Special Meeting — February 17, 2026
Chapters
Alan Clendenin
05:05:46PM I always like the gavel.
Lynn Hurtak
05:05:47PM That is true as well.
Alan Clendenin
05:05:52PM I have to wait for her to give me the cue. [Gavel sounding] good evening, everybody. IT is 5:06, which if you are familiar with the City Council, IT is 5:01. We are ready to start this meeting, and I call this meeting to order. Can I have the roll call, please.
Charlie Miranda
05:06:14PM Here.
Guido
05:06:15PM Here.
Lynn Hurtak
05:06:18PM Here.
Naya Young
05:06:18PM Here.
Bill Carlson
05:06:20PM Here.
Alan Clendenin
05:06:21PM Here.
Clerk
05:06:22PM You have a physical quorum.
Alan Clendenin
05:06:24PM Before we start our regular scheduled business, I would like to recognize Abbye Feeley.
Abbye Feeley
05:06:30PM Good evening, Council. Abbye Feeley, administrator for economic development and opportunity. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you tonight. I would like to take a moment, if I May, to recognize and thank planning director Evan Johnsonhas he concludes his service to City Of Tampa. He stepped into leadership when continuity mattered and kept projects moving forward for Council and community. During his time with the city, he has been here just about two years, he has completed with the City Planning team some major initiatives, including the housing needs assessment, coastal area action plan, the West Tampa alley study, and as you all are aware, they have been advancing the silver springs neighborhood action plan. And he secured funding for Resilient Florida, as well as recently honored for the sunset section of the apa for best public outreach for the south of Gandy and Palmetto Beach coastal area action plans. So just as important to these projects themselves is evans approach, his collaboration, his steadiness, and his focus on helping staff and communicate clearly both with City Council and with the community. So evan has accepted a planning opportunity to lead the effort in another state. And, unfortunately -- fortunately for them, unfortunately for US. But we just really wanted to wish him the best tonight and thank him for his service to the city. Please join me in thanking evan. [Applause] [standing ovation]
Evan Johnson
05:08:16PM Thank you very much. Evan Johnson, planning director for two and a half more days. Thank you very much, Abbye, for your very kind words. A pleasure to work with you all. I am really looking forward to transmitting a comp plan tonight. So thank you for -- for helping US out, for advancing planning in the community. I think IT is -- we have come a Long Way. Stephen brought me in two and a half years ago. And I think we have been making progress ever since. So hopefully the momentum will keep going. So I really appreciate IT.
Alan Clendenin
05:08:49PM Councilwoman Hurtak and council member Maniscalco.
Lynn Hurtak
05:08:52PM Thank You very much for everything You have done. Really enjoyed working with You. You just have been easy to work with. Have great ideas. IT always fun to bounce things off of You and try to move things forward. Thank You so much and really appreciate IT. We are really going to miss You, but Maryland, IT is going to be great.
Evan Johnson
05:09:13PM Thank you.
Alan Clendenin
05:09:13PM Council Member Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco
05:09:16PM My friend from the third grade and I were singing your praises, Matt Suarez, who knew you and your wife when you first met, when you were dating. You are wonderful. We appreciate all that you have done. Because IT is a huge undertaking. You see with what we are dealing with tonight, IT is the future of this community and the path that IT takes. And, you know, you mentioned stephen, one of the best and you are right there. We appreciate you. We hate to see you go, but we wish you all the best moving forward. Thank you for all that you have done.
Evan Johnson
05:09:49PM Thank you, Councilman.
Alan Clendenin
05:09:51PM Councilwoman Young and council member Miranda.
Naya Young
05:09:54PM You are leaving? And this is how I find out? Wow.
Evan Johnson
05:09:59PM I am sorry.
Naya Young
05:10:01PM I am so sad.
Evan Johnson
05:10:04PM I am sorry; I should have mentioned IT before.
Naya Young
05:10:07PM Yeah.
Evan Johnson
05:10:08PM I figure when I told Council Member Clendenin, IT would get around.
Naya Young
05:10:12PM No.
Alan Clendenin
05:10:13PM Wait until IT is my turn. [Laughter]
Naya Young
05:10:24PM Where are you going?
Evan Johnson
05:10:26PM Going to be planning director in rockford, Maryland, right outside of dc.
Naya Young
05:10:32PM Maryland is a Great Place and very lucky to have You. I am sad You are leaving. A pleasure to work You with, even prior to me coming on Council. You are extremely bright. Really smart. And I am so sad. I am really sad You are leaving. But I am happy for Maryland. You will be a great addition there. Thank You so as much.
Evan Johnson
05:10:51PM Thank you.
Alan Clendenin
05:10:53PM Council Member Carlson.
Bill Carlson
05:10:54PM I will like to make a motion to deny.
Lynn Hurtak
05:10:58PM Second.
Evan Johnson
05:10:59PM That was good.
Bill Carlson
05:11:02PM I have been running around all day, and I found out through mutual friends. You are the visionary leadership in this Community. The people that have a lot of great ideas are really sad about You leaving. And IT is going to leave a big loss in our Community. If You have ideas from afar that You want to give US, please call US, and I hope we recruit You back some day. You guys have contributed a lot to the texture of this Community over many years. As a Community, we appreciate the ideas and the thorough leadership that You provided.
Evan Johnson
05:11:34PM I appreciate that.
Alan Clendenin
05:11:38PM Council Member Miranda.
Charlie Miranda
05:11:39PM Maryland is a good state. But the rumor was You are leaving because of the good crab cakes. I appreciate your time and God bless You and your family and enjoy Maryland. A little different than Florida. When the snow comes, You will remember US.
Evan Johnson
05:11:54PM I will be thinking of You a lot in the next month or so when I am up there.
Alan Clendenin
05:11:59PM Council member Viera.
Luis Viera
05:12:01PM I was walking in. Are you going to the private or Public Sector?
Evan Johnson
05:12:06PM Going to be planning director in rockford, Maryland.
Luis Viera
05:12:10PM Good for you and in Public Service and good fortune in Maryland. You have a great Governor there and good luck.
Evan Johnson
05:12:17PM I have a couple of metro stops and excited about that. Test out the transit.
Alan Clendenin
05:12:22PM There we go. You can come back and teach US something about transit. Lets see. Evan Ross Johnson. [Laughter] I frequently speak of the quality of employees in the City Of Tampa being exceptional and what great service -- all the employee that the City Of Tampa provide for the taxpayers and the people that live here. And you are one of the finest. And I think what you have contributed and your rhyme and reason and meetings that we had and discussions have been exemplary, and I applaud your talent. And I know wherever you go, you will take that talent and make IT as successful as you have in your role here. I suspect the first time you experience freezing rain up there, you will be applying for jobs back in the City Of Tampa.
Evan Johnson
05:13:11PM Could be.
Alan Clendenin
05:13:12PM We look forward to your return, and I know You will be welcomed, and thank You very much for what You have done.
Evan Johnson
05:13:18PM Thank you, all. [Applause]
Alan Clendenin
05:13:24PM Councilwoman Young, you have a Special Guest in the audience. Would you like to introduce your Special Guest?
Naya Young
05:13:32PM I am sure she does not want to be introduced, but Miss Lena Young Green, my wonderful grandmother, Community Advocate, mentor, everything that -- as she would say, squeaky wheel that gets the oil. So I am happy to see you. I didnt know you were coming today. Good to see you, grandma. [Laughter]
Alan Clendenin
05:14:01PM Hi, grandma. Good to see you. Okay, very good. Well now for those of you who are here, you are going to say hello and goodbye for US for a short period of time at this time in accordance with the Florida statute 286.0118 As we will proceed to a closed attorney session for settlement in the case of Scarlet Lopez versus City Of Tampa case number 8-23-cv-02548-kkm-lsg currently pending in the middle district of Florida. This closed session is expected to last 30 to 45 minutes and recorded by a court reporter. The names of persons attending the closed session are as follows: myself Councilman Alan Clendenin, Councilman Bill Carlson, council member Lynn Hurtak, council member Maniscalco. Council member Charlie Miranda, councilwoman Naya Young. City attorney Martin Shelby, Scott Steady, Toyin Aina-Hargrett, Christopher Bentley Esquire, Erin Jackson Esquire, and a Certified Court reporter, Cheryl Westfall. This meeting will reopen, and I will announce the ceremony nation of the session. A transcript of the closed Attorney-Client session shall be made as part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation in the lopez case. So I would like to adjourn this meeting, and we are in recess and council will report to the eighth floor and return when we are done with the closed session. [Recess]
05:36:37PM Welcome back to Tampa City Council. Thank you for your patience. Roll call, please.
Charlie Miranda
05:36:40PM Here.
Guido Maniscalco
05:36:42PM Here.
Naya Young
05:36:43PM Here.
Lynn Hurtak
05:36:44PM Here.
Bill Carlson
05:36:45PM Here. Alan Clendenin: here.
Clerk
05:36:47PM You have of a physical quorum. Alan Clendenin: thank you. In the case of Lopez versus the City Of Tampa, case number 823cv 558kklm currently in the middle district close session is concluded. City Council is back in order. Now I would like to ask Councilwoman Hurtak if you wouldnt mind reading this motion.
Lynn Hurtak
05:37:10PM Motion to add to the February 19, 2026 agenda a resolution offering a compromise settlement be the City Of Tampa of the federal lawsuit of Lopez v. City Of Tampa 8-23-cv-02548-kkm-lsg.
Luis Viera
05:37:32PM Second.
Alan Clendenin
05:37:37PM Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. Seconded from council member Viera. Roll call, please.
Naya Young
05:37:41PM Yes.
Luis Viera
05:37:47PM Yes.
Bill Carlson
05:37:49PM No.
Charlie Miranda
05:37:51PM Yes.
Guido Maniscalco
05:37:52PM Yes.
Lynn Hurtak
05:37:53PM Yes.
Alan Clendenin
05:37:55PM Yes.
Clerk
05:37:56PM Motion carried with Carlson voting no.
Alan Clendenin
05:38:00PM Thank you very much.
Martin Shelby
05:38:04PM Thank you, Council.
Alan Clendenin
05:38:05PM Back to our regularly scheduled program. So we are moving into the comp plan transmittal hearing portion of this program. I want -- I want to kind of frame this a little bit, and I know I will get some help from our team. For those of you who are out there, this transmittal hearing is kind of a technical hearing. The City Of Tampa is responsible to submit this plan to Tallahassee for feedback. A requirement by law, but IT is not a -- IT is not a critical decision-making point. So I know for yall thinking this -- like you have to have something done tonight. IT is like a first reading. But IT is still completely open when IT comes back to US. And I think our planning team will provide a little more clarification, but I know there has been a lot of stuff going around, e-mails and all. Tonight is -- if IT is not in the document tonight, we still have many bites of the apple yet. Wide open when IT comes back. We have lots of room to talk about IT. Councilwoman Hurtak, you wanted to say something?
Lynn Hurtak
05:39:08PM I wanted to add to that. Today, the city dropped its first tranche of land development code updates or if they havent, they will be by tomorrow, but we can not move forward with the land development code until we at least have something transmitted to the state. And IT is weird to be working with both documents at the same time. One of the reasons we specifically asked City Staff to not put the land development code out there for people to read was we didnt want people to conflate the two. So we would -- the hope tonight is to be able to transmit something. And to be able to continue the conversation but also start to talk about what everybody here really wants to talk about, and IT is the nitty gritty of the land development code.
Alan Clendenin
05:39:52PM Which we have lots of time to talk of nitty gritty. Not just tonight. As we move forward for the next few months, we will have time to talk about all of that. Now I would like to recognize our wonderful member of the Planning Commission. Oh, did we open? Can I get a motion to open the 5:01 public hearings? A motion from Council Member Miranda. Seconded from Council Member Maniscalco. Signify by saying aye. We are open. Tag, you are up.
Melissa Zornitta
05:40:23PM Good morning, Melissa Zornitta, executive director of the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission. Tonight, we are having a hearing on the transmittal of the future land use section of the Tampa comprehensive plan. This a key piece of the update of the comprehensive plan, and after this, there are also the coastal and housing sections that you will hear about. So just a couple of things to review and provide some context. This update is a wholesale revision of the future land use section. At the beginning of this process, over three years ago, we heard quite a bit about how the plan was not very user-friendly. IT was clunky. IT wasnt -- we needed to streamline, and that a lot of areas of the plan were not keeping up with current trends. And so we needed to wholesale update the plan. Additionally, IT is our charge as the local planning agency to bring forward a plan that will accommodate population growth for the next 20 years that is required by state law. And one of the things that we heard from the community, both the development community and the neighbors, was there wasnt a lot of predictability in the plan. And that there was growth happening in places where is people werent expecting IT in the middle of neighborhoods maybe. And folks really wanted IT to be clearer in the plan where growth should go. And so, we had taken the approach working with City Staff, the residents and other stakeholders to try to address all of those concerns about the adopted plan today and focus on incentives as a way to try to focus growth in the areas where people would like to see IT go. IT has been a journey, and you all have been on the journey with US and quite a bit of outreach on the process in multiple phases. Where we are tonight as Chair Clendenin indicated, we are at a transmittal hearing. As part of Florida statute, text changes to the comprehensive plan has to be transmitted to the State Department Of Commerce for review by them, as well as other state agencies like FDOT, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and a whole host of them review IT. They give US feedback. And then that feedback is synthesized back to you at an adoption hearing. Changes to this document can be made by motion tonight. Changes to this document can be made after you receive those state comments and have an adoption hearing in a few months. The adoption stage, there will be a first and second reading at this point too. So the other thing that I would just like to emphasize is that the comprehensive plan should be a living, evolving document. Should not be this is the only time that we change the text of the comprehensive plan. As we see changes or new things that need to be added or maybe there are things we didnt get to do this time because of some things like state law, you know, we might have an opportunity to do them later. And so this is not the only bite of the apple in this process or in the long term. There will be time to continue to refine this.
Alan Clendenin
05:43:58PM Can I ask You just for clarification on that. Again, I know You were very clear that we have plenty of opportunities to change. And You insinuated state law, go into sb-180 and why certain things are not changed. Is that in your presentation?
Melissa Zornitta
05:44:17PM IT is.
Alan Clendenin
05:44:18PM We can hold that.
Melissa Zornitta
05:44:20PM Okay. We updated the vision with a lot of input from the community. This future land use section is proposed now to have seven goals, starting with citizen participation in the planning process, which is very important to US and to You IT all, but evidence by the prior outreach You asked US to do. We have topics about where growth should be directed, the future land use category, some of our very important assets in our community like MacDill Air Force Base and the airport, urban design, historic resources, and managing population in the coastal high hazard area. So a couple of things have occurred since your hearing in August. In August, when We were before You, We had just gone through a long series of meetings with the community and gotten a lot of input. You gave US some very specific motions to follow up on at the August public hearing. And at one of those items was to look at all of the policies in the future land use session based on Senate bill 180. Senate bill 180 was -- became effective in the middle to late part of the summer. And so IT wasnt something that We really talked a lot about in our original outreach, because We were still trying to understand the implications of that bill. You had some workshops and presentations after our August hearing with City Legal where they really clarified what this meant to the city, but for this process, specifically that bill has a provision that says You all cannot adopt anything more restrictive or burdensome than is in the comprehensive plan today. IT is specific about comprehensive plan amendments and land development code regulations and the lens is, IT cannot be more restrictive or burdensome. We had conversations with the state to make sure We were understand what that meant. That means if IT says "should" today, IT needs to say "should" in the new draft. We cant change IT to a "shall." If somebody was allowed to do something based on a and b, We cant add c to that list. We can only make IT based on what is in the plan today. We can add incentives. We can make things perhaps more flexible in certain areas, but We cant make IT more stringent. So taking that lens, We had taken that to all of the policies in this section, as well as the other two You will hear tonight. Reviewed that with City Legal as well. And We believe that this document that is in front of You complies with Senate bill 180. We made those changes based on the motions You made in August. I will walk through that. We did have some community outreach earlier this -- yeah, earlier this month. We are still in February -- that to explain those changes to the community because We knew there were a lot of pieces to this. Some of the feedback We got were different than what We got over the summer. In this meeting, in particular, We heard from some members of community who wanted some of changes like the transit-ready corridors added back into parts of the community and other tools to increase density allowances added back. So walking through the changes specifically. The transit-ready corridors have been limited to the eight corridors specified in the City Council's motion on August 28. I have maps and a list of those corridors coming up in the presentation. All of the corridors that were -- that are in the plan today as transit emphasis corridors have been renamed "multimodal corridors." We did not want to lose the language We had with design and safety along those corridors, You with We thought keeping the name "transit emphasis corridor" will be confusing so changed IT to "multimodal corridor." As I mentioned due to Senate bill 180, a number of things were changed back to "required "to "encourage" or "should," those type of language. And policies related to locational criteria and town homes are covered in a later, very slated to the adopted policy language. So one of the things Council asked US to look at was what is now land use table two, the time in the prior draft IT was table three. So We revisited that table. That table outlines what the maximum density potential is for any future land use category. Thank You. In the August draft, We had done two things. In the coastal high hazard area, We had lowered what was being proposed. So today, I will use an example of Community Mixed Use 35. And a Community Mixed Use 35, initially, You can get up to 30 units. Then if You do a bonus agreement, You can get up to 35. Our proposal was in the coastal high hazard area, that will go down to 30, and they wouldnt be allowed to do that bonus provision, ask for that in the coastal high hazard area. That part of our proposal conflicted with Senate bill 180, because something they can do today and state law says You cant take that away from them. Restrictive or burdensome. We had to put that step-up as We call IT back in the future land use categories for -- within the coastal high hazard area. In our August proposal, We had for outside of the coastal high hazard area also eliminated that step-up, but in the opposite direction. We had said this bonus provision agreement isnt maybe necessary to get to the 35 units per acre outside the coastal high hazard area. We did revisit that, and We looked at what would happen if We made IT all go back to what IT is today. The problem with doing that outside the coastal high hazard area is that impacts the functionality of what We are proposing like the transit bonus. Someone will have to do one step and another step to get that bonus and goes against what We understood the direction of the beginning of this process to streamline and try to facilitate growth in places that We want IT. We left that part of the table the same. And that has Been In Place since the May draft of the future land use section. We had to -- We made some changes To The Place types. I mentioned the multimodal corridors. We also brought back the planning districts. That was something that was proposed to be removed in the -- in the August draft. But there were a number of policies that referred to the policy being slightly different in New Tampa or in South Tampa and so in order to comply with Senate bill 180, with the to go back to that average planning policy language, and that meant We needed to bring planning districts back. I have some more detailed maps here on the corridors. So in August related to the transit ready corridors, Council made a motion asking US to reflect only the following list of corridors on the transit ready corridor map. All of the other corridors were designated as multimodal corridors consistent with the transit emphasis corridor. These are all that are reflected on the map. And because We have heard from a number of folks throughout the last month about adding corridors back, these are the corridors that are no longer designated. And We heard from -- as I am sure You all have from neighborhoods that would like segments of those corridors or maybe their entirety back to the transit ready bonus areas. So this is what the comparison of the light purple in the August proposed corridors. The magenta is what We have based on City Council's motion. So You can see where there May be some areas that now in central and East Tampa. I think I saw a letter from West Shore Alliance asking for portions of corridors to be added back. So the goal of the density bonuses are to try to get public benefit out of that increased density. At the very beginning of this process, We talked about how today a lot of people are coming to ask about plan amendment You do not get public density. Through the bonus structure You would. Improvements related to design for transit, some affordable housing. We try to align all of the targets of those bonuses with goals that We heard from the community. The bonuses are not automatic. Quite frankly, of the density, even table two, the density in table two is not automatic, IT is not by right. IT is not an entitlement, IT is -- that is the maximum somebody can come and ask You for in a rezoning similarly these bonuses are not automatic, they still require rezoning to implement them. And You have to consider in any of those cases all of the policies of the comprehensive plan to determine what had the right density is. And the bonuses do not apply in the coastal high hazard area except in very specific locations where there is infrastructure and other funding mechanisms to support that, like the cras. So just to make sure that people understand the lines on the map that indicate multimodal corridors which is now, like, all of the corridors. They were -- they are currently in the plan today adopted transit emphasis corridors. They have some policies about supporting a built environment that encourages multimodal transportation usage, walking, biking through additional design and mixed use development. We wanted to retain those policies in the plan and those are consistent with what is adopted today. And then the transit ready corridors are a subset of that. So another item that was a big topic of discussion over the summer was the issue of where town homes would be located in residential-10. We came to You with what We thought would be a good compromise. Well, the state adopting Senate bill 180 undid a lot of that discussion, because as We were trying to provide some more specificity to the criteria that is in the plan today, that -- that had -- that maybe gave some people something but also took things away from people. IT just could be viewed as more restrictive and burdensome. We have gone back to the language in the plan today and also are bringing back future land use policies. Policy 9.5.3 That talks about limiting the periphery of single-family neighborhood. One of the scrivener errors We e-mailed You about yesterday. One other item that has come up in some of the e-mail was the language in the plan about stories of buildings and some of the descriptive language in the land use categories. Made mid and high-rise in certain categories. That is truly descriptive language. Want to change IT from mid and high-rise to something else, that is fine. The reason We did not bring back the language about stories of buildings is because the land development code really regulates the heat. That does not necessarily equate to three stories or five stories because a story can be ten feet, 15 feet. IT is not clear. There are potential conflicts in stories that are in the comprehensive plan. Height is really properly regulated in the land development code. That is something that Council feels You would like to bring back, that is certainly -- that -- IT is all within your -- your power tonight to make motions around that. Soft with that, staffs recommendation is that file no. Tacpa 24-04 be found consistent with the comprehensive plan and, again, transmitted to the Department Of Commerce for review and will come back for adoption hearings. If You choose to transmit IT, IT will come for adoptions and changes can be made later this sebring.
