Evening Session — October 22, 2026 FINAL

Lynn Hurtak

5:07:15PM I am filling in for Chair Clendenin tonight. But he's on. So there are four of us in council chambers, and we have two people who are appearing remotely. I need a motion to allow Chair Clendenin and Councilman Viera to appear remotely. I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco. I heard a second from Councilman Carlson. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

Luis Viera

5:07:48PM Madam chairwoman, just to tell the public I'm sick. My voice is gone. Just I'm not slacking off. Whatever. Because I'm in a sweater. Thank you.

Lynn Hurtak

5:08:05PM Excellent. Chair Clendenin?

Alan Clendenin

5:08:08PM Hi, good evening, everybody. Thank you, Councilwoman Hurtak, for leading us tonight. I am at a wedding that has been planned for months and months. I'm up in Tennessee. It's beautiful, as you can see. Very pretty. That's where I'm at right now.

Lynn Hurtak

5:08:24PM Great. Glad that everybody could join us tonight. I don't think we have any changes to the agenda. If there's anything I can do to get a motion to approve the agenda. I have a motion to approve the agenda from Councilman Maniscalco. A second from Councilman Carlson. All in favor? Aye.

Guido Maniscalco

5:08:41PM Move to open the public hearings.

Alan Clendenin

5:08:42PM I have a motion to open all the public hearings from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. Wonderful. Roll call. Thank you. Sorry.

Charlie Miranda

5:09:02PM Here.

Guido Maniscalco

5:09:02PM Here. Viera? Carlson?

Luis Viera

5:09:06PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

5:09:08PM Here.

Lynn Hurtak

5:09:10PM Here. Excellent. Okay. Not yet. This first one -- actually, yeah, I'm sorry. They are quasi-judicial. Actually, if you are here to speak on items 1 or 2 tonight, they are quasi-judicial in matter. So please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in. [Oath administered] thank you. Leo Debardeleben, Development Coordination. Agenda 1 is ab 2-26-17. This is a continued special use 2 request for the property at 1601 North Franklin Street. This item was presented at City Council on September 24. Prior to the second reading, staff identified discrepancy with the unit number requiring another first reading. To correct the record. What I have for you tonight is an updated staff report with the corrected revision sheet. The required change will be required between first and second reading.

Martin Shelby

5:10:31PM May I inquire?

Lynn Hurtak

5:10:33PM Yes. This says it's a second reading right now.

LaChone Dock

5:10:46PM Thank you so much, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. This item was at second reading at the last hearing. And because a change needs to be made to the site plan regarding the address and ensure that it is consistent with the legal description, this now becomes first reading. Then the applicant can make that change. And then our next hearing would be the second reading.

Lynn Hurtak

5:11:06PM We'll make sure to change that. Right here it says ordinance being presented for second reading and adoption.

LaChone Dock

5:11:12PM We had to convert it to first reading.

Lynn Hurtak

5:11:14PM Whoever reads this, just know it is first reading.

LaChone Dock

5:11:17PM Applicant has one change to make. That's included in the revised report that Leo will provide.

Lynn Hurtak

5:11:23PM Wonderful. I want to remind people who don't normally come to council, any conversation you're having, the noise is amplified. So we can absolutely hear everything, the whispers and everything. It's just really good acoustics in this room. If you need to have a conversation, please go out to the antechamber. Would he really appreciate it.

Leo Debardeleben

5:11:49PM I didn't have anything else, madam chair.

Lynn Hurtak

5:11:51PM Petitioner? Jim porter, 401 East Jackson Street. As Leo explained, we're here to make sure the record is clear and we have the right unit numbers. We discussed before, there are four units there. It was a little bit confusing for everyone. We're happy to answer any questions and ask for your approval. Thank you.

5:12:15PM Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this item tonight? Motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Council member Carlson would you read for first reading, please.

Bill Carlson

5:12:30PM Move for first reading file number ab 2-26-17, ordinance being presented for first reading, an ordinance approving a special use permit su-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, small venue, beer, wine and liquor, consumption on premises only and making lawful the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor, on that certain lot, plot, or tract of land located at 1601 North Franklin Street, suite 1607, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in section 3, providing that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed, repealing ordinance number 2021-81, providing an effective date.

Lynn Hurtak

5:13:13PM I have a motion from council member Carlson. I have a second from Councilman Miranda. Roll call vote, please. Viera?

Luis Viera

5:13:27PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

5:13:32PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

5:13:33PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

5:13:36PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

5:13:36PM Yes.

The clerk

5:13:38PM Motion passed unanimously with young absent at vote -- sorry, absent. Second hearing and adoption held on November 19, 2026, 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Lynn Hurtak

5:13:53PM November 19. Thank you, council.

Leo Debardeleben

5:14:00PM Good evening again. Leo Debardeleben, Development Coordination. Agenda item 2 is ab 2-26-21. This is a special use 2 request for the property located at 1018 East Cass Street. The request is for alcoholic beverage sales with small venue classification for beer, wine and liquor consumption on premises and package sales, off-premises consumption. This is the aerial map of the subject site. The site is outlined here in red. This is in the central Planning district. The central business district, and along a mixed use corridor. This is just south of the encore development. This is the site plan provided by the applicant. The site is currently occupied by late start brewing which operates as a restaurant and brewery. The property received approval for, in 2023 for a small venue beer and wine sales for consumption on premises and package sales, off-premises consumption. The applicant is now requesting to add liquor sales to the existing approval with no other changes to the ab sales area or the way that it operates. These are some photos of the site. This is the front elevation looking north. Another elevation. This is right north of the subject site. Part of the encore development. This is facing on North Governor Street. This is facing northwest -- sorry, northeast, facing on east East Cass Street, facing south on east cass, facing west on east cass towards downtown. Another photo of the front elevation. Development review and compliance staff have reviewed the application and find the request consistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Minor site plan modifications are required between first and second reading. That's the end of my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Lynn Hurtak

5:16:04PM Any questions? Okay. Petitioner? My name is Matt blydenburgh. With me tonight is my associate connor wirtz. I have the privilege of speaking here tonight on behalf of late start brewing. With us tonight from late start are two of the owners. Tyler sankey and jordan copher. As Mr. Debardeleben just reviewed, late start is seeking an upgrade to their current zoning from ab 1 to ab 2 so that way they can begin sale of alcoholic beverages, including liquor, on premises. They currently conduct on premises and package sales of beer, and they are just looking to begin serving cocktails at the restaurant. Late start is located just over on Cass Street, not very far from here. They opened their doors up just a little bit over two years ago having just celebrated their two-year anniversary just a couple of weeks ago. They are a thriving business in downtown Tampa, as I'm sure some of you might know and may be familiar with. They developed a pretty strong following with the food and the beers that they have been serving since they opened up back in fall of 2024. They are in a great location and they maintain a positive relationship with their neighbors. As Mr. Debardeleben and as Planning and development reported in the staff report, late start was found consistent and in compliance with the requirements for the ab 2 designation. They are not seeking any waivers as a part of their application to the council tonight. With that said, we respectfully request that the council take the findings of Planning and development and grant our request for the ab 2 rezoning. I am available for any questions that the council may have.

