc, smaller setbacks is appropriate for development to occur.
[25:20] specifically single-family in this case, duplexes in rc, but we do know that regulations that are not as extensive as the ones
[25:29] 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
[25:36] evening goes into details that include the amendment to the density, to basically adopt rsf-4 density and which is a
[25:52] density that would allow for the development of neighborhood-scale multifamily units, as well as adopt lot area
[26:03] requirements of rc which [inaudible]. Currently single-family zones require a lot of space.
[26:14] and by some estimates, when looking at specifically the cost of a house, it's estimated that about 20% of the cost of that
[26:22] house is associated with the cost of the land. So by virtue of having larger property, you're in essence
[26:32] making the house immediately that much more expensive. Also with the allowed use of a neighborhood-scale multifamily
[26:44] development, you're distributing the cost of the land between four units. So four families are being --
[26:52] the cost of the land is being distributed between four families that can either rent the unit or if they decide to
[26:59] create a condo for that unit, that can happen as well, as opposed to a single-family which is the price of that
[27:06] single-family home is reflective of the full cost of the property. On top of that is a larger
[27:11] property at that. Next slide, please. So this is just a visual presentation of the current
[27:24] situation and setbacks between rsf-1 and rsf-4. Also rc, but there's a reason why that's there.
[27:31] so in rsf-1 through rsf-4 you'll notice that the setbacks, the front setbacks at the bottom of the little yellow squares,
[27:41] they're all the same. So 20 feet basically throughout rsf-1 through rsf-4, 7.5 feet on the sides.
[27:49] where the difference comes in is the rear setback. So you have the difference of 15 or 5 feet between rsf-1 and 2
[27:59] 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
[28:10] difference between rsf-3 and rsf-4. But that's pretty much, as far as the set back is concerned,
[28:15] the difference between the zones for single-family. So when we're looking at something that's existing that
[28:22] allows for the development of housing, we can see that in residential conservation zone, one of our oldest zones here in
[28:29] the city of gainesville, it has, for the most part, less setback requirements and, again, allows for the development of a house
[28:38] just fine. And so the proposal would again consolidate rsf-1 through rsf-4 to eliminate some of the
[28:51] redundancies associated with, again, separate zones which also shows arbitrary measurements in the rear of setbacks that have
[29:01] had no real basis as to what exactly they are mitigating. With the proposal before you, the intent of the setbacks --
[29:10] next slide, please. So the proposal of the setbacks would allow for the space of any type of like facility
[29:23] infrastructure that can be associated with a neighborhood-scale multifamily. So that would be the idea behind
[29:33] the requirement of a 5-feet setback on the sides, 10 feet in the front and 10 feet in the back.
[29:38] just to give, again, that space that buffer for any type of a facility requirements associated with the development.
[29:47] and also with the setbacks, just amending them in this way, it would create a larger space of buildable area that would again
[29:57] allow for a more flexible use of a property for the development of housing. Next slide.
[30:06] similarly with lot size requirements. So I mentioned earlier that currently within the city of
[30:12] gainesville you have property that is zoned rsf-1 through rsf-4 where you can only developed one property per lot.
[30:21] but the requirement is to have a large amount of space associated with this development. So in essence you have one
[30:27] house. What's allowed within the city right now is you have one house that requires a large piece of
[30:35] property in order for it to happen. Just to give you an example of current requirements within the
[30:40] city, rsf-1 requires 8500 square feet of space in order to develop one house, along with a requirement of 85 feet and a
[30:50] depth requirement of 90 feet. Rsf-2 requires 7500 square feet, a width requirement of 70 feet and 90 feet and so forth.
[31:01] so again looking at existing zoning that we have within the city, we know that rc has allowed for and is still
[31:07] allowing the development of single-family within a much smaller, much smaller requirement of space.
[31:16] much smaller requirement of land. And that's important, especially when we're talking about
[31:20] creating more housing. Because first of all, you can -- say if you're a homeowner or a property owner, were to decide
[31:32] to split their property, say rsf-1 into two properties. Right now they would not be able to do that because the
[31:40] requirement of our zoning says they have to have 8500 square feet. So they wouldn't be able to
[31:47] split the property in a space that we know can already support two houses. So say that this is passed.
[31:53] the requirement would drop down to 3,000 square feet. So all of the sudden that 8500 square feet piece of property
[32:00] can be divided into two properties and now you have two houses where you could only develop one before.
[32:06] and even if the neighborhood-scale multifamily use is not something that is agreed upon just by amending
[32:17] these lot sizes and lot setback requirements, we can already see the implications of creating more housing that way.
[32:25] 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
[32:34] allowed for the development of a single-family unit, you know, following the example of rc. Wouldn't be able to do that with
[32:42] rsf-4, but that's still a significant portion of the city that could, in essence, double the allowed density.
[32:49] next slide, please. And so the proposal, the neighborhood residential new zone would adopt the land and
[33:02] requirement for rc. It would provide language within the zoning that would extend the width requirements to 70 feet if
[33:13] a development is proposing to add a neighborhood-scale multifamily to the property. So if a single-family home is
[33:20] being developed, they would need 35, at least 35 width of space. If a small-scale multifamily is being proposed, that would be
[33:29] extended to 70 feet. Again, that's just to provide more flexibility and more space in between the neighborhood
[33:41] residential single-family and existing single-family development. Next slide, please.
[33:47] and this is just a quick representation of the density allowed within current zoning, single-family zoning.
[33:55] right now rsf-1 through -- well, rsf-1 is for basically 3.5 units per acre. 4.6 units per acre would be
[34:07] allowed in rsf-2 or is allowed in rsf-2. 5.8 in rsf-3 and eight units in rsf-4.
[34:17] 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,
[34:28] a small-scale multifamily unit would want to develop, they would need half an acre to do so.
[34:35] next slide, please. And that's just a representation. So in similar fashion, zoning
[34:45] within the city of gainesville that allow -- restrict development to one single house per lot takes up about 60 -- a
[34:55] little bit over 60% of the city. We're running into the same situation where a significant portion of our city is
[35:02] designated to only allow for the development of one house within a large piece of property. Next slide.
[35:12] so switching gears just a little bit, the next proposal and based on the recommendations from the hrna report is to remove the
[35:23] occupancy limit. Currently within the city of gainesville we have an occupancy limit which says that only one
[35:34] family with two unrelated people can live within a single-family development. We're proposing to premove that
[35:44] to allow for a more diverse, more flexibility of housing for people that may not be related. So say three roommates or four
[35:52] roommates that are not related but are still able to live together in the same house or in the same apartment area.
[36:00] next slide, please. And that's just basically a quick overview. This would affect rsf-1 through
[36:13] rsf-4 and rc zoning. Next slide, please. Following along, the next proposal before you is amending
[36:23] the bedroom limit within the university of florida context zone. Currently the regulations allows
[36:31] for a multiplier of 2.75 limiting how many bedrooms can go into a development within the university of florida contact
[36:44] zone which limits the amount of bedroom a multifamily development can produce. >> mayor: mr. Castillo, real
[36:50] quick before you get into this, there was a quick clarifying question back on occupancy limits if you would pause for
[37:00] that. >> sure. >> thank you, mayor. There's still a state health
[37:05] code occupancy limit. I don't know if mr. Persons has that. Just to clarify, you can't have
[37:13] a million people who live in the house. There are state limits that would then become the default.
[37:21] >> mr. Mayor, the florida building code sets minimum habitable space. Generally speaking we're talking
[37:29] about 250 square feet. When you include all of the required fixtures and livable area for an adult.
[37:37] for example, a thousand square foot house, you could only have four adults living there, is that correct?
[37:43] >> that is correct. >> so there's still -- it can't be extreme. >> right.
[37:47] >> thank you, mayor. >> mayor: thank you. Please continue. >> so within the university of
[37:54] florida contact zone we do have a regulation that limits the amount of bedrooms that a multifamily development can
[38:03] propose. And that regulation limits or poses a multiplier of 2.75. And that's multiplied based on
[38:13] the proposed density of the area. And so there's two proposals before you today.
[38:21] next slide, please. The first proposal is to amend the existing multiplier from 2. 75 and increase that to 3, which
[38:33] would again just increase the amounts of bedroom that a multifamily development can produce.
[38:39] and the second, that is literally the only amendment to the existing language as of now. The second option is to remove
[38:50] the bedroom limit all together and allow the market to dictate how much bedrooms the multifamily development would
[38:56] want, similar to what already happens outside the university of florida context zone. Next slide, please.
[39:06] moving on, now we are looking at the compatibility standards, amending the compatibility standards.
[39:14] and the idea behind this is to not just limit the development but also provide and limit any compatibility standards that may
[39:23] be seen onerous or at least increase the cost of development for a multifamily structure, which would then be passed on to
[39:37] the tenants or the potential buyers of a condo if the development were to be condo'd out.
[39:44] next slide, please. So this one, the primary -- there's two proposals -- not proposals.
[39:55] there's two main items being amended. The first one is a requirement for a masonry wall between a
[40:08] [inaudible]. This is done again to kind of recognize the fact that small-scale multifamily is
[40:14] designed to fit in within the landscape of a single-family neighborhood. A wall separating a small-scale
[40:22] 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
[40:32] area. And so that's one of the things that we feel is something that could be removed, especially
[40:39] since our code already has buffer regulations, which in the event of a multifamily or small-scale multifamily in this
[40:48] case would require a, more of a substantial vegetative buffer which involves the planting of trees and shrubs, et cetera.
[41:03] the second one involves the elimination of a requirement that in essence says for a development within a transect
[41:15] area that are proposing zero setback, if they can only do that if there's already an existing development that has
[41:23] zero setbacks already in existence. So this development will be limited to having a zero setback
[41:33] or the opportunity of having zero setback in the adjacent development has similar setbacks for -- within the transect area.
[41:42] so those are -- next slide, please. And that's what that would look like in the code.
[41:57] the rest of the amendments that you see highlighted in blue is recognizing the neighborhood residential use and
[42:03] incorporating that into the language so that that's more consistent with the rest of the proposed before you.
[42:09] next slide, please. This is showing you the elimination of the language that would require the masonry wall.
[42:24] next slide, please. So now we're moving into our lot split and minor subdivision regulations.
[42:29] currently within the land development code, a lot of what we're amending is primarily to just clarify some of the
[42:43] language. Lot splits of minor subdivisions have been a bit confusing as to where and how services and
[42:50] facilities are required when an applicant is submitting for a lot split or a minor subdivision.
[42:59] the language being amended currently just clarifies that as not requiring developers to have those facilities present or
[43:09] proposed but allowing those facilities to be developed when a proposed development goes on the property.
[43:18] and next slide, please. And again, just simplifying language so that it's obvious and more readily navigatable as
[43:33] to proposed lot split and what that would look like for an applicant. Next slide.
[43:40] this is just some of that language that I was discussing. Again, just clarifying some of the language so that it's
[43:49] obvious that a lot split -- or when a lot split is appropriate and how that will look. And just clarifying that lot
[43:59] split must meet certain standards which are detailed in the next slide. Next slide, please.
[44:06] but again, nothing outside of the box or too substantial here. Again, it's just clarifying language.
[44:19] next slide. Again here we're highlighting the fact that an applicant will have to have a prestaff meeting
[44:28] with us in order to discuss their proposed lot split or minor subdivision. Next slide.
[44:34] nothing too much here, just again clarifying language. Next slide. Clarifying language again.
[44:52] in this particular case we are just highlighting that the resulting block from a lot split has a -- cannot exceed a maximum
[45:07] block perimeter of 2,000 feet, but also providing regular violation that ties in with the existing zoning and allows the
[45:18] flexibility of providing whichever is lesser of the two for the lot perimeter associated with the lot split.
[45:27] next slide, please. This is a repeat. This is just basically saying what we just said in a more,
[45:39] just a broader view. Next slide, please. Yeah, again, clarifying language.
[45:51] this is just basically clarifying that the director of the department of sustainability development or the director of
[45:57] public works has the authority to provide the review and the approval of the lot split being submitted.
[46:11] next slide. And this will conclude my presentation. I'm sure you may have some
[46:23] questions, but we are here to answer any questions that you may have. >> mayor: all right.
[46:28] thank you, mr. Castillo, and mr. Persons, all of staff who put the work into getting this to us.
[46:35] it's very much appreciated. We will now go over to members of our public and hear from them.
[46:43] madam clerk, how many people, approximately, do we have signed up to speak at this point? [off mic]
[46:49] >> mayor: about 50? [off mic] >> mayor: if you don't have your card in right now, you'll still
[47:00] get an opportunity. There's not a cutoff. So if everybody is efficient and we have no space between
[47:06] speakers, that's about 2 and a half hours. So we'll go ahead and try to stick to three minutes.
[47:14] it seems that we have an amount of time. What I would ask you to do is be succinct and efficient with your
[47:25] comments and then please don't go over. Because everybody deserves the same chance and the same
[47:32] opportunity that nobody receives preference to anybody else. So, madam clerk, what I'll ask you to do is call out the next
[47:38] two names after the one that's up to speak. That way if anybody is outside or downstairs, they can make
[47:46] 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
[47:53] comments, they can come right up. If you're new to public comment here at the city, there is a
[48:00] little black box with a red, yellow and green light on it. So when you start your comments, the green light will come on.
[48:10] mr. Gainey is demonstrating right there. When you have one minute remaining, a yellow light will
[48:17] come on. When the red light comes on your three minutes have expired and I'll invite the next person to
[48:22] come up and speak. Keep an eye on that. And then if you do go over your three-minute allotment, I will
[48:30] ask you to let the next person come up, that your time has concluded. With that -- and again, you are
[48:38] 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,
[48:47] no cheers, no jeers, no laughing or booing, anything like that. We want everyone to feel welcome to give their comments without
[48:56] any intimidation. We're going to all politely listen to one another until everybody gets a chance to
[49:03] speak. And if you haven't turned in a card yet, that's fine. Turn it in to ms. Gainey and
[49:09] we'll get you in the queue. >> jennifer reeves followed by [inaudible] and teresa bright. >> mayor: and we do have a
[49:23] pretty good mic. You're welcome to keep your mask on. If you feel like taking it off,
[49:30] you can do that. We and the folks at home can hear you. >> so start now?
[49:36] I didn't think I would be first. First of all, thank you for being respectful and listening to us.
[49:45] 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
[49:55] others. I just hope -- so often it seems as though the commission may have already made up their mind
[50:01] about this issue. I get the distinct impression that some of you have made up your mind.
[50:09] I hope you will listen with respect to everyone who talks here who is interested in preserving balance in
[50:15] gainesville. I was born here, raised here, have visited other places. Always come back because I like
[50:26] the balance here. I like the option of knowing I worked my entire life to be able to keep my house in my
[50:37] neighborhood. And I choose to live there because I don't want to live with students or multi-- or
[50:41] apartments. So I hope that you all can go back to the planning stage. These are all great ideas.
[50:48] anecdotal create these ideas in a more balanced way rather than just wiping the slate clean of, you know, an option that some
[51:02] people want to have. The last thing I would like to say is I've been in leadership roles myself personally and
[51:08] professionally. And one of the hardest things to do is to be able to change your mind when you've been locked
[51:17] into something. When you think you've already got the answer. I hope that we have a group of
[51:23] leaders who can listen to this plea from most of us here for balance and maybe even change your mind if you thought you
[51:32] 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
[51:42] and go back to the board and try again. It looked like there's a lot of residential housing, and I get
[51:59] that that it's 60-something percent. But I know also that there's plenty of empty apartment
[52:07] buildings right now that absentee landlords own and rent to students or stay empty. So again I hope you'll be
[52:17] leaders who are representing not just your own and still listen to us. Thank you.
[52:29] >> mayor: thank you. >> carrie parker warren followed by teresa bright followed by karma debose.
[52:39] >> thank you for the opportunity. I'm carrie parker warren and I'm representing azalea trail here
[52:48] in gainesville, the old hollywood community as it with us called at one time. At this point I would like to
[52:55] say we do -- in my community we do support affordable housing, we just don't want to support something that if you have
[53:03] chosen to make your decision today, you know which way you're going to vote. We ask that when the motion was
[53:13] made next week or in the future that we have one of our commissioners that will say it will be done equally.
[53:20] twenty-five percent on the east side, 25% on the west side, 25% south and 25% north. We ask that you do that.
[53:32] in addition to putting that in your motion, whomever is responsible for doing so, we also want you to put in your
[53:38] motion that you're going to promise us better policing, better advantages, better fire protection, better sidewalks,
[53:48] better roads, traffic light near our schools and just make our communities better. This vision will not affect the
[54:03] city equally. What we need to do also is to move forward rather than backwards.
[54:14] we need to move forward without destroying the integrity of our communities. We need to go forward with more
[54:19] benefits and more resources, especially for the east side of town. We need to go forward with
[54:27] opportunities for the east side, forward with being the best that we can be. And hopefully you can understand
[54:36] 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
[54:46] you to take all of that into consideration. As your vision, this will be responsible for decreasing our
[54:58] property values. That's number one. Also, it would -- the vision will not affect the city
[55:10] equally. Some communities will just fade away. And we chose this city and we
[55:20] chose our communities because it is a family. In the community that I'm representing you can knock on
[55:31] anybody's door at night and someone will come to your aid because we want it to stay like it is.
[55:38] the disparities that -- >> mayor: thank you. I'm afraid your time has expired and we have to be fair to
[55:44] everybody. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Madam clerk.