Alan Clendenin
05:59:29PM Two quick questions. Story versus height. Land development code governs heat. Why does IT even need to be in there?
Melissa Zornitta
05:59:38PM IT doesnt.
Alan Clendenin
05:59:39PM We can strike those. Good. The transit corridors. What You need from Council tonight. You know how that happened. A Hail Mary. You got IT?
Lynn Hurtak
05:59:52PM I compiled a bunch.
Alan Clendenin
05:59:54PM I will defer that. Council member Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco
05:59:57PM You answered my question. Should this be transmit tonight, when is the next chance to make changes, later in the spring?
Melissa Zornitta
06:00:08PM We were looking at potentially coming back in May on the first reading on adoption.
Guido Maniscalco
06:00:13PM Because We received a lot of public comment and a lot of suggestions and differing opinions. We can make motions in May to say We can put this in.
Melissa Zornitta
06:00:25PM You can also make motions tonight. There are multiple chances.
Guido Maniscalco
06:00:29PM Flexibility is there. Thank you.
Alan Clendenin
06:00:33PM Anyone else? Councilman Carlson?
Bill Carlson
06:00:35PM The Community is saying -- I am sure You read the e-mails. Community said that the Planning Commission did not listen to motion regarding that chart. What is your response to that. That we instructed You all to remove the chart.
Melissa Zornitta
06:00:50PM We absolutely revisited the chart and some of the changes We had to make because of senate bill 180, with changing the density -- the density allowances within the coastal high hazard area has to be restored to what was adopted today otherwise would have been reviewed as more strict or burdensome. We looked at the portion outside of the coastal high hazard area, and our recommendation to you is that bringing that up so there is not one step up from 30 to 35 and another step from 35 to the new density incentives in certain locations is important to make those incentives work, because the process is already pretty complicated.
Bill Carlson
06:01:43PM If we just wanted to take out the part that You all think is impacted by Senate bill 180, what -- do You have a recommendation on just leaving that part in or taking that part out and changing the rest of IT?
Melissa Zornitta
06:01:57PM Our recommendation is to comply with Senate Bill 180, portion of the chart that says "in coastal high hazard area need to be matched with the plan today." We cant take anything away from that. The area outside of the coastal high hazard area is the area where We have said instead of having multiple tiers density, IT should be of residential-35, you can ask for up to 35 units per acre. Again, this is simply saying what people are allowed to ask for. IT is not guaranteed that they are going to get the maximum.
Bill Carlson
06:02:40PM That always creates problems. Let me ask You another question. So when we were talking -- first started talking about this two or three years ago, as I look at cities that do proper planning, they create what transportation people call nodes. Other planners call them neighborhood commercial districts. We had IT in and took IT out and I think You put IT back in.
Melissa Zornitta
06:03:05PM Yeah.
Bill Carlson
06:03:06PM With that, I was tired of hearing of transit oriented development. Tod. Because justification of passing a tax. What progressive cities do -- I have been do denver and phoenix and a bunch that built tod. Garage, poorly constructed stuff that would justify the transit. I would rather build a robust transit that is connected to the nodes into People go to. I mentioned You all in Singapore, as an example, for many cities that are planning de novo, they are building community hubs, which I call "neighborhood commercial districts" where People can go, a coffee shop, grocery store. Things they can go to. I look at other cities like seattle, they call IT" transit ready." You can build the transportation node and the community activity. When You have transportation connected. One of the problems People have selling in the past. Not enough to connect IT to once You get outside of the rail corridors. By having these transit nodes and neighborhood commercial district that are transit ready, You can connect the dots. You used transit ready developments and changed IT to "transit ready corridors." The good planning I have seen says You do IT in pockets along a route. Transit doesnt stop every minute. IT stops every few minutes or every -- periodically. What we need to do is build the density of the node around those places. Creating "transit ready corridors" what IT sounds like to the public You are playing into the hands of Developers who want unlimited growth within the corridor. People dont like what Dale Mabry Highway like uncontrolled sprawl. They are okay with pockets. My question is not to explain that, but to ask You -- if I didnt come up with transit ready development that You all changed to transit ready corridors, what would You have called IT? What was the term used before? Because transit ready corridors give pro transit People the false impression if You take IT away You are noting transit. IT is the opposite uncontrolled, unrestricted growth of a corridor You are doing what Developers want and not building transit.
Jennifer Malone
06:05:33PM Jennifer Malone, Planning Commission staff. Thank you so much for those comments. I want to be clear for the record. We heard loud and clear, June of 2024 or perhaps earlier than that about your comments about tod. Transit supportive development areas and the transit supportive development areas bonus is exactly what you are talking about. We havent heard a lot about IT in this update strict language and we are calling IT "trigger language" to enact that bonus. The bo he news around the node.
Bill Carlson
06:06:11PM The point I am making Transit Advocates and 1,000% favor for transit. I put my own money to support transit but I am not familiar of Dale Mabry And Fouler Avenue style growth. Developers want to build whatever they want whenever they want. And they built places around people, and the transit connects that. And by transit ready corridor by changing and adding the word "corridor" seems like IT is a misnomer promoting transit but promoting uncontrolled growth.
Jennifer Malone
06:06:52PM Transit development corridor is the node around the installations when we have the transit back in the future.
Bill Carlson
06:06:57PM That is back to tod. I am talking of building the density first. Other Cities have built the density first and connected IT.
Jennifer Malone
06:07:05PM The policy allows for that.
Alan Clendenin
06:07:07PM Look at the map up there. Maybe you can zoom in on that a little bit. On the top of the wheel.
Jennifer Malone
06:07:14PM The policy allows -- I can pull up the policy in the plan here, but IT allows for when there is certain Funding In Place, when there is right-of-way acquisition, when there is even a Community Plan that has been done that has a transit focus, IT allows for that bonus to be en acted without having transit built yet. That the transit supported development area bonus.
Bill Carlson
06:07:37PM The last point. What I wish We would have done -- build Transit -- sorry, around the districts and leave the corridors as something else. A Development Board for that, not a Transit corridor. IT will connect the nodes people go to and I wish We could clean IT up. Take a Transit ready makes pro Transit. We are not. I am trying to create the concentrations of density so that We can connect the dots with Transit.
Melissa Zornitta
06:08:09PM If I May respond with just two things. One, We put in the policy of the neighborhood commercial districts. And second, We did work very closely with HART on the original set of corridors. And you know their stops are close together. You walk at a walk shed between those stops, IT ends up essentially creating a corridor, because they stopped buses so frequently. So I understand what you are saying and absolutely a stationary approach for -- for more focused higher fixed guideway type of transit would be appropriate, but We are also trying to support the transit system We have today.
Jennifer Malone
06:08:56PM Jennifer Malone, Planning Commission staff. There are still ceilings here along the transit ready corridors. So IT is not just the sky is the limit. There are still limits built in. And the larger bonus, the 100% -- correct me -- for the record, I am not hour if IT is 100%, but a larger bonus than the transit ready corridors and transportation development areas are where focused growth around those. The Sulphur Springs neighborhood plan is a great example. Hard phase study. Policy allowing that bonus to be utilized if there is a community Plan In Place and accepted by City Council to further that goal and vision of transit-supported vision in the city.
Bill Carlson
06:09:45PM Just one last thing to reiterate the opposite. I think good transit connects where people are. The idea of creating transit stops and building density around IT is a bad idea. IT looks terrible in a lot of is IT is. Instead we build density and connect them. I am talking of long term. Not short bus -- not bus routes that stop regularly. How do we eventually overlay something bigger like rail and whatever.
Jennifer Malone
06:10:12PM That is what we are trying to do.
Melissa Zornitta
06:10:14PM I think the plan allows for both.
Alan Clendenin
06:10:16PM Councilman Carlson, I think what they said is exactly what you are looking at. We are -- hopefully, before I am gone from this planet, City Of Tampa will bring a robust type of transportation system. We are not just going to build one type. We already see a streetcar system that we are expanding and you can see the corridors on the streetcar do stop frequently. We can have high density along the streetcar system to be able to justify and support the density along the streetcar. If we have a brt, we will have these starts and critical for brt. The paradigm you are referring to is more of a light rail type of system with infrequent stops. Transit, something high speeds that travel between cities maybe. Get your point on that, this is what we are trying to build. Because of what they have captured have been my vision in this comprehensive plan of having -- having a plan that fits IT all. That you have these categories that you can accommodate growth along these areas and by doing this as well, IT takes the emphasis off and the pressures off of neighborhoods trying to direct growth where we want growth and away from the neighborhoods and I think this is an important element so we dont have to worry of encroachment into our historic neighborhoods. We can build them -- you look at Tampa Heights, great example. Some places along that transit corridor. Over and over again I hear from those for example how they want the density along those areas. So I think what the Planning Commission has been very responsive, at least I hear what you are saying but the majority of people and Council, this is what we asked them to do. Councilwoman Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak
06:12:13PM First of all, I love you dearly, but whoevers phone is beeping, stop IT. That is I dont have any phone as one of many reasons. I feel like I am going to stop every time -- I almost said a curse word, but I didnt. In looking at this map, if you can pop -- if CCTV can pop that map back up. Where IT was fine. I want to see the whole thing. Like back IT up.
Alan Clendenin
06:12:45PM All The Way to pasco county.
Lynn Hurtak
06:12:49PM All The Way. Back IT up. The thing that I keep hearing from a lot of folks. We want to incentivize density. And We know exactly where We want to put IT. We want to put IT --
Alan Clendenin
06:13:07PM In my neighborhood.
Lynn Hurtak
06:13:09PM No, I mean, the South Tampa peninsula has made IT absolutely completely clear because they are going to get IT anyway. We have so much density that is coming. They cant stop development and We cant, We cant stop development. We want to incentivize in places that dont have IT right now. That is the thing that I -- I had conversations back and forth with yall already, I believe there is a way to not have that 35 -- the cmu-35. The cmu-35 ceiling into areas We dont want incentivize developments and I believe that South Tampa incentivizes development for itself and I want that density to go higher. Something that We will have to talk about after this, but IT is a real passion of mine to try to figure that out because IT is not a place to put IT. I do have a couple of questions for you. We have heard -- I am switching to transit ready corridors now. I have that giant map there. If -- and there is an easel if anybody wants to be a able to put IT up. Kelly might come out and help. No, facing US if you could. An easel over there if that would be more helpful.
Jennifer Malone
06:14:35PM I have IT on the interactive map too.
Lynn Hurtak
06:14:38PM Oh, do you? Awesome. My big question is. We heard from Armory Gardens, that area, about the proximity of howard and Armenia together and how those two really take over the entire neighborhood. And so my question to you is, would you choose one corridor or the other?
Melissa Zornitta
06:15:10PM Based on your motion from August, neither.
Lynn Hurtak
06:15:13PM We are trying to add some back because We have heard to add Armenia. I havent heard anything about Howard. So if We added Armenia and didnt add Howard.
Melissa Zornitta
06:15:25PM Yeah Armenia probably has more of a nonresidential pattern and that would be appropriate for redevelopment and connects with more roadways.
Lynn Hurtak
06:15:43PM You said Howard has the bus that gets -- I am trying to get US to a yes here tonight. So a very basic -- if you had a choose.
Alan Clendenin
06:15:51PM Thats how We got to where We are now trying to get to a yes.
Lynn Hurtak
06:15:55PM I know, but we had time to talk of IT and Armenia keeps coming up, but I am not hearing this about Howard and I havent heard anything about rome. So I am happy to leave those off for now and talk more to the community about IT you go we have heard pretty much all Types Of Road. I have a motion to ask you to look at those going forward because they arent part of the DRC already, you asked me to go ahead and make a motion to evaluate those going forward. And those are some of the roads that are in the East Tampa CRP that arent on this now, but people want to have. Want to incentivize density in the future and I understand we cant have IT now and talk about IT for the future.
Melissa Zornitta
06:16:49PM We did a lot of analysis of the roads originally proposed and worked, as I said, with HART and City Staff on those. So we will want to give those new proposals that same review and recommendation.
Lynn Hurtak
06:17:07PM Thats why I will do a motion separately. Just for folks listen, if IT is not on this trc and you mentioned IT, I have a motion to talk of the specifics streets. Just to let people what they are 15th street, 29th street, 34th street and west shore to Kennedy.
Alan Clendenin
06:17:25PM CCTV, can you put the map that is showing on the Council Monitor to the Public Monitor.
Jennifer Malone
06:17:33PM Jennifer Malone, Planning Commission staff. I was able to check this on the interactive map. 15th was originally on our original trc list. Can you repeat the other corridors.
Lynn Hurtak
06:17:44PM 29th, 34th and west shore to Kennedy.
Melissa Zornitta
06:17:49PM Kennedy he thought was an original one.
Lynn Hurtak
06:17:53PM North obviously.
Jennifer Malone
06:17:55PM West shore north starts here.
Melissa Zornitta
06:17:58PM I think west shore --
Lynn Hurtak
06:18:02PM That literally came from the West Shore Alliance, thats why I am asking.
Melissa Zornitta
06:18:06PM West shore going north from Kennedy was on the original list.
Lynn Hurtak
06:18:11PM I would like to add that one back as well.
Jennifer Malone
06:18:14PM Can you repeat the other two.
Lynn Hurtak
06:18:17PM 29th and 34th.
Jennifer Malone
06:18:20PM Those were not on the original.
Thomas Murphy
06:18:24PM My motion will be 29th and 34th.
Alan Clendenin
06:18:27PM Public sees what is up there. Dale Mabry south of Kennedy --
Lynn Hurtak
06:18:33PM Can You take and turn IT to the public.
Alan Clendenin
06:18:35PM With you guys for public comment. If you look at the corridors -- speak in the you can leg comment tell US if but object. Light purple and not the maroon.
Lynn Hurtak
06:18:45PM Miss Sharp will take that map and face IT toward the audience so they can look at IT.
06:18:54PM My Junior. And they can come and tell US.
Alan Clendenin
06:18:57PM If You object or support corridors do so in your public comment.
Lynn Hurtak
06:19:03PM I have a decent list but doesnt hurt to talk about IT.
Alan Clendenin
06:19:10PM You know They are going to talk about IT.
Lynn Hurtak
06:19:13PM I am looking to take out Howard And Rome.
Alan Clendenin
06:19:16PM Are you done?
Lynn Hurtak
06:19:19PM Yes, I am done for now.
Alan Clendenin
06:19:20PM Council Member Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco
06:19:22PM You mentioned Armenia and Howard. What did You say of taking out Howard and rome?
Lynn Hurtak
06:19:28PM Only one of adding back is Armenia. We didnt hear anything of adding howard or rome back. And I know that area is already getting a lot of density.
Guido Maniscalco
06:19:38PM With regards To Howard Avenue compared to Armenia, Howard has so many more historic structures because goes up To Main Street which is downtown West Tampa. We have cigar factory on both sides. On Armenia. But on Howard, you go through a lot of brick structures, you go through -- IT should be protected for the historic piece.
Lynn Hurtak
06:20:03PM We are not including IT.
Guido Maniscalco
06:20:04PM Okay, thank you.
Alan Clendenin
06:20:05PM That was part of our earlier discussion.
Charlie Miranda
06:20:08PM Mr. Maniscalco spoke really on what I was going to say, part of IT, Armenia is a much longer corridor than howard. Howard meanders somewhat further up and Armenia becomes howard and Tampa Bay Boulevard when IT connects. Armenia is more of a straight shot and I think that is one of the reasons you are looking at that.
Melissa Zornitta
06:20:29PM Exactly.
Alan Clendenin
06:20:31PM Anybody else? Okay. Yes? If there is no other questions. Nothing else? Councilwoman Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak
06:20:42PM I also got some feedback about keeping the des stance at the Trcs to 1/8 of a mile for R-10.