5:17:52PM Anyone have any questions? Okay. Anyone in the public that wishes to speak on this item today? Stephanie poynor. I support this. I have had many meetings at late start, and I enjoy going there. They have a tremendous breakfast taco and hash browns. The poor guy who owns the place got unsweetened tea for me, which always makes me happy. Really and truly, I would like for City Council, one of the big things I want to ask that somebody take a look at governor street. I don't know if cass, if the parking on cass was discontinued after they went into business, but governor street is empty a lot, a whole lot. So why they can't allow parking on one side of the street, the people used to be able to park in the vacant lot across the street and somebody has gotten all funky about it. But I think the city should really look into that because I think this is a great place to go and have coffee. I don't drink beer. I don't drink coffee. Everything I've had there I've been very happy with and so have all the folks who have been there. Nice place to meet because you have enough space between you and the tables next to you that you can have a private conversation and not so loud you can't hear yourself think. That is my endorsement of late start. I think that we should let them sell liquor, too, because maybe I'll get there at night. Maybe once.

5:19:29PM Would you like a rebuttal?

5:19:36PM Okay. I have a motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco, second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Councilman Maniscalco, would you read item 2?

Guido Maniscalco

5:19:49PM I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance approving a special use permit SU 2 for alcoholic beverage sales, small venue, beer, wine and liquor, consumption on premises and package sales off-premises consumption and making lawful the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor, on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 1018 East Cass Street, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in section 3, providing that all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed, repealing ordinance 2023-164, providing an effective date.

Charlie Miranda

5:20:19PM Second.

Lynn Hurtak

5:20:20PM Motion from council member Maniscalco and a second from council member Miranda. Roll call vote, please.

Luis Viera

5:20:27PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

5:20:29PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

5:20:30PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

5:20:31PM Yes. Clendenin?

Alan Clendenin

5:20:35PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

5:20:37PM Yes.

The clerk

5:20:38PM Motion passed unanimously with young being absent. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Lynn Hurtak

5:20:52PM Love late start. Great place.

5:20:58PM Okay. We are moving on to the non-quasi-judicial Tampa Comprehensive Plan update portion of our meeting. Good night, all. Do we want to go in order and just do one at a time? Is that the best way to go about this? Okay. I'm hearing yes. Melissa dickens, Planning Commission staff. I'm also joined by Danny Collins and Melissa Zornitta from the Planning Commission. Additionally, our partners with City of Tampa legal and Tampa City Planning are here tonight. We appreciate all their coordination and support throughout this process. This is ta/cpa 24-04, the future land use section update. Tonight is the adoption hearing. This slide provides some context --

5:21:55PM There we go. And where we are in the process. This has been something that your staff and Planning Commission staff have been working on since 2022. The version of the draft that is in your packet is nearly identical to the version you all transmitted back in February. We do have some minor updates that we've made. We'll go into those a little bit later in the presentation. We also held some public meetings back in September, early October. Gave an opportunity for the public to take a look at the latest drafts, understand these minor updates and why the decisions were made. Also tonight, you'll hear from housing and coastal management. Those sections have been traveling alongside the flu throughout the process, so we hope to keep them on the same schedule as they are all interrelated. And then just a note that the statutory deadline for this adoption is January 1st. We appreciate that many members of the community are here this evening, and we really appreciate the participation throughout the process. Thank you, Danny. We heard from over 1800 folks, over 2,000 comments and suggestions helped shape this plan. You all participated heavily in the summer of 2025, and we also appreciate your support at those community meetings, too. Here is a general timeline of where we've been throughout this process. Tonight, we're really going to be focused on 2026 because that's where we are in this update, but want to note there was significant coordination and discussion and engagement with the public throughout 2022 through 2025 as well. I'll also note that both the housing and coastal have been traveling along those same time frame in 2026 as well. We transmitted -- excuse me, we transmitted the amendment for state review. The comments are all available in attachment 6. I'm going to be focused on the Florida commerce comments this evening. This is certainly familiar to those of you at the dais. But I wanted to share for folks who might be in the audience and here for the first time, senate bill 180 is a piece of legislation that was passed in 2025. And it indicates that a local government can't propose anything considered more restrictive or burdensome, including within the comprehensive plan. If an amendment, any part of an amendment is found to possess restrictive or burdensome language, it could be considered null and void. Planning Commission staff along with our partners at the city have been engaged in several months of discussion with the department of commerce, and we have identified a path forward. We do believe it is critical to address the doc comments at adoption and we'll be going into that as well. And then here we are in terms of our latest work. Again, through that coordination with the department of commerce, we were able to get the department of commerce to indicate that two of the original policies that they had identified as restrictive or burdensome are no longer so. They reversed that decision. Additionally, we also got clarification that the 12 policies identified as potentially restrictive were, in fact, technical assistance comments. This same timeline is also what coastal management has been addressing. The April 1st letter from Florida commerce, we received a statutory extension for adoption of the plan. The coordination, and then we had our informational outreach just in the past couple of months. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Danny Collins to go into more detail. Thank you.