[55:47] >> teresa bright followed by carmen dubose followed by chip williams. >> good afternoon.
[56:04] my name is teresa bright and of course I live in the azalea trail neighborhood. And we purchased that property
[56:16] in 1992 and we took our time in building our home there. And the property is located -- the new part of azalea trail is
[56:30] located on southeast 12th avenue and it goes over to southeast 13th avenue. Now, building houses in that
[56:44] area, the one section there, it was a dumping ground for a roadway that was put there to expand williston road.
[56:58] but my husband decided to go ahead and buy it. And we had to take out all of the debris that was on that
[57:10] property. And six other families that live in that area had to do the same thing.
[57:16] now, as the zoning presents itself now, single, we spent a lot of time and money to develop an area that's beautiful.
[57:32] and to change an area -- no. We don't want that. In fact the whole neighbor area where I live definitely do not
[57:43] want it. And I ups all of the codes that some things are going to change. But there are other
[57:52] neighborhoods that need housing, affordable housing. And right now we control our area in that neighborhood.
[58:04] we know each other, casually and personal. So when you have a neighborhood like that, you don't want to
[58:14] destroy it. And not knowing who is going to come in to your neighborhood -- by the way, there's only one lot
[58:22] 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
[58:36] safe place to live still. There is an area that's semi retired. Like I said, we're comfortable
[58:41] with each other. Streets on 11th, 12th, good streets, even though the community has been there for a
[58:59] very long time, but all of the streets in between is poorly paved -- >> mayor: thank you, ma'am.
[59:08] I'm afraid your time has expired. Thank you for being with us. >> next speaker is carmen
[59:14] dubose, followed by chip williams, followed by james mcfarland. >> mayor: welcome.
[59:21] >> good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm also from the azalea trail neighborhood.
[59:28] [inaudible] and the removing of exclusionary zoning within our neighborhood. My family brought up the
[1:00:05] thoughts of destroying the integrity of our neighborhood. Most of us have lived and invested in our neighborhoods
[1:00:13] 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.
[1:00:21] we have worked hard in our neighborhood, invested in our neighborhoods and for the future of the generation to come.
[1:00:33] we want to keep the heritage of azalea trail. There were resources mentioned in one of our meetings that
[1:00:42] could come along with the inclusions. How would that benefit azalea trail.
[1:00:49] that's what we want to know. We need more jobs created in gainesville, businesses, warehouses/factories in east
[1:01:05] gainesville. This will cut down on crime because the citizens will have better-paying job opportunities
[1:01:10] which will make better citizens in gainesville. The second highest city in the state when it comes to gas
[1:01:19] taxes. Our neighborhood was mentioned. Some of us went through a lot of difficulties when we built our
[1:01:29] houses to get them established. And so we don't want that hard work to go undone. There have been some promises by
[1:01:41] past commissioners that haven't -- they haven't kept their promises and we want to know if we can trust you all to
[1:01:51] keep a promise when you make a promise. We don't want the crime to come through this change.
[1:01:58] the change will bring vandalism to azalea trail. The property value will be diminished.
[1:02:09] I know if there is no struggle, there is no progress. But we have to work together on this, like some of the previous
[1:02:20] speakers said, if you got your mind made up already, think about what you citizens are pleading.
[1:02:27] >> mayor: thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. >> chip williams followed by james mcfarland followed by
[1:02:34] jim mcfarland. >> just a point of order. There's a very old friend of mine that has to go back to
[1:02:39] work. Can I switch cards with him? Is that okay with you? >> mayor: I don't have a
[1:02:44] problem. >> I'm retired. >> mr. Fields. >> I do have to go to work.
[1:02:54] thank you. [off mic] >> mayor: glad you're with us. Thank you.
[1:03:04] >> my name is wayne fields and I've been a resident of southeast gainesville for over 60 years.
[1:03:12] I'm here to speak in favor of exclusionary zoning, to be more specific residential single-family zoning.
[1:03:19] in my lifetime I have seen lincoln high school closed because white parents at gainesville high school didn't
[1:03:26] want their kids to go toe a predominantly black school, lincoln high school in 1970. I've seen two schools built and
[1:03:36] the decision to build those schools around a city dump was not in support by the residents in azalea trail.
[1:03:48] on the east side of gainesville I've seen when dixie, food lion, southern charm restaurant come and go.
[1:03:56] it's interesting when you bring up the word food desert because that's what southeast gainesville is.
[1:04:01] the words gentrification, food desert, affordable housing does not exist in heal plan station, oakmont, town of tioga, turkey
[1:04:14] creek and arbor greens. In my lifetime I would like to see the land use law of exclusionary zoning bring to
[1:04:23] east gainesville a movie theater, a grocery store, insurance agencies, clothing stores and please don't take the
[1:04:31] thought that I am against affordable housing. But I am for affordable housing in a reasonable manner, such as
[1:04:40] section 8, an assistance program, that's rental as is tans programs that I'm sure the city of gainesville and the
[1:04:49] county has a budget for. And even more so, would like to see some improvements of an athletic facility second to none
[1:05:00] in southeast gainesville. So today, commissioners, I would like for you all to look in the mirror and ask yourselves is
[1:05:07] there anything that I can do to assist southeast gainesville. I say yes. Help southeast gainesville to
[1:05:19] flourish instead of flounder. I'm trying to do my part with businesses, teens work summer youth employment program, ogr
[1:05:30] after school and the endowment committee. So I ask you, please, make the right decision and support the
[1:05:37] development of east gainesville. >> mayor: madam clerk. >> chip williams, james mcfarland and jim mcfarland.
[1:05:51] >> I was going to speak on two things, possibly. >> mayor: madam clerk, I think they were going to switch places
[1:05:58] so when you come to -- >> okay. >> mayor: go ahead. >> when you start putting a
[1:06:07] bunch of families in a single-family residential area, it's the same problem it was when we addressed it 20 years
[1:06:14] ago. It is unfair for someone who has single-family residence that's been in a family for a long time
[1:06:20] to have it wiped out and changed by this. Now I have to step back for a moment.
[1:06:24] I can make a lot more money if you'll go with this zoning and you'll allow me. When you think about driving
[1:06:30] down that road to mary helen's lake place you all have been at and you look at my nice landscaping, that takes that
[1:06:38] stretch and allows me to put four units right there. Four family units. I'll tear my house down and I'll
[1:06:45] 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
[1:06:51] you skipped gainesville high school and ran over there for a break on the lake. [laughter]
[1:06:57] it's beautiful. I was going to save that property to give to the city for a park and hopefully marihelen
[1:07:07] 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.
[1:07:14] do we have a 50-year plan? No. Do we have a 30-year plan? No.
[1:07:19] do we have a ten-year plan? No. We keep wanting to jump in and change the zoning of somebody
[1:07:26] that's lived there at this point suddenly like that. That is totally wrong. When I present in new york they
[1:07:32] understand it but around here you don't catch on. You need a 50-year plan. You need to understand
[1:07:38] sustainability. And not call it the department of fake development sustainability.
[1:07:43] we have got to get the right terminology of what's going on in this community. We're at the apex of the water
[1:07:50] flow in the three water management districts. We're in a critical spot that was proud of 60% tree cover.
[1:07:56] 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
[1:08:05] concrete. We need to expand, I'll tell you, by 2050 it's going to be so hot here we'll be miserable.
[1:08:13] we're going to want houses. Our watershed will be destroyed because right now, hey, let's think about it, we are on water
[1:08:21] restrictions. We don't have enough water to water our yard. So we want me to have eight
[1:08:26] families living on a single-family resident lot sucking in all of that water and destroying the aquifer much
[1:08:34] quicker. It is time to stop, not develop until we have a plan and we have impact fees for any development.
[1:08:43] we need a moratorium on those developments today. We need to put this on a plan for a 50-year plan, at least 30
[1:08:52] because I'll be dead and won't come back. [laughter] it's time that you start
[1:08:56] thinking ahead, not do this to a single-family resident. I have lived on that property for over 60 years.
[1:09:02] >> mayor: thank you, sir. Appreciate it. >> next speaker is jim mcfarland, sharon power and
[1:09:14] heather jewel. [off mic] >> mayor: no, equal for everybody.
[1:09:25] >> sharon bauer, heather jewell and chip williams. >> good afternoon. The commission first began
[1:09:42] trying to eliminate single-family zoning in 2018, not by rezoning neighborhoods and identifying -- and notifying
[1:09:50] owners but by simply redefining single-family to include multifamily city-wise. After the first large turnout of
[1:09:57] opponents, commissioner johnson made this comment on october 4th. We weren't engaging or listening
[1:10:04] to the community and if we are at some level it's not effective. Because if it was it would not
[1:10:09] have people showing up outrages with would not have people in our offices, having people stop me in the grocery store saying
[1:10:19] they're not being listened to. It's not the way the government works. Here's some commission reports
[1:10:25] in response to her. There are some folks who fully intend to bring chaos on government and society and show
[1:10:33] up and act that way consistently. There's people who do it because they have something to gain from
[1:10:39] it. I can't speak to motivations and I won't speak to motivations. If we're going to do big things,
[1:10:45] 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.
[1:10:51] when we talk about affordable housing there are predictable arguments. When we start the changes you'll
[1:10:58] see people who come here and complain to high heaven about it no matter how much we talked to them before hand about it
[1:11:04] because they're uncomfortable with the change. It's our responsibility and what we get paid for is to filter
[1:11:12] when somebody comes up there how much of that is that I need to vent. It's predictable that people are
[1:11:17] going to be upset when we try to do big things because change is hard and we know we have to do it.
[1:11:24] in august when you made containers of alcohol city wide permanent, there was a large number of people in the audience
[1:11:31] to object and commissioner ward said if you cared about the increase of violent crime you would have been here this
[1:11:36] morning on gpd instead of coming here to grand stand on tv. In january he shared a photo of his legal pad because someone
[1:11:46] had taken a picture of it when he left his seat. On it he listed people who commented and the number of
[1:11:53] agenda items they made a three-minute comment on. Not what they said, how many items they spoke on.
[1:12:00] his contempt for engaged citizens is well documented and his mind is closed. This workshop was described by
[1:12:06] the city as designed to help the public better understand the impact of two proposed zoning changes, ie, it's for you to
[1:12:19] lecture and not listen. What this city does is not citizen engagement and I believe it violates the statute
[1:12:27] requirements for citizen input. We cannot have six more years of this or our city will be destroyed.
[1:12:33] >> mayor: thank you. Next speaker. >> heather jewell, followed by chip williams, followed by peggy
[1:12:44] carr. >> heather jewell, I live in university park. I moved to gainesville about a
[1:12:49] year ago after careful consideration of where I wanted to live. I chose gainesville because of
[1:12:56] its urban forest, historic character, walkable and bikeable nature. I have not been disappointed in
[1:13:03] my choice until now. The proposals of zoning in the name of creating affordable housing is disingenuous and
[1:13:09] manipulative. By your own data provided in the gainesville housing action plan, the home vacancy rent is 4.7%
[1:13:18] and the rental vacancy rate is 17%, both well above the u.s. Median. To say we have a housing
[1:13:24] shortage here is false. In the same report you make claims about income levels and impact on people's abilities to
[1:13:32] afford housing but the presentation of data is manipulated because you have included students in the
[1:13:40] analysis. You show the area around university of florida as a low-income area.
[1:13:44] I think we both know that that's a large student population there. This leads me to wonder whom
[1:13:51] this proposal is really meant to benefit. Is it the students? Is it unit of florida?
[1:13:58] or it is alumni that want to come here to have rentals on game weekends, or is it developers.
[1:14:07] please consider the wishes of the full-time, permanent residents and lay this issue to rest now.
[1:14:17] >> chip williams, followed by peggy carr, followed by debra martinback. >> I live in the golf view
[1:14:25] neighborhood which is right next to the university of florida. We've been there 39 years. We've had students live there.
[1:14:34] students in our neighborhood have not been an issue. We've had issues from time to time but they've been resolved
[1:14:38] by communication and such. In my view the students are not an issue here. It's this -- in my view, in the
[1:14:48] same thought that we're going to change all of the zoning in gainesville on these single-resident areas.
[1:14:56] people here have spoken to this and others have spoken to it too. You're coming in and destroying
[1:15:02] savings and such that people have put together for all of their lives. In one fell swoop it seems that
[1:15:10] there could be a step measure of doing this instead of one action. Earlier in the meeting today
[1:15:16] commissioner hayes-santos indicated that, to put us at ease, there are state laws that say you can have x number of
[1:15:27] people in a house. We're getting rid of the number of people in the house is because we can't enforce it.
[1:15:33] we haven't talked about any enforcement today. If you can't enforce that now, ho are you going to enforce two
[1:15:42] cars proposed earlier in the new zoning stuff. This has not been thought through.
[1:15:49] 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
[1:15:57] too fast. The proposal earlier today was interesting but there were so many holes there that I saw just
[1:16:04] through sitting here this one time. I try to keep up with you guys watching tv or read the paper
[1:16:11] and such. I would go back to what the first speaker said today, please, please, please listen to
[1:16:17] 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
[1:16:23] different neighborhoods, all different walks of life. Candidly, when someone came up here and started talking about
[1:16:30] affordable housing, what we're talking about today has nothing to do with affordable housing. Somehow we've merged these two
[1:16:39] things together and what I saw in that presentation earlier today has nothing to do with affordable housing.
[1:16:46] take a long hard look at that. If that's your goal, that's your end goal, please revisit that. Thank you.
[1:16:55] >> okay. Our next speaker is peggy carr, followed by debra martinback followed by gary gordon.
[1:17:08] >> mayor poe and commissioners, thank you for the opportunity. I am a little confused and I want to ask for clarification.
[1:17:17] is this the early comment period where we make general statements? Because I had gone through the
[1:17:25] agenda and had specific statements about each of the agenda items -- >> mayor: it's on the first item
[1:17:30] from the agenda. >> pardon? >> mayor: it's on the first item from the agenda.
[1:17:34] not general public comment. >> in is about the comp plan language change, is that correct?
[1:17:40] >> mayor: yes. >> and then I will have the opportunity to speak about the other items later, correct?
[1:17:44] >> mayor: there will be general public comment at the end of the meeting. No, I'm sorry.
[1:17:48] it's just this. Can we start her clock over. This is on the item -- do you have your agenda?
[1:17:54] it's on the first item on the agenda, exclusionary zoning. >> and specifically though on the agenda it says that people
[1:18:01] will have the opportunity to speak for early comment and once that is done if speakers would like to speak we can speak for
[1:18:13] three minutes to each agenda item. >> mayor: that's for our regular meetings that we -- we just got
[1:18:18] right into the item. If you want to speak about the item, now is your opportunity to do so.
[1:18:23] >> this is my only opportunity to speak? >> mayor: there's another item that comes after that, you can
[1:18:27] speak to that one as well. >> thank you very much for the clarification. So specifically then to the
[1:18:33] proposed change, the comprehensive plan amendment, let me make a couple of comments.
[1:18:40] point one about option one, the creation of the neighborhood residential category is not acceptable or needed.
[1:18:47] 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
[1:18:54] the future land use map under this option. Would all single-family areas being neighborhood residential?
[1:19:04] if so, this is an absolutely breathtaking proposal. Any student of new urbanism knows that the concept of
[1:19:12] transect zones allows for a diversity of housing types in an orderly transition from high density to lower density.
[1:19:20] by adopting a future land use change that would allow multifamily smack in the middle of what was traditionally a
[1:19:27] single-family neighborhood flies in the face of solid new urbanism thinking. One consideration for strategic
[1:19:36] choice of higher density development is the presence of transect. A concept known as
[1:19:43] transit-oriented development. There's a logic for the density, but the blanket proposal to increase density in all
[1:19:53] single-family zoning categories is nonsensical. Point two about option one, it is not at all clear why a new
[1:20:01] land use category is required when the existing residential conservation category comes quite close to meeting the same
[1:20:09] design standards as those being proposed for neighborhood residential. I guess the rationale is with
[1:20:16] the new land use category the future land use map can easily be changed. The proposed sweeping change to
[1:20:25] the future land use map is antithetical to democratic engagement. All of the changes being
[1:20:31] considered today can now be achieved by the rezoning process. Oh.
[1:20:37] but that will take time. And public participation, which is costly. Well, democracy is a costly form
[1:20:45] of government, isn't it? About option two, the proposal to eliminate all single-family category and replace them with
[1:20:52] residential low density is utterly unacceptable. Because it bumps up the potential density in all current
[1:21:00] single-family categories from a maximum of 8 units per acre to 15 units per acre. This is twice as unsatisfactory
[1:21:08] as option one. Thanks you for the chance to comment about this particular agenda item.
[1:21:15] >> debra martinback followed by gary gordon followed by cindy gordon. >> debra martinback represents
[1:21:26] multiple properties owners, over a hundred. One of the things that we've asked from you way back when we
[1:21:31] first started talking about the landlord permits and zoning is that we allow the owners to use their houses, the number of
[1:21:39] 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
[1:21:47] be related. I ask that you definitely include getting rid of the requirements that it's only
[1:21:52] three unrelated people. Thank you. >> gary gordon, followed by cindy gordon followed by jane
[1:22:03] berman holten. >> gary gordon, full disclosure, candidate for mayor. Near we are again.