Melissa Zornitta
06:20:55PM So the proposal to that are row the r-10 to 1/16 of a mile came out of our summer outreach. And where we communicated with a lot of neighborhoods. If there were -- and we heard a lot from some of the single-family neighborhoods, many of those the corridors have been removed completely from, like -- like in South Tampa or in north Hyde Park like rome. Those types of areas. But the -- if -- I guess we havent shared that with the community, because that would be my only hesitation. They have been shared that IT was 1 -- 16.
Lynn Hurtak
06:21:46PM What I will probably do evaluating 29th street and 34, I will make a separate motion for you to look at keeping 1/8 for r-10 in the newly -- Soon-To-Be adopted Trcs that we transmit that tonight.
Melissa Zornitta
06:22:06PM Explore that and work with the community.
Lynn Hurtak
06:22:08PM Work with the community and show them. But I have heard some feedback that is okay in some of these areas.
Melissa Zornitta
06:22:15PM Yes.
Jennifer Malone
06:22:17PM Jennifer Malone, Planning Commission staff. Just because I cant help myself.
Lynn Hurtak
06:22:20PM Love that though, thank you.
Jennifer Malone
06:22:23PM Talking of the corridor, to set expectations. May be members of the public that we havent been able to have a touchpoint yet, the name is what IT means "Transit ready corridors" just trying to get these corridors when we have a very robust Transit center with the density to be ready for IT. Not just because a corridor is not on here doesnt mean that Transit wont be on IT. A planning map to incentivize density in those areas. We worked closely with HART when we picked the original corridors. Areas where HART will have future Transit now and in the future.
Alan Clendenin
06:23:00PM Councilwoman young.
Naya Young
06:23:07PM I am sure IT is requesting to come up in public comment, but I heard a lot from the Tampa Heights, Vm Ybor and East Tampa wanting their transit ready corridors back. You will make the motion later. And I know that will come back, but I know speaking with a lot of community, and they absolutely want those corridors back in. And are really looking forward to seeing that investment of development in those areas, and I am glad You brought up Sulphur Springs neighborhood action plan. I am very happy about that. Every time I hear the name, IT makes me smile.
Alan Clendenin
06:23:44PM Councilwoman Hurtak. If you want to read this.
Lynn Hurtak
06:23:48PM Either that or possibly -- I hate to do this to your map, but maybe take a highlighter.
Melissa Zornitta
06:23:54PM Hmm .. Do we have a highlighter? I would be happy to highlight if -- I didnt think to bring one. So if you can actually Turn This Way for me, just humor me an then turn IT back to them. Council member Viera, the only thing I havent heard of -- he got a little bit of -- of focus on Bruce B. Downs. I have one or two comments. What do you think of Bruce B. Downs?
Luis Viera
06:24:27PM So IT is funny, I was going to speak during public comment on this with some of the staff. I will be honest, I havent heard much from New Tampa at all on this issue.
Lynn Hurtak
06:24:39PM Write IT back in and talk with them.
Luis Viera
06:24:44PM We can -- absolutely, but New Tampa is one of those things where We are kind of maximized out when IT comes to development. There is what IT is. Not much space there at all. Some to speak with regards to New Tampa, but I can further inquire and We have IT. I promoted IT on next door as well as my facebook and so forth, and not much of a response.
Lynn Hurtak
06:25:06PM We are looking at Bruce B. Downs. Yeah, you May just want to highlight the route. I think that will be easier. Boy Scout, which is down -- that little curvy space. We said west shore to Kennedy we cant do.
Melissa Zornitta
06:25:34PM IT was in the --
Lynn Hurtak
06:25:36PM So IT is already there? West shore north of Kennedy. So we can add that back in. The debate exists around different parts of cypress. So maybe we will hold off from that. Armenia to Kennedy. North of Kennedy. Just how far, however far IT goes.
Alan Clendenin
06:26:00PM Goes Way up.
Melissa Zornitta
06:26:02PM All The Way to busch?
Lynn Hurtak
06:26:07PM Wherever IT was before.
Melissa Zornitta
06:26:08PM IT did go All The Way to busch.
Lynn Hurtak
06:26:11PM We decided to take that out and that out. MLK. Waters.
Melissa Zornitta
06:26:22PM Whole corridor of MLK?
Lynn Hurtak
06:26:27PM Lets go east of the river right now and we will hear from folks on the rest of IT.
Melissa Zornitta
06:26:32PM Okay.
Lynn Hurtak
06:26:34PM Waters. S all of waters. All of IT.
Melissa Zornitta
06:26:38PM We didnt have all of waters originally.
Lynn Hurtak
06:26:43PM Put back whatever you had, how about that. And we can debate adding more if necessary. When I say -- just go with whatever, because we want to make sure that -- I dont want to -- -- I dont want to overstep what havent been vetted. So thank you for keeping -- telling me of that. Waters, MLK, east river, School Bus east of the river. That will be debatable. 22nd and 21st.
Melissa Zornitta
06:27:15PM 21st wasnt on there but 22nd.
Lynn Hurtak
06:27:20PM 22nd. I will add 21st to any other list. 50th and 40th.
Melissa Zornitta
06:27:27PM 40th.
Lynn Hurtak
06:27:32PM Nebraska is already on there. Just where 40th was because there is a gap because a lot of residential in a certain area whatever your original was.
Melissa Zornitta
06:27:53PM Got IT.
Lynn Hurtak
06:27:55PM So what are We -- He know We are missing a little bit in East Tampa. There is an east-west connector that goes from 40th to 50th. I am not sure what that is.
Melissa Zornitta
06:28:12PM The little segment right here.
Lynn Hurtak
06:28:14PM If CCTV can show that so we can see what She is pointing to. I meant the wolf, but thank you.
Alan Clendenin
06:28:23PM Thats easier --
Lynn Hurtak
06:28:29PM I think IT is easier to see on the wolf. There is a space where IT Says State Road 60, Adamo. I am assuming IT is part --
Melissa Zornitta
06:28:40PM Right in here.
Lynn Hurtak
06:28:42PM Go to your left. Right there.
Melissa Zornitta
06:28:44PM Oh, right here.
Lynn Hurtak
06:28:46PM I cant tell what is supposed to be highlighted there because IT is covered by words, but basically We know in that whole area in the eastern part of the city, We want to incentivize development.
Melisa Zornitta
06:28:57PM The bigger map.
Lynn Hurtak
06:29:03PM Everything east of Nebraska. Add IT all back.
Melissa Zornitta
06:29:06PM Okay. Add all of IT back. IT has small little piece in there. The one area, too, that I didnt hear about but that I think I am interested to hear from especially West Tampa Is Main Street. Main Street was on that map before. I have not heard anything about IT. So if folks have anything to say About Main Street today -- I think IT Was Main Street. Whatever was just north of 275. N. Boulevard is not on there. He can add IT to the evaluation.
06:29:50PM N. Boulevard is was not on the original.
Lynn Hurtak
06:29:56PM I will add IT to the evaluation.
Melissa Zornitta
06:29:59PM 15th street originally was on the map.
Lynn Hurtak
06:30:04PM Add 15th back then.
Jennifer Malone
06:30:06PM Jennifer Malone, Planning Commission staff. Main Street was not on the original map.
Alan Clendenin
06:30:11PM Because of the historic structures.
Melissa Zornitta
06:30:14PM Main goes across here. So many of the north-south roads in that area crossed main, but thats why IT might look like -- main itself was not.
Jennifer Malone
06:30:29PM The buffer is misleading.
Lynn Hurtak
06:30:32PM Totally fine.
Alan Clendenin
06:30:33PM I have a question for Council. Items 1, 2 and 3. Should we move on to item 2 and 3 and take public comment.
Lynn Hurtak
06:30:42PM Public comment for 2 and 3.
Alan Clendenin
06:30:46PM I dont know if IT is -- we May consolidate IT into one.
Lynn Hurtak
06:30:52PM Separate votes on one, two and three.
Alan Clendenin
06:30:55PM We can do that -- we can hear 1, 2 and 3. A motion and is second from council member Maniscalco. All in favor, say aye. Opposed. Ayes have IT.
Lynn Hurtak
06:31:13PM If you can work on IT until She moves to two and three.
Alan Clendenin
06:31:18PM Council Member Miranda.
Charlie Miranda
06:31:20PM What Councilwoman Hurtak spoke about and did a study the streetcar covers most of that. What comes around goes around and comes back around.
Jennifer Malone
06:31:29PM Right.
Alan Clendenin
06:31:30PM Move that to item number 2. File no. Tacpa 24-05 housing update which the entire part of the Tampa comprehensive plan update. As you are aware a multimonth process. This was reviewed by City Staff and stakeholders. Housing organizations like the Affordable Housing Committee. This section is a tool to meet community housing needs. The Housing Section has one proposed goal along with five proposed objectives affordability, sustainability, resell yens, housing is up my and access.
06:32:18PM Keep your voice down please, because IT carries. Language that support housing affordability, housing supply and access. Policy language on exploring for missing middle housing, housing and supportive services. A framework for housing implementation that the city can then take and move forward with. With that, the Planning Commission found this consistent and recommends transmittal of the Housing Section -- transmittal of the Housing Section tonight.
06:32:53PM Council have any questions? Council member Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco
06:32:57PM What does IT mean "healthy communities?" Employment, being able to walk to different places, Supportive Services, things of that nature.
06:33:10PM What about with regards to food deserts and communities. Is that included in this? You are Trying To Place the housing near services and grocery stores and things of that nature.
06:33:23PM Okay, thank you.
Alan Clendenin
06:33:25PM Hearing no other questions, we will move on to item number 3. Tacpa 24-06, the coastal management update. Again as previously mentioned in terms of the update approach. We did work collaboratively with City Staff to review, define and develop the language. We did also work -- work together with EPC and the port and also includes environmental stakeholders like the Sierra Club and the Coastal Management Section serves as a tool to supports the citys programs and objectives. In terms of structure, you can see the currently adopted structure on the left-hand side of the screen. Compared to the proposed structure, although very similar some things have been moved around. The proposed changes include the no net increase residential policy. Language has been moved to future land use section. Policies on public expenditures are proposed to be moved to the capital improvement section. There are also an increase in resiliency and coastal sustainability. Additionally, some of language has been reverted back to what is currently adopted. There was -- more restrictive language in the originally proposed involving free board. That was reverted back to be more encouragement and. This consideration of free board associations. We did further streamline the policy language and remove duplicative and obsolete policies. Ladies And Gentlemen, the Planning Commission did find the update consistent with the comprehensive plan. And request that you also find and transmit for further review by the state. This concludes my presentation.
06:35:41PM Councilwoman Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak
06:35:45PM I have a general question of Sb 180, because some of these things We really like. Do you have, like, a folder where you are saving all of these changes that We cant make now that We would like to make once Sb 180 has been settled? So I know that We do have the -- what was proposed originally, specifically for Coastal Management saved just waiting for that sunset date.
06:36:15PM I wanted to make sure that was on the record and the public knew that.
Alan Clendenin
06:36:19PM Council Member Maniscalco, you want to speak?
Guido Maniscalco
06:36:22PM Real quick. What changed my whole perspective to the great degree were the hurricanes of '24. Being born and raised here and seeing how lucky We were. You know for 100 years and the damage that was done, you know, and I dont even have to see where the areas are, Davis Islands, so much damage was done. We talk of sea level rise but storm surge. A minimal amount compared to what could happen. In regard to the coastal high hazard. As We move forward because We are looking at the next several decades. That right there should be a wake-up call. The hurricanes and the damage We saw that was incurred should be a wake-up call to any future development knowing these are the most vulnerable places and these are just the tip of an iceberg. Because We still got lucky. We didnt get that direct hit, but We got enough that the damage was severe. We look at these policies move forward, We have to take into consideration anything is possible. Anything can happen, and We saw that in Back-To-Back hurricanes and the severity of IT. Thank you.
Alan Clendenin
06:37:25PM Thank you. Hearing no other questions. I have a question for the like. I know we mentioned this Senate bill, if anybody in the audience planning to speak on public comment not familiar with sb 180, can you raise your hand? Okay. So can I get someone from staff to give like a really -- a really, really short synopsis so they understand that. Here we go. Thank you.
Dana Crosby Collier
06:37:53PM Dana Crosby Collier, City Attorney's Office. Senate bill 180 was enacted in the last legislative session. Enacted under a bill related to emergencies. However, there were two sections in that bill That Expanded Way beyond emergency response from the hurricanes. One was section 18, a prospective ban on local governments enacting any more restrictive or burdensome if future storms come. Most significance to US in the work we have been doing now for the last year almost in our office with regard to comp plan, land development code and everything else as you know. Its section 28, which allows actually was retroactive to August 1, 2024 and forbids any local government, city and county to have restrictive or burdensome amount to land development code and comp plan application and other regulations. So this is why when we went back through this plan over the summer, we looked at IT with the senate bill 180 focus to be sure that nothing in our proposed comp plan amendment update would offend that statute. We have seen many, many other cities and counties that have transmitted plan amounts to the state and their plans have been sent back and rejected because they were contrary to senate bill 180. We have been deliberative in our process to make sure nothing is more restrictive and burdensome what with August of 2024.
Alan Clendenin
06:39:27PM Thank you very much. In a nutshell, the fine Legislature in tallahassee prohibits local governments from taking anything out that is more restrictive that currently exists. So we cant do that. We are forbidden by the Legislature and the Governor for doing this. This with a long, long, long list of other things we are preempted for. Very good. That concludes our presentations. We are going to move on to public comment. If you are here to speak to either one, two or three, ten at a time. Only ten at a time. If you line up against the wall. You know what -- yeah, we will wait. Because they are comfortable sitting at home. We will wait. We will get to the online -- Mr. Fernandez, would you like to come to the podium start with your name and you will have three minutes.
06:40:22PM Everybody quiet down because we will have speakers. For the record, Rick Fernandez. I am president of the Tampa Heights civic association here to speak on your file no. Tacpa 24-04. I incorporate by reference the civic association e-mail correspondence that was sent to you IT on February 16, 2026. Copies have been provided to Attorney Shelby. There are enough copies to go around to all of you and to the clerk in case anyone would look to have a reference document before them. On background, our recommendations are specific to Tampa Heights. And I presented to you after consideration by our land use committee and 11-person board of directors, four of whom are here with me tonight either in person or if he is still around, virtual. Board approved the recommendations during our meeting February 11 following a tutorial by planning professionals Melissa Zornitta and Miss Decker. Miss Melissa Zornitta and Miss Decker are not responsible for our work product but their input helped to inform our motion practices. We thank them as agents of good government. I want to insert here a thank you to Evan Johnson who helped US navigate this material on his own time on several visits. I, too, am sad, naya. Good government requires public participation. You cant represent US well if you dont know what we want and quite frankly, we had to do some homework to figure out what IT is. The letter we sent to you is a reflection to that. We now thing we know what we want. First and in brevity, add the transit ready corridor designation to the multimodal roadways in Tampa Heights. They Are Tampa Street, MLK Boulevard, Columbus Drive, And North Boulevard. The boundaries are specified in the letter. Second, revised lu table one bonuses to a uniform 1/8 mile depth in all transit-readycorridors in category. Number three, amend the policy pedestrian oriented design. Currently reads that the pedestrian design policies only apply to parcels utilizing the transit ready bonus structure. Request amendments specifically that the policy apply to all parcels within the transit supported development areas and transit ready corridors regardless of bonus. Tampa Heights is dominated by vehicular traffic due to major streets and i-275. We need to take local traffic off of those streets of The Only Way to do that through better urban design standards making all properties oriented toward pedestrian and other modes of travel. Respectfully submitted. Thank you very much.
06:43:32PM Councilwoman Hurtak, do you have a question?
Lynn Hurtak
06:43:36PM A question for staff. I dont know If Tampa Street is on there. I know That North Boulevard is on there, and I added IT to my things to request. Florida Avenue is on there. I dont know If Tampa Street is on there just because of its weird -- The Weird Way IT goes north-south. If Tampa Street is already on there if Wick add IT back then --
Alan Clendenin
06:44:02PM I think IT is on there.
Lynn Hurtak
06:44:03PM I think IT is too but I am not positive.
06:44:09PM Tampa is on there? Planning Commission staff.
06:44:19PM Columbus added by 275 and the Hillsborough River. I think we already said that, columbus east.
Alan Clendenin
06:44:29PM Thank, Mr. Fernandez. Walk away. [Laughter] Miss Sanchez.
Martin Shelby
06:44:33PM Miss Sanchez has two names. Please speak up so I know you are here. Jamie Jones.
06:44:50PM And Linda Day.
06:44:53PM Two additional minutes for a total of five.
Alan Clendenin
06:44:58PM Miss Sanchez, start with your name an you have five. I believe going back to basics. What you heard from you have heard before but IT is important. Neighborhood meetings neighbors were asked to participate and asked for help with the current housing statistics. We were told no reports were available when one of the most basic reports were available in-house. There were -- there were home sales reports, as well as rental availabilities, but the biggest report was right under their noses, JC Hutchinson transmitted a report monthly to the United States Census Bureau. That report shows the type of permit, permits that are issued, the amount of units permitted. At the circumstances, six-month period of 2025, we hit the annual goals of housing and SIX months to go. IT was ignored. Planners never used any tools to get a handle on our current needs. Those comparisons between what was needed should have been compared to what was available to better society the goals of this comprehensive plan. Here we are in 2026, and so much has changed from the initiation of this project. Folks are leaving Florida in droves, including retirees, struggling families and hope for the future, millennials. Dangers of catastrophic natural disasters, the political situation, high insurance rates which is part of the challenge dominates this exodus. We are almost at zero population increase throughout the united states. And let US not forget that this administration has defense ported 675,000 immigrants, not all illegal. And we which we need more housing. Planning Commission should rethink of IT he is -- destruction of what is the money changes. These are 2025, what will be statistics next year. City Council and City And County Staff ignored red flags and barrelled forward with the unnecessary radical plan that will fill the pockets of Developers and be disastrous to our existing residents. Ideas proposed by Neighborhood Leaders and City Council have been ignored. Makes you wonder who the Puppet Master is. There is no protection for the folks that supported this city for years and years. This plan put stress on US and our infrastructure. There are no plans for Mass transportation, which would eliminate the need to damage our existing neighborhoods. None of those plans have come forward. But the serious traffic situation and the safety concerns in the neighborhoods have gone unnoticed. They have been ignored. The american dream is not to live in a concrete infrastructure. Please think twice before you move this aggressive plan forward that is not based on actual data that is readily available and current. Will destroy our city and harm the quality of life of our existing residents. Thank you.