Danny Collins

5:25:57PM Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. I'll continue on with some of the comments and our recommendations for comments that we received from the state. To address some of the doc determinations, staff is proposing the following changes: we are proposing to retain two policies as proposed. We are recommending reverting two policies back to their previously adopted language. We are recommending retaining ten policies with very minor revisions that we think will help address some of those comments that we received from the state. And we're proposing the deletion of two policies that were kind of dealt with in other policies in the comprehensive plan. We thought those were kind of redundant, so we're proposing to delete those. Next, we'll talk about some of the general cleanup revisions in your draft. These are the highlighted blue in your draft, light blue. There are approximately 35 proposed general cleanup revisions. Many address formatting inconsistencies, such as numbering, grammatical errors and policy references. They are intended to provide greater clarity. These changes are shown in light blue in your draft. Our third type of change are related to council's motions that were made back in February. I put the three motions shown here on the projector. We made -- we addressed all of council's motions and just a reminder, those motions were, the first one was adding additional corridors to the transit ready corridors map. And then the other two related to removing the word high-rise in the r-50 category description, and then also adding language back in the category descriptions related to the typical stories that is adopted in the plan today. You'll also notice that we revised the original place types map that was transmitted back in February. Our original approach was to identify parcels eligible to the transit ready corridor bonus at a specific point in time. It was intended to provide greater transparency. Since the transmittal hearing, we found that this approach can quickly make the map outdated for a couple of reasons. The first reason is combining when an applicant combines or subdivides a parcel, it could change the percentage of the parcel within the trc bonus area, which could potentially change its eligibility. The second reason is we found that plan amendments may require the map to be updated regularly, resulting in additional text amendments to the plan. Again, that can quickly become outdated. Here is a slide of our updated approach. So the new map now identifies applicable corridors rather than individual eligible parcels. The policy language determines parcel eligibility based on applicable criteria. And that is in land use policy 2.6.4 in your draft. If the map and policy language conflict, the policy text takes precedence. The interactive map will remain available on the project web page and on our website for informational purposes, but is not proposed for adoption. I want to emphasize that no changes are proposed at the trc eligibility criteria since the February transmittal hearing. Here is that new proposed place types map. You'll also notice that Planning districts are removed from the place types map and are now on their own Planning district map for adoption. Planning districts are required to be retained because of senate bill 180. They were added to the place types map in February to ensure they were reflected on an adopted map. Since then, staff found the place types map to be visually complex with overlapping layers that reduced the readability. As such, staff has proposed Planning district map to improve clarity and ease of use. Here is the map shown here. I do want to emphasize that none of the boundaries have changed it and reflect the current boundaries of what's in the plan today. I do want to remind you that Planning Commission board found the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan, and we recommend that the ta/cpa 24-04 be adopted by Tampa City Council. While we are recommending the version in front of you, we did hear from several of you in our briefings and from Councilwoman Hurtak in her memo that there is interest in reverting back to the density, to how the density is handled today in the comprehensive plan. Our draft included streamlining the density in certain land use categories to remove the internal category bonus as a way to address several of the city's goals to provide more certainty and clarity in the plan, to streamline the process, and to create additional housing as is paramount to addressing the housing crisis. However, we did prepare alternative language responsive to the potential desire of council to revert back to the density back to the way it is handled today in the plan. I'm happy to go through an alternative approach with you. We do have some handouts. I will put this up on the screen for you. Essentially, we would have a new column in our table that would be considered a tier one bonus. Essentially the flu category maximum column as well as the tier one bonus is reflective of what is in the plan today. These additional bonuses would then be -- it's what is reflected in your proposed draft. With these changes, we would also need to make changes to land use table 1, which is in your packet to address some of these new changes in the table. I'm happy to go into more detail on the table if you would like. That concludes my presentation.

Lynn Hurtak

5:32:48PM Okay. Does anyone have questions? Yes, Councilman Maniscalco.

Guido Maniscalco

5:32:51PM Thank you very much. You brought up that council member Hurtak did put out a memo. You mentioned the housing crisis. It's an affordable housing crisis because if you look at the inventory that's on the books, I see interest rates are up. The housing market buying and selling have slowed down. I didn't see during covid apartments offering any kinds of specials. The rents were going up and so many people were moving here. That was that time. I looked at it as what happened in that time? It's very easy to gain five pounds. Can I gain five pounds in a week, and it takes me a month to lose them. I can do it quicker on a keto diet, but what I'm saying, what we saw with covid was the demand was so great and we saw prices go up so high, and now we're hopefully slowly coming down to a more realistic number. In regards to the density, the bonus density and I know you put out the memo so you'll talk about it, we have plenty of housing and we have plenty of opportunities to build that housing. As I mentioned to a couple of folks, and I know we had a briefing and everything, the hurricanes from two years ago taught me a lot. And it taught me a lot about evacuating. It taught me about areas that hadn't flooded in a century. It taught me, you know, you don't want to keep building and overbuilding. Basically, you can't fight mother nature. We need to have a balance. We need to be SMART. At the same time with what's already existing, we accommodate growth. We can still build, but do we have to build so much and basically overburden the system? That's it. Thank you.

Lynn Hurtak

5:34:45PM Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

5:34:46PM I agree with just about everything Councilman Maniscalco said. However, when you look at the way we're constructing houses, you can sure save a lot of money on insurance and damage to the houses, but we don't do that. When you look at the islands that really take the hurricanes, a lot more bluntly than we do, Puerto Rico, Cuba, little islands don't have much on the outside skirts, downtowns, central business areas, but they don't have the problem we have. Our roofs blow off like me taking a popsicle and throwing the stick away. Because they have an eave, the eave falls, and the walls collapse, and that's the start of the flooding of the whole house from the top and now you're getting it from the bottom side. Flows of water from all sides. What do they do different? Start down, when they build the frame house, wood house, of the dwelling to start. They put down six to eight feet of concrete with rebar wire. Rebar wire crosses the main frame or the weight of the house. They don't have wives like we have that are at angles. They are also tied to the foundation with rebar wire about eight to nine inches of concrete and nothing that a hurricane can grab. That's why they do not cave in. On the inside, no drywall. It's all concrete. If some water comes in, wait until it dries and paint it. Over here we have to rebuild the whole house. That's one of the things we're now looking at. We want the live, the houses we have, that's beautiful. But you're going to pay the price in the insurance and the cost of doing business. That's all.

Lynn Hurtak

5:36:37PM Council member Carlson.