[1:22:16] people have filled this meeting room to say stop it. Stop working on ways to subvert or eliminate single-family
[1:22:22] zoning. Stop working on way to further turn the city over to investors and into rent bill.
[1:22:29] stop claiming one unit in ten and any development in a serious affordable housing program. Stop claiming the majority of
[1:22:37] you didn't vote for these ideas, proposals or programs when you did, either in outright votes or with half and half suggestions
[1:22:45] or by continually sending it back to staff to return half-baked, stirred and served up as virtually the same dish.
[1:22:53] we know hayes-santos didn't do all this by himself or just poe or saco. That's not a majority.
[1:23:03] stop claiming it wasn't you who's responsible for this coming up. You are responsible.
[1:23:08] you never said outright overtly kill it. Didn't give us the hem and how tap dance, don't give us
[1:23:15] denials, don't preach or lecture. Don't quote any of this as a grand solution to historic
[1:23:21] racism. Don't deny the trouble you've caused or the fear and anger you've created among local
[1:23:27] homeowners. Only desmon duncan-walker and cynthia chestnut's hands are clean.
[1:23:40] stop trying to remake gainesville into your distorted version of new urbanism. Stop trying to remake
[1:23:47] gainesville into your pr slogan new american city. Most of us like it here. Other residents -- older
[1:23:56] residents and newer ones, the newer ones comes because it's not jacksonville, atlanta or miami.
[1:24:08] stop trying to turn it into one of those cities. Stop kicking things we don't want back to the plan board or
[1:24:16] staff or to some out-of-town consultant to be rewritten, sloganized, regurgitated to be brought back to you and stop
[1:24:25] dragging us out to tell you over and over again stop it. Stop trying to ram any of this through before the election.
[1:24:33] the majority of us don't want this. The majority of you have done enough damage.
[1:24:38] the majority of us want you to stop it. I'm gary gordon, candidate for mayor.
[1:24:45] [laughter] >> our next speaker is cindy gordon followed by jane berman holton, I believe, followed by
[1:24:57] cindy harrington. >> I should start off just by motioning to my husband and saying what he said.
[1:25:08] but there is plenty to be concerned about this blanket rezoning of the city. I'll try to just give you the
[1:25:18] high points. Ever since gainesville rise was presented to the city and 90% of the people who have spoke on
[1:25:25] that were against it, the city has continued to bring it up piecemeal in various forms in various guises.
[1:25:33] and it continues to fail because so many people just don't want it. The fact it's peddled as new
[1:25:41] urbanism or environmental or anything like that illusory, mass transit. How are we going to get this
[1:25:56] many people from here to there. How do we plan to get them out of their cars and doing a more environmental transportation.
[1:26:03] there is nothing in these propositions that goes near that. In fact, there has been no
[1:26:11] environmental feasibility study. In a lot of places, there is an environmental feasibility study that goes over what's going to
[1:26:28] happen with the infrastructure. This plan does not quantify in any meaningful way what will happen with the infrastructure,
[1:26:35] what will happen with the roads, with the plumbing, and what will happen. It does not speak to the stress
[1:26:46] on the aquifer. Most of all it's being peddled as an affordability plan, a plan for affordable housing and it
[1:26:56] does not touch affordability. There have been no facts and figures coming out of any of these presentations we sat
[1:27:03] through that have given us a bottom line. All affordable at x amount of people at x amount of income
[1:27:14] level. It also doesn't touch any other tools in the toolbox for affordable housing.
[1:27:22] where is any mention of federal funding from the build back better plan. Federal fundinges one of the
[1:27:29] main ways it has ever gotten built for those that remember the great society. There's no mention of sandusky
[1:27:45] which some think is their private piggy bank. Most of all people of gainesville aren't in favor of
[1:27:53] this. You guys work for the people of the city of gainesville not the developers.
[1:27:58] >> thank you. >> thank you. >> james followed by cindy harrington followed by terry.
[1:28:20] >> good afternoon, city managers, staff, audience. I think what we need to do is step back and throw it out.
[1:28:30] so I'd like to give a justification to do that. It's very simple. I studied the fact, the
[1:28:36] comprehensive plan is not required to be updated until '24, '26. I don't think this is how to do
[1:28:57] it. The consultants hired experience no communities. One thing gainesville has that's
[1:29:05] very important, we're a university community, 50 percent that live here are students. When we talk about family and
[1:29:12] housing and rentals, you can't keep students out. It's not allowed. But you're basically pandering
[1:29:20] to students. Another aspect is that the neighborhood impacted have in the been informed.
[1:29:29] 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,
[1:29:36] those with home owner's association should be able to have a vote by association as to whether we approve this project.
[1:29:44] basically it's the way the train running down the tracks, like a runaway train. You have the right to step back
[1:29:51] and say no. Staff pushed to do all these documents and create this and change this and change that.
[1:29:57] many through the processes, 2018 or before. It doesn't solve affordability, doesn't address what you're
[1:30:03] trying to do. I'm not a racist. I'm auto single family property owner who enjoys my peaceful
[1:30:12] enjoyment of my home, who does support affordable housing but I support plans that are realistic.
[1:30:19] 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
[1:30:30] unheard of. Furthermore with 5 foot setbacks and put cars in the rear, how do you get through people.
[1:30:39] how do you get a car through 5 feet? Let's go back and say is this rational, realistic, sensible?
[1:30:47] there's nothing in here -- I could put holes in it all day, okay? Many of us could.
[1:30:53] occupancy. We talk about units. What's a unit? Four bedrooms.
[1:30:58] I just heard six bedrooms. Six bedrooms in a unit times two people each, which you could allow two people if the bedroom
[1:31:05] is big enough. I call back to the icmp, international property management association suggested
[1:31:11] some numbers based on size of facility, size of bedrooms. I'd like to hear bedrooms not units, decent size bedrooms.
[1:31:22] >> thank you. Your time is up. >> thanks. >> sandy harrington followed by
[1:31:26] jenny boy mer. . >> good afternoon. I actually was trying to faulk
[1:31:36] about the no more than three unrelated rule and I ended up in this group but that's okay. Mayor and city commissioners,
[1:31:44] thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is cindy harrington. I'm a realtor in gainesville.
[1:31:50] like most people I've seen the huge increase in rentals over the last few years. Those increases primarily affect
[1:31:55] those who can least afford higher housing costs creating an additional burden at an already financially unstable or at the
[1:32:06] very least financially fragile rental community. No more than three unrelated rule is outdated.
[1:32:12] from what I understand it was used to discourage fraternities in neighborhoods. Others say it was designed to
[1:32:20] discourage brothels. I'm not sure if that's a fact or an urban legend. The number of persons occupying
[1:32:31] a dwelling if increased above three unrelated persons is detrimental and hazardous to public health, welfare, safety
[1:32:39] and morals of the citizens of this community. Really? The morals of the citizens if we
[1:32:46] increase it to four or five? Will we be burning books downtown any time soon s&p look, people live together.
[1:32:57] some even raise a family together without the benefit of marriage. I make no judgment on them.
[1:33:02] some folks bring in renters to offset the rising cost of maintaining a home. How is that detrimental to a
[1:33:09] community. Now if they are having keg parties at all hours, that should be addressed where it
[1:33:14] blocks. You called gpd. But let's not muddy the waters with what if this, what if that,
[1:33:23] there are remedies to address those issues. We are at a time when people are being forced out of their
[1:33:28] community because they cannot afford the rents in this city. We have now burdened landlords with additional expenses that
[1:33:37] will be passed down to tenants. Why not consider easing that burden by eliminating an archaic law that really has no
[1:33:45] legitimate reason being on the books in the first place. Or at the very least increase the number to four, at the very
[1:33:55] least. Wow, we can actually improve the lives of renters without costing the city a dime.
[1:34:00] thank you for your time and attention. >> terry followed by jenny boymer, followed by janie
[1:34:12] williams. >> good afternoon, mr. Mayor and commissioners. I'm sure you feel the air of
[1:34:16] what the community is feeling right now. But I want to ask you something. How would you feel about sharing
[1:34:25] 20 feet of backyard with your kids on a saturday afternoon with four other families? How do you think that would
[1:34:35] work? Have you even experimented with this before bringing it to the community?
[1:34:43] the city and the county have an opportunity with the properties that haven't had taxes paid in a number of years, who had
[1:34:51] municipal liens on them, and you have the power to take those properties with as -- and make a development on there and an
[1:35:02] experiment to see if this would actually work before taking across the entire city and changing the zoning.
[1:35:13] have you thought recreational areas. What about the flow of water. Go outside of gainesville and
[1:35:29] see 23 west after they chopped down those trees and the water flooded middlebrook golf course. I don't think we've had enough
[1:35:39] thought into what you're doing here. We live here because we like the backyard effect.
[1:35:43] we want our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren to grow up in neighborhoods they can be
[1:35:48] proud of. They can play basketball in the street and annoy every other neighbor.
[1:35:53] but think about this. No for rechanging the zoning. We have the opportunity. Try using some of the properties
[1:36:04] available. Experiment with them and see how that works. Thank you.
[1:36:12] >> jenny wimer, jenny williams and casey fitzgerald. >> jenny williams. I don't know the other person.
[1:36:31] hello, I'm jamie williams. I am a personal property owner. I personally own 43 single family houses in gainesville.
[1:36:38] I started buying them right when I graduated university of florida 20 years ago. I lived in a single family house
[1:36:44] over by campus. I had four girls that lived in it. We all got along great, and we
[1:36:49] got along with our neighbors and we were very respectful. I'm here in favor of getting rid of the three nonrelated people.
[1:36:57] it is a very hard thing as a landlord to enforce. I have tried to enforce it. I have tried to tell our
[1:37:02] residents, hey, there can only be three people on this lease. Only three people can live here. The truth of the matter is if
[1:37:09] 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
[1:37:15] not. I have been back and forth with codes like how am I supposed to enforce this?
[1:37:21] 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.
[1:37:27] so some of the code enforcement people say you have to go count toothbrushes or do this. Who has time for that?
[1:37:37] 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
[1:37:43] against having a brothel or six frat boys that are going to throw keg parties every day, I'm against that.
[1:37:51] 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
[1:37:59] who is parking there, who is living there, then I can hold them accountal. I can't hold them accountable if
[1:38:04] there's only three people and they say that's my friend, that's my boyfriend. It's hard.
[1:38:09] my suggestion would be to adopt hud housing guidelines of two people per bedroom. It doesn't even have to be a
[1:38:18] four bedroom house with eight people. I'm asking four people to live in a four-bedroom house.
[1:38:23] 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,
[1:38:28] I'm telling you it's hard. It is just a hard thing to enforce. The other thing is the tenants
[1:38:34] rights and responsibilities. As a tenant, it's not fair for me to tell a tenant that they think they are related to
[1:38:41] somebody through partnerships or whatever kind of family bond they have formed, I can't tell them -- it's hard to get into a
[1:38:49] 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
[1:38:56] house and prove there's four people living in a three unrelated. So that's what I have.
[1:39:06] >> one more time for jenny boymer. Casey fitzgerald followed by scott parker followed by clara
[1:39:16] joharry. >> good afternoon, mr. Mayor and commissioners. My name is casey fitzgerald.
[1:39:22] my wife pamela and I are 28 residents of a very pleasant ridgewood neighborhood in northwest gainesville.
[1:39:28] first let me say we fully recognize the city has been working on this issue for a very long time.
[1:39:33] we also recognize and appreciate the city commission and staff are very well intentioned in promoting the changes being
[1:39:39] discussed. We concur afterwardable housing is indeed warranting the city's attention.
[1:39:48] given today's time constraints I'm just going to mention a few concerns, however. The over arching concern and
[1:39:55] primary reason for being here today is the package of decisions, discussion would not only eliminate single family
[1:40:02] zoning classification in gainesville but numerous adverse for neighborhoods without generating additional affordable
[1:40:09] housing in gainesville. We say this mainly because there is a disturbing lack of data, analyses and evidence in support
[1:40:16] of these proposals. Despite the city's years long focus and this worthy cause, including the engagement of
[1:40:23] national consultants, absolutely no credible evidence presented to show the suggested approach will be successful.
[1:40:32] in the gainesville community many credentialed knowledgeable citizens, some here with relative experience in urban
[1:40:39] regional planning, architecture, land use, et cetera, that are willing to be convinced if credible etched is presented.
[1:40:46] however, until such evidence is made available, the proposed sweeping citywide approach is not supportable.
[1:40:55] the fact the adoption of petitions I is irreversible due to harris implications, the stakes are quite high.
[1:41:05] relying as this approach does exclusively on market forces is another concern because trying to achieve the desired
[1:41:11] affordable housing outcomes by this mechanism does not seem like a prudent, reliable strategy.
[1:41:18] finally, concern number three, it's a troubling technical issue. The higher density development
[1:41:26] that would result from the proposals would create more impervious surface area, pollution loads to creeks and
[1:41:38] ultimate receiving water florida aquifer where we get our drinking water. We have seen no indication the
[1:41:44] proper engineering analysis and modeling done to assess these impacts. So in conclusion based on the
[1:41:52] lack of evidence provided by the city to date, we encourage to table the unsupported wide ranging proposals under
[1:42:01] consideration and direct staff to further evaluate alternative affordable housing approaches and return with strategic
[1:42:08] workable options and accompanying credible evidence. Thank you for your time tapped thoughtful consideration.
[1:42:18] >> scott parker followed by claire joharry followed by darlene -- >> no, ma'am.
[1:42:28] I'm sorry, you have to be here to get your statement in person. Sorry, carrie. Thank you for being willing to
[1:42:37] do that, though. >> claire joharry. >> good afternoon. First of all, I agreed with my
[1:42:51] community. I lived in my home across from the university at college park for 40 years.
[1:42:56] my parents built the home. You probably know it. It's a beautiful mediterranean home, electric gates, and we
[1:43:03] loved it. We attended university of florida. We're all in medicine but we
[1:43:06] stayed where we live because we love that area, love seeing the children grow up, our neighbors. But recently I want to give my
[1:43:19] point of view of living there for 40 years of what's going on. Since they have built new apartments there, majority has
[1:43:27] not filled, a lot aren't created, we've had an increase in crime. We've had theft.
[1:43:36] we've had drugs. We've had speeding, hitting and running. We've had people run into our
[1:43:42] neighbors' gates. It's out of control. Parties from the fraternities are crazy.
[1:43:49] they are in our yards. The floors three streets behind are vibrating. My home is vibrating.
[1:43:55] my mother, who is 90 years old, lives with me. I care for her. I called the police station five
[1:44:01] times. We can't live like this, it's loud. They said video them.
[1:44:12] I went across the street and videoed them. I went to the police station and said if anything happens,
[1:44:18] gainesville will be in trouble. That's when they came. I want you to take in consideration as you grow, add
[1:44:24] these apartments, consider these single homes with families, there's a school. Kids won't be able to ride their
[1:44:33] bikes there to go to school. There's a big park there. Every saturday there's soccer, there's baseball.
[1:44:40] I love watching them as I take my walk. That area is beautiful. I could live anywhere.
[1:44:49] recently a lady from ft. Lauderdale offered me over a million dollars, 1.7, crazy amount, 1.3.
[1:44:56] I said hell to the no. Okay? I love where I live. Now, all I ask you is put
[1:45:02] yourself in my shoe. I was raised there. I went to medicine, created -- I could live anywhere.
[1:45:08] my parents built that home with pride. That area is historic of gainesville.
[1:45:14] 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.
[1:45:24] that's all I say. Please think about it. I understand where you're coming from.
[1:45:28] 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
[1:45:36] the bars is and all the apartments and all that. Yes, we want gainesville to grow, but this is out of
[1:45:46] control. Thank you. >> thank you. I want to remind you the school
[1:45:50] is now called carolyn parker. We want to make sure our language stays as family friendly as possible.
[1:45:56] >> darlene followed by nicole followed by sherry hughes. >> commissioners, mayor, I moved here in 1985.
[1:46:07] there's been a lot of changes, unfortunately for some. Even though I'm a realtor, it's important to have affordable
[1:46:14] housing. Just a few statements. When I listened to your preparation as the gentleman
[1:46:25] spoke, this came out of his mouth, density will not change. Fifteen units per acre, I think density will change.
[1:46:35] I think that's outrageous. I can't even imagine 15 acres unless you go five stories high. Maybe you complain do 15 units
[1:46:44] per acre. It's sad to say this, single family home is the american dream.
[1:46:51] I've been a realtor over 45 years. Everybody I help with the home, that's this american dream.
[1:46:59] 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
[1:47:12] 15 feet. Where are these pictures that we saw, these beautiful pictures? Where were they taken?
[1:47:21] 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?
[1:47:29] pictures are great but where are they? Are they in gainesville or what city are they coming from?
[1:47:35] we have a lot of cities in this country. Last but not least, cost of building.
[1:47:41] 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
[1:47:53] city and the state, they pay for, the builders. I wish their builder here to speak to you about what you're
[1:48:05] 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
[1:48:14] in one lot. This is outrageous. Y'all need to be replaced, because elections have
[1:48:22] consequences. >> nicole cords followed by sharie hughes followed by nancy morris.
[1:48:38] >> miss portis, hughes -- >> nancy or tom morris. >> they are downstairs. >> okay.
[1:48:51] we'll get them when they pop in. Go ahead. We'll come back to them. >> dana silva.