Lynn Hurtak
06:48:15PM Thank you very much. Next. Im here today -- I have a very short statement, and I wont be talk too long. Here to express me wish that the transit-ready corridors located in vm ybor as well as East Tampa be added back into the Tampa comprehensive plan. East Tampa Property Owner for 22 years and a Resident for 19 years, IT is clear that our area not thriving like most of rest of Tampa. By adding in the transit ready corridors May attract new, smart development by providing the much-needed bonuses that Developers look for when considering their next projects. Bringing in development there are will also bring in various types of housing to meet Residents' needs. Not everyone wants or needs a big mcmansion to live in. This will help fill the gap for some of the missing middle housing that is desperately needed. Includes Drive, MLK jr. -- yeah, MLK, 21st and 50th streets be added back in the plan and asking that oriented designs be required for all development, not just the projects taking advantage of the bonuses. Thank you.
06:49:27PM Thank you very much. Next and start with your name. Tampa. Thank you Mr. Edmond and members of the City Council for engaging with me in terms of program go he is. I want to request that -- in regards to missing middle that we make IT easier to be able to build duplexes, triplexes and end quads on -- I mean, IT May be a hard ask, but lots as small as 5,000 square feet like they have in Tampa Heights. I think IT would be -- IT is a lot cheaper to -- to qualify for a duplex, triplex or quad than IT would be to buy a single-family house right now. And I think IT would help with missing middle as well as a lot of the people not being able to afford housing in the city. And thats IT. Thank you.
06:50:39PM Thank you very much. Next. In remembrance of Reverend Jesse Jackson. He once said that dreams can only be fulfilled when connected to broken promises. And we had a lot in East Tampa. I am not quite understanding a lot about Drc Plan, but what I do see is when we have in past shut down 30th and 34th street, how that had a were found effect economically of businesses not wanting to come into East Tampa. Almost like there is an organized gentrification plan and not to have those -- the two previous speakers lead out to be part of that plan. What would that say of further economic development of east company and the residents living there. As far as the housing, IT should be, like -- right now I think you have your regional state report showing where Tampa ended up. You are not number one. You are not even number five. You are almost like number 19 out of 20 states. And so we have come to you in a variety of different ways. And we need different housing options. Right now in East Tampa, homes cost being $750,000 is ridiculous. When wages are not keeping up with that. Some people say we need manufacturer homes, container homes, adl. Where that in this plan? I hear sustainability, resiliency, all that sound good, but when we put IT to the table for the people to be able to digest, which one of you have courage to do IT. And IT is quite disgusting to continue to ask this body of Democrats to do the right thing. I cant look to No Other Place. I cant look to Washington. I cant look to tallahassee and who are the bad guys when I am looking right here. Improve housing conditions for working-class people, open up the process so economic development can flow fluidly inside of economically depressed community. Not to do IT is a saying you are a part of the problem. Thank you. [Applause]
Alan Clendenin
06:53:09PM No, no. [Gavel sounding]
06:53:13PM We dont clap, We dont snap, We dont boo, We dont anything. Thank you. Have a good night.
Martin Shelby
06:53:29PM Miss Bennett has seven names. Please speak up so I can acknowledge that you are here. Bobbi O'brian. Thank you. Linda Hannah. Johanna. Thank you. Catherine Sanders. Paula Perry. Will Hall. Yvonne Frelli. Seven additional minutes for a total of ten. Thank you.
Alan Clendenin
06:54:05PM Start with your name, and You have ten minutes. Up.
06:54:11PM CCTV if you can bring Carroll Ann Bennett's powerpoint presentation. I hear Tampa Council members ask, if we dont approve this, can They build a ritz-carlton like on Bayshore. You asked this because this is a monstrous threat that can be use often and a vast dislike of that tower and high-rise as that are located in The Wrong Place. Some Council members think They must approve anything similar. They dont know They can say no. They dont understand that some land use -- uses allow high-rises but r-50 is not one of them. The rights property is 4-50 and high-rises on medium-density flu. Cannot be as a threat because Council can deny them base on the Comp Plan. So IT is very important to keep them in the Comp Plan. Properties with high-rises and should only be built there. Council doesnt have to approve them elsewhere and should not approve them elsewhere. All you to do keep your power is to keep this language already approved. We want you to keep the word "mid-rise." Please keep IT. We want the highlight guidelines too. So if Council feelings pressure to say "yes" because of threats like the ritz, you have the power to deny IT and protect US from something we dont want. This is the story behind the tower that is wielded as a threat. We used to have a lovely two-story apartment complex on Bayshore called bay oaks. IT had 30, big beautiful live oaks on the verge of becoming grand trees. They were 190 small affordable units for average families. A small two bedroom, two bath apartment was $1395 a month. Smaller units are cheaper so provide affordable housing for average families. Because IT was small, there was plenty of room for three dozen big shade trees. The trees mitigated flooding and climate change and cooled the air. But the Related Group saw Bayshore and They wanted IT. They wanted to build 180 huge uber luxury condos. IT was fewer total units, so IT didnt create more housing. In fact, of the investments are second homes, not homes for Tampa residents. IT meant destroying missing middle housing, displacing families and cutting down priceless hard-working live oaks. This is what replace the trees in the affordable housing. This is what is now used as a threat. To create these units with more square footage than an two-story house, They needed to go up. And up and up and up. They should not have been allowed because this property was r-50 which is not for high-rises. But instead of doing IT The Right Way and asking for a higher land use, They did an end run with a PD. Because pds have no height limit. They said a PD made IT okay to bulldoze two-story builds and build 27-story high-rise in r-50. If this had been denied, maybe the small apartments would be gone, but if the new buildings were eight stories and the units were smaller would have been less expensive and more attainable than these sky-high condos. Comp Plan says r-50 is typically eight stories. How did this pass? The rezoning was during developed, and Council meetings were virtual. Took a while to work out the kinks and the public had to go to the convention center with a kiosk with a camera and a mic. This squashed public comment. No one would risk getting sick, including me. Height guidelines in the comp ran right now for several flus. Why take them out. Council has the ability to approve higher buildings but without the guidelines, you have no reference point. These gleans do no harm. Comp Plan along with the word "mid-rise" where They have been for years. Please keep the height guidelines already approved. Tampa has plenty of land where high-rise can be built. We dont need more. The word" high-rise" is proposed to be added to r-50. Dont add IT. High-rises threaten our safety. At a hearing, City Council was told that the response standard for a single alarm at a high-rise with no smoke or fire, They gave the example of burnt toast is 43 fire fighting personnel. Requires all of the eight stations you see crossed out in blue. If IT increased to a second alarm, IT requires 80 personnel which would require all 14 of installations you see crossed out on this map. If any them are already on a call, a station even farther by a must respond In Their Place. All these crossed-out stations are unavailable for other emergency calls. That could cost someone their life. High-rises strain the Fire Department's resources. The response standard for a single alarm in a high-rise is ten minutes, ten seconds. Only the purple areas on this map can meet that requirement. All the gray areas on the map cannot meet the requirement. Our Fire Department cannot meet the response times for some areas where high-rises are already allowed. Why would you add high-rises where you know the Fire Department cannot meet these standard. High-rises strain the Fire Department's resources and threaten public safety and health. Please dont create more properties where high-rises can be built. Do not add the word "high-rise" to the r-50 description. Originally, the Planning Commission proposed eliminating bonused in the Chha, that would slightly reduce the potential units that can be built in Tampa. To compensate for that, They considered the by right in seven land use categories. That reason for higher buy right density is gone because of sb-180. Bonuses are headed back to the Chha, and we no longer need by right densities. Keep the by right densities you have now. If you raise them, IT is permanent that you will never be able to claw them back to what They are now. If you increase the by right density you move some of the incentive to bonus. We should encourage bonuses. We arent asking for changes to the bonus density that are proposed. We only want to keep the by right densities in the Comp Plan now the same. Bonuses create affordable housing and put money into the CIP. Fund of fund. Free by right density would reduce density to the CIP. Fund. Does the different. IT They will jump on South Tampa and pleases will be in the Chha soon but then you wont be able to be take IT away. Why give away something for free. Free public density mean less public benefit and less money for CIP. The reason for change is gone. Keep the current approved, adopted densities that interest in the Comp Plan now as by right densities. This is not a problem with sb 180. Tallahassee has no problems of keep willing things the same. Here is my list of three things we should keep the same. Please do so. Thank you.
07:02:22PM Thank you. Next Speaker, please.
07:02:27PM Start with your name and You have three minutes.
07:02:31PM We have a hard time keeping him in his seat. >> hi, good evening, Council. Dana Jasper. Im here before you tonight with two things. Thing one is proposed lu policy 3.2.1. Council directed the Planning Commission to revisit this policy. In response, the Planning Commission states, quote, revised language of the locational criteria requirements in the comprehensive plan. This straight incorrect. Under the currently adopted comp plan rezoning of neighborhood commercial and residential office in residential-20, 35, 50 and 83 May be considered only if all criteria are met. The criteria paragraphs are connected by the word "and" making them cumulative requirements. However, the proposed language of lu policy 3.2.1, Number 2, uses the word "or" between these items a, b and c. This is a substantive policy change. Lowers the standards by allowing rezonings to be considered if only one criterion is met rather than all. As written, revised language does not mirror locational criteria of the currently adopted plan. My first request is straightforward. Please replace the word "or" with "and" between items a, b and c, policy 3.2.1, Policy, so mirrors the currently adopted comp plan. Thing two is the building height language of medium density future land use r-35 and r-50. Current land use category matrix lists the key character for these categories to have building heights up to eight stories. The Planning Commission removed this language entirely. You May recall a rezoning in January of 2025 where I presented research data of every flu. R-357 parcel in the South Tampa. 656 in total. Data showed there are zero buildings that exceed eight stories. Fewer than 1% are five to eight stories and an overwhelming 98.1 Are one to four stories. Additionally, over 103-year period. Not a single building on flu. R-35 in the Tampa district. Retaining the existing height language keeping the language of eight stories and poses no hardship, reflects reality and establishes land development pattern. My second question that eight story be restored for flu. You r-35 and r-50. Council, my two things are straightforward requests for adjustments to the comp plan update. Make these adjustments before transmittal.
07:06:04PM Thank you very much. Thing one and thing two.
07:06:08PM I give you an "a" for creativity. Next Speaker, please.
Martin Shelby
07:06:24PM Miss Mackley, that one name, Joan Nuncio.
Guido Maniscalco
07:06:42PM Any relation to the Former Mayor. Good evening, Council. I appreciate that the Planning Commission has worked long on this -- this particular plan; however, several requested from past reviews remain unresolved and the revisions alter the intent of the policies. With her example, one word changes the entire meaning of the policy and that has happened throughout this. First, regarding the free by right in the seven future land use categories. Why cant they leave IT Just The Way IT is? Why are we giving away this free by right. If IT is something about, oh, we dont want to do a bonus on a bonus on a bonus. IT doesnt matter. Should Stay The Way IT is. I respectfully ask that Staff go back and add the original framework. If the terminology is confusing, then change the category names. IT is that simple. Second, in the r-50 category, again, they added the word "high-rise" here, but they are tell US they -- they have to take out typically eight stories but can add high-rise here. That is confusing to me. I think we need to remove the word "high-rise" from the r-50 because IT was never intended to be high-rise and add back a r-35 typically eight stories because that Is The Way IT has always been over 100 and whatever years, we have not one building that is misinterpreted that and have come above eight stories, not one in the South Tampa district, not one. So my fourth thing is in the single-family policy lu 5.3.9, They added the word "high density." I think we need to put that back to "medium density." Most established single-family neighborhoods transition from single-family into medium-density into high density. They dont go directly from single-family to high density. That will set a precedent that May unintentionally open the door to incomparable zoning for future land use decisions. Lastly lu policy 5.3.14, Which replaces 9.5.4. Current language removes protective elements that previous leave helped prep serve single-family detached neighborhoods. I respectfully request that Staff rewrite policy to have asleep with 9.5.4. We did this the last time. IT didnt happen. This could be accomplished by incorporating the language that was previously included. Maintain the current density and character of existing single-family neighborhoods. Protect areas of the lowest intensity of development that are currently in predominantly single-family use and have environmental or infrastructure constraints, which -- such as environmentally critical areas. That -- those words provide clarity and defensibility should zoning decisions be challenged in the future. Clear policy language protects not only neighborhoods and also protects You, the city. I also understand that the updates May be updated after transmittal with sb 840 currently moving through the Legislature, May be the opportunity for US to restore the things that we did for the high coastal hazard area that we removed because of sb 180. Maintaining consistency of unintended expansion and plan have deliberate policy charges not incremental shifts through wording changes. Thank You so much.
Alan Clendenin
07:10:42PM Thank you, Paula. With your name. You have three minutes. Good morning chair and Council members. Luke Cirac, director of permitting for Domain Homes. We want to thank the Council, City Staff and everyone involved for the work into the comprehensive plan and future land use updates. These are not easy decisions and recognize the amount of effort to balance community input, infrastructure realities and long-term future of the city. We are here today to express our strong support for moving our plan forward. We understand there May still had be areas where Council wants to make final refine am, and we respect that process, but we believe IT is critical that will this plan continues advancing without unnecessary delay. Tampa is growing quickly, and the city need a framework that supports smart, predictable planning. We strongly support responsible density and thoughtful housing ex participation. Like many Florida communities in Tampa facing a housing affordability crisis. No single land use. We know that increasing housing supply is a major part of improving affordability over time. All housing is good housing. Single-family, town homes, apartments, work to force housing or mixed use development. Every new unit helps relieve pressure on the market and gives residents more options. As a young man who grew up in Tampa, I personally believe higher density will create a more competitive house willing market which should help affordability for young people like me who want to build a future in Tampa. Overall, I believe that this plan is good for Tampa, supports a stronger future, encourage development of development in the right places and that the city remains competitive, livable and inclusive. We caution letting a disagreement over small portions of the plan derail the entire effort. In our review, more than 95% of this plan makes Tampa better. Lets not get stalled by the 5% that May still be IT he baited and that we can still work on. This a long-term decision about what is best for the city as a whole not just for today but future residents, workers and family and businesses that will call Tampa home. We support Council to support this plan and move IT forward. Thank you for your service to the city.
07:13:05PM Thank you, Luke. Have a good night.
Speaker
07:13:08PM You too.
Alan Clendenin
07:13:09PM Next Speaker, please. Good evening.
07:13:13PM Start with your name. Nearly 20 years ago, I stood at the podium for the first time and I asked council to be visionary, to adopt policy necessary to prepare and guide tampas future. Today I am not asking our council members to be visionary, but rather to catch up on where our community is behind. Any request today focuses on Tampa Heights, but I hope that other neighborhoods will see valuable in the applicability. Three requests, the transit ready coordination, transit development areas and pedestrian-oriented design element. Tampa Heights is a growing neighborhood that supports connect testify and IT is a nexus neighborhood joining downtown to several other urban neighborhoods transit-ready corridors are necessary to support the ongoing development that we have seen recently to reduce future congestion and ensure the higher quality of heights that the City Of Tampa looking to build. Designate as the multimodal roadways Including Tampa Street, MLK, Columbus Drive And North Boulevard. Transit-supported development area direct growth and consistency to the corridors, which will help preserve the charge of the neighborhood, direct growth to areas where the neighborhood feels IT is most appropriate, cluster density to support existing and future transit, and provide right-sized density on the corridors to retail and sustainability. And we ask bonuses be the uniform 1/8 mile depth in transit corridor including category r-10. Finally the pedestrian oriented designs is essential for transit supported development areas. For transit-ready corridors in order to ensure safety, support walkability, enhance retail and residential experiences, and to serve to have connect adjacent neighbors and streets and ask that lu 5.2.1, Petitioned-oriented design that reads pedestrian oriented policy be for all development within those development areas. Thank you to the Planning Commission staff, to City Staff, and to the council members. And,, for the record, thank you to Evan Johnson for 20 years of service to this community. I am embarrassing him right because he is shaking his head. The most perfect role I would have imagined All The Way back to 2007 sit at my kitchen table writing a technical assistance grant for the city. Thanks, evan.
07:16:21PM Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello, there. If he put money on transit-oriented development is your first topic, will I win?
Martin Shelby
07:16:38PM Two James Palin. Claire May. Two additional minutes for a total of five.
Alan Clendenin
07:16:45PM High there. Live in East Tampa, north ybor neighborhood, 33605. I first -- I dont think anyone said IT, but sb 180 applies to three years after a declared disaster which will be 2027. IT is a big deal, but has an expiration date and we need to be forward thinking about what we are going to do after that three years. Okay, so im here to support strong density bonuses. He Liked The Way they were written originally by the Planning Commission. I am just grateful at this point they werent removed. Overall, I support increasing density, creative housing types and mix of uses to promote walkability. The state is actually moving forward with two bills, an adu bill and a starter home weather build that will preempt you guys and decrease minimum lot sizes and allow adus by right. Our local communities are not keeping up with the fact we need increased density in order to build more, have more supply and price goes down. There are lots of studies that show that, and I personally support that. I am also here to ask that you put the rounding-up policy back in the plan. Nobody has mentioned that yet. This was a common-sense policy that encourage Developers to build an extra unit on a single parcel that can handle the Mass. Rather than spreading units across additional parcels because ratio of a unit. If IT pencils out to .9, Develop can not build that unit. New rule logical have rounding up from a reasonable fraction like .8 Of a unit. I am also here to request that you put the transit-ready corridors back in the plan. Personally want to see all of them put back in. They were there for a reason. So Sb 180 En Colonels incentives. I believe that incentives is a Great Way to direct growth In The Way that growth needs to go. Where we want to go. Two easy ways to do that, allow density bonuses and reduce parking minimums and requirements which is a big one for me. So What Better Place to implement those two incentives than around existing and planned transit corridors and hubs. Right? I have also would like to ask you to please widen the buffer from 1/8 of a mile from 1/16 of a mile. Create boundaries that we can enact as a tool for similar to Business Improvement Districts that fund public transit. This is an important tool. Widening IT back to 1/8 is reasonable. I actually believe that the buffer should be up to half a mile. That is the best practice. That is a walk shed. Read a facebook comment that people are walking up to a whole mile from their home to get to a bus stop. Thing is, to bills concern, our existing and planned transit stops. This urban environment is not a mile in between them. And even if there was a whole mile in between our transit stops, any given point in a corridor you are half mile or less from a bus stop if they were a mile apart. So that is the math. Ultimately, the density can come first. Before transit, but IT is harder and slower. Developers want proof. At that point, supportive policy Is In Place before they invest. The issue seems to be more about form and aesthetics. I really appreciate that, especially as -- as far as beauty and storefronts and things encourage walkability, right? But those things are primarily regulated through code, and -- so you will have is the opportunity to regulate those things. I believe that nodes should be neighborhood districts where cars are actively discouraged, west shore, downtown and ybor are not enough to justify a transit system. Or support the longevity of this city. We have to proceed walkability in between them. Definitely include 15th street as a transit-ready corridor, 24th street, 56th street. All the ones I frequent. Cypress, North Boulevard, etc. All the one Lynn mentioned. Thank you, Lynn for naming all of them. I support -- I spoke with my friends in South Tampa in than. And things we agreed on. We agree we need more affordable housing. We agreed we need more public transit. And we need more mixed development. Thank you.
