From: Michael C. Barnette <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 12:40 PM
To: Scot K. Bolyard <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave S Goodwin <[email protected]>; Elizabeth Abernethy <[email protected]>; Corey D. Malyszka <[email protected]>; Deputy Mayor <[email protected]>; School Board Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sharon Wright <[email protected]>; [email protected]; James A. Corbett <[email protected]>; Joe F. Zeoli <[email protected]>; Leah McRae <[email protected]>; Ed Montanari <[email protected]>; Tricia Terry <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kimberly Jackson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Novisk Jason <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Hi Scot et al.-
-----
NOTE: As I was about to send the following email out, I was advised there is currently a large engineering and survey crew at the development site who were surveying for the expansion of Pershing Street. That you are proceeding before the planned April meetings and without proper public input and procedure is extremely infuriating. As such, we will be revising our posture and exploring our legal remedies. It is a shame this project will be stained by St. Petersburg's blind and reckless zeal to expand at any cost.
-----
I wanted to touch base with you prior to the April meetings on this issue. We are within 30 days of the meetings and to date no one in the neighborhood has been notified of the meetings via certified mail. We are, however, mobilizing residents in the affected neighborhood who are all very upset with the school board's poor planning, lack of communication, and failure to evaluate reasonable alternatives to avoid impacts to the immediate area.
Two primary issues we plan to bring to your attention:
1. The commercialization of a residential street that will undoubtedly dramatically increase traffic on Pershing Street, as well as the adjacent neighborhood. This will increase noise and pollution, impact other municipal services to the neighborhood, and, most importantly, decrease safety throughout our neighborhood streets. It will also likely negatively affect property values (DRC staff report, Page 7, #10; DRC Case No.:21-32000015) to differing degrees based on proximity. We are unaware of any other school in St. Petersburg that utilizes a small residential street as a primary entrance/exit, versus a more appropriate direct entrance/exit on a major thoroughfare. As currently designed, this is not prudent nor sustainable development. We also wish to point out that while curb cuts, speed bumps, and signage may be considered as mitigation measures, they will not avoid the inevitable traffic issues (and may actually exacerbate issues) and are largely just cosmetic.
2. Failure to properly evaluate current and anticipated traffic patterns with the proposed design, in comparison to potential reasonable alternatives. We have not seen any documentation of the essential analyses on this issue, and note the current design fails to take into consideration the project will undoubtedly require new traffic signals on 62nd Avenue to mitigate the anticipated daily increase in traffic entering and exiting the school and YMCA, as well as periodic reduced speed limits commonly associated with other schools. In fact, the need for a traffic report is noted on page 6 of the DRC staff report (DRC Case No.:21-32000015), yet none has been provided. These needed analyses must also take into consideration the increase in private vehicles dropping off and picking up children, which results in large queues of vehicles in anticipation of the release of children. Furthermore, the paucity of information we have seen on this project appears to completely lack any analysis of additional traffic that will also occur as a result of YMCA operations beyond school hours. Lastly, traffic flow analyses should take into consideration other development projects in the area, such as the large development project off 54th Avenue NE between 1st and 4th Street NE. These are all interrelated and interdependent effects that need to be considered to ensure proper and sustainable development.
We believe these issues can be largely eliminated through the consideration of other reasonable alternative designs that place all entrances/exits on 62nd Avenue, as they existed when the previous school was active at the same location. For instance, the footprint of the property should easily allow for the placement of the parking lot and bus lanes adjacent to 62nd Avenue, and sliding the building to the north. This would remove any entrance/exit on Pershing Street (aside from any potential emergency "soft gate" for fire/rescue to the back of the building) within the adjacent neighborhood and alleviate overflow traffic through our neighborhood streets. Other options include closing off the streets to through traffic north and west of Davenport/Pine off Pershing Street. Not curb cuts, but barrier walls. This could reduce traffic flow through our neighborhood that will undoubtedly occur from traffic attempting to avoid the existing light at 1st Street NE/62nd Avenue. We believe there are other reasonable alternatives that merit consideration and discussion.