Bill Carlson

5:36:41PM At the beginning of this process, I recommended -- I used to do public engagement for a living -- and I recommended that the process go neighborhood by neighborhood, ask every neighborhood where you would put a little density and also where you would put a neighborhood commercial district. I also recommended transit-ready development to create nodes. I was involved in Singapore's build-out of their transit system, which is one of the best in the world, and I've been involved in others in other places. All of that was ignored. In fact, the name that I came up with, which is in seattle and other places, transit-ready development, it was bastardized into transit-ready corridors. As long as that term is in it, I'm voting no. I think we -- I probably wouldn't get the votes -- but I think we ought to change transit-ready corridors to developer friendly corridors. It's not the way modern cities and successful cities develop. Every one of those is going to end up looking like dale mabry instead of -- when you're trying to build a transit system, you need nodes to build it on. Florida's economy has been built on real estate development and growth. I'm on the board of the Florida chamber foundation. We've been trying to diversify Florida's economy for years, and it's working. But the engine of Florida's new economy is quality of life, not overdevelopment. We even have astroturf organizations that are getting paid to look like activist organizations that are pushing for over-development. We don't need over-development. I've been to lots of cities in the U.S. and around the world in the last couple of years and overdevelopment is going to cause our quality of life to go. Had we done it neighborhood by neighborhood, we would have pockets of density. We would have had much more success, more density than this included. Because we didn't get buy-in from the neighborhoods, we don't have that. Instead, this looks like a developer-driven process. I even pulled public records. I haven't completely gotten all the public records, even though I pulled them months ago, but it's not something that the people of our community want. If we want to diversify our economy, Gary mormino, retired professor from USF, called Florida a giant ponzi scheme because the economy today is based on the growth tomorrow. We need to diversify our economy. We kill our quality of life. We kill where we're going. It doesn't mean -- the jargon paid for by the developers, oh, well, you're blocking young people out or blocking other people out. There's lots of housing in lots of places but we didn't listen to the neighborhoods. So for many reasons, I agree with some of the changes made, but for many reasons I'm voting no, partly because I'm against it. Partly as a protest vote because there was too much developer interest. I'm not against development. I used to work with developers. I think we need developers, but everything has to be driven by quality of life and the neighborhoods, not by some backroom deals that have been cut on documents like this. Thank you.

Lynn Hurtak

5:39:52PM Chair Clendenin, you have to unmute yourself.

Alan Clendenin

5:39:55PM Thank you. Thank you, councilwoman. While I don't agree -- I don't disagree, Councilman Carlson, about the idea of having transit nodes, but I don't think it's mutually exclusive. I think that transit-ready corridors and nodes are symbiotic and can work together with different types of development, where you can see more of like a mini-city center, kind of like what you see what is happening with midtown or some of the higher density intensive developments. But there still has to be some relatively more dense areas that would support buses and stops along the way, real city, any major european city or somebody that can move people along do. Again, I don't disagree with you on the idea that maybe our next move is to look at these nodes that you speak of, because I agree with these corridors. Those type of areas, but I also agree with the corridors. I logged on today because I wanted to make sure that I supported councilwoman Hurtak's two motions. One was to remove Armenia from that classification, and the other was to go to status quo on the density. I want to make sure that I was online to be able to support both of those motions. We were it's proper, I would be happy to second your motion, Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:41:16PM Well, thank you. To speak to that, we've had a lot of public comment or we've had a lot of engagement, which has been wonderful, but the thing that's frustrated me most about this is ab 180 and the inability for us to make decisions that we think are correct. We want to take density out of the coastal high hazard area. That is just SMART growth in Planning. You all wanted it. We all wanted it. The community wanted it, but the state said, no, we can't do that until 2027, June, I believe. July 27 -- September of 27. Man. So we have quite a bit of ways until we can do that. So until we can actually fix it the way we want to fix it, I don't think it's right to have it in there at all. Then we can fix it, I think going toward what council member Carlson said, really looking at the specific places we really want density to be increased, especially mainly very far out of the coastal high hazard area, areas we don't have any density right now, that we're really trying to build that aren't necessarily the popular places to build, but there are places that we can have room to build. I really appreciate this. I know we have quite a few people that want to speak in public comment. I'll open the floor to public comment. If you want to speak, if we could just have maybe four or five of you line up against the wall, and then as that calms down, we can pull more people. Is there anything else that you all wanted to say? Received, we also transmitted to the two council members online as well.

5:43:06PM Thank you, wonderful. Public comment, anyone? Really? You paid for parking, might as well. Oh, because there is an event going on. I actually am working on that, on getting parking exemptions for people who are coming to city meetings. We're working on it. It just isn't done yet. Sandy, I love that shirt. You've got beagles on you. That was done just for me, I'm sure. Look at those. Beagles. Aren't those cute? Sandy, you heard, I love your shirt with the beagles. This isn't going to take long. I'll wait until everybody gets the map. This map is a work in progress. I'm working on a larger project about getting West Tampa --

5:44:23PM It is. Never mind. Start with your name. I just wanted to show you the map that I am working on.

5:44:34PM Name? Excuse me. Anyway, this is a map that I've been working on because I have a project that's coming up that I do want to talk to the Planning Commission and to the city planners about beginning to notice West Tampa and our needs. I took a section of it basically between cypress and Kennedy, dale mabry, and the river, and I wanted to show you all of the multifamily units that have been built in the last two years, and some of them that are in the works. Over 6,593. But besides that, we also have alessi's bakery, just added about a hundred cars a day to cypress. We also have the Jewish Community Center that has special events, 400, 500 cars that come into our neighborhood. Julian b. Lane which has no parking to speak of, so they park in our neighborhoods. And then the University of Tampa has 10,500 students. If only 25% of them have cars, you can see what we're talking about as far as volume coming into our neighborhoods. And the problem is that these neighborhoods have no sidewalks. So not only jeopardizes our quality of life, it is the safety of the people that live there. So I wanted to show you, I appreciate the fact that Councilwoman Hurtak is going to make a motion to take it off the list, but I wanted you to see that it is not a whim. It's a reality what's going on -- this is three square miles of what's happening in this small area within West Tampa south, I'm calling it, so that we can get some work done. But you can see, and these are things that the comprehensive plan folks have not analyzed, have not looked to see exactly what is happening in those neighborhoods. So I thank you, those of you who have mentioned to get in touch with the neighborhoods before you start butchering them. Let us have an opportunity to show you what's really going on in our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Martin Shelby

5:47:03PM Ms. Bennett Has seven names. Please acknowledge your presence, say something so I can see and hear you. John ozy? John o-z-y.

5:47:19PM That's a d. Well, that was close. My apologies. Mark barowski.

5:47:27PM I'm batting a thousand. Jamie adair. Bobbie o'brien.

5:47:36PM Gina young, joan.

5:47:40PM Paula perry.

5:47:42PM Paula meckley.

5:47:44PM Seven names for a total of ten minutes.