07:21:45PM Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Nicole Peterika, tonight I am speaking as a board member of the Tampa Heights community association. Before I jump into my spiel I want to ad-lib that this turned a little bit into a workshop, I dont know that is what everybody planned on but helpful that we can put this as this is what can happen tonight. So thank you for that. I want to thank Hillsborough County planning commissioners miss Melissa Zornitta and decker and Evan Johnson for their help in informing the Tampa Heights community association. And I want to say with clear guardrails, we look forward to greater density in our neighborhood. I am going to reiterate some of the things that have already been said. One, we want to preserve our neighborhood caring and with the trcs and some of the things, to direct IT instead of IT going willy-nilly everywhere. We want to promote growth, again, along those corridors and clustered around city and future transit. Our ask is to add the transit-ready corridor designation to the multimodal roadway IT is Tampa Heights. That Is Tampa Street, MLK Boulevard, Columbus Drive And North Boulevard. In our document that we sent to you, we talked of those being bounded essentially by Tampa Heights. I would ad-lib here that is -- that would be sort of secondary to our idea, especially with the east-weapons corridors. As a nexus neighborhood. We would love them to extend All The Way. Two, we would like to revise lu table 1 bonuses to a uniform 1/8 mile depth and all transit-ready including r-10. Amend the proposed land use policy 5.2.1 Pedestrian-oriented design so IT reads to address all souls within the transit supportive development and transit ready corridors regardless of the bonus. Thank you.
07:24:00PM Thank you very much. Have a wonderful night. Next speaker, please. Start with your name. You have three minutes. I am a 25-year resident of vm ybor and East Tampa. I am also an Architect and actively contributed to East Tampa's most recent overlay revisions. Im here tonight respectfully request if those transit-ready corridors and vm ybor and East Tampa be added to the comprehensive plan. And IT seems like we are on that path forward so a huge thank you to all of you. As a design professional, I support thoughtful, predictable density in the East Tampa corridor as only proposed in August did just that, a predictable density. Allowed US to direct density on places that can be supported with protecting the scale and character of our East Tampa neighborhoods. Directing density is not just some extreme concept, IT is actually best practice in the planning world, and corridors like MLK, columbus, 15th street and 22nd street are historic commercial spines. They are already served by transit and connect our neighborhoods to the greater urban core. If we are serious of house willing said for the and reducing transportation cost, growth belongs along those corridors that were orally indicated. Removing the transit ready corridor from the plan will push that higher density development into less appropriate or desirable locations or more than likely discourage reinvestment all together. East Tampa has experience decades and decades of underinvestment, and I am not clear why we would take a step back from a clear and equitable growth strategy for East Tampa now. This is Tampa. Vm ybor where a large portion is zoned for single-family use, r-10 and r- 20, limits housing choices and to support neighborhood and retail services. On the flipside, the increased residential density along those hopeful leave added transit ready -- hopefully added transit ready corridors a population base to attract something like grocery stores to a food desert. Supports small businesses and neighborhood-scale commercial uses. IT supports job creation. IT stimulates local economic activity. And IT expands housing options for seniors, young professionals and working families who wish to remain within the East Tampa community. Finally, the manner of which these East Tampa corridors were removed was somewhat concerning and I understand what happened back in August, but our council seat was vacant. So I personally truly appreciate the outreach that has happened between August and now to get here, including the workshop that happened earlier this month and the conversation that happened before public comment. By found IT incredibly helpful so thank you.
Lynn Hurtak
07:27:13PM Thank you very much. Next? Nicole Mckinnis, Barber Law Firm. Excited to be here tonight in support of comprehensive plan. A Long Road with this plan and the City and the Planning Commission has done a wonderful job with public engagement to get US to this point. In addition to navigating serious legal and bill changes that would have affected this plan, there are great additions of this comprehensive plan, like the coastal area development concept and affordable housing bonus. This will help property owners to target critical areas in the City ripe for development and redevelopment. IT is a very Easy-To-Read document and clear to developers, prompt owners and Tampa residents what can and cannot be developed in the City. Comp plan to further the citys efforts with resiliency and affordable housing. Development community need this process to be wrapped up to provide vied some certainty of what can and cannot be developed. The comp plan has been for a very long I am time and uncertainty for everyone in the community as well as the development Communion. We strongly hope that continue to is the beginning of the end of this process. We are looking forward to Council transmitting this comp plan tonight and working on the City with the continuing efforts of the land development code update. Thank you.
07:28:34PM Thank you very much. Next? My name is Dan Coakley, and I am a resident of Tampa Heights, and a principal of Pmg affordable residential developer, largely of affordable housing and mixed-income housing across Florida and other states up and down the east coast. You May recall that we are a Tampa Housing Authority avenues development partner on the redevelopment of robles park village which is moving forward in a Great Way. Wont take up time to update you now, but we are here really to support the citys great efforts with respect to -- to the comp plan. You know, we are here to support IT. Particularly excited as IT relates to the affordable housing components of IT. We think that the -- that the density bonus associated with affordable housing can continue to propel the city forward in meeting its aggressive and really good affordable housing goals and delivery of affordable housing, as well as incentivize mixed income housing development from the development community. We are also very interested in the coastal development area concept as IT relates to improving the citys resiliency with storms, as well as guiding developers to target key areas. So you know, we certainly hope that the council transmits this tonight. We think that great things are ahead for the city and Pmg, you know, looks forward to continue to be a part of that. Thank you.
07:30:17PM Thank You very much. Next. All measures that promote a sustainability society with smart and stable growth for the into You CH You are. Im here tonight to left hand me voice to the common chorus that is petitioning You to encourage density and modern Mass transit. Concerning these items, this is best done in three measures. Please restore all transit-ready corridors that were removed. Please restore the rounding-up policy. And please support the proposed strong bonus density thank You.
07:30:57PM Thank you very much. Next. Association. Thank you for the opportunity speak here. I will be brief. A lot of good things in this latest version of the comp plan that continues to support things like adaptive reuse and certainly encourages more opportunities for multifamily development with higher levels of density. IT streamlines a lot of items and makes IT a little easier and more comprehensible for folks to utilize the document. I will note a couple of things to put on the record. One, very encouraged by the conversation today about adding additional corridors back into the plan. I think that makes a lot of sense. Some of our members mentioned that. We would like to see more corridors near some of developments that are Already In Place. So there is that. Second, also encourage by the discussion about there is going to be multiple opportunities to come back and refine as this process continues to move forward along those lines. We have started to under take a look at densities being utilized right now in multifamily construction, recent construction and proposed developments to make sure they are matching up with what the maximum densities are available in the difference land use categories. When we are done with that exercise, we will bring that information back to you, back to Planning Commission. Planning Commission -- I should have started with that. You guys have been awesome working with the community. Working with different stakeholders throughout this process and we appreciate their engagement with everybody. Along those lines again, we are pleased with a lot what is in here. Not let the enemy he the good or -- whichever ways that works.
07:32:57PM You got IT. Comes to light.
07:33:03PM Thank you very much. Next. We would like to thank staff. A seven-year journey. We have been through this. The main message is to move IT forward to states comments to give US all direction. We will have several months to continue working out some of the good comments that we had tonight. I think IT is time to move this forward and give the community certainty. Because I am already -- I get a lot of calls right now from folks who are looking to invest Tampa and saying what is the status of this new plan? I really like this new plan, but I condition make proposals I would like to now because IT havent moved forward yet. Other thing I did want to mention just for the public on March 2, to make sure that for those of how are really interested in the nuts, bolt and design details, March 2, the city is having its sort of unveiling of the land development code. That will be next step, and we really need to move this forward to get there and have the conversation. I wanted to mention two situations that I have seen before Council recently that I think the new density and bonus structure will help with. First one is -- probably several examples. Most recent is a project -- not one of mine, By The Way, but a project on rocky point, the rusty pelican. This project had a lot of sense to have bonus density. Some discomfort that the bonus when IT was developed and restraints, that the developer had To Go Way, way off of rocky point to actually make that investment. And the investment really when a in the neighborhood and everybody seemed to dislike that idea, but that was the only weigh to move the project forward and IT did. I would suggest that this bonus structure helps fix that because we can be very specific on where nose investments are going to go recent into the neighborhoods that will be impacted. Second situation is I think IT could help with what miss Melissa Zornitta mentioned in terms of dissuading comp plan map amendments. I can tell you if I have a client that says, Jake, should I go for a map amendment or go with a bonus structure even though Council has discussion of whether I get IT. I promise you I will be recommending that second option all day long. The reason why, more certainty for everyone. We are going To Wall Street these bonus into the land development code. Everybody will know from day one, how do I qualify? And so IT will lessen your workload by streamlining and helping everyone understand what our plan looks like. Thank you.
Alan Clendenin
07:35:47PM Thank you, Jake. Start with your name. You have three minutes. Living in Tampa. I am an average citizen, and apologize in advance if I misuse terminology in any capacity. My general understanding and general consensus that we are here to support more dense development rather than urban sprawl. And I understand there are concerns of how we go about that, but from what I have seen and experienced, communities dont pop out of thin air. You need connections between communities in order for those communities to grow. And so I believe that, you know, strengthening our transit in between areas is how we can encourage more density between different, like, nodes of communities. I am a person who uses transit pretty regularly. If not almost exclusively. And I think that this city that I have lived in My entire life is, you know, great. I love IT. But IT is one of the worst places to be using public transit. IT is not great. And I happen to be a very privileged person that I am ambulatory. A lot of transit users that I know and commute with on a regular basis have disability and mobility issues. This idea that we are restricting transit and making IT harder to keep development a Specific Way to me seems ridiculous. And up know there was concern of dale mabry-style development, whatever that might mean, but I -- I think IT is important to note that type of development happened without transit Corridors In Place. And so I think we need to be trying different things. And not doing what always done in Tampa, with I is focus on cars all the time. There are multiple studies With People Way smarter than me to show how to improve and People said multiple things that make a lot of sense as layman. And I think IT is important to keep in mind that the People who are already here should be factored into your decisions when, you know, planning for the city, not just making IT enticing for Developers. We live here now, and IT is good to try to bring outside money in, sure. But the citizens who are here now are more important, in My opinion, if not just as. But thats all. Thank you.
07:38:35PM Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Start with your name. You have three minutes. Here to speak of the future land use amendments and my wholehearted support of adding back in all of the Trcs recommended to be removed or directed to be removed after the August meeting and he was very pleased to see IT many of the specific corridors added back in tonight. And also keeping the trc bonus before at a 8th of a mile along the entirety of those corridors. Many of those corridors of the west shore, downtown district, MacDill Air Force Base, and with that hay additional variety and availability much housing options for our workers. One Of My Best Buddies around my age currently living with his parents and commuting regularly between brandon and west shore multiple times a week and one of the main reasons for that is because of the lack of a variety of affordable housing options. The Trcs will allow for more land use flexibility as a base, and then thinking of all of the things I heard tonight, tree preservation, height, historic protections, promoting factory-built options, smaller lot sizes, stormwater requirements, design requirements to encourage smaller units. All can be accomplished through zoning. Highly encourage US to use the land development code to do all of that, opposed of putting into the comprehensive plan amendments. And I would also add parking enforcement is something to consider, something that I heard a lot about from South Tampa residents in attending the meetings last summer and this allows US to add affordable housing incentives on top of that, public land use and payment and rental assistance directly to Tenants and Potential Home Buyers. Again support adding back in the Trcs thank you very much.
07:40:37PM And Stephanie Poynor, the last speaker -- or, the Onlines. Last in person and nayas grandmother. You can stay seated. You dont have to stand up.
Martin Shelby
07:40:52PM Sorry.
Alan Clendenin
07:40:59PM Who are You. And You have three minutes.
Martin Shelby
07:41:05PM Has a list of seven names if puck acknowledge. One, two, three, four, five names. Donna Dale Smith. Thank you. Don Roberts, Claudia Rabbits, Analise Roberts, Victor Demayo. That is eight.
Alan Clendenin
07:41:31PM Start with your name. I want to start to support all of the neighbors for the neighbors who came to ask for neighborhoods. I support neighborhoods make can choices for neighborhoods. Not by anybody who doesnt live there. Number one the by right density needs to stay the same city-wide because City Council asked the Planning Commission to make that change. Why IT wasnt done? I dont know. IT seems like they did a whole lot of other changes. By ignoring this, you are costing the city valuable funding. Valuable funding because you know I am cheap and I want our tax dollars to be spent in The Best Way possible, but when you give away these things for free, guess what, We get nothing. We get no money for infrastructure. We get no park improvements. We get nothing. But the bonus program gets US something. Duh. We have enough issues of underfunding things and giving things away for free in the city without giving that away too. I have two additional five-minute mixes. Number one is on the back page of the blue and White. And I really -- CH not be transmitted as is, because screws our whole peninsula. Maximum density applies in the chha as August 4, 2021 with the coastal development areas. Why do We put this in here? There is no reason for IT. IT is not in the current plan. Why do We have to put this in here? We are nailing ourselves down what We have now. A real deal hurricane or a cat 5 that rolls over this community and they change the chha to the entire peninsula. We are still screwed to this. Once you allow this to go off your table tonight -- I am really kind of disappointed We are not working through this tonight as many of the community has asked for. Second thing. On this -- on this current -- on the current comp plan, We have all these definitions. Typically -- typically, IT sounds good. For you guys who are not land use experts, IT is helpful to know that typically 4 -- 24 stories. Typically eight stories, five stories. This nifty chart left out of most of IT. I wrote down which one you have those stories are supposed to be on your chart. But ultimately, here is what is important about that. Why do We have to take IT out? Nothing that says you cant change the height. City Council can change IT to 50 stories high. But if you dont know what IT should be or what IT typically is, how do you know what IT should be? And like Carroll Anne brought up, she brought up the whole fire stuff. Well, remember, We got these guys rolling up in here now wanting to build seven-story plywood palaces. And Chief Tripp and other members of TFR have admitted that We do not have fire trucks that go up more than five to SIX stories depending on the setbacks. So We are going to build seven-story buildings. But if nobody tells you how tall IT is already, how are you supposed to know? Because nobody up there is a land use expert. Nobody up there is a land use expert. I am not a land use expert. Here is the problem with taking this all out. We come in front of you and ask you for something, there are two ways that you can answer IT. One, IT is consistent with the comp plan, or, two, IT is inconsistent with the comp plan. If you take this out of the comp plan guess what, IT is not a basis for denial or a basis sentence. Some people will say you guys are mean and dont accept everything that comes in front of Council but I gave you the data that showed you approve 92% of what comes before you. Those are very, very high numbers and very predictable unless someone brings poop in front of you, than you are going to approve IT. I dont understand why people are scared to development to put these suggestions in there for a group of novice land use people. And land use is hard. I mean this flu. Stuff is very difficult. Other issue is -- lets see. The chha thing just drives me bonkers. Commercial restricted. Why is that only for the coastal high hazard? Only for the coastal high hazard. Yes, absolutely. I want IT. Why can other parts of the city not have commercial restricted? And if a developer was to come in here and build a grocery store or whatever they want to build, why cant they ask for IT in any part of the city where they are guaranteeing they are going to build commercial. Here is the problem, the problem with the neighborhoods isnt that they are building too much commercial. IT is building too much residential. And building IT too big and too ugly. So why would We not allow that commercial -- commercial restricted For Every Place in the city. I dont understand IT. Lets see. And bonuses. The beg thing -- IT is funny because I agree with Cremer. Oh, my gosh -- that probably wont ever happen again. But bonuses. Why arent they easier? Everybody I talked to, the Developers that have communication with say right now the bonus process is the pain in the butt and one of the reasons they dont want IT want IT. If you streamline and want a sop. How We do the bonus programs wouldnt make IT easier and then We actually -- the bonus also benefit the community without giving away our density for free. That is just -- IT makes no sense. We give away -- look at our mobility. We have been selling the city for $1277 for so long that I was 18. I even drink when they made that rule until you passed IT this year. I cant wait to see the land development -- the study -- the fee study for land development and construction services because I think they will be just as ugly, if not worse. So tonight, you can not pass something that is going to give away more of our city for free for no good reason. When you can simply use the bonuses and let people do what they want. You make those decisions, not somebody who sits in a back room without any observations from any attorneys. You guys never make a decision with at least two attorneys helping you along. And you have to do IT legally. So lets take out this crappy -- I am going to say this again because I think IT is really, really important. I dont know where IT came from and why IT is in there, but IT needs to come out. Why do We put a date of 2021 Son there. Look how different our community is now versus 2021. Five years ago. Oh, my God. We never imagined that half of our city would have flooded in the last year or two. We never would have imagined and in the hell are We putting in the comp plan.
07:49:15PM You need to correct the record. You said you couldnt drink, legally. For clerk, can you spell poop for US? Next speaker, please. Start with your name and you have three minutes. And I am not going to repeat all that our representatives from our neighborhoods have said from Tampa Heights particularly. You have written correspondence, I am just here to let you know we are fully supportive of what we communicated with you all. And ask that you consider all that we have included in there. We spent a lot of time like our President said going back and forth and trying to be as responsible and representative of our neighborhood as possible. So I am just asking for support on that. This included with our overlay district and our auxiliary units are going to help our community to, we hope and we anticipate continue to remain more diverse than not be as -- as exclusive as IT could become. So that is what we are asking. Tonight, I am going to ask for a moment of personal privilege. I started coming to City Council almost 50 years ago. And during that time, always have been before City Council. And at that time, My Granddaughter was not anywhere around. And tonight, I get to stand here and talk to you all with My Granddaughter sitting up there. We are so proud of her. We are so, so, so happy She is -- She was selected by voters to sit on the dais. She is representing young people and giving them inspiration and giving them guidance and putting forward things that we know our young people must be coming involved in the Government. And be sitting in positions that you are, representing their own future. Thank you.
07:51:37PM Thank you, Miss Green. Thank you. [Applause] okay, we will allow that. [Applause] you know, nobody ever applauds me. That is why we dont allow applause. That is why we just got to the bottom. We dont allow applause. Jealousy. 100% jealousy. Brian, dont go too far. Brian Seal. Sit back down. Hey, Brian. Brian Seal, we see you. Can you hear US? Unmute yourself, please.