We also question the lack of consideration of wetlands mitigation to potentially utilize the eastern portions of the property in some capacity. We are aware of rumors this may have been done to avoid criticism and potential legal challenges from Mangrove Bay and Cypress Links Golf Courses. We are astonished that the concerns of a commercial golf course that would not be materially affected would potentially outweigh the concerns of residential neighbors that are clearly directly and significantly impacted.
In preparation of the April meetings, could you also have the appropriate person provide the budget (including any cost sharing) for the proposed development project? In particular, we are interested in any YMCA contributions to the construction, operation, and/or maintenance for the project, and if so, if any of the contributed funding originates from federal grants. We also would request documentation of a required endangered species assessment for the site, principally for the federally-endangered gopher tortoise. Neighbors have noted the potential presence of the gopher tortoise adjacent and potentially within the property in recent years.
In summary, we are supportive of the new school project and are intrigued by the YMCA partnership project in general. We do not support, however, aspects of the current design -- specifically the entrance/exit on Pershing Street -- as it will result in significant negative impacts to the associated neighborhood. This simply is unacceptable and inappropriate. We understand with the growth occurring within Pinellas County there is a real need for new school facilities. But any development should be prudent and sustainable. We would hope the YMCA would strive to build a strong relationship and partnership not only with the Pinellas County School Board, but also one with their new immediate neighbors in Mangrove Bay. The YMCA aims to enrich communities. In this case, it will be helping to destroy the immediate community adjacent to their new partnership project based on the current design.
We urge you to thoughtfully consider our input on this issue to avoid unnecessary delays and impacts on your development project that may occur from potential litigation and associated unwanted bad publicity. We are communicating with you before the April meetings to give you sufficient time to consider and address these essential concerns. We also hope you will properly notify affected homeowners in proximity to the development project prior to the April meetings.
Respectfully,
Mike
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 12:40 PM
To: Scot K. Bolyard <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave S Goodwin <[email protected]>; Elizabeth Abernethy <[email protected]>; Corey D. Malyszka <[email protected]>; Deputy Mayor <[email protected]>; School Board Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Sharon Wright <[email protected]>; [email protected]; James A. Corbett <[email protected]>; Joe F. Zeoli <[email protected]>; Leah McRae <[email protected]>; Ed Montanari <[email protected]>; Tricia Terry <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Kimberly Jackson <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Novisk Jason <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Hi Scot et al.-
-----
NOTE: As I was about to send the following email out, I was advised there is currently a large engineering and survey crew at the development site who were surveying for the expansion of Pershing Street. That you are proceeding before the planned April meetings and without proper public input and procedure is extremely infuriating. As such, we will be revising our posture and exploring our legal remedies. It is a shame this project will be stained by St. Petersburg's blind and reckless zeal to expand at any cost.
-----
I wanted to touch base with you prior to the April meetings on this issue. We are within 30 days of the meetings and to date no one in the neighborhood has been notified of the meetings via certified mail. We are, however, mobilizing residents in the affected neighborhood who are all very upset with the school board's poor planning, lack of communication, and failure to evaluate reasonable alternatives to avoid impacts to the immediate area.
Two primary issues we plan to bring to your attention:
1. The commercialization of a residential street that will undoubtedly dramatically increase traffic on Pershing Street, as well as the adjacent neighborhood. This will increase noise and pollution, impact other municipal services to the neighborhood, and, most importantly, decrease safety throughout our neighborhood streets. It will also likely negatively affect property values (DRC staff report, Page 7, #10; DRC Case No.:21-32000015) to differing degrees based on proximity. We are unaware of any other school in St. Petersburg that utilizes a small residential street as a primary entrance/exit, versus a more appropriate direct entrance/exit on a major thoroughfare. As currently designed, this is not prudent nor sustainable development. We also wish to point out that while curb cuts, speed bumps, and signage may be considered as mitigation measures, they will not avoid the inevitable traffic issues (and may actually exacerbate issues) and are largely just cosmetic.