Lynn Hurtak

5:47:49PM Please start with your name. You'll have ten minutes. My name is carroll ann Bennett. I am a life long resident of Tampa. First, I want to add my support to sandy sanchez and West Tampa for the removal of Armenia as trc. Second, I want to address the citywide increase in by right density. This is what I keep getting asked, what is by right density? It is not a guaranteed density. It is the maximum density someone can ask for without a bonus provision. If someone wants to exceed the maximum density, they must do a bonus agreement. The state does not allow cities to reduce by right density maximums. So once you raise them, it is permanent. You cannot undo it. But bonus density is different. It is a discretionary incentive program that is approved by you on a case-by-case basis. You can say no. you can tweak the ceilings and the criteria. This is important to understand because it is how we got here today. The Planning Commission was trying to do a good thing and direct population away from the chha. They proposed eliminating the ability to get bonus density there. You see here, this is their original version.

5:49:05PM Give a second for cttv to bring it up. There you go. Area, chha. Excluding the chha. It was a great idea, and it would have worked if they had stopped there. But they went a step farther and added a fatal flaw to their plan. They added an increase to the by right density outside the chha boundaries. This is the chha map. This map is regularly updated. Increasing density outside the map is a fatal flaw because some things inside the boundary today -- some things outside the boundary today will be inside the boundary tomorrow. So the maximum density here, for instance, would be increased today, because it's in the white, when it is outside the boundary, but it would have to be decreased tomorrow when the boundary is moved. As I said, the state won't let you do that. Once it's increased, it stays increased, no matter what happens to this map. The solution was to leave the by right alone and just eliminate the bonusing provision in the chha. Instead, a date was added to the chha densities. Density in chha, footnote one, the maximum density applies to all lands within the chha as established on August 4, 2021. This is a fatal flaw. When the map is updated, which is probably soon, it will create two different densities in the chha. There will be an old map chha density and a new map chha density. The density becomes a moving target. Density would have to be calculated with an obsolete map. Try explaining that to people. Yes, your land is in the chha, but until we get a precise GIS calculation of percentages on an obsolete map, we don't know what your density is. Everyone needs to understand what blanket density will really do. More properties will soon be in the chha. A blanket increase will be putting additional density in the chha. At this point, they needed to stick a fork in it. It was done. How many people say the problem with land development is that it needs to be more complicated? Is this a good way to plan a city? So why raise the by right in the first place? I was told that with no bonusing in the chha, we were losing a potential for 2,091 units raising the maximum in seven flus citywide was compensation for the loss. Planning Commission did not have a figure for how many units would be gained so I got the exact acreage each flu from the GIS department and did the math. Cc-35 has 3376 acres. Increased by five units an acre, which would create additional 16,882 units. Add them all up, 66,771 units. Now, you can argue that there may be some tweaks to this. But tweaks won't turn 66,000 into 2,000. So there is a third reason the plan should have been scrapped. Sb 180. The state said you can't eliminate bonusing in the chha, which was the whole reason we went down this road in the first place. They were forced to put bonusing back in the chha. You see here, chha, density bonus, and here are the numbers back in it. So now there was no loss to compensate for, so why are we still riding this dead horse? The fourth reason to finally bury this dead horse isn't even technical. I keep saying the bonuses are valuable. We shouldn't give it away for free. I found out exactly how valuable they are. I got all the bonus agreements from 2025 and the first five months of 2026. 21 of the 23 agreements were in those seven flus. I compiled the data on those 21 agreements. Over $6 million in C.I.P. Funds, $684,000 in underground utilities. 68 affordable housing units. The $6 million C.I.P. Projects went to the green spine cycle track, complete streets, safety improvements, multimodal network, et cetera. This is the complete list right here. There was one other reason floated as to why we had to raise the by right maximums. If we didn't raise them, a tier bonus system would be created which would be confusing and complicated. But the new bonus system, which I have high hopes for, is a tiered and stacked system. The bonuses below can be stacked up to the bonus ceiling of the flu. Bonuses can be combined up to a ceiling based on the flu. So to me that reason didn't make any sense. South Tampa has had a tsunami of growth under the current density limits. In a ten-year period, its growth was 13 times higher than the university Planning district, which should have had the highest growth rate because of jobs, easily increased transit, and it is where people can shelter in place. The South Tampa tsunami, as sandy pointed out, is now swamping its northern neighbor West Tampa under the current density limits. Both areas will continue to grow under the current limits. Over the last five years, I have gone to countless comp plan meetings and consistently objected to blanket policies. The Planning Commission appeared to agree and said they want to direct density toward where it is needed and away from where it is not needed. But the citywide increase and by right density achieves the opposite. It is a blanket policy. And a blanket is not needed if you are already red hot. Those red hot areas don't need increased potential. They will continue to grow without it. Increasing potential citywide will not make developers build in areas where they don't want to build. You must do something else to achieve that goal. Please leave the current maximum by right densities at their current levels and allow the new and improved bonus system with its massive increased limits and new trcs to create growth in the neighborhoods that desperately need it. Thank you.

5:56:05PM Thank you very much. Next speaker, if we have more speakers, please line up. Please start with your name. You'll have three minutes. My name is Cynthia shellabarger. I've already submitted my full comprehensive objection into the official public record for this meeting. But tonight, I want to address the council directly on the core of this issue. I'm here to voice my strong opposition to the proposed land use amendment that eliminates developer bonus density incentives. Handing corporate developers a massive permanent increase in by right density for free is an absolute betrayal of our Tampa neighborhoods. It strips away our community's leverage for vital affordable housing and local infrastructure improvements. Keep the density ceilings exactly where they are. This push for unchecked growth reveals a systematic failure inside our Planning department. Right now, the Planning Commission is advancing text amendments to accommodate building a new rays' stadium wrapped in intense, high density hotels and entertainment districts. Text amendments are formal changes to our city growth rule book. Literally rewriting the laws to make this massive commercial footprint legal on public college land, all while pretending environmental protections do not apply. They are accepting blurred maps submitted by the rays' lawyers where major environmentally sensitive areas bleed into public land boundaries. The Environmental Protection Commission explicitly flags the site's severe flooding vulnerabilities yet planners are completely ignoring those realities. You cannot safely unleash this intense stadium density on top of a flood-prone marsh basin and military brownfield without transparent readable mapping. The public deserves transparency, but we are met with aggressive silencing tactics. It is entirely unprofessional for Councilman Alan Clendenin to wear a rays' jersey to official council sessions. Worse yet was watching the tape from October 15 when Councilwoman Lynn Hurtak tried to object to Chair Clendenin, fast tracking the binding stadium community benefits agreement contract vote and moving it up by 14 days. Chair Clendenin barked at her, shouting, stop! I'm talking! Then he slammed his gavel to force a sudden recess just to shut down open democratic debate. Reject these hostile tactics, demand readable environmental maps, and vote no on this free density giveaway. Thank you.