07:52:30PM Yep. Start with your name, and you have three minutes. Brian Seal, resident of Tampa Heights and board member of Tampa Heights civic association. Sorry I couldnt be with you because I am home with the flu and multiple kids with the flu as well. I wanted to echo my fellow Tampa Heights association members and the officials letter request that we submitted. Tampa Heights is one of the few neighborhoods in Tampa that consistently supports greater density because of our elevation and Our Historic Street grid, our proximity to downtown and desire for vibrant neighborhood in the neighborhood plan. Despite the proposed mechanism due to the comp plan, transit-ready corridors are the available vehicles for incentivizing density where IT belongs; however, density without the best urban design standards will be more harmful than helpful to the future of the city. Exist future land use and zoning designation allow quite a bit of density in Tampa Heights already. But the standards and incentives in the comp plan land development code have developed in a patchwork of car machine-oriented development that discourages walking. One of the key reports of our request is put in the requirements for pedestrian-oriented design in all bonus areas regardless of the use average the bonuses. I want to thank you for the time you have taken this evening to consider this to hear the community and regardless whether IT is tonight or the future meeting that we can really work back in some of these details to get not just denser but better development for Tampa.
07:54:16PM Mr. Moreno. There you are. See you on the big screen. Unmuted. Michael Norenor, executive director of the West Shore Alliance. You got a letter from me, and I echo a lot of the comments of the transit-ready corridors. My letter alludes to west shore. But if you put up the map, IT makes the case for especially some of those east-west corridors. So referencing that, Boy Scout Boulevard, Cypress Street, and specifically with the Regional Infrastructure Accelerator Grant that the city is currently doing. One of the sites that would be leveraged as part of that project and value capture is the intermodal site that FDOT owns On Cypress Street. Restoring the corridor on cypress streets helps the grant going forward the requirement that that grant includes places where you could have some version of value capture whether nodes or corridors of the to get the public and private financing. One of the other things that now have come about since your last meeting in August is this proposal of Hillsborough College. And you know, no matter what you think of the project overall, the fact of the matter is that Hillsborough College does not have a true one-stop or one-route transit mechanism to get from hcc, dale mabry to ybor. So there is a need for transit anywhere of the current process. But also the fact there are 30 major league baseball stadiums. 25 of them have some version of rail transit. Tampa Bay being one. And use the potential of redevelopment as a mechanism to have a catalyst of regional Mass transit something we support as an organization, the West Shore Alliance does. Once these interchanges are done whether IT is downtown or west shore, hopefully we maxed out the interstate system so then we really can move to this version of transit and the mechanisms as part of the land use plan of the corridor Is The Way to go and thanks Staff and demonstrate the fact there is this potential here within the land use plan within the City Of Tampa to make sure we have the tools that Atlantis sit when IT is ready we can get IT going. Thanks.
07:56:57PM Thank you, Michael. Appreciate your input. Christopher Vala. You are on. So I am asking you to restore all the transit-ready corridors in in flu. As Michael pointed out, there is a lot of incentive to have them. Many transit grant programs. One is a Federal Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program that actually uses population density as part of its formula. Denser areas get more money for transit operations. Competitive programs like capital investment grants that fund new starts and small starts problems rate proposals based on surrounding land use and average densities near stations. Then Ftoa Planning Grant that prioritizes community that have established zoning to allow more homes and jobs next to transit. In short, if you have no density, you dont have any dollars. That is why restoring transit-ready corridor is a smart fiscally responsible move. Establishes frameworks for near-term investment and long-term eligibility for competitive transit funding and act as living boundaries, areas where the city can create later special districts like the special service district of downtown, for example. So these can be opportunities to capture value and fund transportation improvements, not just transit alone, but other improvement you would need On The Road for all sorts of uses. So I urge you also -- and I think Dana touched upon this -- restoring the rounding-up policy. I believe IT is a small technical tool that developers feel the last fraction of unit instead of being blocked by a stupid arithmetic number. Will create more additional homes that We need. And also IT just wont cast away that unused piece of land for nonliving means. And then finally, I strongly support the mixed use bonus densities. You know Tampa is going to grow. IT is always going to grow. This is a city for christs sake that gets so upset that We want to limit our density because for odd reason We are in a urban mindset. Cities are meant to grow and host a lot of different things and We just need to be supportive of that. We need to manage that better with transit. We need to manage that better by cutting all the environment am disasters in conventional transportation. So I am glad you heard everybodys thoughts today. I think IT is important to take into consideration that We asked for transit for the past 50 to 60 years in Tampa and now is the time to pivot to that. We got to make IT happen. Thank you.
08:00:01PM Thank you very much, Chris. That concludes public comment. Thoughts? Share --
8:00:13PM Start with your name. Melissa Zornitta, Planning Commission Staff. Sort of starting at the -- at some of the last speakers, the commercial restricted land use category is a new land use category thats being added. The language says IT is intended to be primarily in the coastal high hazard area. That does not limit IT for being asked for outside of the coastal hazard area. That can be asked for anywhere. The coastal high hazard area date that is at the bottom of table 2 Is In Place because under state law were not allowed to have a self-amending plan. So We cant have that line changing whenever the state decides to change the line and then our plan automatically changing along with IT. We have to refer to a specific, what that date of the coastal high hazard line is now and then if We want to amend IT when the coastal high hazard area changes, We can amend IT then. But We cant just have IT amend on its own. There were a number of speakers who spoke about applying the pedestrian oriented design to all parcels in the trc regardless of whether or not they were asking for the density bonus. So We were cautious about doing that. I think We all agree We would like higher quality design in as many places as We can within the city. But We were cautious about doing that because within the trc buffers, there are some places where the current policies around higher quality design do not apply to certain -- like some of the residential land use categories today. IT applies to the mixed use corridors and mixed use categories today. So adding IT in as a requirement for anything, We were cautious about under senate bill 180. Thats why We had IT based on the trigger of using the density bonus. So IT was a part of that incentive, not a requirement. The one-eighth mile and not the one-sixteenth in the r-10, that was, one-eighth was part of our original proposal. However, since August, weve been sharing the one-sixteenth in the r-10. So I think from staffs perspective, We would feel more comfortable with that being on the explore in the future list to make sure We have an opportunity that the Community was well engaged on that issue. Because the maps all have shown one-sixteenth since the August draft. There were some comments regarding adus and missing middle. The plan is very supportive of missing middle housing, accessory dwelling units. Some of that implementation now needs to come in the land development code. One of the policies, the rounding up policies was mentioned. And because a lot of the concern We heard about rounding up and adding that additional unit came -- were related to the form and the function that would take. We thought that was best to be addressed once We have the updated land development code and some of those issues can best be addressed in the land development code, so addressing the rounding up might be more palatable. Okay. There were comments around land use policy 5.3.9 Which looking at the original -- the language in the adopted plan today, the request was to change the wording from high density to medium density. We did not change that because of senate bill 180 because high density is referred to in the adopted language today. Proposed policy 5.3.14 I believe what the Speaker was asking for was the additional language in current policy 9.5.3 To be added into that policy, and that would certainly -- We would be fine if Council wanted to make that as a motion. The issue around heights and stories, again, just to reiterate, the language in the land use category description is simply that descriptive. So if you want to remove high-rise from, I think IT was res 50, thats fine. That can be changed. What We were cautious about is giving an expectation that if IT says in the plan no more than 8 stories, that that was somehow regulating the height. Thats not. The height is regulated by the land development code. That is providing guidance around this is whats typical. This is what might be found in the area. Its a description. Its not regulatory, and there could be conflicts between what is the height in the zoning and the description. So We thought IT was best to take IT out. But if Council wants to put those story descriptions back in, that is up to you all. So some other pieces about table 2 beyond the coastal high hazard area date, We did not ignore City Council's direction to revisit that table. We would never ignore City Council's direction. We did take a look at that table in completely working with City Staff, talking with our consultant who structured the density bonuses originally for US. We said what would happen if We went back to -- theres one tier to get to 35 and then there is another tier to get to this new bonus. The feedback was that is cumbersome and going to undermine the intent of the new density bonuses. So that is why We did not make a change. Outside of the coastal high hazard area, in the coastal high hazard area, We had to go back to what IT is today because of senate bill 180. Then I think the last issue was a question about locational criteria, which ill ask Jennifer to help with that explanation. The issues surrounding locational criteria was the "and" versus the "or." Today the locational criteria for residential 20 states that these rezonings can be considered if approval of all of the criteria are met. And then IT provides one, two, three, four bullets and then another sub-bullet thats separate criteria. You have to meet four bullets or you could meet the sub-bullet. What Staff has run into is that a lot of these criteria have not changed since the first plan in 1989 and they are not measurable. One of them is the amount andor location of existing neighborhood commercial and residential office uses are inadequate to meet the demands of the neighborhood. That is very hard to measure. Very subjective, thank you. So when staffed look at the locational criteria, We revised IT. We did change IT to or statements, but each of the criteria that weve proposed is measurable. And We feel that that list is better suited for the comp plan. Thank you. We would be happy to answer any questions.
8:08:34PM Ill say good job because all my bullets you all covered. You captured everything I captured. Good job. Councilwoman Hurtak and then Councilman Viera -- were you first?
Lynn Hurtak
8:08:48PM Dont go anywhere. So in listening to the public comment and kind of listening to what we had talked about, IT sounds that what youre saying for the bonus structure is that You are trying to take the ambiguity away from the basis, from the base language to allow the bonus structure. Right now, that step-up internal to the category is confusing, but IT also, if we really want to incentive this with the new on top, like, IT just doesnt --
8:09:32PM Okay. Thats The Way I kind of understand IT. Thank you for that.
Alan Clendenin
8:09:36PM Councilwoman young.
Naya Young
8:09:38PM Ill ask my question first and then I have a statement. I know you had already said IT, but can you explain again the pedestrian oriented designs? Can you explain that part for me one more time? Not exactly the same, to the pedestrian oriented design in the plan. They apply to mixed use corridors. When We look -- so We were taking that and We were trying to apply that to the transit-ready corridors, but some of those areas along that corridor are not necessarily mixed use. They are in a residential land use category. So We were cautious under senate bill 180 to apply IT as a blanket regulation to all of that area. And so took an alternative approach of saying IT applies when they ask for the bonus -- that transit-ready corridor bonus.
8:10:54PM Thank you. And then just a statement. One, thank you. Planning Commission, thank you all very much. Its been a long process, but you have done a great job. Melissa, you do a fantastic job of explaining things. You do a fantastic job. Work with our kids for summers, many, many years, and she was able to explain planning to elementary schoolchildren. IT was amazing. I just want to thank you all for that. I also really wanted to thank community for coming out. This is really what, like, collaboration and community engagement looks like. You all coming out and coming to the sessions has been really helpful. So I want to thank you all for continuing to be engaged in this process and helping US. I had the opportunity today to go to the state -- the state of the region address, and the -- the word transportation came up a lot of times. And IT was very interesting just to hear the amount. I think the number was something like 40, over 40 percent that people spend for their cars for transportation. So while this is not a transportation-specific conversation, but ensuring that we are planning so that we have these corridors that are ready for transportation I think is really important. I see Our City is really going through this shift. My hope and what I think we are all working towards is that IT is a shift in a Positive Way, and were shifting into the right direction. I think I heard maybe a few times that Our City is going to grow, but how we do IT is really important. I think this is also really timely because the conversation about, even though Evan is leaving US but, you know, people moving back to the city and wanting to be able to actually afford to live here and build a life. This conversation is very timely. I just thank you all so much for putting in the work and the community and council members. So I wanted to put that out there.
Alan Clendenin
8:13:11PM Councilman Viera, were you going to make any motions?
Luis Viera
8:13:14PM Comment.
Alan Clendenin
8:13:16PM Can we get -- go ahead.
Luis Viera
8:13:19PM Very briefly, I wanted to explain. Melissa, thank you for speaking with me outside on this issue. Councilwoman Hurtak had talked about some of the areas that werent included originally by the Planning Commission in the plan, including New Tampa. You know, so I wanted to make sure that I just talked about that appropriately with staff. My big challenge with including Bruce B. Downs in particular is that this was not promoted to New Tampa, 33647. Theres been extensive engagement in the areas that are going to be directly affected. But since New Tampa was specifically excluded, right, from that, there hasnt been proper outreach to New Tampa. Therefore, I think that doing this should be done separately for Bruce B. Downs if -- if its going to be done. Separately for Bruce B. Downs at another time when we can have that proper outreach to them because IT was excluded for a reason, number one, because of all the development in New Tampa over the last 25, 30 years and so forth. Again, without that outreach, I dont think there would be proper notice to those affected communities. Thats kind of my response, if that makes sense. Thats to New Tampa. Some of the areas mentioned in other parts, including in North Tampa in district 7, I have no objection to that.
Alan Clendenin
8:14:37PM I think well have a motion that will conform to that. Hearing no other questions, I would like to entertain a motion to close. Motion to close the public hearing from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have IT. Recognize Councilwoman Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak
8:14:52PM Im going to start with the things that I want to ask the Planning Commission. I move to ask the Planning Commission staff to evaluate 21st street, North Boulevard, 29th street -- well, North Boulevard north of Kennedy. 29th street and 34th street for possible future identification as transit-ready corridors. Please refer to the East Tampa community redevelopment plan as part of that process. Thats my first motion.
Alan Clendenin
8:15:28PM 29th street north of where? I missed that. What southern terminus to what northern terminus?
Lynn Hurtak
8:15:49PM I think IT could probably be -- how about following 21st and 22nd. I would stay within those corridors.
Alan Clendenin
8:16:01PM Columbus on the south side.
Lynn Hurtak
8:16:03PM Yeah, where 22nd, you are looking at right now, I would stick with that distance. I think that looks like hillsborough to the north and 60th to the south.
Alan Clendenin
8:16:20PM That would be Columbus out there. I dont think IT extends beyond that.
Lynn Hurtak
8:16:24PM Im looking at 29th. 29th goes up. Im -- 29th going from 60 All The Way up to hillsborough. Yeah, there. 60 to hillsborough. To follow the 22nd. Like mirror 22nd. Since this is an evaluation of the corridors, if you dont know the exact boundaries right now, we can work with your office.
8:16:55PM I will let you evaluate which corridors go.
Jennifer Malone
8:17:00PM Well work with your office on a boundary that makes sense so You dont have --
Lynn Hurtak
8:17:04PM Actually, no. Im asking you to evaluate, so you tell me. I will let you all have that evaluation. So I will leave IT vague to evaluate 21st street, North Boulevard, 29th street, and 34th street for possible future identification.
Alan Clendenin
8:17:21PM We have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. I have a second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor --
Jennifer Malone
8:17:27PM Planning Commission Staff. Want to be extra clear, and I believe You have been, but youre not expecting US to have these evaluations done by adoption in May. Is your motion to have an end date to IT so Staff can prepare?
Lynn Hurtak
8:17:42PM How much time do you need?
Alan Clendenin
8:17:49PM Question, when is the next check-in meeting with US? When do you anticipate coming back to US?
Jennifer Malone
8:17:56PM The adoption hearing is scheduled for May.
Lynn Hurtak
8:18:00PM How about come back in May and give US an update on where you are? We would provide an update but that doesnt mean they are necessarily included in the adoption packet.
8:18:16PM Thats fine. Just an update is fine. Well do an iterative process, but We want to get IT through. I never want to assume because you cant do that with the State, but We will get a lot of direction if the State is okay with these, We will feel comfortable moving forward adding others. Thank you.
Alan Clendenin
8:18:35PM Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have IT unanimously.
Lynn Hurtak
8:18:42PM I also move to ask the Planning Commission staff to evaluate keeping the one-eighth of a mile for r-10 on transit-ready corridors and rounding back up to transit-ready corridors. Also for the May hearing. Again, just an update and we can move forward with that later.
Alan Clendenin
8:19:02PM We have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. Second from Councilman Viera. I saw Maniscalco first and then Councilman Miranda.
Guido Maniscalco
8:19:07PM Just a question, why one-eighth and not one-sixteenth?
Lynn Hurtak
8:19:12PM One-sixteenth is whats current. What we heard tonight from a lot of the public is They are asking US to go back to one-eighth but They said They couldnt do IT in this transmittal. Instead, ask them to evaluate that again.
Guido Maniscalco
8:19:26PM Thats 660 feet instead of 330.
Melissa Zornitta
8:19:33PM Agree completely I think with that part. The part of IT that I wanted to clarify is that the rounding, IT did not just apply in the Trcs originally. IT applied in more areas. So are you saying you just want to look at the rounding in the Trcs or in the area we originally proposed IT?
Alan Clendenin
8:19:55PM I have a question. When you originally proposed the rounding, did IT have a round from .8 And above or --
Melissa Zornitta
8:20:02PM IT was rounding like we do in math class. .5 Up.
Alan Clendenin
8:20:06PM Maybe that is the kicker there. The example that was used, like a .9 Or .8 --
Jennifer Malone
8:20:12PM Planning Commission staff. Yeah, that was like an far. Example. The Way that IT was written originally was round up to the nearest available unit. If you penciled out ten dwelling units an acre and lot size only give you 1.4, We would round down.
Alan Clendenin
8:20:29PM Defer to councilwoman Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak
8:20:31PM Again, I want you to come back and evaluate that again. Maybe having a map of showing what that would look like in terms of the eighth of a mile. The eighth of the mile, the math would be nice. As far as the rounding back up, maybe just a map -- cant really have a map of where that would affect. IT would be everywhere, right? Maybe some discussion about that.
Melissa Zornitta
8:20:58PM I think we have a rounding map in some of the old iterations.
Lynn Hurtak
8:21:04PM Lets bring that back for discussion, again, in May, not for now, but to discuss moving forward.
Alan Clendenin
8:21:11PM Any Other Business, Councilwoman Hurtak?
Lynn Hurtak
8:21:13PM We need to vote on IT.
Alan Clendenin
8:21:15PM We have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. I have a second from Councilman Viera. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have IT. One nay from Councilman Carlson. Motion passed with Councilman Carlson voting no. Councilman Miranda.
Charlie Miranda
8:21:29PM I believe one-eighth of a mile, 220 yards, one-sixteenth, 110 yards. Difference. I learned that in horse racing.
Alan Clendenin
8:21:41PM Does Anybody have any other business that they would like the Planning Commission to look at prior to May?
Lynn Hurtak
8:21:51PM Im sorry. I meant to add the transit-ready corridors. I make a motion to add -- ill need help with this to make sure I get them all.
Alan Clendenin
8:22:04PM Can we use this map?
Lynn Hurtak
8:22:05PM How about everything on the map except for Bruce B. Downs.
Jennifer Malone
8:22:12PM Planning Commission staff. There was a mistake made that I made. So the list -- 15th street is a good example, that was on the May draft, but IT had dropped off of the August draft.
Lynn Hurtak
8:22:25PM So 15th and Westshore north of Kennedy.
Jennifer Malone
8:22:28PM Right. Those could go back on.
Lynn Hurtak
8:22:31PM I will add 15th And Cypress.
Guido Maniscalco
8:22:36PM Cypress where?