[1:49:09] 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
[1:49:16] street, been there 27 years. We have humble little houses on small lots. It's residential conservation
[1:49:24] zoning we were told wouldn't be affected by some of these ordinances would affect us. This is a time line presented by
[1:49:33] the city of all this stuff the city has been doing for affordable housing. None of it has -- there are some
[1:49:43] errors in that. Be that as it may, I see a different time line. It goes back to 2014, 2015,
[1:49:57] brought in zones, certain area of gainesville. Shortly after that, 2016, the re -- I don't know what to even
[1:50:12] call it. People in city governance cut out a lot of public participation.
[1:50:18] 2017, the base code was implemented and it led to the destruction of the neighborhood because it was done in a
[1:50:29] dishonest way. I'm just going to say that. What this is all kind of still reverberating from those years
[1:50:37] to deregulate development especially in the neighborhood surrounding university and downtown, the central
[1:50:46] neighborhoods. To call this about affordable housing is incorrect. There's no link to affordability
[1:50:54] in any of these proposals. To say that someone who couldn't already afford their rent could move to a new rental apartment
[1:51:13] in another neighborhood is not logical. As far as saying it's racist to have single family zoning, I
[1:51:27] just can't even go there. You want to hear about racism, I'll tell you. 27 years of watching it close
[1:51:33] up, law enforcement, selective enforcement and then the city coming in and colluding to get rid of seminary lane and to
[1:51:48] destroy kennedy homes and put hartwood, highly expensive properties, single family hoa there.
[1:52:06] now here we are with these proposals that the city has paid. >> mayor: thank you.
[1:52:12] >> more than half million dollars to support. >> mayor: I have to have everybody the same.
[1:52:20] next up. >> tom morris followed by jackie davis. >> this proposal seems to be
[1:52:33] half baked. It strikes me we need to slow down on this whole thing and think about it a little bit
[1:52:39] more. I'm just going to bring up a couple of things, and I'll make this quick.
[1:52:44] mason manors, now outless subdivisions off 16th avenue and live up in the woods. I raised three kids there.
[1:52:54] I always, and I think most parents feel that you give a progressive long leash to children, right?
[1:53:01] when you live in a neighborhood where you pretty much know all the neighbors, you can turn those kids loose.
[1:53:07] every year they get a little bit older, go a little bit further from home. When there's 15 people, 15 units
[1:53:16] per acre, you're not going to be able to do that. You're not going to know the neighbors.
[1:53:22] the other problem I see, the jewel to gainesville is pretty much these creek valleys. I haven't seen anything that
[1:53:30] looks like environmental assessment of what this plan is going to cost the degradation of those.
[1:53:40] that's it. >> nancy morris followed by jackie davis followed by virginia moore.
[1:53:49] >> hi there. I would like also ask you to reconsider, to slow down. I think people are making
[1:53:59] assumptions. They are assuming the people that want to build these multifamily units are going to
[1:54:13] be folks that want affordable housing. We don't know that. That's an assumption.
[1:54:17] I think it will destroy the neighborhoods. That was my husband that spoke just before.
[1:54:22] I agree. We know our neighbors. We've been in our house for 35 years.
[1:54:28] we bought there for that reason. So to just change the whole integrity of it is very upsetting.
[1:54:36] I also, again, the infrastructure has not been evaluated. We have flooding two streets
[1:54:44] over when there's a major reinoehl event. We put in bigger. Types to stop flooding, it is
[1:54:54] worse. When it rains our poor neighbors have sewage come up into their streets.
[1:54:59] 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
[1:55:09] over the city. If you insist on doing it, I like the idea that the one man had about liens that are on
[1:55:15] houses, look at those and study those and make sure we can support it. Thank you.
[1:55:24] >> jackie tavis followed by virginia mauer, followed by dr. Leanetta nealy. >> I think miss davis left.
[1:55:42] I did see her walk out a while ago. >> my name is jenny mauer, and I thank you for holding this work
[1:55:50] hop and for the opportunity to speak. I want to address a serious problem that you have with
[1:55:57] restrictive covenants. Not the outrageous ones excluding most races and nationalities, the enforcement
[1:56:03] of which violates the federal constitution, they cannot be enforced and they are not an issue, but rather I mean the
[1:56:10] deed restrictions, deed covenants, that restrict development in the neighborhoods to single family homes only.
[1:56:17] these covenants apply not only -- to all whoever buys the property as long as it is in effect.
[1:56:29] these restrictions are in deeds and chains of title all over gainesville. Some may not be enforceable.
[1:56:38] others are current and enforceable. There are matters of public records and deeds in the county
[1:56:44] courthouse. I am told andrew persons has told the public that the proposed changes in the
[1:56:49] comprehensive plan will not affect neighborhoods with deep covenants that restrict use of the land to single family
[1:56:57] housing. I understand that realtors and others try to quell fear and public opposition by telling
[1:57:05] home owners in neighborhoods like colony park or forest ridge, for example, that they will be protected by their
[1:57:13] restrictive covenants and the proposed changes will not ever affect them. Unless that is indeed the
[1:57:18] commission's intention, it is ill-advised and dangerous to make these claims. If it is what the mayors and
[1:57:27] commissioners intend, please tell that to the public unambiguously and immediately. Direct city staff and change
[1:57:38] city ordinance that comes back to the commission clearly excludes properties covered by a deed covenant restricting land
[1:57:45] to single family houses. Florida courts are separate and independent branch of government, and they decide
[1:57:53] legal conflicts. Neither the commission nor these other people who offer their personal opinions control how
[1:57:59] florida courts will rule in a conflict between otherwise valid deed covenants and a municipal comprehensive plan.
[1:58:08] consider this, however, and I think this is important, that if you exclude these properties, you are treating neighborhoods
[1:58:18] unequally, once again privileging white affluent over property values that fall, there are strong racial implications
[1:58:33] to that. If you do not exclude them, this will signal you do not intend to do so, and you will ignite a
[1:58:39] firestorm in this community even greater than the opposition you already face. In the end, one way or another,
[1:58:46] you will not achieve your otherwise very public goals. >> mayor: thank you. I'm afraid your time has
[1:58:51] expired. I appreciate you being here with us. >> dr. Mcnealy followed by kim
[1:58:56] tanzer, followed by melanie barr. I do believe she had to leave. If she's not here, mr.
[1:59:04] millimeters. Mr. Mayor, you might suggest there's chairs available. >> mayor: if you're outside
[1:59:11] there are some chairs that freed up or if you would like to stay out there you are welcome to do that.
[1:59:18] welcome, doctor mcnealy. >> thank you. I'm leanetta mcnealy. I am excited, can you believe
[1:59:25] that, to be here with you this afternoon, and I have a long board meeting tonight. Anyway, I wanted to say good
[1:59:39] afternoon, mayor poe and honorable city commissioners and city manager curry. First of all I'd like to thank
[1:59:46] commissioner chestnut for insisting on having neighborhoods coming together to hear the proposed zoning
[1:59:59] changes. I don't know if she hadn't said that that the vote wouldn't have been taken by now.
[2:00:09] I want to thank commissioner ward, commissioner duncan-walker and also city manager curry as well as city staff who came to
[2:00:21] our neighborhood and met with us. You heard from quite a few people today from azalea trail,
[2:00:31] formerly known as hollywood but we have stuck together and we have decided what we certainly want as far as the zoning
[2:00:42] proposal. My ultimate problem is I know the city needs housing for the number of people who live here
[2:00:58] and have no roof over their heads or can afford where they live. Where is the cheapest land east
[2:01:09] of gainesville. We are very -- meaning those of us who are in a neighborhood, we are very vulnerable to losing
[2:01:18] what we have worked so hard for through the years and change our neighborhood from single family homes, multileases, duplexes,
[2:01:32] apartments, whatever. If this new zoning passes, we will certainly be at a loss. Increased people definitely put
[2:01:48] a burden on us. East gainesville will disproportionately be impacted. Extra resources we don't have
[2:01:56] already. As was stated earlier by mr. Fields, we live in a food desert.
[2:02:06] no shops. No restaurants. How many of you will accept this.
[2:02:17] more people, large amount of people put in -- >> mayor: thank you, dr. Mcnealy.
[2:02:23] >> I'm so sorry. I need to come back next time. >> mayor: good luck on your meeting tonight.
[2:02:29] >> miss tanzer followed by melanie barr, todd williams and brittany corbit. >> mayors and commissioners,
[2:02:48] thank you for your time. This is a page from your own report by your real estate consultant hra, and it says the
[2:02:55] city of gainesville should complete in-depth land use analysis to consider the following changes.
[2:02:59] the changes that you've been presented today are here. However, you have not done in-depth land use analysis
[2:03:09] 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
[2:03:17] same page about numbers. You heard today that 63% of the city's land was unresidential single family, that's incorrect.
[2:03:25] 63% of the residential parcels are single family, which is quite different. But when you do the math, you
[2:03:31] find that that's 20% of the area's land. That may be too much, that may be not enough, I don't know.
[2:03:37] we're not even on the same page about our data. The minneapolis 20/40 plan was very clear about their strategy,
[2:03:45] so they looked at transportation corridors. They looked at cities with existing density at a higher
[2:03:53] occurring rate and then they looked at the areas to up zone, which is what we're talking about.
[2:03:57] taking that same area in minneapolis, which is far from the university of minnesota and applying that in gainesville,
[2:04:08] 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
[2:04:15] upzoning. That has to do in gainesville with the fact that our student population is very, very
[2:04:22] disproportionate relative to other places. Let's look at that zoning area. This is one of your maps as
[2:04:30] well. We see a few vacant lots in the northwest, and we see a whole lot more in the east.
[2:04:40] reinforcing what self people have said. If you blanket up zone the city of gainesville, you will be
[2:04:45] exacerbating existing racial problems in the city, not improving them. Finally, I'd like to remind you
[2:04:51] that if you're interested in affordable housing, you have plenty of land to work with yourself.
[2:04:59] the power district, which has been laying vacant for at least a decade I'm aware of is 16 1/2 acres.
[2:05:09] there's a property south of depot park. These could be zoned at, say, u6 zoning, and that would provide
[2:05:18] an additional 1,000 units or so of housing. You've just essentially given away lot 10 for what I thought
[2:05:25] 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
[2:05:31] housing. That could have been 100 units of housing. As we proposed in 2001 as we
[2:05:39] presented depot area plaster plan, this is another 77 acre zoned to provide -- >> I don't believe I've seen
[2:05:57] melanie barr pop back in, so we'll go to todd williams, 505 corbit, 505 larry reamer. >> thank you.
[2:06:06] I'll be as quick as I can, but I'll turn the affidavit over because -- [ inaudible ]
[2:06:12] >> I'm todd williams. I'm a landlord and a property manager. I wanted to point out not only
[2:06:21] absentee but everything I manage either I own or manage for other local people. We do take care of our
[2:06:27] properties. We spent the last year upgrading insulation, appliances, do parking plans, all of that.
[2:06:34] and the three nonrelated, you say you don't want more development, well, what could be more affordable than allowing an
[2:06:41] extra person to live in a four bedroom house. Have you a five bedroom house, let five people live there, then
[2:06:49] you wouldn't have to develop more housing. So there are landlords that do care for it.
[2:06:54] 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.
[2:07:03] >> mayor: thank you for your comments. Madam clerk. >> corbit followed by larry
[2:07:07] reimer followed by robert mounts. >> mayor: welcome. >> I'm a property manager in
[2:07:18] gainesville. >> say your name for the record. >> brenton corbit. I'm a property manager and
[2:07:24] college student, so I understand the possible negative side because you've got a bunch of young kids who everybody for
[2:07:33] some reason puts this negative thing on they are all going to throw keggers and destroy property.
[2:07:41] I've been doing this for serve years. I haven't seen that. But what we do have is this
[2:07:47] unfortunate no more than three unrelated parties thing that's been going on for who knows how long it's been going on.
[2:07:56] older than me. It doesn't make common sense to me. If you have a five bedroom
[2:08:00] house, why can't five people be living in it. Talk about affordable housing, it's just basic math.
[2:08:09] 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
[2:08:18] more than you can if you put three people in it. It doesn't change the owner's expense, property taxes go up,
[2:08:24] they have to pay a rental permit every year. Everything goes up. So the owners are really the
[2:08:29] ones that suffer. Really the people that are best to gain were the apartment complexes that come in and slap
[2:08:35] 300 units and they can benefit from all of this. So my main focus, my main thing, three unrelated parties.
[2:08:45] I feel like college students -- I'm not one, I know I look young, 28 years old, I have six kids.
[2:08:54] I feel like they get a bad rap when really we as single family home owners around the campus, we can't deny it.
[2:09:04] maybe we have a duty to be better neighbors to these college students to teach them the right way to live rather
[2:09:12] than assume they are going to live the incorrect way. Also want to say appreciate you guys.
[2:09:16] I thought my job was hard. This is the first time I've ever done this. I can't imagine what you go
[2:09:21] through on a daily basis. That was all I had to say. Thank you for your time. >> larry wimer followed by jean
[2:09:31] galligan. >> I think larry left. If you're still here, larry, still outside somewhere, you can
[2:09:40] come back. >> robert mounts followed by gene galligan followed by matthew umanos.
[2:09:52] >> mr. Mayor, commissioners, I'm robert mounts, retired attorney from the neighborhood parks association.
[2:10:01] a memo included with this proposal city planner juan castillo cited various provisions as a comprehensive
[2:10:08] plan to show these changes will be internally consistent with the plan such as the future land use which says neighborhoods
[2:10:19] should retain diversity of housing types to enable a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live in the
[2:10:28] boundaries. Mr. Castillo cherry picks policies and objectives showing consistency with the housing
[2:10:33] element including provisions ensuring zoning and other housing regulations do not unduly limit opportunities for
[2:10:41] lower income groups to secure housing and locations. I'm engaged in a little bit what about -- not to distract but
[2:10:55] what about the policy that says the city's future land use map should strive to accommodate increases in student enrollment
[2:11:02] in areas designated for multifamily development within a half mile of the university and innovation square but outside a
[2:11:11] single family development neighborhoods. What about the future lapped use zone that protects neighborhoods
[2:11:20] and tree canopy. What about instruction to ensure city proposals in keeping with surrounding contract and
[2:11:34] appropriate sites. What about the housing elements goal to maintain sound, viable neighborhood and revitalize
[2:11:43] those that suffered disrepair or neglect. What about the housing policy requiring the city to work with
[2:11:49] neighborhoods on housing issues. What about the policy which requires cities to help neighborhoods to develop plans
[2:11:56] to promote conservation and restoration of housing that has special historic, architectural or historic values.
[2:12:04] what about the requirement to facilitate communication and dialogue with neighboring groups?
[2:12:09] what about the obvious interest to porters quarters and fifth avenue pleasant street and gentrification and displacement.
[2:12:19] lastly, what about the housing element provisions that increase level and desirability of owner occupancy and home ownership in
[2:12:29] the university context area. Do you really think allowing developers and out of town corporations to build
[2:12:36] quadruplexes primarily available to rent to students by the room and family neighborhoods close to university promotes owner
[2:12:44] occupancy and home ownership? We hardly think so. It's not a slam-dunk. >> gene galligan followed by
[2:12:58] matthew umanos followed by abe goldman. >> hi, my name is jean galligan. I've heard so many people come
[2:13:12] up and speak that know the ins and outs of policies and effects of policies, educated people, people with phds.
[2:13:22] 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
[2:13:27] look over what they said and consider it. I hope you're open to other plans, because it seems to me
[2:13:37] there's so many other ways of achieving what you're trying to achieve. We do need to grow.
[2:13:43] we do need more housing. We need more ways for young families and single people to own where they live.
[2:13:52] I don't think this the way to do it. The first gentleman that spoke, mr. Castillo, talked about
[2:13:59] leaving something to market forces and that terrifies me, because market forces are for the profit of the people who are
[2:14:10] the force. That's not necessarily good for anybody. It's not good for inhabitants or
[2:14:19] poor people or middle class people or homeless people or anyone else. I hope you will really listen to
[2:14:30] the people that have been up here speaking so knowledgeably and so -- with so much education but I'm discouraged, because
[2:14:41] since this all has become a possibility, I hear people in the paper, I hear small discussion groups.
[2:14:56] there are people with e-mail, zoom meetings and so on but I've never heard the county commission budge one inch or
[2:15:03] consider any other possibility other than we've got to get rid of all single family homes or single family home zoning.
[2:15:16] I think there are so many better ways to do it than way more educated people and informed people than I will have brought
[2:15:22] up today. I hope you'll consider. Like said when she first came up here, I hope you're willing to
[2:15:38] hear other opinions, more informed opinions, and maybe tailor what you're trying to do. Everybody here is kind of aghast
[2:15:49] at what could happen. There's no proven outcomes. There's no plan, there's no data.
[2:16:04] we should consider that h it's really bad. Thank you. >> abe goldman followed by
[2:16:11] frederick davis junior. >> mayors, commissioners, thank you for taking the time to participate in the workshop.
[2:16:22] I'm in favor and gainesville alachua realtors in favor of removing no more than three related or occupancy as
[2:16:31] recommended by the city's planning commission. This is an exclusionary zoning practice.
[2:16:36] 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
[2:16:45] currently not allowed. These are various living arrangements, helps cost of living making hoursing more
[2:16:54] affordable. Removing no more than three occupancy limit would also increase available rooms.