5:59:08PM Thank you very much. Next. Start with your name. You'll have three minutes. First want to thank you, council and the city and Planning Commission staff, for all your work on this effort. The question, is there community benefit in and of itself of allowing more homes in our community? I'd say the answer is yes. First, it's about home availability. A recent Tampa Bay Partnership study showed that in our region between 2018 and 2023, we added nearly a hundred thousand new households and only 82 units produced to meet that need. Aside from availability, it's about variety. There's more home choices when we have more flexibility about what we can build. And that flexibility in the rules also makes sure that when we invest public resources like funding in public land to get deeper guaranteed affordability, these resources can go further to serve more in need. So there is a more efficient use of those resources. And then lastly, when those allowances are also tied to transit, we make better use of our shared amenities and also tie homes to affordable transportation options. So to illustrate this point, I want to tell a bit of a personal story. I recently became a first-time homeowner and that's after living at home for nearly ten years to save up and pay off debt. But I was able to stay in my South Tampa community doing that and near transit with great access to downtown and that was thanks to the availability of a small number of condo buildings that were built in the 1980s. These were 800 to 1200 square foot units ranging from 250,000 to 350,000k, so I think for some people, that's still a stretch, but that's where down payment assistance could help. I did notice in looking that there are holes where the homes are available in our community still. I think with some more allowances, we could make more of this sort of ownership accessible and possible. So those are kind of the stakes. For that reason I support the by right step up in densities and I also support all of the proposed transit ready corridors, all of this as shown in the currently proposed plan. And as we heard tonight from the Planning Commission staff, part of that by right density step-up was to simplify the whole process so we're not getting into multiple steps to take advantage of this additional density. So I would advocate to keep things simple, keep the by right step ups and keep all the currently proposed transit ready corridors.

6:01:42PM Thank you very much. Next speaker. If there are more people, if you could hop on the wall so I know what's coming. Start with your name. You have three minutes. I actually didn't fully prepare a whole public comment because I thought we already litigated this last year. I made some good public comments then. I feel -- I didn't really expect there would be many changes happening tonight. I kind of feel like what I'm going to say is an uphill battle in this room. I feel like minds are already made up and motions are ready to be made to make some changes. But I am standing up here to support our Planning Commission's research, their work, their hard work over years in designing this plan. The studies that they have done to show why they are proposing what they are proposing. You know I support the transit ready corridors, all of them. I would highly support leaving those in. I want to expound upon ali's point. There's been some articles and things circulating about that we don't actually need more housing. Yes, we do. There was a report from the Tampa Bay Partnership that was published earlier this year called the housing equation. That's where the numbers came from that ali shared but very specifically between 2018 and 2023, in that period of time, the region, so we're not just looking at Tampa, but the region, gained approximately 99,675 households, but only added 82,000 housing units. There is an affordability crisis as well, which was brought up earlier. Median rent increased by 48% in that period of time. But our average wages only went up 29%. I believe in the supply side of providing affordable housing, as ali mentioned, when we have more housing units through density, through creative housing types, that drives prices down. It does. I simply can't -- and I am a homeowner, but I don't relate to people tonight and people who have commented to you that just don't seem to want things to change. I'll tell you how things are changing. The leadership of nimby Tampa has left the city. Young people who want to see a positive improvement in this city have left because of a lack of housing affordability. Tatiana, nathan. These people have left. If I'm here in 10 or 20 years, I will think about this plan update and whatever changes you guys are going to make and I'm going to wish we created more density in our city. I support the by right density. I support the transit ready corridors, and I support our Planning Commission. I hope that you vote to pass this plan as is. Thank you.

6:05:03PM Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please start with your name. You'll have three minutes. Simone savino brown, 2900 West Nicholas Street, Tampa, Florida, 33629. I would like to remind everyone or have everyone keep in mind that tonight is just the first step in this process because most of the bonuses are going to have to go the further step and be implemented into the land development code after tonight. So this first adoption is just simply setting the table for that, so it can happen. It's taken years and so much effort for us to get here, but we haven't even set the table for the real problem, which is the land development code. As a resident of the City of Tampa and as a land use attorney here in the City of Tampa, we want the people that are building things, including our clients, to be incentivized of the right thing for the right reasons, which is what the bonuses are all about, frankly. And we appreciate the fact that the city is trying to incentivize affordable housing and green building technology and resiliency. Thank you.

6:06:23PM Thank you very much. Next speaker, if there's anyone else who wishes to speak, if you wouldn't mind standing up. Thank you so much. Go ahead, start with your name. Of Domain Homes. West Fielder Street, Tampa. I want to say thank you all for the opportunity to speak tonight. I want to start by saying thank you so much to the hard work. Melissa Zornitta and her Planning Commission staff. I know they spent almost four years I think from when this started. This was a long process that went through. They held countless community meetings, listened to a lot of stakeholders, worked tirelessly with the state as well on this process to get to where we are here tonight. I can't also say that without saying thank you to the City staff as well for everything they did. Domain Homes, we want to say this, is this plan perfect? Absolutely not. Are there things that we don't like in it? Absolutely. But are there things that we do? Absolutely too. I think you can hear it tonight from the other speakers, too. Not everyone is happy, but there are good things. I will tell you something, one of those things, whenever you have that, that's how you know you have a fair compromise. When everyone is hurting a little bit and not one group is completely happy, that's how you know you have a good product here before you. On behalf of Domain Homes, we ask you to support the adoption here tonight. We thank you for the time and thank you so much to the staff for all the time put into this.