2. Failure to properly evaluate current and anticipated traffic patterns with the proposed design, in comparison to potential reasonable alternatives. We have not seen any documentation of the essential analyses on this issue, and note the current design fails to take into consideration the project will undoubtedly require new traffic signals on 62nd Avenue to mitigate the anticipated daily increase in traffic entering and exiting the school and YMCA, as well as periodic reduced speed limits commonly associated with other schools. In fact, the need for a traffic report is noted on page 6 of the DRC staff report (DRC Case No.:21-32000015), yet none has been provided. These needed analyses must also take into consideration the increase in private vehicles dropping off and picking up children, which results in large queues of vehicles in anticipation of the release of children. Furthermore, the paucity of information we have seen on this project appears to completely lack any analysis of additional traffic that will also occur as a result of YMCA operations beyond school hours. Lastly, traffic flow analyses should take into consideration other development projects in the area, such as the large development project off 54th Avenue NE between 1st and 4th Street NE. These are all interrelated and interdependent effects that need to be considered to ensure proper and sustainable development.
We believe these issues can be largely eliminated through the consideration of other reasonable alternative designs that place all entrances/exits on 62nd Avenue, as they existed when the previous school was active at the same location. For instance, the footprint of the property should easily allow for the placement of the parking lot and bus lanes adjacent to 62nd Avenue, and sliding the building to the north. This would remove any entrance/exit on Pershing Street (aside from any potential emergency "soft gate" for fire/rescue to the back of the building) within the adjacent neighborhood and alleviate overflow traffic through our neighborhood streets. Other options include closing off the streets to through traffic north and west of Davenport/Pine off Pershing Street. Not curb cuts, but barrier walls. This could reduce traffic flow through our neighborhood that will undoubtedly occur from traffic attempting to avoid the existing light at 1st Street NE/62nd Avenue. We believe there are other reasonable alternatives that merit consideration and discussion.
We also question the lack of consideration of wetlands mitigation to potentially utilize the eastern portions of the property in some capacity. We are aware of rumors this may have been done to avoid criticism and potential legal challenges from Mangrove Bay and Cypress Links Golf Courses. We are astonished that the concerns of a commercial golf course that would not be materially affected would potentially outweigh the concerns of residential neighbors that are clearly directly and significantly impacted.
In preparation of the April meetings, could you also have the appropriate person provide the budget (including any cost sharing) for the proposed development project? In particular, we are interested in any YMCA contributions to the construction, operation, and/or maintenance for the project, and if so, if any of the contributed funding originates from federal grants. We also would request documentation of a required endangered species assessment for the site, principally for the federally-endangered gopher tortoise. Neighbors have noted the potential presence of the gopher tortoise adjacent and potentially within the property in recent years.
In summary, we are supportive of the new school project and are intrigued by the YMCA partnership project in general. We do not support, however, aspects of the current design -- specifically the entrance/exit on Pershing Street -- as it will result in significant negative impacts to the associated neighborhood. This simply is unacceptable and inappropriate. We understand with the growth occurring within Pinellas County there is a real need for new school facilities. But any development should be prudent and sustainable. We would hope the YMCA would strive to build a strong relationship and partnership not only with the Pinellas County School Board, but also one with their new immediate neighbors in Mangrove Bay. The YMCA aims to enrich communities. In this case, it will be helping to destroy the immediate community adjacent to their new partnership project based on the current design.
We urge you to thoughtfully consider our input on this issue to avoid unnecessary delays and impacts on your development project that may occur from potential litigation and associated unwanted bad publicity. We are communicating with you before the April meetings to give you sufficient time to consider and address these essential concerns. We also hope you will properly notify affected homeowners in proximity to the development project prior to the April meetings.
Respectfully,
Mike