Jennifer Malone
8:22:37PM Do you have the boundary handy? Cypress was originally in May draft. Westshore To North Boulevard. We could look at IT again.
Guido Maniscalco
8:22:52PM Thats all of IT, All The Way To Julian Lane. Going through residential there.
Charlie Miranda
8:23:01PM Cypress ends At North Boulevard and goes West All The Way to --
Jennifer Malone
8:23:05PM Yeah. Just to be clear, some corridors between May and August, Staff heard that outreach dropped off when we came to you in August.
Alan Clendenin
8:23:15PM Why dont you say up to Himes? We can capture the areas between Westshore and Himes.
Lynn Hurtak
8:23:21PM Well do Cypress from Westshore to himes. We also had Columbus. We said Columbus east of the river.
Guido Maniscalco
8:23:40PM Columbus gets very narrow there. Once you Get To Boulevard, IT goes to two lanes.
Lynn Hurtak
8:23:47PM Yes, but there is a lot of development thats coming along. Im fine with IT going west.
Guido Maniscalco
8:23:57PM West is two lanes.
Lynn Hurtak
8:23:59PM Then Columbus. Well add Columbus. Im calling IT first and second reading. Between state transmittal and our adoption, We can discuss IT. But for now, add Columbus back. In its entirety. Shes going to write IT all down. Then what well do is have you repeat IT.
Alan Clendenin
8:24:24PM Just fyi, one of the reasons -- Streetcar -- capturing that east-west corridor.
Jennifer Malone
8:24:33PM Planning Commission staff. Your previous two motions were things for US to evaluate, come back with an update. This is a motion as part of the transmittal hearing.
Lynn Hurtak
8:24:42PM Correct.
Jennifer Malone
8:24:42PM That makes a big difference for what We send to state. I think We have them. Do you want to come up and confirm.
Melissa Zornitta
8:24:52PM So we had -- Melissa Zornitta, Planning Commission. 15th street, cypress, Westshore to himes, Westshore Boulevard north of Kennedy and then weve got columbus east -- columbus in its entirety. MLK east of the river. Armenia north of Kennedy, the adamo, State Road 60 corridor. 50th street, 22nd street, 40th street north from where its on the map today.
Lynn Hurtak
8:25:39PM Yeah, restoring 40th.
Melissa Zornitta
8:25:41PM Restoring the north part of 40th. And then broadway --
Lynn Hurtak
8:25:47PM How about everything east of Nebraska I think would be easiest. Everything that was on the trc east of Nebraska will make IT a little bit easier for You.
Melissa Zornitta
8:25:58PM Sounds great. From the May draft.
Lynn Hurtak
8:26:04PM From the May Draft. All of the things from the May Draft that we talked about plus the addition of 15th and --
Melissa Zornitta
8:26:20PM That was on the May draft.
Lynn Hurtak
8:26:22PM Im sorry. Never mind. Apologies.
Melissa Zornitta
8:26:25PM Really, if were looking at west -- I mean, east of Nebraska, then the only things that need to be added are Boyscout, Cypress.
Lynn Hurtak
8:26:37PM Cypress to himes.
Melissa Zornitta
8:26:38PM Yep. Armenia and --
Lynn Hurtak
8:26:43PM Armenia north of Kennedy.
Melissa Zornitta
8:26:46PM Right. And Westshore north of Kennedy, and then the full extent of columbus and waters.
Lynn Hurtak
8:26:56PM Yes.
Alan Clendenin
8:26:57PM We have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtak to add the trcs back into the transmittal plan. Is there a second?
Charlie Miranda
8:27:04PM Second.
Alan Clendenin
8:27:05PM Second from Councilwoman Young. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have IT. We have Councilman Carlson votes negative or nay. 6 affirmatives.
Bill Carlson
8:27:19PM As I said before, I object to the name transit ready corridors because its not really about transit. We should call them developer corridors or dense corridors. They May ultimately lead to transit, but they are not. The Public has not had a chance to weigh in on this proposal. There would have been 200 more people here had they known We would do this. Sure We have another bite at the apple but well spend several more hours looking at this. I think We need to be honest with The Public. We need to plan transit, but allowing unlimited growth along long Strips Of Road without taking into consideration how IT impacts each neighborhood is not a good idea.
Alan Clendenin
8:28:00PM For clarification on the rounding up, were only doing that in trcs.
Lynn Hurtak
8:28:04PM Were not even doing that. Were asking them to look at IT for May.
Alan Clendenin
8:28:08PM Hint, hint -- is there any other business that we want to have the Planning Commission look at? Hearing none, okay, I need to have a motion to move -- I need to hear a motion. I move file tacpa 24-04.
Lynn Hurtak
8:28:29PM We didnt want to talk about anything else?
Alan Clendenin
8:28:32PM Thats what I was asking. Does anybody else want to add to the Planning Commission?
Bill Carlson
8:28:38PM Well leave the Charts The Way they are and trust that they are against Senate bill 180 without a legal opinion on IT.
Lynn Hurtak
8:28:45PM I will talk about the chart. We can come back to IT, but I dont know why IT took 20 times for Me to hear IT to understand IT. I understand the concern about giving away some density, but I think ultimately getting people to a point where We can get the bonuses We want is more important to Me. So I support table two for now. I really do think that getting to a base level so that We can incentivize bonuses is a way to go. I will support table two. I am still not sure about the andor situation.
Alan Clendenin
8:29:33PM I thought that was a pretty good explanation. IT was definitely on one of my what the blank list, but I think the explanation was reasonable.
Lynn Hurtak
8:29:42PM The only other thing, I would like to add back the typical stories because I think that, as you said, its covered in the land development code. And maybe people will feel more comfortable about IT once We have the land development code done. But for now, I think We keep the explanations in because, again, We can revisit after We approve the land development code where im hoping We have a lot more specificity.
Alan Clendenin
8:30:13PM Does that remove the nomenclature high-rise as well?
Melissa Zornitta
8:30:18PM If you say IT does.
Alan Clendenin
8:30:20PM Without objection, unanimous consent to do those two things? Okay. Unanimous consent.
Bill Carlson
8:30:25PM No, I dont agree with IT.
Martin Shelby
8:30:27PM Do IT by motion.
Lynn Hurtak
8:30:30PM The motion is to remove --
Alan Clendenin
8:30:34PM The wording high-rise.
Martin Shelby
8:30:37PM From where?
Alan Clendenin
8:30:39PM Wherever IT appears.
Melissa Zornitta
8:30:42PM Its in the r 50 category.
Lynn Hurtak
8:30:44PM Thank you. In the R 50 category. Remove High-Rise from R 50 category and add back the explanations of stories.
Alan Clendenin
8:30:58PM We have a motion from councilwoman Hurtak. Is that explanation enough?
Martin Shelby
8:31:02PM Where is the explanation of stories come from?
Melissa Zornitta
8:31:05PM That is in the land use category descriptions.
Alan Clendenin
8:31:07PM Remove from the land use category descriptions --
Lynn Hurtak
8:31:12PM No, no, add back.
Alan Clendenin
8:31:13PM Sorry, add back.
Lynn Hurtak
8:31:17PM Taking the high-rise out of RS 50 and adding back the descriptions of usual height. Im sorry. Im not feeling great now.
Melissa Zornitta
8:31:29PM Typical building stories are floors.
Martin Shelby
8:31:33PM IT might be easier to do IT as two separate motions.
Lynn Hurtak
8:31:37PM Fine. I make a motion to take out high-rises from RS 50.
Alan Clendenin
8:31:42PM We have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye.
Martin Shelby
8:31:49PM Now to add in the categories.
Alan Clendenin
8:31:51PM That passed unanimously, By The Way. The second motion.
Lynn Hurtak
8:31:55PM To add back the descriptors of height up to number of stories to the description table.
Melissa Zornitta
8:32:07PM Yeah, I think adding back the typical stories language to the land use.
Lynn Hurtak
8:32:13PM What She said.
Melissa Zornitta
8:32:15PM IT is the typical stories language to the land use category descriptions.
Alan Clendenin
8:32:23PM Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. A second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Bill Carlson
8:32:28PM Nay.
Alan Clendenin
8:32:29PM Councilman Carlson votes negative. Its 6-1. Anything else? Is that IT? Somebody make the motion --
Martin Shelby
8:32:58PM IT would be a motion to transmit.
Guido Maniscalco
8:33:00PM I have a motion to transmit file tacpa 24-04.
Alan Clendenin
8:33:05PM Motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor, aye.
Bill Carlson
8:33:10PM Nay.
Alan Clendenin
8:33:15PM Carlson no.
Guido Maniscalco
8:33:16PM The second one is motion to transmit tacpa 24-05.
Charlie Miranda
8:33:21PM Second.
Alan Clendenin
8:33:22PM Motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. Councilman Carlson.
Bill Carlson
8:33:27PM No. On the first one, I want to say there are so many things that I dont agree with and we dont have time to talk about IT tonight. I wish next time the Planning Commission would give more than a week notice for the neighborhoods to be able to look through this. I dont think we had adequate representation and I think that theres still more work that needs to be done and I think we need to listen to the community, not just do what we think needs to be --
Alan Clendenin
8:33:53PM Thank you. Motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have IT unanimously. Motion for number 3.
Guido Maniscalco
8:34:03PM I have a motion to transmit tacpa 24-06.
Alan Clendenin
8:34:07PM Motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have IT unanimously. Thank you very much. Congratulations, Planning Commission. I would like to recognize real quick Melissa.
Melissa Zornitta
8:34:22PM Thank you. Yes, I asked for a point of personal privilege to recognize that this is Jennifer Malone's last public hearing with US as Planning Commission staff person. Jennifer has been an incredibly valued asset to the Planning Commission team. As you can see, by how many times she was up here helping me tonight. Her last day also is on Friday. I swear shes not going to The Same Place evan is. That would be a little too weird. But anyway, I just wanted to recognize Jennifer and all the hard work shes put into all of this. [ applause
Jennifer Malone
8:35:09PM Ill say thank you all. Ill never forget the look on councilwoman hurtaks face just now. I was a baby planner when I started. I think Maniscalco was one of the newest City Council members up here back in 2016. Its been great to be presenting in front of you for so many years. Thank you.
Alan Clendenin
8:35:26PM Unlike Evan, I think were going to see you -- continue to see you.
Jennifer Malone
8:35:31PM You will. [ laughter
Alan Clendenin
8:35:39PM Evan cant get far enough away from US. At least shell stay close by. Councilman Carlson.
Bill Carlson
8:35:47PM Thank You, Jennifer. Youve been here the whole time ive been here. You helped, just like Councilwoman Young is learning now, I was learning and You and others helped me a lot. I especially appreciate the energy that You have late at night and during the long meetings. You always are one of those fully energetic people that keep US awake.
Alan Clendenin
8:36:10PM Very good. That concludes our normal business. Im going to, because I dont want to lose Councilwoman Hurtak.
Martin Shelby
8:36:27PM Just a reminder to Council, just when you distribute something amongst yourselves, make sure there is a copy --
Alan Clendenin
8:36:34PM Maybe we didnt want You to see IT.
Martin Shelby
8:36:36PM Maybe not.
Alan Clendenin
8:36:37PM Im announcing tonight well have a new attorney. [ laughter bad joke. Very good. I want to speak under new business because I dont want to lose Councilwoman Hurtak. Shes not feeling very well. As you all know, weve been going back and forth with the administration on the Charter Review Commission board. Bouncing that ball. Its been tennis. We had the ball Across The Court. Mayor knocked the ball over To Our Court. Following the memos. Councilman Carlson brought this up at the end of new business. We were all exhausted and IT was tough to talk about IT at that time. The last memo that came from the Mayor and I wanted to get you all engaged. Right now if we dont take any further action, what stands is the Mayor and whats happening with the charter review on the virtual participation, posting the stuff on youtube. If we want to knock the ball back Across The Court, I believe after consultation that the only mechanism of doing that is to amend the Charter Review Commission ordinance that we passed. That is not good enough, IT has to be five votes, of course, anticipate a veto. I need to get a sense, is there an appetite for that? If not, then we let IT go. If there is, then we should move forward on that. Councilwoman Hurtak. Councilman Carlson.
Bill Carlson
8:38:13PM The Charter Review Commission -- three things that The Mayor requested, not ordered, thank goodness. The Charter Review Commission I think approved two of the three or at least they -- I mean, were getting youtube so one or two people can watch IT online out of The Mayor's office, which I think is ridiculous, but for transparency its a good idea. Someone on the Charter Review Commission wanted ten days to come in remote. They agreed on four. The other thing is that The Mayor's representative wants IT to be unanimous vote obviously to try to block anything from going forward, and they said no. The Charter Review Commission has voted already as to what to do, we should go with what the Charter Review Commission is doing. The Mayor is trying to usurp the power of City Council, which shes been trying to do for seven years. I will remind her and them that when She wanted a charter change, She pushed IT through really fast. But the times we want a charter change, She slow walked IT so we ran out of time and then blamed US for proposing too many ideas. This is an outside committee. Approved by the voters to create this. She should let IT alone. Let the process go forward. She shouldnt be afraid of the process. I dont know why anybody who is Mayor or might be Mayor in the future would be afraid of having a public process where the public is discussing ideas. If they want to limit the power of The Mayor, who cares. What a Mayor should do is negotiate with City Council. If you talk to Dick Greco or any of the previous mayors, most of the previous mayors, they had a dialogue with City Council. They didnt set up artificial fights. Didnt create a toxic environment. What we need is going forward is end the divisiveness, end the toxicity and we need a positive relationship going forward. If the Charter Review Commission can fix that, thats great. Nobody should be afraid of IT. Picking up the phone and calling people is not something people should be afraid of.
Alan Clendenin
8:40:03PM Councilwoman Hurtak.
Lynn Hurtak
8:40:05PM I think that -- well, no, I dont want to start with I think. The Mayor had her opportunity to have her say. She agreed with our -- She passed our ordinance or signed the ordinance. We asked her for input. She didnt give any input. IT is what IT is. I am hesitant to turn this into a wild-goose chase about guest speakers and all of this. Honestly, I think documentation is fine, but otherwise, I think youre just -- youre creating drama where there doesnt need to be drama.
Alan Clendenin
8:40:57PM Right now where IT stands is the mayors interpretation is she can direct or communicate directly with requests equally to what We did -- We do.
Lynn Hurtak
8:41:07PM No. Thats not what the ordinance says.
Alan Clendenin
8:41:10PM This is where were at right now. Thats what im saying.
Lynn Hurtak
8:41:12PM Okay. Lets amend the ordinance.
Alan Clendenin
8:41:15PM The Only Way to do that is amend the ordinance.
Bill Carlson
8:41:17PM Can I add? The Mayor as a citizen is able to contact them however She wants, just like anybody in the community. Only difference is whether She puts IT on letterhead. I dont care if She wants to contact them. She can lobby them all She wants, but so can we and anybody in the community. As long as shes not mandating that they do something, I dont care. She can send as many letters has She wants. The Lawyer needs to know its just input. Its not a direction.
Alan Clendenin
8:41:50PM Only reason I bring IT up, its been approached. I wanted to see what the sentiment of Council was. They would require five.
Lynn Hurtak
8:41:58PM Ill do IT.
Alan Clendenin
8:42:00PM Theres one, to amend the ordinance. If we have five its overridden.
8:42:10PM I think -- because I think what happened when we drafted, maybe Mr. Shelby can chime in on this. What happened when we drafted this, we thought we captured all of the intent. But the first time this happened, certain things just werent captured. Mr. Shelby.
Martin Shelby
8:42:30PM The point was, and Council May remember this discussion when we had IT. The charter required that an ordinance be adopted last year. And that was pursuant to section 10-10 of the charter. There was a discussion that You remember the whole process that Council went through in order to create the resolution. But prior to that, when the ordinance was first presented to You to comply with the ordinance and get IT done by the time that was required by the charter, I asked the Council at that time whether IT wanted to spend the time to delineate all the items in the ordinance or do You want to do IT by resolution. And the Council, whatever at the time, IT was dealing with did not want to take the time that IT would take to put all of that in an ordinance and therefore they, You included that direction would be by resolution. And thats where You are right now. So to go back to that ordinance, and do IT differently would be an undertaking of this board much greater than I think You want to and make an effect and create a degree of uncertainty in a board that is presently existing, that is operating under that ordinance and that resolution.
Alan Clendenin
8:44:00PM The only issue is that the resolution does not require a mayoral signature or -- so we still would have that same conflict between the Administration. Only Way to resolve the conflict would be an ordinance. Councilman Miranda.
Charlie Miranda
8:44:14PM I was one of the Council Members Way back when some of you served on the First Charter Committee. You were here. So there are two of US I believe. Three of US were here. So what im saying is, if a conflict is about personalities, I dont know if IT is or not, is the conflict about the mayors signature? At first, I dont believe IT was needed the mayors signature.
Alan Clendenin
8:44:40PM Only on the ordinance.
Charlie Miranda
8:44:42PM So what is the beef? Like the Old Lady used to say on tv?
8:44:53PM I want to know what the beef is so I can try to fix IT.
Martin Shelby
8:44:58PM This is actually a case study in why some of the issues that City Council has presented to the Charter Review Commission to look at, how do you resolve these sort of conflicts? The question is, whats the remedy. Always comes down to whats the remedy. And thats not discussed in the current charter, maybe that is a subject of discussion if they wish to take that up.
Charlie Miranda
8:45:23PM I appointed Two Individuals Way back. One Way back and one now. I never asked them, never talked to them. One Lady called me once in eight years. I said thats your problem, not mine. And thats IT. I dont know exactly what is IT that were discussing, that somebody from the mayors association or affiliated with the Mayor, works for the Mayor, works for the city, is going down there and directing something. What is IT?
Alan Clendenin
8:45:55PM Theres a little more drama. Again, as Mr. Shelby pointed out, there is an area of disagreement and theres No Way to resolve that area of disagreement. How is that? We dont have a mechanism to do IT.
Bill Carlson
8:46:09PM What is the area of disagreement is what hes asking?
Alan Clendenin
8:46:14PM We provided the guidance through the ordinance and resolution to the Charter Review Commission of conduct of business. When we prepared the documents, as I told my appointee today, what we tried to do is clear the path of all of the procedural stuff so they could focus on the task at hand. Focus on the charter, get IT done and be done with IT. What happened, for whatever reason, certain peoples agenda, obstructionist or to block things, they started procedural things like all of a sudden requesting that they wanted a unanimous vote before they pass something. Obstructionist kind of things happening on the committee. And then after we withdraw the process, the Mayor -- actually -- got involved. Started being directive and speaking, okay, we can do this, to the point of the Youtube -- posting on the Youtube, wasnt just to post on Youtube, equipment, how IT was posted. One of the things we did is we didnt want IT posted for various reasons in our earlier discussions for a couple of different reasons. One was these things were in perpetuity. Youtube, private company that we dont control. People maybe run for office, they dont want stuff up, or somebody who is a City Employee comes in and talks, worried about retribution, things being broadcast. IT was a safety net, whether we feel strongly about IT or not. We got overrun on that issue by Marley. They went and bypassed. A lot of people on the Charter Review Commission. They are new people. They dont get some of the consequences. We have this conflict. I had members of the Charter Review Commission come to me personally and said they didnt want this stuff broadcast. That was one of those things we had talked about ahead of time, why we didnt. Our opinion on that got discounted and said well just broadcast IT. They are broadcasting with or without our blessing.