6:07:46PM Next speaker. Please start with your name. You'll have three minutes. Jake Cremer with barbas Cremer. I've been kind of sitting in the back rewriting my comments after hearing some of your comments and some of the discussion earlier. I want to echo what edward said, is that we've spent four years and a lot of people in this room have spent a lot of time on what went to the state. And what I can tell you is that my developer and landowner clients, they didn't love what got transmitted to the state. I realized that a lot of people in the community didn't either. But we all worked together really, really hard, and this bonus structure and the density structure that we're talking about tonight, that's no surprise to everyone. That has been in the plan for months and months and months. I think it is disingenuous for anyone to say they were surprised by this bonus structure being proposed. What I can tell you is it increases transparency. Right now, the comp plan has a structure where we're all frustrated. Everyone in this room, because it doesn't give you all guidelines for making your decisions. And that's the problem with the plan that we have to fix. It's pitting neighbor against neighbor, and it's not fair. It's not fair to you all. It's not fair to my clients, not fair to the community that shows up saying how do you make your decisions? Give us some guidelines. What I like about this plan that was transmitted to the state is it has very clear guidelines for what it takes to get to each tier of density. It emphasizes and bonuses what I heard you all say for years what you want. Councilman Miranda, there is a green building bonus as you probably know in the city code today. It doesn't work. Nobody ever uses it because it's not balanced in the right way. The current plan I believe does. It does. I have clients that called me this week saying get this plan approved. I have green building projects I'd like to bring to the city. The same thing for the affordable housing bonus in the -- currently, affordable housing, the bonus structure doesn't work. We spent two years on Robles park going through getting comp plan amendments, and that project was delayed two years through that process. This current plan would have solved that. It would have saved everyone two years of bringing that affordable housing to market. So with that, I respectfully ask that you approve the plan as it was recommended by the state. Thank you.

6:10:30PM Thank you. I don't think we're looking at changing any of the bonus, just to let you know. Okay. Next. My name is Matt Sienk. I am here today in personal capacity, not as a Planning commissioner. I want to make sure that's crystal clear. I'll start and say the Planning Commission staff has done an amazing job trying to work through this for so, so long. I think the overarching -- my takeaway on it is that we don't necessarily have a density issue with this. We have a zoning issue on top of it. If we get the density but our zoning is bringing the wrong product in that location, that's where we get people complaining about parking, all the people feeling like they are squished together. I think there is an ability for us to look at our density and then also look at our zoning, which is going to be coming up relatively soon to say, okay, here, we want to put people in these locations. We don't want to put people in coastal high hazard areas because we know that's not safe. Tons of neighborhoods like Tampa Heights or West Tampa looking for the density because they want to push public transportation, affordability, and get the neighborhood redeveloped the way it should be. And by throwing everything out, I think that we're doing a disservice to our constituents and our neighbors by saying, okay, we don't want density, because we do want density in a lot of locations, but we have a problem is that there is a mismatch in what we can actually build and how that works. Big example of it is duplexes in Tampa Heights. They have been historically there forever. You can't build them anymore because it is r-10 and you need r-20 to have a side-by-side duplex. That's crazy. Our neighborhood is full of duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. If they get damaged by a storm we'll be losing units in this exact neighborhood. I think there is a middle ground to be found. I don't think it's been found yet. I also believe transit ready corridors are critical to building our future in a place where we don't rely on cars and can actually move people around. No big city -- I mean, every big city has parking issues but we need to find ways to eliminate that. I think that increasing density in the right spaces and giving bonuses to things like green construction, affordable housing is the way to do it. I think the bonus structure is fantastic. I want to give props to the Planning Commission staff. They do an amazing job every day. To you guys for understanding what the complications are and all the wrinkles that we had to get through to build the city that we're looking for. Thank you. Have a good night.

6:13:04PM Thank you. If no one else is speaking, Stephanie will be our last in-person speaker. Anyone else? Okay.

Martin Shelby

6:13:18PM Ms. Poynor Has one name. Craig Lynn.

6:13:23PM Thank you. That's four minutes.

Alan Clendenin

6:13:25PM Start with your name. I want to point out, this is not a last-minute, where we just came up with this yesterday. This chart, I'm sure you saw me this morning, I was organizing my binder. And this chart is old. It's really old. It's at least a couple of years old. Even carroll ann made notes on it for me. So we were complaining about this before last May. This is not a new thing. This is not a surprise. It is something that we have said over and over and over again. And it happens to be one of the few things that kind of slid on through that we weren't really happy about. Seven years ago next month, I darkened the doorstep of this place. It's funny -- were discouraged from attempting an overlay for our community. We were discouraged. Said it would take too long. Now we look at it, man, we should have done it, but we didn't know any better. I detest this section right here. It should have never been in there. We asked for it to be removed over and over and over again. I would argue that the department of commerce probably would have let it fly had they not put in that date. I cannot for the life of me understand or comprehend how that is going to be the biggest part of the chha. We've had major flooding in that part, in many, many parts of the chha. And outside of the chha in that little space that's left, I cannot for the life of me imagine that the chha is not going to expand the next time they do it. It's probably about time. I'm so sick and tired of people saying, if we build the density, the transit will come. They have doubled the density in my area of town. Doubled it. Twice as many people live there now as lived there the last time we did the comp plan. Do we have a bus? No. hell, no, we don't have a bus. That one bus route runs down there once an hour, I think now. And it doesn't even hit Westshore. It doesn't hit dale mabry. It goes down manhattan. So it's useless. Senate bill 180 says that we can't make it more burdensome. The proposed changes to these flus is giving it away. We're going the polar opposite. Just leave it alone. My big thing is, just leave it alone. We don't have to change anything. We can just leave it alone. You know what? If in a year you want to change it, you see, you know, the transit corridors a perfect example. You added some in. If you see that they are doing what you project and what the Planning Commission projects should happen with this change then you can add more. You can change the way things happen, but it doesn't need to happen today. Just like carroll ann showed you, we're not -- we're losing 3,000 units in the chha, and gaining 60. It's all good. I completely endorse that we fix a lot of the housing issues in the city, but tell me why my friend Jamie and his wife told me the other day, do you have any buyers because we can't sell houses. This is a buyers' market. People can buy houses below market price right now. Rentals, same thing. That's what I do for a living out in Carrollwood. Anybody says, rental prices are going down significantly. Houses that would rent for $6,000 a month are not pulling four now. People cannot pay their mortgage with the rental price that they are able to get. I have two different landlords paying like $600 a month out of their pocket towards their mortgage. Don't let people blow smoke up your butt.