[2:16:59] we need the inventory. Supply is not meeting demand. While alachua add 300 rental units between 2000 and 2019, we
[2:17:10] lost rental units of $1,000 or less, fell in 2019. Now adding growth. We are growing and we should be
[2:17:25] proud of growth. People want to join our great community. By not approving, we are not
[2:17:31] allowing neighborhoods to evolve to meet the needs of growing community. Removing the no more than three
[2:17:36] unrelated or occupancy limit will create more density without any construction. Owners are individuals and
[2:17:44] rentals are often a tight investment. We don't want them selling or increasing rent.
[2:17:48] we need to ensure current affordable rentals are kept, removing no more than three unrelated or occupancy limit may
[2:17:56] encourage investment and make more properties viable to be rentals and increase the rental inventory.
[2:18:02] I have heard some concerns. We have some point to noise, trash, yard maintenance and similar but that's why we have
[2:18:15] codes. We don't need to focus on rentals. Some owners are just as bad at
[2:18:21] being loud, parking and the like. Parking is bad for three plus when they have kids driving as
[2:18:26] well. Rentals should not be targeted any differently. Property value has been a
[2:18:30] concern but values in the duck pond neighborhood with various housing types and various living arrangements continue to
[2:18:36] increase with no shortage of demand. The keating memo provides that as general rule considers an
[2:18:43] occupancy policy of two people per bedroom under the federal housing administration. The international property code
[2:18:50] management suggests 70 square feet per bedroom per individual and 50 square feet. I urge you to make a motion to
[2:19:00] remove no more than three unrelated or city occupancy as city consultant and commission recommends.
[2:19:07] thank you for your consideration. >> we'll go back through anybody we call who wasn't here at the
[2:19:18] moment. We'll go back before we close public comment and come back to the commissioners.
[2:19:24] I understand, yes. >> patrick davis followed by john kobler. >> mayor: you also can get a
[2:19:34] parking pass from the oif you go through the glass doors on this side, you can get a pass for parking out front.
[2:19:43] >> I'm frederick davis, jr. I hear you have a proposal to increase our property values. I've lived in gainesville 37
[2:19:54] years. I've seen a lot of changes. When I first came here it was called the tree city.
[2:20:00] gru had the second lowest utilities rates in the entire state of florida. While needless to say some
[2:20:06] things have changed and not for the better, we're not called the tree city. Maybe needenharbor used to be
[2:20:21] canopyist and she did a terrific job. As you can see now, everything is getting clear-cut.
[2:20:29] the beauty, distinctiveness of this college town has disappeared too great an extent. I hate going down krispy kreme
[2:20:43] and looking across the street and seeing those big, ugly apartment buildings, they look like government, like no one has
[2:20:52] any imagination or any sense of aesthetics. I would be willing to bet most people that live in the city for
[2:20:57] any period of time are not in favor of what's been happening to gainesville. Anyway, I know we're a
[2:21:07] university city and we try to be avant-garde and all this sort of thing. Well, we tried that with the
[2:21:13] biomass plant. Remember when that was going to be so cool and progressive? Remember how that's turned out.
[2:21:21] we're all paying for that with the second highest utilities rates in the state. You go from second lowest to
[2:21:26] second highest. That's not progress in my opinion. All these eclectic spots that
[2:21:36] 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
[2:21:42] west university avenue. If you could find a place to park, you go through this really narrow bar.
[2:21:51] it was about this wide. You get into the backyard of this establishment, and there are all these giant oak trees
[2:22:00] everywhere, the stage they erected. Musicians would go back there and jam.
[2:22:05] it was the coolest place. They had a fire pit and everything. It's been completely leveled.
[2:22:11] all the trees have been cut down. Another one of those multidimensional, multistory,
[2:22:17] unimaginative apartment buildings. So people pretty much lived in the neighborhoods they want to
[2:22:28] live in. If they don't, they inch their way toward that goal and hopefully achieve it most of the
[2:22:37] time. Where I live, we're not rich enough to attract attention across town.
[2:22:41] we're not poor enough to attract attention of neighbors. We're beautiful. We have an owner rental that
[2:22:51] works out just fine. >> mayor: thank you. >> goldman followed by john kobler followed by -- torkelson.
[2:23:33] >> could I get -- >> mayor: you'll need to put it next to it over here. >> all right.
[2:23:47] so I want to just add to the many, many interesting, important things people have said.
[2:23:54] I'm writing a longer piece about this but I want to touch on a couple of things. This is really not a progressive
[2:24:00] proposal. If you consider yourselves progressive politically, generally you don't believe in
[2:24:08] rampant deregulation, and you don't believe in letting the free market, the capitalist free market take over and achieve
[2:24:17] whatever goals you think might happen. Aside from that, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems to me there
[2:24:27] are three main broad objectives of the set of proposals. One of them is to create more affordable housing.
[2:24:34] another one in terms of social justice is to proof racial and economic equity in housing. The thirst one is to talk about
[2:24:43] environmental impacts, a number of which have been mentioned and previously a number of proponents here have talked
[2:24:52] about reducing their carbon foot present by creating more density by using lower energy use transportation.
[2:25:00] as quite a number of our other neighbors have pointed out, really where the like lip outcomes are going to not only
[2:25:12] fail to achieve these objectives but in most cases make things worse than at present. There's likely to be more, not
[2:25:22] lessed affordable housing. Everything building now with increased construction materials and labor is going to be more
[2:25:30] than everything that exists at the moment. So we're likely to get higher rents.
[2:25:35] at best we might get a slightly reduced rate of increase of rents. In terms of racial equity, as
[2:25:45] our neighbors have said, there's likely to be gentrification and displacement because you've created the incentives for that
[2:25:51] in many lower income and below market rental rates. But there's also likely higher carbon emissions and increased
[2:26:02] carbon footprint. Because not too many people have talked about that, I'm going to talk about that and also the
[2:26:09] inclusionary zoning, so-called inclusionary zoning. So gainesville's inclusionary zoning is going to be based on
[2:26:17] median how old income. These are sort of the official u.s. Census figures for 2020. Gainesville's median housing
[2:26:26] income is 38,000. That means half of the households here apparently earn less than that.
[2:26:36] yet what's peculiar is the median household income in ocala is 11% higher the median household than gainesville.
[2:26:49] the median is -- >> mayor: thank you, I'm afraid your time has expired. We appreciate your sharing this
[2:26:56] with us. >> let me just say -- >> mayor: okay, perfect, thank you.
[2:27:05] >> john kugler, followed by terry torkelson, followed by -- [ inaudible ] >> mayor: mr. Kugler.
[2:27:29] we'll go through all the names one last time before we close comment in case swap was out. >> thank you.
[2:27:36] so many people are in fear over the destruction of their lifestyle and neighborhood style.
[2:27:43] but if what you're talking about is infill development, these are the few sparse openings that exist in the areas.
[2:27:51] if you can manage to install some controls against people going in and demolishing good existing housing, single family
[2:28:02] housing in those areas in order to take profits for premium multifamily, then it's not going to change the neighborhood to
[2:28:08] have a few sparse, scattered blocks developed in this way. It's fear of much of nothing, I think.
[2:28:19] what we have now, something like 80 plus percent of black african-americans, and this is nationwide, live in communities
[2:28:28] that are less than 5% white. Almost 70% of white americans live in americans that are less than 5% nonwhite.
[2:28:40] this pattern was created historically through jim crow subprime lending and other dirty means.
[2:28:48] but now that those things are supposed to be illegal, segregation -- racial segregation is illegal, subpar
[2:28:56] lending illegal but still around, why has the pattern persisted? It has persisted because of the
[2:29:06] economic segregation of housing. Our history has also linked income levels and race. That has not been solved.
[2:29:15] do we want to continue to have two americas, separate and unequal, two gainesvilles separate and unequal?
[2:29:24] we have to develop -- your major impact is going to be on new developments, new subdivisions need to be mixed income housing.
[2:29:33] undo the pattern of economic segregation of housing that has supported, that has taken on the dimensions of historic racial
[2:29:46] segregation. It's going to be a better city if you manage to break that pattern.
[2:29:52] disperse the demand for mass transportation. You're going to even out the levels of tax income base --
[2:30:01] property tax base supporting schools. You're going to have a model of policing that has to be the same
[2:30:07] everywhere because the city looks the same everywhere. We need to -- we'll get rid of food deserts and economic
[2:30:16] deserts. The hartwood complex somebody mentioned, that's a good thing if infill in prosperous
[2:30:25] neighborhoods includes affordable housing. Those are reciprocal and both must have it.
[2:30:31] high-income housing in poorer neighborhoods and affordable housing in more prosperous neighborhoods.
[2:30:38] >> mayor: thank you. Appreciate it. >> jane, victoria hall followed by -- machado.
[2:31:02] >> hi, everyone, thank you. My name is victoria machado. I've lived in gainesville for about 15 years.
[2:31:09] I purchased my home in 2017. I really appreciate making room for afterwardable, equitable housing.
[2:31:20] it's really needed here in our community. But I do have several questions. It's mainly about
[2:31:27] implementation. I'm asking what will ensure this housing does, in fact, reach the people who need it.
[2:31:35] I asked this because soon after I purchased my house, the house next door to mine went up for sale.
[2:31:40] I was really excited about getting a new neighbor, a new family or just a if you person. But the person who purchased the
[2:31:49] house never moved in. Instead they turned it into a fulltime airbnb. Every weekend I get new
[2:31:58] neighbors. It's been positive and negative, mostly negative for me. The shared driveway has been a
[2:32:06] problem. It's exacerbated by the fact the owner does not live in the neighborhood.
[2:32:10] the city can't do anything about my grievances because airbnbs are regulated on a state level. So this leads to my question,
[2:32:19] what will prevent an investor from buying up one of these multifamily homes and turning it into a fulltime airbnb.
[2:32:29] who will make sure this is actually implemented in a responsible, sustainable way that promotes community.
[2:32:37] 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
[2:32:45] people who want to support equity and justice and who are open to the possibilities of growth in a sustainable way.
[2:32:54] I'm open to moving away from single family homes, right? Toward building a dynamic and diverse community.
[2:33:03] what I don't want is for this to support a facade. Like others in the crowd, I question whether this will
[2:33:10] support low income folks or will just be a nice side hustle for the rich folks who already live there.
[2:33:20] thank you. >> lynn seals, and I have a tim w. I don't have his full last name
[2:33:29] there. And followed by curt johnson. >> thank you for having your ear.
[2:33:38] I'm lynn sorrels. My husband and I have raised our children here. They have gone to school here,
[2:33:45] uf. We've lived in the community and really enjoyed it. I decided to make a point from
[2:33:54] the home owner's standpoint that when people come to gainesville, they come because they buy into take community.
[2:34:02] they buy into a city. They buy into a neighborhood. I live in a really nice multicultural neighborhood right
[2:34:09] here in the city limits. As most neighborhoods, I'm sure people enjoy the rhythm of the neighborhood.
[2:34:21] I believe all people should have housing. I believe in affordable housing. But I don't think I believe
[2:34:31] these coming into single-family neighborhoods is the answer. I guess I want to say I worry about the impact it could have
[2:34:48] on single-family units, like traffic increase, decrease in property values, noise. I just would ask you to keep in
[2:35:02] mind that when you're making your plans, the city planners, I believe that rather than using these quads or increased units
[2:35:18] that maybe the future neighborhoods, the new constructions might be used to have many of these multiunits
[2:35:33] and just that we could do more with new construction. We could do more with the limits -- the occupational
[2:35:45] limits for housing as well. Many good points were made in that. So thank you for your time.
[2:35:56] >> tim w. Followed by curt johnson followed by monique moss. >> greetings.
[2:36:02] I live in the porters neighborhood. We just were visited last thursday at our neighborhood
[2:36:08] meeting by the team here that started the presentation. They told us we didn't have any single-family zoning when I knew
[2:36:24] my household is single-family zoning in the neighborhood. People say we assume that the students are going to be doing
[2:36:34] these things. We don't have to assume. We have to assume. We have a mix of multifamily
[2:36:42] housing and single-family housing in the neighborhood. The new developments that are happening, we're already seeing
[2:36:48] the problems we're stating are assumptions. We see the keggers that happen all the time.
[2:36:53] we see the people parking in our front yards because the developers didn't provide for enough parking for all the
[2:37:02] people that are living in this house. It's interesting the proposal uses certain wordings, the
[2:37:13] intentions of what's being proposed. They say things like exclusionary when they really
[2:37:20] mean single family house protected. They say inclusionary when they really mean pro developer.
[2:37:28] we're seeing the parking -- we're seeing the traffic even in the process of building these developments, the contracts are
[2:37:39] ruining our roads, sidewalks. You can see the cracks. There's a claim this was made for affordable housing.
[2:37:49] but during the presentation, there was no mention of I believe it's a 10% ratio. A 10% ratio on four units on a
[2:37:57] quarter of your property is going to result in zero affordable housing units when eight might result in one.
[2:38:05] that's all we could round up. Every time you state families, you don't mean families. You mean units.
[2:38:16] when you increase it to four unrelated individuals, and I see many of the commissioners aren't paying attention to me, you
[2:38:26] really mean four different students that can be rotated at any given time so that the developers can profit.
[2:38:36] they are profiting on the houses and homes that we live in, and they are making us feel uncomfortable.
[2:38:45] you say you need more density, well, that means we're going to be crowded. You say things are expensive
[2:38:54] when you're actually telling us we're being greedy for having value in our homes that we live in.
[2:38:59] you don't think of the crowding and value in having that space to live. >> mayor: appreciate it.
[2:39:09] it's come up a couple of times. I just want to be clear that inclusionary zoning starting with an I, where you require
[2:39:17] affordable housing and new development, that's not what we're discussing today, which is why it wasn't mentioned in the
[2:39:22] presentation. We're going to take that up at a future meeting. Today it's about exclusionary
[2:39:28] housing, zoning that excludes certain housing and development. That's why you haven't heard a discussion about that.
[2:39:34] >> mr. Mayor, if I could clarify that, I think some people were speaking earlier saying they were unfair, exclusionary
[2:39:47] housing. I want to be sure, exclusionary housing here takes away single-family housing.
[2:39:59] >> mayor: we'll get -- those two are interchanged. I want to make clear when we are talking about exclusionary
[2:40:07] schoening today, which would change in residential neighborhood. Inclusionary seasoning require
[2:40:16] affordable housing. That's not what we're talking about today. We will at a future meeting.
[2:40:20] thank you. >> curt johnson followed by monique moss followed by janie williams.
[2:40:31] >> my name is curt johnson. I want to follow up on some points the previous person was mentioning, the wording that's
[2:40:41] used and the pictures that are produced seem to be camouflaging the true intent, talking about -- juan was up here and
[2:40:58] kept using the word home owners. We're going to do this for home owners. Home owners can split their lot.
[2:41:04] most home owners, if they want to split the lot, it would be right down the middle of their house.
[2:41:10] that is really for developers who will buy the cheapest houses they can find, which are mostly going to be in historic black
[2:41:19] neighborhoods, for instance, because they can tear the house down. Then they can split the lot in
[2:41:31] half and build two units. Presenting that as something for the home owners is deceptive. Quickly, I think there's been
[2:41:42] 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
[2:41:55] unlimited because we have to stay here to protect us. We have to rely on tallahassee to protect us from you folks.
[2:42:09] this is a picture of a half acre lot. Using your setbacks we still have a buildable footprint of
[2:42:24] 17,550 square feet. Multiply that times three stories, which we're also allowing, divide that by 250
[2:42:34] square feet per person, hundreds of people. I think if you allow something, the market forces which you're
[2:42:46] relying on here, will find a way to use it. If you allow it, they will build it.
[2:42:52] I think that is totally unnecessary. You don't need that many square feet to be buildable.
[2:42:57] so I think the argument for setbacks is moot. I want to point out one thing in your plan says the neighborhood
[2:43:09] should contain a diversity of housing, citizens and all ages. Yes, ideally, that would be true.
[2:43:19] the inescapable reality is financial will preclude that from happening. I think you need to consider
[2:43:31] tham. >> monique moss followed by janie williams followed by chris billy.
[2:43:41] no monique moss? Janie williams. >> mayor: she spoke earlier. She was in the back and had the
[2:43:50] bright print dress on. >> chris billy? Cody galligan. Are you chris?
[2:44:00] okay. Followed by code galligan followed by -- [ inaudible ]
[2:44:05] >> I wasn't planning on speaking but I do feel so moved. I came at this originally, I've been here since '94.
[2:44:17] I own a house in porters I bought in 2004. I've been there every since. I used to be exactly like I
[2:44:28] would say you guys in the sense of thinking we should upzone and create density. I always saw porters being like
[2:44:36] a brooklyn, needing brownstones. That's what I hoped would happen, until I lived there. I started to kind of listen more
[2:44:46] to my neighbors. Honestly, I even up until very recently I still thought, you know, we really need to densify,
[2:44:56] densify, densify. I still believe that in some way. I started to hang out more to
[2:45:02] use the verbiage of nimby opponents and I've been kind of convinced they are right. I don't think they are the bad
[2:45:13] guys that I used to think they were. I think there's some anti-growth people, and I don't agree with
[2:45:22] them. For the most part, I think we can grow gainesville from gainesville.
[2:45:26] 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
[2:45:32] everybody here, we can grow from what we have. There is a real danger in allowing -- to run rampant.