Bill Carlson
8:48:26PM The Committee voted to allow IT.
Martin Shelby
8:48:29PM If I can, put IT into perspective, Mr. Miranda, I apologize, but I just think its very important that the City Council knows this, that what happens when you met in your special discussion meeting, there was no direction at least to me, and I dont believe IT is an oversight, but I dont believe any direction with regard to remote participation or broadcasting. And there is a specific provision that City Council put in the resolution that absent direction thats in the resolution, they have the ability within the scope of whats their scope of work is to make motions and votes to be able to do that. Also within that resolution that you gave them the authority is to request support and information from both the administration and the City Council. That is their right.
Charlie Miranda
8:49:33PM First of all, if somebody makes a motion that everything we do has to be unanimous, the city wouldnt move. You have the right to say no and yes, I need more information, whatever. Thats what IT is all about. What im saying to me right now, I think there is a clash within themselves at some point. When somebody says that, what? Unanimous. Nothing in the world is unanimous. Look at politics anywhere. Lucky to get 50-50 vote anywhere. Got to be some personality, got to be something. What im looking at now, three attorneys. City Attorney, City Council Attorney, and you got the Attorney we hired for the CRA. Maybe those three ought to go down for five minutes each and explain to the members that we have, good people are giving of their time as to what their expectations are and how to do IT. Thats IT. Let them decide --
Alan Clendenin
8:50:36PM Weve kind of done that. I had a conference call today with the chair of the committee, Ashley, the Facilitator, and the Attorney to discuss, because also issues with that, too. Been a lot of things working behind the scenes. Councilman Viera.
Luis Viera
8:51:01PM A couple of things, point of clarification, they are going forward with potential virtual attendance, correct? Okay. I happen to think thats good if theres support for that. I will say this, I know that your office and yourself as chair, youre taking up a lot of your time, so therefore if theres something that you think would help you, because youre on the front battle, so to speak on this, in City Council in terms of the procedure and logistics and all that. So I want to be supportive of that. What I would suggest and I think Councilwoman Hurtak said something to this effect which is that you do a memo, we can vote on hearing IT on proposed changes to the ordinance, resolution, whatever. Narrowly tailored such that we dont open up a can of worms of opening up the whole ordinance right now, but things you May be thinking, your experience dealing procedurally with that. I would give that some level of deference. I think that is reasonable and respectful. I could --
Alan Clendenin
8:52:01PM I dont want to spend the energy if there is not the sentiment of Council to do IT. Im sure -- hey, Sam, are we willing to do that? But I dont want to waste our time.
Lynn Hurtak
8:52:26PM I am concerned about what I have heard already about a couple of members really just taking over the commission, steamrolling people, interrupting people, generally just taking over and being adversarial. I think -- im not comfortable having guest speakers go into that environment to be fought at. I dont think thats appropriate. I personally dont want to send our City Council Attorney in to be talked down to and made to explain. Im worried this becomes a tit for tat in a fight when thats not what IT is supposed to be. I would have no problem with opening IT up to -- obviously, the administration can send who they want to send if thats so their case. We are not arguing, we are not questioning whether we need a City Council Attorney. Thats not debatable for me. I dont think its debatable for any of US. So I dont know why they are having the discussion about IT. I think thats -- personally, im willing to stake my claim in the sand right now and saying thats off the table. I would even say a motion to send to the Charter Review Commission from the chair a letter saying --
Alan Clendenin
8:54:09PM I already told My Person.
Lynn Hurtak
8:54:11PM Well, that doesnt matter. We need to speak from council in saying we are not going to entertain removal of City Council Attorney based on issues weve had with the administration in the past, whether IT be -- whoever is around. I think its important for US to be able to have that comfort and safety of our own Attorney. So I make a motion that we send a letter to the Charter Review Commission saying were just simply not going to entertain that so its better to stop thinking, talking about IT.
Charlie Miranda
8:54:49PM Im not opposed to that --
Alan Clendenin
8:54:51PM Hold on a second. Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. Second from Councilman Viera.
Charlie Miranda
8:54:56PM Im not opposed to that. That is about -- for US to give them direction that is a Direction One Way or the other. Its like They are --
Alan Clendenin
8:55:08PM Were supposed to give them direction.
Charlie Miranda
8:55:12PM Ill second the motion.
Alan Clendenin
8:55:15PM Viera beat you to IT. I would recognize Councilwoman Young. I have a motion. We have a second. Councilman Maniscalco.
Guido Maniscalco
8:55:34PM Has that been considered or talked about?
Lynn Hurtak
8:55:38PM They are talking about IT. Thats why they want the City Council Attorney to show up.
Bill Carlson
8:55:42PM IT is the mayors representative --
Alan Clendenin
8:55:44PM We have a motion and a second.
Lynn Hurtak
8:55:48PM I made the motion. And hes going to write the letter.
Bill Carlson
8:56:01PM The Mayor's Representative not only said that we should get rid of the City Council Attorney, but blamed the City Council Attorney for the divisiveness between City Council and the mayors office. We know that City Council hasnt caused that. Right now were in the position where we can make peace. Its all this craziness. Now its extending to the Charter Review Commission.
Lynn Hurtak
8:56:23PM Write the letter, tell them -- We arent going to entertain IT.
Alan Clendenin
8:56:31PM All in favor, Aye. Opposed? Ayes have IT. Thank you. Councilwoman Young.
Lynn Hurtak
8:56:38PM Talk about unanimous. Sorry, had to say IT.
Alan Clendenin
8:56:41PM Councilwoman young.
Naya Young
8:56:46PM We kind of covered IT already. I dont want to harp on IT. I think weve been hearing, I think the intention of what Council set to do was in the positive and forward movement. Its kind of being derailed in a bunch of different ways and not productive. So I think -- were all saying the same thing. But the spirit in which this was done was for progression, positive progression, and thats not happening. Ive been hearing that as well. Its unfortunate that Is The Way its going. I dont think We intended to do this because We want to question anybody. The city is changing. We have to make changes. Thats pretty much IT.
Bill Carlson
8:57:35PM Can I add something? I think this, kind of like what Charlie said but maybe different. We kind of birth this organization and think of IT as a kid, they need to be able to walk on their own and have certain powers on their own. We provided a framework, but always things outside the framework. Do they want the temperature on 72 degrees or 69 degrees? I dont agree they are starting one, two, and three with the beginning of the charter. Thats up to them to decide. There are going to be lots of things we didnt anticipate that they are going to decide on their own. As long as they are not being heavily influenced. I think its inappropriate for the mayors staff to be bullying them. Thats where I draw the line. I heard there was bullying going on. But despite that, Scott Steady sent this memo last week, and you could read IT two ways. One is that IT was a mandate and The Other Way is that its a recommendation. I thought that somebody was going to walk into the meeting last week and demand, say these are the mayors demands, but they didnt do that. I told scott, I think this is walking a fine line and his obligation to represent City Council and the mayors office at the same time. I think he walked right down the middle of the line. We have to be careful that they dont cross that. His letter was a great example to the Charter Review Commission about why we need them to look at the power of the City Attorney, because IT really in a way crossed the line. I dont believe if you were consulted but we should have been consulted before he wrote the letter because were equally a client of the City Attorney As The Way the charter is. But since IT was taken as a recommendation, the Charter Review Commission voted on their own to say no to unanimous votes. Then they said yes to youtube, but thats not because somebody bullied them. Its because IT is a transparency issue. We could vote to take that out. Anyway, its a transparency issue. The virtual thing, IT was proposed by the Mayor's Representative had unlimited virtual meetings. And they agreed to four. So I think IT should have been less, but they agreed to that. I think we should let them walk on their own and we should ask the City Attorney to dont forget that hes representing US as well. We should ask the mayors office to stop the bullying. We dont want this bullying mentality that we have to deal with daily to go into this committee.
Alan Clendenin
9:00:02PM I havent seen that, By The Way. Let me get clarification.
Bill Carlson
9:00:07PM Can I say one last thing and ill shut up? I think on this point on everything else, we should do the opposite of what the Mayor. Instead of micromanage and control IT, go I have IT another month. Right now, were in the position of power, and we should demonstrate that we know how to enable another group to have power and not be threatened by IT. And the Mayor should have the right to send whatever letter she wants, but we should tell our representatives they are not mandates. And if the mayors people lobby, which I think is inappropriate, but if they do, then they have to know those are recommendations, they are not forcing them to do IT and let them walk on their own and see what they do.
Alan Clendenin
9:00:48PM City Attorney's memo came at a request for interpretation from the mayors office. His interpretation was city -- the charter -- the municipal organization which meant City Council and Mayor. Thats how we got there. Now we have two different authorities. The guidance, I will say, reference -- we can provide guidance. Right now without further council action, we cant. Like on the youtube. If we said no, broadcast, the Mayor said yes, they will broadcast. Right now because Of The Way the ordinance is written we dont have control. The ball has been lobbed back to US. Right now, if this council right now was to say no were not broadcasting on youtube, they will not broadcast on youtube. Sorry. They will. They will broadcast on youtube because the Mayor has said they will broadcast on youtube. We have two different people providing two different directions on one issue.
Bill Carlson
9:01:56PM Charter Review Commission voted for IT also.
Alan Clendenin
9:01:59PM But im saying, the Charter Review Commission, to review the charter. IT was envisioned we were creating these procedures was to stay focused on the task at hand and not get bogged down in the bs. We have two bodies. Administration and we have a Council. Right now With The Way we structured the ordinance, because IT says city, the interpretation from the City Attorney is that is, we have two different branches of government providing two different directions. There we are. We dont have anything overriding that. Wed have to amend the ordinance to make clear. Again, ill Go Either Way. I couldnt make that unilateral decision. Thats why I brought IT up during new business.
9:02:52PM Is there an appetite to amend the ordinance?
Bill Carlson
9:02:54PM Besides youtube, anything else you want US to vote on?
Alan Clendenin
9:02:57PM Its not even about Youtube. IT would be a clear one authority providing direction rather than two.
Lynn Hurtak
9:03:05PM How about this.
Alan Clendenin
9:03:06PM Mr. Shelby wants to talk.
Martin Shelby
9:03:08PM No.
Lynn Hurtak
9:03:11PM So I say go ahead and just write something up. I would like to see IT. We have Three People already that want to see IT.
Luis Viera
9:03:24PM I do agree with that. What I would suggest is given the potentially caustic nature of this that we limit the time and the scope to the issues stated in your memo. I would support this in deference to the work that You and Sam and Your Office have been putting in this as the chair. Yeah, I would do IT with those suggested conditions.
Alan Clendenin
9:03:42PM I want to say if we had this conversation five or SIX days ago, I would have appreciated that I had a cooling off period so im not as sensitive to IT as I was a few days ago. I dont want this to be about the amount of time we put in or whatnot. I want to say what direction -- I really want this to be a strategic, analytical look at how we manage and how do we want to manage this process. Again if the Council says we want to wash our hands of IT and be out of IT, lets do IT. If the Council says we dont want to be out of IT, the solution is to amend the ordinance. Mr. Shelby.
Martin Shelby
9:04:18PM Not to complicate but put into perspective. This is the first time this committee is operating under what the voters asked for in the charter. So what we need to be conscious of, is we are creating precedent, and thats why I think everybody on this Council wants this thing to be successful and to have IT work in such a way that IT is a turnkey, that in seven years or eight years when IT comes back, that next Council will not have to reinvent the wheel but youll have a successful process. I will support working with the Chair to be able to discuss this further to be able to see if there is a way we can resolve IT.
Bill Carlson
9:05:04PM Two things. One, would you rather US just vote tonight to support you writing a letter saying that we are the sole authority that they need to listen to? Or do you want to come back with something? The second thing, just for the public, we cant talk about this in the hallway, thats why we have to talk about IT now. The second thing is, I wish the mayors staff would stop working in the shadows. Stop calling people and arguing with them and yelling at them or whatever, intimidating and bullying them. If you have something to say, there is a podium right there. Put yourself on the agenda. The Mayor can put things on the agenda. Have them come be transparent about IT. Its sickening this is happening behind the scenes. This is the kind of culture that leads to good people leaving the city and for our citizens being harmed. We need to stop the divisiveness. We need to come up with a structure in the charter to fix these problems that have been created over the last 16 years.
Alan Clendenin
9:06:03PM Councilwoman Hurtak, you want to add something else?
Lynn Hurtak
9:06:09PM I should have written IT down. Yes, I think Mr. Shelby is correct that we need to -- this is just not going to be a perfect process because weve never done IT before. I have a feeling this wont be the first time. Seriously, if we really take this seriously, and we want this to be something that Future Charters -- Charter Committees can use and Future Councils can use, then I am not at all surprised that we have to do this. I truly dont believe IT will be the last time. I think we have to work on IT -- were building the plane while were flying IT. Its never going to be a perfect plane. Its never going to be unanimous plane, but I do believe that fixing the plane while flying IT, theres nothing wrong with that.
Alan Clendenin
9:06:57PM Also to the mayors credit, we have this conflict with the staff person. I actually did go to the Mayor afterwards and we did come up with a, you have issues, come to me. We did have a little hand shake to avoid the collision we just experienced. We did have a little kum ba yah moment to try to diffuse the situation. I still think we have a systemic issue. Straw poll. Anybody here that does not feel we should -- no motion yet. I think im not going to have a motion. I think what ill get is a sense of Council and then a sense of Council and then I will take IT -- if this Council goes that direction, take IT as iou to create a document to bring IT back to Council. When I say I, Martin Shelby. Anybody else?
Charlie Miranda
9:08:00PM Im trying to understand whats going on. Its hard to find out whats going on, individuals by two different forms of government. Part of this problem May be a personality problem with one or two of them. I dont know if that is a fact or not, but I have to make an assumption that thats how IT started.
Alan Clendenin
9:08:24PM I think there are agendas, personalities, I think theres inherent conflict. You have the two different branches of government, there is inherent friction.
Charlie Miranda
9:08:34PM You could have the highest paid team and never win. Same thing.
Alan Clendenin
9:08:41PM Good thing were not high paid. Councilman Carlson.
Bill Carlson
9:08:46PM I dont know what You guys say, but the community says this, there is a difference between running a Military Organization, meaning a Police Department, versus running a city. A city is about communicating with the public, listening to the public and adapting what You do. If You run an organization and thats not a criticism of IT. If You run an organization that is hierarchal and where everybody must listen to You or You fire or demote them, thats different. And that kind of I order You to do something and You have to follow IT, that does not work within a city where You have to listen to people. We need the collaborative culture in our group, and whats happening, if one of US asks a question about something, we get attacked. Like, its either You hundred percent agree with me or ill destroy You. That May be okay in a Military Organization but not in a city where the voters have input on whats going on.
Alan Clendenin
9:09:44PM Lets bring this in for a landing because I am so tired. Anybody on this Council that does not -- do you want me to go back and draft a revision with Mr. Shelby?
Lynn Hurtak
9:10:06PM Yes, do IT.
Alan Clendenin
9:10:08PM Again, im not calling IT a vote. Ill bring a product back.
Bill Carlson
9:10:13PM Since they attacked Mr. Shelby's position, I think we need to be careful. He would just be helping US interpret the intention of you as chair.
Alan Clendenin
9:10:25PM We work well together on that.
Bill Carlson
9:10:28PM Hes not the one coming up with IT. Youll be coming up with the policy, and He will be interpreting IT.
Alan Clendenin
9:10:34PM Ill be right behind him. [ laughter I took your joke.
Martin Shelby
9:10:38PM That is another joke. But the point is, Council, and I think there is an assumption there -- and in the years ive been doing this, its never been true -- is that im driving the train. And I dont know why people think that.
Alan Clendenin
9:10:56PM As long as ive been here, You have not been driving anything.
Martin Shelby
9:11:03PM Anyway, as a matter of fact with regard to the memorandum, I would not go to this meeting unless I discussed this with Council and Council directed me to do IT. Otherwise, I work for you. I answer to you. Ultimately, yes.
Alan Clendenin
9:11:27PM We understand. I do think They should be able to talk to people because They need to get information. They cant subpoena anybody.
Lynn Hurtak
9:11:41PM No, I agree. Honestly, if they want to do that, again, my only fear is that when you have guest speakers, IT feels like interrogation. Just based on what we heard about this.
Alan Clendenin
9:11:56PM Try to capture this in a document.
Lynn Hurtak
9:11:58PM Again, we solved the problem by just simply saying were not going to provide Mr. Shelby because we have no intent of changing City Council attorney. With that memo, I think were fine.
Alan Clendenin
9:12:08PM Is there any other new business? Councilman Carlson? Viera?
Martin Shelby
9:12:12PM I have something I have to bring up.
Alan Clendenin
9:12:14PM Councilwoman Hurtak? Maniscalco? Miranda? Yes, mr. Shelby.
Martin Shelby
9:12:20PM I just want to get back, if we can, to this memorandum. Both the Facilitator and the Attorney are requesting councils opinion as to whether Council wishes to -- and they both used this term, one and two -- do you wish US to expand our scope of work?
9:12:39PM The question is, is that part of the response the Chair needs to provide?
Alan Clendenin
9:12:43PM Im not going to answer the memo yet. Lets sit down and discuss this. This does not have to be timely.
Lynn Hurtak
9:12:50PM No.
Alan Clendenin
9:12:50PM Im saying I want to incorporate that into the document.
Lynn Hurtak
9:12:53PM Like, were not expanding the scope, no.
Alan Clendenin
9:12:58PM Lets take an iou and address IT next week.
Lynn Hurtak
9:13:05PM Not only that, this document research, My Appointee has all the documentation because I gave him all the documentation from last time. He has all the information, but He wasnt allowed to share IT because He kept getting cut off.
Alan Clendenin
9:13:20PM I will address this, but lets address this in more diligent Or Whatever Way.
Martin Shelby
9:13:28PM The Way council works and sunshine works, their next meeting is next Tuesday.
Alan Clendenin
9:13:34PM This will not be addressed by then. Give them an iou. Motion to receive and file? Motion to receive and file Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilwoman Hurtak. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have IT. Were adjourned. [ sounding gavel disclaimer: this file represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript. Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings May need to hire a court reporter. © - City Of Tampa (813) 274-8211