[2:45:46] they will obvious trample on what exists, what beauty we have here. So I think it's not going to be
[2:45:55] easy. I think these things can be achieved through the community. For instance, I can't stand the
[2:46:02] setbacks. I want to build on the side of my house. I can't.
[2:46:05] why shouldn't I go to my neighbor and say, hey, can I build closer? If the neighbor says no, then,
[2:46:12] you know, these are like -- these are things -- why aren't we doing this in I live in gainesville because we have
[2:46:22] appear community. I love all you people up this. I've met most of you. All all awesome, including the
[2:46:30] people back here now. I have no problem with all of you. Why don't we try to work this
[2:46:38] out instead of blanket one size fits all thing, which scares people and I understand why. Money doesn't talk, it swears.
[2:46:46] 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
[2:46:53] that is gainesville and the people here. That is our asset. It will get squashed if we don't
[2:47:01] do it right. The state of florida is very pro land rights, so we have to be really careful with what we do.
[2:47:10] >> mayor: thank you. >> cody galligan, lee and gina zetman and ronnie lauer. Nobody is here on that list?
[2:47:27] ann hazily. -- brill followed bid esha brill followed by elizabeth hurst. >> I'm ann hazily.
[2:47:45] I just really wrote and wasn't going to plan to speak but I have to say a few things, as usual.
[2:47:52] the idea of turning our neighborhoods into little squash buckets of people with no room is just a way to lower the
[2:48:10] values of our homes so that -- this has been said to me directly, personally by a commissioner several years ago,
[2:48:23] and I spoke about it at that time at one of these meetings. At the time mayor poe instituted the plan of not allowing
[2:48:40] clapping because I got a lot of collapse. He instituted the plan at that time instead of -- because
[2:48:47] people complained, put your hands up and twiddle your fingers and don't clap. I spoke again.
[2:48:58] the second time people still wanted to clap. They reached under the table underneath them and clapped
[2:49:04] 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
[2:49:14] the direct conversation that I had with one of the commissioners, the man that said, yes, that's good if the
[2:49:23] values of your oem goes down, even if your families worked very hard to develop that family value and money.
[2:49:32] the reason is because then my wife and I can afford one of your homes when the prices go down.
[2:49:40] that's been the plan for all these years, and that's still the plan. >> esha brill followed by
[2:49:52] elizabeth hurst. Miss jean chalmers. >> miss hurst, go ahead. When your name is called, go
[2:50:03] ahead and come up. >> good evening. I'm not going to speak about the issue because I'll just second
[2:50:10] kim tanzer. We're so lucky to have a nationally renowned expert in the community.
[2:50:18] so I just second professor tanzer's remarks. I want to make a couple of comments.
[2:50:23] I'm a realtor. I've been doing this for 33 years. I used to have a long list of
[2:50:28] people who wanted to move in from those places out west and return to a real city. There's no one on that list
[2:50:39] anymore. People don't want to come because of an uglification of the town.
[2:50:45] I want to complain about these awful, awful buildings that are going up. I know you feel you can't
[2:50:52] control fdot, because they own the sidewalk and the street in front of them but you can. I promise you you can.
[2:51:01] 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
[2:51:13] 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
[2:51:21] it beautiful. You go up one level, and you have to have it landscaped. The second level you have to
[2:51:27] have chairs and umbrellas. Then you enter a lobby. It's a beautiful city. We are doing so many ugly things
[2:51:35] in this city. I'm sure niederhauser isn't sleeping well. I would like you to be strong
[2:51:46] and try to get some beauty back in this town. Thank you so much. You have a tough job, and we
[2:51:51] appreciate you. >> miss hurst followed by christine coopman. >> good afternoon, mayor,
[2:52:07] commissioners, my name is betsy elizabeth hurst. I was born years ago in alachua hospital.
[2:52:15] I grew up in gainesville. I call gainesville my home. I've been lucky to live in beautiful places in this country
[2:52:24] and other countries, pre-covid, I admit. I had a hard time deciding to come today because I joined the
[2:52:31] hopeless. I didn't think I would. I've been extremely active with the county city commission
[2:52:38] school board since 1989 dedicating quite a bit of my life and my time usa I cared and I wanted to make this community
[2:52:46] better. I loved growing up with the creek system, tree canopy, the parks, and I frankly agree with
[2:52:53] what jean chalmers just said. I have been appalled. Even my open son, who is 30 years younger, has reached that
[2:53:06] point. I have been disgusted with the highrises, the lack of planning, the lack of walkability, the
[2:53:12] lack of tree canopy p gainesville used to be inviting. It was a community people wanted to move to.
[2:53:20] we had a culture, funky buildings. We had the swamp. We had the st. Francis house,
[2:53:29] almost 100-year-old building. I can't even find a place to park. I have a bad back.
[2:53:34] I have a a terrible time driving around gainesville right now. I take all my routes to figure out which way is the least
[2:53:43] painful. This community would be a better place. Imin special ed, I've worked as
[2:53:50] a psychologist. What you are building is not affordable. I've spoken to some of you in
[2:53:56] the past. It's not. We have torn down affordable housing, we could still have a
[2:54:06] community before it's gone. Gainesville was a great place to grow up. I hope it can continue to be a
[2:54:12] better town. I hope all of you will think very hard. I know I hear you talk about
[2:54:19] affordable housing, and there are lots of ways to do it. There's lots of other choices and still keep this a nice
[2:54:26] community. Thank you very much. >> our last speaker thus far is christine coopman.
[2:54:35] >> e-mail the last. I'm not going to speak about the housing. I'm not going to speak about the
[2:54:39] neighborhoods. Everybody here is so smart, so educated, so well prepared. I would like to talk about how
[2:54:49] offended I am by your sanctimonious announcement that single-family housing is racist. How dare you.
[2:54:58] how dare you presume that all of us who enjoy our neighborhoods, enjoy our homes, that we are inherently racist.
[2:55:08] I'm offended. I'm offended that commissioner saco was so frightened to be in the room of so many people that
[2:55:19] 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
[2:55:22] have opposition to her. I'm offended that you, mayor poe, that you call me racist. >> mayor: I have never called
[2:55:30] you racist, ma'am. >> you said single-family housing is racist. >> mayor: no.
[2:55:35] >> it was written and printed in the paper. It was printed in the "gainesville sun."
[2:55:39] >> mayor: no, ma'am. >> I just want you to know that we are homeowners. We worked hard for this.
[2:55:45] we love this city. But to have you preach to us about what you think we should be doing, I think the very first
[2:55:52] speaker said it very clearly. We need some balance and we're not sure that you're really listening, that we know that you
[2:56:00] are embracing the new american city model. We know that the study that we paid for, a lot of money with
[2:56:12] the people from new york compared us to minneapolis and portland. We're not minneapolis.
[2:56:15] we're not portland. We're gainesville, florida. We are a unique city. And I think we are honorable.
[2:56:22] and I do know that we are not inherently racist just because we own our own homes. Thank you.
[2:56:32] >> do you want me to go back through? >> mayor: sure. >> reesha brell, one last call.
[2:56:37] cody galigan. Lee and gina zetland, ronnie lauer, jamie s. Williams, monique moss, amelia hall.
[2:56:57] okay. Just kidding. Jane morrowski, terry torkelson, john kuegler, larry rimer,
[2:57:11] melanie barr, jackie davis, sherry hughes, nicolle courtis, scott parker, and jenny boymer. >> I have a question.
[2:57:27] >> mayor: okay, thank you. >> I have a question. Are you going to read the things of the people who --
[2:57:33] >> mayor: the clerk will put everything into the record, yeah. We'll get copies of all that.
[2:57:40] thank you all for taking the time this afternoon to come down here, share your thoughts with us.
[2:57:44] of course, if you chose not to speak today but you still want to share some ideas or perspectives with us, you can do
[2:57:52] that via the e-comment or emailing us or phoning or whatever your preferred method of communication is.
[2:58:00] 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
[2:58:09] members of the city commission to ask any follow-up questions or share their thoughts. Again, this is a workshop today
[2:58:16] so there will be no motions made or voted on. But we can give direction to our staff for any follow-up that we
[2:58:24] might like to see based on that conversation. So we'll start with commissioner hayes-santos.
[2:58:30] >> thank you, mayor. And I'm sorry. >> mayor: commissioner hayes-santos, madam clerk.
[2:58:36] [inaudible] >> mayor: very good, thank you. Go ahead, commissioner. >> thank you, mayor.
[2:58:40] and I printed out my thoughts. The clerk has them. Okay. My kind of thoughts are on the
[2:58:48] table there. I want to thank you all for speaking and sharing your thoughts.
[2:58:52] 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
[2:59:01] santa fe college. Pretty much been here ever since. I have lived north, south, west,
[2:59:08] east in all different portions of our city. I have lived in malone, simpleton apartments, I have
[2:59:14] lived in single-family homes, I have lived in duplexes, triplexes, quadruplexes. Single-family homes with
[2:59:21] roommates and have not had roommates. I have lived in homes that are 120 years old and I have lived
[2:59:28] in newer homes. I love our city and it's a city with a diverse housing. But the status quo is not
[2:59:37] working. We have to look at how we can make adjustments to that. We have a housing supply issue.
[2:59:44] there is not enough housing available in our city to meet the increases in our population. Last year, our area population
[2:59:53] 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
[3:00:02] moving here. We are in essence running out of developable land inside the city.
[3:00:10] that's why you're seeing all these great spaces in the city kind of going away because there's not much left.
[3:00:16] I think someone mentioned there was one lot left in their neighborhood. Many neighborhoods there's not
[3:00:21] many empty lots available and that's why you're seeing an incredible amount of sprawl happening to the west because
[3:00:25] that's where available land is. I hate sprawl. I think it's the worst thing possible.
[3:00:35] and people mention orlando and atlanta and other cities like that. Those are cities that just --
[3:00:41] those are kind of horrible sprawling cities. I don't want gainesville to be a horrible sprawling city like the
[3:00:49] rest of florida. They have just built single-family homes in urban development.
[3:00:54] and I am more supportive of protecting our environmental land and keeping that natural where you can have bears and
[3:01:01] foxes and other things going around. And then develop inside the city where we are having people in
[3:01:09] keeping the animals and people separate. That's why I believe we should look for infill in the city and
[3:01:15] this will help make our city more affordable. I believe the proposals are balanced and an incremental
[3:01:22] approach. We call ourselves a welcoming city, something we take a lot of pride in.
[3:01:26] but we need to take action with that and we need to have housing available for new people moving here.
[3:01:34] we're also seeing climate refugees. We're seeing heat waves across the world and we're already
[3:01:42] seeing refugees coming from the florida coastal areas moving to the inland. We are going to see a
[3:01:49] significant amount of people moving from between orlando and probably lake city in the core of our state and moving from the
[3:01:55] coast as sea levels rise over the next 40 years. That is a reality. And we have to be ready for
[3:02:02] that. It can't just put our head in the sand and pretend that climate change isn't happening,
[3:02:09] because it is. And we are going to be the place where those refugees are going to come.
[3:02:16] I first want to be clear that this will not affect many historic neighborhoods, the density and the neighborhood
[3:02:25] multi-family. It will not affect pleasant street, porters quarters, 5th avenue and the majority of the
[3:02:32] duval neighborhood. I also say the changes before us are in line with the biden administration's proposals.
[3:02:39] 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
[3:02:47] around the country and counties to put in proposals like this to help deal with our national housing supply issue.
[3:02:53] these proposals are supported by progressives like a.o.c., senator booker, senator warren, among many other progressive
[3:03:02] policy makers in our country. There's also proposals to give cities in biden's proposal, give cities who enact these types of
[3:03:14] proposals more money for affordable housing. Cities who actually make these changes will give more federal
[3:03:19] dollars. Cities who don't won't. So we can make our city more affordable and we'll get those
[3:03:23] federal housing dollars that have been spoken of if we make changes. We have to make those changes to
[3:03:29] be able to get those dollars. I also want to make a clarification, kind of that none of these proposals will stop
[3:03:41] someone from building a single-family home. If you want one, you still can. If you have a single-family, no
[3:03:47] one is stopping you from living in that single-family home. You can keep your property how you want it.
[3:03:55] let's see. Another person said in neighborhoods that have multi-family, you can't know
[3:04:07] your neighborhoods. I grew up many years living in multi-family, I played in the streets and I knew my neighbors.
[3:04:15] it's not about the type of housing. It's being a welcoming person and I think you can even find
[3:04:20] meeting neighbors no matter in a single-family home or multi-family home. As a commission, we have to do
[3:04:26] what is best for our city. Even if there are hard choices. The status quo is not working and inaction is not an option.
[3:04:34] getting to the proposals that are in front of us, the land use portion I believe that we should move to the residential land
[3:04:43] use. And the reason why moving to that land use of the two questions of the neighborhood
[3:04:49] residential land use or residential low that staff is asking us to make a decision on is because that's the same land
[3:04:55] use that is in residential conservation zoning. And the residential conservation zoning is what is mainly used in
[3:05:03] our historically black neighborhoods. Fifth avenue, pleasant street and duval.
[3:05:11] and I think that we should not have -- in the past, we have created separate land uses for historically white areas and I
[3:05:21] don't think that's appropriate. I think we should have the same. When it comes to the zoning density, neighborhood
[3:05:29] residential zoning should have the same density as residential conservation zoning r.c. Which I mentioned before is in pleasant
[3:05:37] street, duval and fifth avenue. Historically black areas of town shouldn't have to have higher density than historically white
[3:05:44] neighborhoods. Currently, pleasant street, fifth avenue, duval and porters quarters neighborhoods have a
[3:05:50] higher departments than historically white neighborhoods in town. That's not fair and that's why
[3:05:54] you're seeing more development in those neighborhoods. And that pressure. We need to change that incentive
[3:06:02] around making it a level playing field with our historic neighborhoods. I believe we need to set the
[3:06:07] neighborhood residential zoning set at a max of 12 units per acre which would be the exact same as a residential
[3:06:13] conservation zoning that we see in pleasant street, fifth avenue and in a portion of the duval neighborhood.
[3:06:21] I also think that we should have the neighborhood residential zoning, the minimum lot size the same for all uses.
[3:06:28] I believe we should go with option 2 on the bedroom multiplier section that we remove the bedroom multiplier.
[3:06:35] I also believe that we should allow cottage, bungalow and tiny home neighborhoods. This is allowed in the county
[3:06:41] and in the kind of pictures on the back it shows you what kind of tiny home neighborhood or cottage neighborhood may look
[3:06:48] like and allows more diverse housing options. For the neighborhood scale multi-family development
[3:06:54] section, I think we should have the building height for those small scale multi-family at the same height restriction as the
[3:07:02] neighborhood around it. That would keep it the same scale. I do hear there are other
[3:07:07] 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
[3:07:16] single-family zoning district that is not being discussed but it is a single-family zoning district.
[3:07:21] 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
[3:07:27] we're making changes to other ones. We should change that zoning to 12 units per acre for the same
[3:07:33] reason I said before, residential conservation that's in our historically black neighborhoods should be the same
[3:07:38] zoning in the other neighborhoods. I also think we should allow small scale neighborhood family
[3:07:43] as allowed use in the u-1 neighborhoods. Getting to another transect zone, I see some pictures in
[3:07:52] here. This is not in any single-family zoning area. I want to make that sure.
[3:07:56] this is the u-4 and u-7 transect zones that I believe we should allow individual row houses and townhouses to create another
[3:08:08] form of missing middle housing and u-4 and u-7 should have zero foot interior setbacks. Right now, townhomes are
[3:08:17] inherently more affordable. In 2021, the average single-family home in gainesville msa sold for
[3:08:23] $299,600. While the average townhome sold for $147,500 during the same period.
[3:08:31] our code currently allows large scale developers to build row houses and townhomes in these zoning districts but doesn't
[3:08:39] allow a homeowner, one person, to build one row house. This doesn't make sense. Also many of the historic
[3:08:45] structures in these zoned areas have zero foot setbacks already. I believe that we should move forward with the changes that I
[3:08:52] have proposed and that staff has brought forward and that we should schedule an ordinance hearing in july.
[3:08:59] the mayor should schedule one for a special meeting at that point. Thank you, mayor.
[3:09:05] >> mayor: thank you. Commissioner ward. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. And thank you to those of you
[3:09:10] that have been willing to sit through this and are still here. I don't know about y'all, but I'm exhausted.
[3:09:21] there's a lot to talk about here. I will start off as I started an email that I use to respond to
[3:09:28] everyone who contacted me in the last week or two. If all you need to know is whether I support removing
[3:09:37] single-family or not, the answer is no, I don't. There's a lot of nuance there. There's a lot of reasoning
[3:09:43] 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
[3:09:49] format right now. We need to start all these discussions, I believe, with a question of what problem is it
[3:09:59] we're trying to solve. Some of us have an assumption that the problem we're trying to solve is current affordable
[3:10:06] housing as well as affordable housing five, 10, 20 years down the road -- a generation or two ahead.
[3:10:15] it is absolutely true that building patterns that were created in the 1970s and 1980s in our city and which
[3:10:25] were widely celebrated created sprawl and created lots of very uncomfortable things that we are now I won't say stuck with, but
[3:10:37] 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
[3:10:45] planning for who's going to live here in 20 years. Well, we have to. That's part of the job.
[3:10:51] when you don't do that, you're leaving the job undone. We also have to govern for people who are here right now.
[3:11:02] we have -- our planning staff has done a tremendous job of putting together a lot of detail and had some exceptionally good
[3:11:13] ideas. What we haven't done is made the case throughout the community of exactly why we are doing this.
[3:11:22] 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
[3:11:31] discomfort for what's going to happen with those things and why we should do them. I used to be in sales and I
[3:11:40] spent a lot of time in fund-raising. And what we have here is a classic example of selling
[3:11:47] features and not benefits. We need to make sure people understand the benefits of something before we say we're
[3:11:54] going to do it. We didn't do that. And that's nobody's fault because it isn't really
[3:12:00] anybody's job to do that. Our planning department has done -- our sustainable development has done a remarkable job of
[3:12:09] 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
[3:12:17] wrong way to approach this. And that's why I don't support it. I would have liked to see us
[3:12:24] spend four hours this afternoon and lots of other meetings talking about very specific tools in our toolkit that can
[3:12:31] address affordable housing more quickly. The most ardent supporters of what we're talking about this
[3:12:41] afternoon would generally agree it's not going to add a lot of housing quickly. It's a slow growth approach.
[3:12:50] it's something that I believe would probably add good affordable housing opportunities in a generation or two, over the
[3:12:59] course of a generation or two. But we can't prove that. We also can't prove that it will be a disaster.
[3:13:10] 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
[3:13:16] lot we could work on that does reach the goals that we're trying to reach now. And we talked a fair bit about
[3:13:27] some of those things in other meetings. We just haven't talked about it today.
[3:13:32] so we should always be starting with what problem are we trying to solve instead of assuming that everyone agrees that we're
[3:13:37] trying to solve the same problem because that clearly is not the case. A lot of folks know and believe
[3:13:43] 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
[3:13:50] value. I hear that. I understand. And that's why I don't support
[3:13:54] that. I'll move on to another thing. With occupancy limits, that question again, what problem are
[3:14:07] we trying to solve by having occupancy limits? I think the problem we're trying to solve -- and I grew up here,
[3:14:13] so I was around, I think, when we implemented some of those limits. I was a kid, but I remember
[3:14:23] hearing about them on tv and reading about it in the paper. I think we're trying to solve noise and garbage issues.
[3:14:32] I think. But I don't really know what we're trying to solve with those because they have been on the
[3:14:36] books for a long time. Just because something has been on the books doesn't mean it should stay on the books.
[3:14:42] I would like a more robust conversation about that, but it has to start with what are we trying to solve.
[3:14:47] and I think that what we're trying to solve is noise and disruption. Maybe there's a different way to
[3:14:58] solve that because it is absolutely true that occupancy limits are not enforced because they are impossible to enforce.
[3:15:08] we're not going to go do bed checks. We don't do it already. We're not going to start doing
[3:15:13] it, nor should we. So we can contend this is a thing that works or we can be honest with ourselves and
[3:15:21] consider some other things. I think probably we could achieve a solution to the problem that we're trying to
[3:15:29] solve of noise and garbage by better funding code enforcement and by giving party patrols at gpd a little bit more funding
[3:15:40] and direction. But I don't know. These are things we need to think about and talk about.
[3:15:47] I understood in lot splits, I have had local folks, small-time developers -- developer is not a bad word by the way.
[3:15:59] we all, most of us, live in a home that was built by a developer of some sort. I do.
[3:16:05] I think most of us do. Mr. Filly is a developer. There are local good folks trying to do good things with
[3:16:16] small pieces of land and we need to do something to empower those folks. I'd like to see us be able to do
[3:16:24] that. One of the ways is considering how we deal with lot splits. I have heard from folks that
[3:16:29] that is a problem. One of the things I was hoping for is we would have some folks here today to talk about that
[3:16:34] who have personally experienced it. I'm not a builder. It would be great to hear from
[3:16:39] those folks. I was hoping that we would have some of them here or at least, you know, have them write in to
[3:16:49] be specific about their concerns instead of just having staff bring solutions. It's always good to have folks
[3:16:55] from the community who have experienced the problem come in and talk about their experience as well as folks who just oppose
[3:17:02] it because. There's a lot to think about. We still have true city u.s.a. Designation.
[3:17:12] our tree canopy is robust. The first or second highest percentage of trees in florida, it moves around.
[3:17:24] but if you look at pictures from the 1970s of big chunks of gainesville like, say, downtown, there are no trees.
[3:17:33] we have added a whole lot of trees. There are places trees have been taken down and I miss it every
[3:17:38] time they get taken down. But we have also added a lot of trees in other places. So let's not spread that untruth
[3:17:46] because we do have that designation still. I want to also hit another item. The biomass plant, deerhaven
[3:17:56] renewables is our least expensive source of energy right now and has been for a good little while.
[3:18:02] we have been paying about 3.5 cents a kilowatt for energy production in that. That's an important thing that
[3:18:09] folks need to know. We talked earlier about a very confusing titles of all this stuff.
[3:18:18] exclusionary zoning, that sounds like something nobody wants to do but you don't know what it really means.
[3:18:25] you have to remind yourself what it actually is over and over. Inclusionary zoning is an entirely different thing.
[3:18:34] we shouldn't use them in the same presentation, but they are different things. I'm glad we're going to have a
[3:18:41] different discussion about inclusionary zoning. We haven't established exactly what we're trying to accomplish
[3:18:52] and gotten buy-in from the community. Thank you, mr. Mayor. >> mayor: thank you.
[3:18:56] commissioner arreola. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. What we are trying to accomplish is to create more mixed income
[3:19:03] added throughout gainesville. That is the benefit of passing these ordinances. I also want to be very clear
[3:19:10] because I think there is a lot of confusion going on. We are talking about small scale multi-family housing.
[3:19:19] 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
[3:19:29] months talking door to door with people about what this all means, I think there are a lot of people who are interested in
[3:19:35] having this conversation. And I think what they want to know is how can I be certain about what is going to change in
[3:19:43] my neighborhood. There are plenty of limitations being put into these ordinances. The most important thing that I
[3:19:54] want to get across today, I support the recommendations and I support the additions from my colleague, but there is one
[3:20:00] thing that every time I express it, it gets almost unanimous support from neighbors. And that is a two-story limit
[3:20:07] for the neighborhood scale multi-family. I think that this is an appropriate measure to take.
[3:20:14] I think that it sets a great example. And I think that it reflects what you see mostly in
[3:20:19] gainesville. And most people aren't building three stories anyway. Single-family housing is not
[3:20:24] being eliminated. In fact, with these recommendations, you can now build single-family housing on
[3:20:31] smaller lots that you previously could not. What we are going to do, I hope, is we are going to end the
[3:20:39] wealthy monopoly of one type of zoning across this city. And I have heard people say, well, why don't we try this in
[3:20:48] this neighborhood or why don't we try this in that neighborhood. That would only lead to complete
[3:20:55] inequality. The only equitable thing to do is to not give special treatment and to not give carve-outs.
[3:21:02] this has to be equitable across the city. I am very glad to see support on the commission for removing the
[3:21:13] unrelated persons limitation. I have always found that to be discriminative. And I believe that this is going
[3:21:23] to change the status quo for housing in gainesville. Like everyone up here, I grew up here.
[3:21:32] I have -- actually when I was a kid, my parents left, brought me back and then I left for college and then came back.
[3:21:40] and we are choosing to live here just like everybody else. The census has shown us a lot more people are choosing to live
[3:21:47] here, too for various different reasons. Some of it I have heard from individuals.
[3:21:53] some of it has to do with climate change. Some of it has to do with the fact they like living here.
[3:21:58] gainesville has more to offer now than it ever has before. But we have a problem. We have a problem with housing
[3:22:05] supply. And that takes time. It cannot be fixed with a magic wand.
[3:22:10] it does take time to fix. The ending of exclusionary zoning is not a silver bullet. It is one piece of the puzzle
[3:22:22] that we have to tackle to make housing affordable and available for all. And that is the most important
[3:22:28] thing -- that there are more housing options available to more income levels all throughout our city.
[3:22:39] if there was one comment that came up about short-term vacation rentals. This commission, actually we
[3:22:48] were writing an ordinance and passed an ordinance to regulate short-term vacation rentals. The very next week tallahassee
[3:22:55] passed a law that said no city can have any regulation over any short-term vacation rentals. I believe airbnb helped write
[3:23:04] that law. [laughter] so what I would say to folks -- because I get calls all the time
[3:23:09] about complaints. If you are in my district, I'm willing to reach out to those companies because they always
[3:23:13] say we want complete customer satisfaction in all the neighborhoods and I put them to the test on that.
[3:23:19] so I really appreciate everyone coming to express their thoughts. Whether we agree or disagree,
[3:23:25] that's the nature of a democratic society. It means a lot to me that we have the opportunity to have
[3:23:30] these discussions in the public because in many countries we don't. Thank you.
[3:23:36] >> mayor: thank you. Commissioner saco. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. I think I want to start off with
[3:23:44] I think one of our neighbors misunderstood why I had to leave my office. I am visiting -- rather, I am
[3:23:51] 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
[3:23:59] 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
[3:24:06] office trying to still do my job. As for the actual topic, I will agree briefly that I do support
[3:24:14] removing the three unrelated person cap. Just a few short years ago in law school, you don't make a lot
[3:24:23] of money and you have a lot of expenses. And you can't find a lot of places affordable with people
[3:24:30] your own age that want a quiet place to be. A lot of folks tried to rent out homes, but it would get capped
[3:24:36] 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
[3:24:47] moving forward. I think lifting that cap lets folks have roommates of their choice in homes of their choice.
[3:24:54] 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
[3:25:03] of those bedrooms in a by the bed apartment building. That gives a lot of freedom of choice back to our neighbors.
[3:25:11] 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
[3:25:22] been said tonight. Thank you, mr. Mayor. >> mayor: thank you. Commissioner chestnut.
[3:25:31] >> thank you, mr. Mayor. I have a few questions and then I have some comments. I think mr. Castillo started out
[3:25:41] with 63% of city single-family -- city zoned for single-family housing, correct? What is the occupancy rate
[3:25:52] there? Of that 63%, how much of it is already occupied? Single-family occupied.
[3:26:15] >> mayor: for those watching at home, there's a discussion going on between mr. Persons and mr. Castillo to try to get the
[3:26:22] number right. >> is my question clear? >> I believe so. It sounds like you are wanting
[3:26:31] -- so the two questions, what percent single -- >> so in gainesville, would you say that 40% of our housing is
[3:26:50] single-family occupied and 60% student occupied? >> I'm sorry. >> would you say that is pretty
[3:27:02] close to it? >> mr. Mayor, we are roughly about -- like roughly about 60% renter, 40% owner occupied.
[3:27:13] >> that's what I wanted. 60% and 40% or 39%. So, mr. Persons, if you could stay at the podium for just a
[3:27:21] moment. Thank you. I think that when you give a report, that is a very important
[3:27:27] distinction to make in any report you give. When you talk about single-family housing, thank
[3:27:33] you. Dr. Jenny mauer mentioned something disturbing and I'd like to get some clarity on it
[3:27:43] because it has racist overtones. She said that there's a single-family deed covenants and I think she said you commented
[3:27:52] on it at some point. >> perhaps they are referring to deed restrictions in the public record.
[3:28:03] can I answer any questions about that? >> well, I wish she was still here.
[3:28:08] oh, there she is. Okay, there she is. Mr. Mayor, would you allow her to come back to the podium?
[3:28:14] because I'd like to get some clarity on this very issue. >> mayor: yeah, that will be fine.
[3:28:19] >> yeah. >> well, I'm not advocating. >> I know, I know. >> okay.
[3:28:33] what is the question? >> well, the question is, these deed covenants for single-family housing, you're saying that
[3:28:42] these still exist in gainesville? >> oh, heavens yes. Yes.
[3:28:46] in fact, I'm pretty sure that the plat that my house is on -- that would be a significant neighborhood -- probably -- I
[3:28:57] know there's still language. The question is, are they enforceable or not? We know the racial and
[3:29:04] nationality ones are not. But the restrictions to single-family housing, you have to deal with that one way or
[3:29:10] another. Either you exclude that or you don't exclude it. And you've got one set of
[3:29:17] problems if you do and a different set of problems if you don't. And if you don't already know
[3:29:23] exactly what you think of that, then this needs a great deal more analysis and research. >> all right, okay.
[3:29:38] >> mr. Mayor, could I -- >> mayor: yeah. >> could I add to that? So there are deed restrictions
[3:29:45] in the city of gainesville in a lot of neighborhoods. Some are expired. Some are still, you know, in
[3:29:53] effect. Those are private arrangements. They do not change the city's ability to zone property, to
[3:30:02] issue building permits. They are essentially civil contracts between other people who own property in the plat.
[3:30:09] so any sort of enforcement of those restrictions, you know, with a large majority of those would come from one private
[3:30:17] property owner in that plat against another. But the city wouldn't be party to it.
[3:30:22] it's not something that -- we are sort of separate on those issues. >> all right.
[3:30:27] thank you, thank you. Okay. >> mayor: well, okay, if you want to go on --
[3:30:33] >> yeah, I do want to continue. >> mayor: I will defer to the commissioner here. >> we will discuss it later.
[3:30:41] thank you, thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Growing up in tallahassee, my mother always said to me learn
[3:30:49] the rules of the game. And when you learn the rules of the game, then you can walk in on your own merit.
[3:30:56] no special exceptions. And so one of the rules was to get an education. A second one was to buy a home
[3:31:04] because that's the american dream. As an african-american, you will use your home to build
[3:31:14] generational wealth. That's why single-family homes are so important. That's why you heard the people
[3:31:20] from azalea neighborhood talk and speak about that so because that's -- they received the same amount of information.
[3:31:31] that's what they worked for -- to own that home and build that wealth so they can pass it on to their children.
[3:31:35] and that is how we will get ahead. But when I ran for the city commission, it was on
[3:31:40] neighborhood preservation. And neighborhood preservation to me means maintaining single-family neighborhoods
[3:31:48] because that is where people have their property. That's where they have their worth.
[3:31:53] so I think that today we have only just begun to hear from people. And I appreciate the four hours
[3:32:01] we have spent because this has been very enlightening. And I think this is only the second meeting we have really
[3:32:06] had to discuss exclusionary zoning. I think what we have discovered today is that people want more
[3:32:15] information. So I'm not ready to support the recommendation from staff. I'm not ready to support the
[3:32:20] recommendations from my colleague because I don't think we have enough information. I just want to comment on a few
[3:32:28] things that people said. Jane berman holton brought up a very important point. She said the comprehensive plan,
[3:32:35] 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
[3:32:43] deliberate speed to change gainesville, change what we are doing because the comprehensive plan, as she said, is not due
[3:32:50] really until '24, '26. Peggy carr talked about the environmental degradation that will occur here.
[3:33:05] we haven't taken the time to look at the environmental impact of this massive zoning change. The infrastructure has not been
[3:33:11] evaluated. Then we have not -- I think dr. Tanzer raised an important point.
[3:33:22] and I think it's one that we should look at in terms of looking at affordable housing. When she said that the city
[3:33:27] should look at the property that it already owns and perhaps that's where we could do a pilot to begin to address affordable
[3:33:36] housing. The power district, that we have the property. So I think what needs to happen
[3:33:43] is we need to look at how we can take the property that we already own to a public-private partnership to experience in
[3:33:52] terms of getting affordable housing out to the people. That is why it is so important to be able to earmark the arpa
[3:34:01] dollars so that we would have dollars for which to do that with in terms of getting affordable housing.
[3:34:07] I think that we need to have more workshops with our neighbors because I think people are just beginning to understand
[3:34:26] what's going on. To have this room filled to capacity today and the downstairs filled with capacity,
[3:34:32] people, our neighbors are quite concerned. They are in fear of what this commission is about to do to
[3:34:40] their property. And one reason they are in fear of it is because of the bert harris law.
[3:34:47] it is my understanding if this passes, it will take an act of congress to undo it. It is just so devastating.
[3:34:57] and it's so devastating to this community, we need to take our time, move cautiously. There may be some who are
[3:35:05] concerned with creating a legacy or making their mark on housing. But I think that this is not the way to proceed.
[3:35:16] I think it is unfortunate -- it is quite unfortunate that single-family housing and the word racist are used in the same
[3:35:26] context. Because single-family owners, housing owners are not inherently racist.
[3:35:36] I am a single-family owner. I'm not a racist. And I think that we definitely need to uncouple those terms.
[3:35:49] at this point, I think that we need to proceed with continuing listening, hearing from our neighbors, knowing that there is
[3:35:57] no need to rush to amend the comprehensive plan at this point because this commission doesn't need to do that.
[3:36:06] perhaps the next commission should look at it for '24, '26 but we should not put our community at risk because people
[3:36:16] want to leave a legacy. A legacy that we make our neighbors and proceed in an affordable housing plan with the
[3:36:30] dollars that the biden administration has passed on to us. Now, I don't think that if
[3:36:40] president biden was to look at gainesville, I think they would be disappointed to hear that the racist term and the
[3:36:51] 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
[3:36:57] and listen to your citizens. And if you've got people coming out to discuss this, you need to provide more opportunities for
[3:37:04] them to discuss it. But that you do not need to move with all deliberate speed and destroying their neighborhood as
[3:37:15] they know it and destroying the community as they know it. Thank you. >> mayor: thank you.
[3:37:20] commissioner duncan-walker. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. I jotted down several notes throughout the course of our
[3:37:33] neighbors speaking to us. And I just want to, first of all, start by saying thank you to all of you who took the
[3:37:40] opportunity to come out today and express your concerns. They are legitimate concerns. Every single person that stood
[3:37:49] up and spoke today expressed a legitimate concern. And there were some things that just kind of resonated with me
[3:37:55] in terms of some of the words that I heard used today. I heard the word "heritage" used.
[3:38:03] I heard "equality" used. I heard "jobs" used. I heard businesses and east gainesville and food deserts and
[3:38:12] affordable housing and so many other words that we should indeed be focusing on. When I ran, I ran on the
[3:38:24] platform of equitable development. And when our city manager was pulling together the framework
[3:38:32] for affordable housing, I asked that definition be included. And I ask that it be included for a very specific reason.
[3:38:42] and it is because equitable development allows for each community to be considered and brought to the table and
[3:38:55] developed equitably. We say the equity is important to us. And this very commission
[3:39:03] committed, I believe, a couple of years ago to a racial equity toolkit. And I believe several hundreds
[3:39:11] of thousands of dollars were spent on that, and that was great. Inside of that was a toolkit for
[3:39:20] equitable development. And I made mention of it before. I know we have not necessarily been using -- we're not dealing
[3:39:27] with gare any more. We have not utilized the tools therein. But they still belong to us.
[3:39:33] and those are things that I do not believe we should abandon. The environmental protection agency has resources that I
[3:39:46] think we could benefit from. And frankly shake some policy around because I am a little uncomfortable with piecemealing
[3:39:55] decisions like this. I think it's important for us as a body to not just say that equity is important to us, but
[3:40:05] to show that it's important to us. And I think you do that through the creation of policy.
[3:40:11] but the environmental protection agency has a particular tool for creating equitable healthy and sustainable communities.
[3:40:23] strategies for advancing smart growth, environmental justice, and equitable development. And I think that's part of what
[3:40:32] I've been hearing in here today -- the marriage of all of those components. They could potentially move us
[3:40:40] toward the affordable housing that we know that we need, that would move us toward being able to maintain single-family
[3:40:49] zoning. And all of the other things that our community members in here have addressed.
[3:40:53] my problem right now is that we don't have a plan. We don't have a plan. And I appreciate staff for
[3:41:06] bringing this forward, but right now I am uncomfortable with this. The level of analysis that I
[3:41:15] believe needs to be put into this, I don't yet see. I would love to see us not just continue these conversations,
[3:41:28] but I would love to see us do that in a very meaningful and intentional way in terms of allowing our neighbors input to
[3:41:39] be implemented. I sound a little dangerous, but I think that's what we are looking at.
[3:41:53] I don't know whether it's an equity analysis. I'm not sure whether it's an equitable development framework.
[3:42:02] I feel the city manager getting tight. [laughter] and that's okay.
[3:42:09] that's okay. At the end of the day, what I'm suggesting is that these types of decisions that have long-term
[3:42:21] impact, immediate impact but also long-term impact -- I want to be sure that we think very, very long and hard about and
[3:42:35] that we hear meaningfully from our neighbors. This strategy that I mentioned from the epa, in that they
[3:42:47] practice meaningful community engagement. There were sessions where the community had a chance not just
[3:42:53] to come in and say what they don't want, but there were visioning processes where they got to say this is the
[3:43:00] 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
[3:43:06] miss that. And perhaps that's a part of your plan. I see you.
[3:43:13] [laughter] and that would be wonderful if it is. >> mr. Mayor, if I might
[3:43:20] respond. >> mayor: let's wait until the commissioner is done and then I'll certainly recognize you.
[3:43:25] >> sure, sure. >> thank you. Madam manager, I hope that is what you are going to say.
[3:43:32] but at any rate, equitable development is something that I want this commission to reach back to.
[3:43:42] we have a toolkit. We have a framework or at least some tools that have already been provided for us and
[3:43:47] something that we paid for. And I think we don't need to ignore it. I think as we move forward, that
[3:43:52] should be one of the principles that propels us forward in all of the decisions that we make that are development oriented.
[3:44:07] 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
[3:44:25] these decisions. And it should be equity. That equity should be racial. That equity should be social.
[3:44:34] that equity can be applied in a number of different ways. But if equity is not meaningfully applied in these
[3:44:40] 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
[3:44:57] 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.
[3:45:06] thank you. >> mayor: thank you. Madam manager, did you want to jump in there?
[3:45:11] >> yes, mr. Mayor. I think the overarching piece, commissioner duncan-walker, that you may be looking for is, in
[3:45:24] fact, the comp plan that the city has been working on prior to my even coming to the city. Mr. Persons can step forward.
[3:45:33] but I believe that it is a comp plan that covers all of the elements of a sustainable community, if you will.
[3:45:42] and it is based on equity. I know it is still moving. It had a very serious community engagement process around it
[3:45:51] with visioning. I mean I saw the schedule of community engagement meetings that took place.
[3:46:01] I was here for the presentation before the commission. I know that process still needs to go through some other steps.
[3:46:07] but I believe that plan, if you will, has been presented to the commission. It covers almost every element
[3:46:15] of what makes a community an equitable healthy sustainable community. And it had the involvement of
[3:46:23] the office of equity and inclusion. >> mayor: correct. >> and it is based on equity.
[3:46:29] so you may want to just expand on that since it was a process that took place prior to my coming.
[3:46:34] and I do know that is what the commission is already aware of. >> you did an excellent job for the record.
[3:46:44] but, right, the comprehensive plan specifically as it relates to equitable development and then, you know, it is the sort
[3:46:52] of overarching plan for the city. Its intent is really to help guide decision making.
[3:46:59] and as we have sort of talked about a little bit, the comprehensive plan that the city has been working on the past
[3:47:09] year or so is baking equity in to the core foundation of it. Equity issues and concerns are in every chapter.
[3:47:22] it is the direction of the commission for us and staff to produce a plan, a comprehensive plan that's very different than
[3:47:31] what we have today, that has -- that takes into account social and environmental justice concerns that we simply don't
[3:47:42] have in our existing plan and haven't as a community for a very long time. So I think that is the sort of
[3:47:48] guiding framework because it both has a decision-making component to help the commission make decisions as well as staff.
[3:47:59] but it also sets priorities for how we spend public dollars for funding. It's a legal document in the
[3:48:08] state of florida, so it has a lot of benefits for that being the sort of overarching plan. >> thank you very much for that.
[3:48:17] and I'm actually glad to hear that because I remember speaking with you about that, mr. Persons, when it was not a part
[3:48:24] of that. So I'm glad to know it has been implemented. >> yes.
[3:48:28] >> and I know it was prior to the interim manager's arrival. I remember also asking that we have a very clear and concise
[3:48:36] definition for equitable development. I see that has been included. I will still say I believe there
[3:48:41] is room for us to dig a little deeper. >> always. >> always, you're right.
[3:48:54] I think if equitable development were at the core of us doing business, then this presentation today would have been a little
[3:49:07] different. So that's one of the reasons that I mentioned that. I need us to move from just
[3:49:19] talking about it. So with that being said, I'm looking forward to more meaningful engagement.
[3:49:37] I'm looking forward to hearing more community members. Your degree doesn't necessarily mean that's the only thing that
[3:49:49] qualifies you. But living in a community and knowing what it is that you and your family need, as you look
[3:49:58] into it. So I'm grateful to hear that it's there. I want to see it applied.
[3:50:14] and I'll go ahead and stop there. Thank you. >> mayor: thank you.
[3:50:19] thank you, madam manager. Before I go back around to everybody for a second opportunity to speak, I've been
[3:50:35] around big difficult issues. This is one of them. I have learned there's an important issue.
[3:50:46] everything is moving too slowly. And if you oppose the issue, you're rushing it. That's been consistent depending
[3:50:52] on what side of the issue you're on and how you support it. We cannot say we're rushing this issue.
[3:50:58] it has been something that we have been working and focused on for years now. And it is absolutely rooted in
[3:51:12] equity and equitable development. That is why we are doing this. The status quo has led to abject
[3:51:25] in our community. The status quo is not working. I agree with my colleagues and members of the public who have
[3:51:37] pointed out this is not a panacea. It's not as if the commission passes this and within six
[3:51:44] months we're going to see the affordable housing crisis disappear. That's not going to happen.
[3:51:50] it's going to be very gradual and incremental change over a long period of time. Because most people that live in
[3:52:00] single-family neighborhoods are going to stay there. And even if somebody decides to move out or, you know, moves
[3:52:10] into assisted living, the cost of razing a house -- buying it and then destroying it and building something new make the
[3:52:20] economics unlikely to work out. But it will over time allow more families to choose where they live in our city and what kind
[3:52:35] 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
[3:52:46] that's good. That grounds us. I have lived in all these kinds of houses as well around the
[3:52:50] city. I've been as poor as one can get while still being housed. I've been homeless.
[3:52:58] I've been so poor I was not able to afford a home for many months. But I remember one particular
[3:53:06] house -- and it just brought me a lot of joy. It still is in fifth avenue. It was originally a
[3:53:14] single-family home. And then at some point it got converted to four apartments, four small apartments.
[3:53:20] so my brother and his roommate lived in one of them. A married couple lived upstairs in one of them.
[3:53:26] a single guy lived upstairs and another couple of guys lived downstairs. All in this one house.
[3:53:34] and it was a great place to live. None of them owned a car. They were able to get to work
[3:53:39] and to school. They loved their neighborhood. They were active participants. And that is illegal to build
[3:53:51] right now. It offered an opportunity for all of those people to live in a place and in a situation that
[3:54:01] brought them joy and kept them safe and connected to their community. And it's illegal to build right
[3:54:09] now. So I don't want this commission or the next to see us taking action on this and in my opinion
[3:54:27] hopefully passing it as the solution to all the problems. We've got to dedicate much more of our money toward public
[3:54:39] housing. And I agree. One of the things I'm most disappointed in my tenure is the
[3:54:43] lack of movement in the power district. That has created an opportunity and I am so so disappointed that
[3:54:50] we have started and stopped so many times. But that opportunity remains. We've got to use our public
[3:54:56] money for public-private partnerships to create that significantly affordable housing for the 80% and below ami folks.
[3:55:06] we have got to continue to find ways to invest more and more money in our community land trust.
[3:55:13] we have got to look at how we can preserve an existing housing stock. All of those are part of a
[3:55:23] framework that the city manager put together and hired mr. Harris or our housing expert, our senior housing strategist to
[3:55:34] implement. But when you take 63% of the residential area in our city and disqualify it from anything, but
[3:55:45] the most exclusive type of development, you are never going to be able to get -- plus you can continue very exclusive
[3:55:54] housing patterns. Literally within a stone's throw -- I mean if I have like an 8-ounce rock, I can hit the roof
[3:56:04] of three houses from my driveway that are all vacant. That does nothing for my neighborhood.
[3:56:09] that adds no value to my neighborhood. Certainly adds value to people that own them.
[3:56:13] but they have been vacant for years. I so, so wish that those were two-family homes where families
[3:56:21] of modest means and their children could live there, could go to, in my opinion, the best school in the city -- carolyn
[3:56:34] beatrice parker, I'm biased. That they could live within biking or transit distance to the major job hubs in our city.
[3:56:43] that's not legal right now. It's illegal for that to exist in our city. So we do benefit from more
[3:56:55] diverse housing stock to create more diverse neighborhoods. This is one but an important step in that direction.
[3:57:06] so I encourage us to continue having the neighborhood outreach meetings, madam manager. The folks that are interested in
[3:57:15] this are very interested and will continue to participate. And I fully intend to work with the clerk to schedule two
[3:57:25] meetings in july, two special meetings where this will be the only item up for discussion to continue to move this forward.
[3:57:41] our city must take these modest but important steps if we are to allow for, as commissioner duncan-walker often reminds us
[3:57:56] -- and I'm thankful for that -- that we've got to take the action through policy to make sure we're equitable and not
[3:58:05] just talk about it. That to me is exactly the next step we need to take. We'll go back around.
[3:58:10] and then, of course, again we're taking no action today. So we do have another item on our agenda, believe it or not,
[3:58:19] that has to do with -- I think just a recap of the workshop. So that I think will be brief. Commissioner hayes-santos.
[3:58:26] >> thank you, mayor. Commissioner duncan-walker, you brought up a great point about equity being a part of this.
[3:58:35] and that's why when we hired the consultant for this and we asked to look at inclusionary zoning and bring back the
[3:58:44] recommendations that are before us, we asked them that equity be at the core. That was our direction -- that
[3:58:53] they look at equity and have an equity lens of looking at exclusionary zoning and that they look at that equity.
[3:59:02] that's what we are seeing today. I do want to kind of clarify things. I know we can't make a motion
[3:59:15] but I think staff wants clear direction. I believe there are four votes for this.
[3:59:21] the mayor call special meetings in july when we get back to hold the ordinance's readings, that we move forward with staff
[3:59:30] recommendations with a couple of changes, the proposed changes I brought forward. And accept that we include
[3:59:37] commissioner arreola's proposal to cap neighborhood multi-family scaled neighborhoods to two stories.
[3:59:44] >> mayor: thank you. Commissioner saco. >> thank you, mr. Mayor. And I know we can't make a
[3:59:50] motion, but I would certainly back that ask and suggestion of staff. My comment is more about --
[4:00:00] okay. I can see mr. Nee. The bert harris act has been brought up a few times.
[4:00:05] and the last time it was brought up, I spoke to one of my law professors who is a premiere scholar on the constitutionality
[4:00:14] of it. I asked him his opinion on it after my own analysis. His analysis is it would not
[4:00:19] apply because we are not restricting the use of any one property. We are amplifying the land use
[4:00:24] applicable -- the uses of that land applicable. I want to confirm with mr. Nee before we keep saying this and
[4:00:31] then people will be afraid or hopeful that they can do that. I wanted mr. Nee's opinion. >> mayor: mr. Nee, if you wanted
[4:00:39] to opine today or at least be prepared by the next time this comes up. >> I will accept a memo at some
[4:00:45] point. >> I will be more than happy to come back at a later time with a more full explanation.
[4:00:50] I would agree that's more understanding that the general bert harris would stand to address a regulation adopted by
[4:00:58] the government that would inordinately burden the existing right. To say it's burdening your right
[4:01:09] when you up-zone, that's the issue really that you would want to look into and be more specific about.
[4:01:15] 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
[4:01:23] the way things are, then you would have potential problems. So it's a broader issue than I think a quick answer might be
[4:01:32] able to give. But I'd be happy to be ready for that broader explanation I think when the time comes.
[4:01:37] >> mayor: yeah, we appreciate that. Thank you. >> thank you, mr. Mayor.
[4:01:40] thank you, mr. Nee. >> mayor: are those all, commissioner saco? >> yes, sir.
[4:01:44] >> mayor: okay, thank you. Commissioner chestnut. >> okay, thank you, thank you. So if the broader explanation is
[4:01:51] going to be that once this ordinance that you all are putting together takes place, it can be undone.
[4:02:01] is that what I'm hearing? >> mayor: I think that's what he's going to come back to us with an opinion on.
[4:02:07] >> so that is quite refreshing. Now, what I'd like to clarify with the manager or mr. Persons -- thank you -- is when is the
[4:02:32] comprehensive plan mandated that it arrives in tallahassee from gainesville? >> we are on our -- with respect
[4:02:40] to the comprehensive plan, we are on our own schedule essentially. >> so then there is no rush?
[4:02:45] there is no rush to get it to tallahassee? >> not for the comprehensive plan, no.
[4:02:49] >> okay, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, sir. >> mayor: thank you.
[4:02:55] I answer to anything. [laughter] I'm happy to do so. Commissioner arreola.
[4:03:00] >> thank you, mr. Mayor. I just want to make a plug for my district 3 town hall which will include this discussion.
[4:03:09] 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
[4:03:17] is doing everything I can to talk about what this is, what it isn't. There is every effort being made
[4:03:24] on my part. I know the staff is working very hard but it's also incumbent on us, commissioners, to make it as
[4:03:33] well. >> mayor: thank you all for the discussion, including all the folks that showed up today and
[4:03:36] took time out of their afternoon. We do have this other item, affordable housing workshop on
[4:03:42] inclusionary and exclusionary zoning. I think this is a recap of what that is.
[4:03:48] madam manager, I think we are all tired. We don't want to rush anything as we said but we don't want to
[4:03:52] unduly delay things. >> no, mr. Mayor, members of the commission. We simply put a summary together
[4:04:00] on the meetings that we had. Mr. Harris is here. We tried to put the summary together in a way that, you
[4:04:05] know, was clear, you know. We had reasonable attendance at most of those meetings and we tried to authentically capture
[4:04:13] the comments that came from everybody at those meetings. Mr. Harris, if you want to add to that, just simply making sure
[4:04:19] that, you know, we included that. >> mayor: yeah. And those comments were included
[4:04:24] in the backup as well as in the previous item. A lot of those neighborhood workshops were included as well.
[4:04:30] [inaudible] [laughter] mr. Harris, are you going to fight for the microphone?
[4:04:36] no, no. I think it was there for informational purposes. It's not -- yeah, it's not a
[4:04:41] discussion point so much. But I did not want to leave it unsaid. Okay.
[4:04:46] thank you for that. Any member comment? Okay. Then we have reached the
[4:04:51] conclusion of our business. Y'all have a good summer, be safe out there. And we will see you in july.
[4:04:58] we are adjourned. [pounding of gavel]