Lynn Hurtak

6:17:28PM Thank you very much. We have one online speaker. Is that person online? Michael murino. If you can turn your camera on. Just unmute yourself. There you are. Can you start with your name? You'll have three minutes. Michael murino, executive director of Westshore alliance. Sorry I cannot be there this evening. We provided a letter in support and we've been in support of this quite a while. We started our conversation with you all and City staff and Planning Commission staff going back to 2020 when there were first concerns about providing additional density in mixed use corridors. The future land use section plan as provided to you, we're in support of because the fact it creates the Westshore cultural development area, and that will allow Westshore to redevelop, but then the existing -- zoning has the natural limits because of height and use and density in Westshore. There's kind of that natural impact there. I wanted to talk about the development that occurs in Westshore because of the partnership between the Westshore alliance and the City of Tampa as it relates to the Westshore DRI going back years ago creates benefits within the neighborhood. There is the Westshore overlay that requires sidewalks to be a certain width and trees, things like that. Westshore parks trust fund. Mobility trust fund. And those are deployed in the neighborhood. There is a renovation at Lincoln garden park over the last 12 months. I think that overall, the plan that's been provided to you obviously we're in support of it, but I think there are examples of how some of the tools we already have in the community can be leveraged so while we allow development to occur in places where it is desirable, that the folks who have lived there in the case of Westshore going back a hundred years to 1927, that those single-family neighborhoods can experience benefit from that additional growth going forward through the use of mobility fees and parks trust fund and things of that nature. We appreciate your support and your time, both you as council members and the City staff and Planning Commission staff.

6:19:41PM Thank you. That concludes our public comment. Wanted to respond to.

6:19:53PM Great. The record, Melissa dickens, Planning Commission staff. We're responding to the folks who had concerns about what was proposed, not the folks who were in support of it. There were a number of comments about the base densities changing, changing them back to what is adopted in the plan today. That is what is before you with this alternative. So just wanted to reiterate that if the alternative is put forward tonight by a motion, then that would solve that issue. Secondly, there was someone who spoke about the stadium. That is a map amendment, not a text amendment. It is not the subject of this evening's discussion. That is 26-11a, b, and c. We also understand a couple of folks referenced an article about housing. We did take a look at that article, and there are some concerns. There's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Zillow, for example, is anecdotal. It's not statistically representative and there are a number of issues with the data used in the article. Finally, the chha date, the reason that date was included is we cannot have a self-amending plan. We have to have it as of a certain date. The alternative that was put before you this evening is selected, it would just be the bonuses that would be subject to that. So we think that that would resolve that issue as well.

6:21:20PM Thank you so much.

Guido Maniscalco

6:21:23PM Yes, ma'am, go ahead.

Lynn Hurtak

6:21:24PM I'm going to go ahead and make a couple of motions. I move to remove the Armenia Avenue from Kennedy Boulevard to Columbus Avenue.

Alan Clendenin

6:21:34PM Second.

Lynn Hurtak

6:21:35PM -- from the list of transit ready corridors and remove it from both the text to policy 2.6.4 and the place type maps.

Guido Maniscalco

6:21:46PM We have a motion from chair pro tem Hurtak, second from Chair Clendenin. I'm glad that you brought that up. We're West Tampa guys over here. And we understand that there is a historic district in West Tampa. People think it's Howard Avenue, main street, all that area, but looking at columbus to Kennedy, it's the heart of West Tampa right there and it goes into Armory Gardens. Yes, there has been development, but we want to keep Tampa, Tampa. We don't want overdevelopment where it just becomes unrecognizable and I totally support your motion. We have a motion from Hurtak, second from Clendenin. Councilman Viera.

Luis Viera

6:22:30PM Thank you. Part of my voice. I'm -- pardon my voice. I'm glad to support this. Like Councilwoman Hurtak said, it doesn't go to any of the bonus provisions on the larger scale. This is something that does take, Ms. Sanchez and others, Ms. Bennett spoke I believe a little bit about it as well, the West Tampa corridor. That does need some protections. I think this is something narrowly tailored in terms of geography as well as in subject. It is a unique thing. I'm glad to support.

Guido Maniscalco

6:23:02PM Thank you very much. Council member Carlson.

Bill Carlson

6:23:05PM I want to say as I mentioned earlier, transit ready corridors is a misnomer. The development industry has been pushing for these for years. It's really a development corridor, not a transit corridor. By voting to remove any transit ready corridors, we're not removing transit. We're just removing uncontrollable growth. Chair Clendenin mentioned a while ago midtown. Midtown is a transit node. It is a place where there is density. What people don't want is density like midtown all the way down dale mabry all the way to macdill. They want pockets of it. If we do it a bit at a time, we'll get more buy-in from the public and be able to build the nodes and the community will grow organically. This is just -- I don't want any of the transit ready corridors. It doesn't mean I'm against transit. It is the opposite. I'm against uncontrolled growth. Thank you.

Guido Maniscalco

6:24:03PM Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

6:24:05PM Thank you, Mr. Maniscalco. In fact, when you look at the Planning Commission statement on page 69, is you're going to have from 2020 to 2045 about 625,000 needed dwellings in the City of Tampa by your own records. So without anything else, I mean, West Tampa right now, what's going to happen, may happen. I'm not going to mention what it is, but you can't get out of West Tampa anywhere from -- really from Kennedy all the way down to almost Hillsborough Avenue when there's an event in a certain area. At least an hour and a half before and hour and a half later. And if you think you're going to get out by going to Armenia and making a left or making a right, you're wrong, because most traffic heading south travels all the way to main street, one street past main street is green, you make a right. And get the expressway to go either to sarasota, bradenton, clearwater, Plant City -- not Plant City, st. petersburg, or wherever they came from. You have an exodus. I guarantee you I'm asking for you guys to ask the Police Department how many accidents happen during those events. I'll guarantee you they will double and triple any time of any day of any year because they just want to get out. And that's a problem we have. Now I hear there are some roads that will be widened. It will only exacerbate the problem that we have now. Housing is not going to change in West Tampa because it's going to be a bumper to bumper, you're not going to be able to move and -- very people live there. Even with the traffic now, without the future, it's godsend. People love each other. Live close by. Speak to your neighbors. You have anything you want nearby. Shopping, airport, hospital, anything you need. That will not continue. Thank you very much.

Guido Maniscalco

6:26:04PM Roll call vote. This is a motion from council member Hurtak with a second from council member Clendenin, to remove Armenia from Kennedy to Columbus Drive.

Bill Carlson

6:26:23PM [Inaudible]

Charlie Miranda

6:26:24PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

6:26:26PM Yes.

Luis Viera

6:26:29PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

6:26:31PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

6:26:34PM Yes.

The clerk

6:26:34PM Motion passes unanimously with young being absent.

Lynn Hurtak

6:26:38PM My second motion is about the density. I move to modify land use table 2 to reflect the base density of the future land use categories referring to the density allowed without a bonus as adopted today citywide and to modify land use table 1 and table 2 to make conforming changes to reflect the updated tiers of bonuses.

Guido Maniscalco

6:27:04PM I'll second that. I can't -- yeah, I can second. I'll second it. Anybody else who wants to speak? Can we get a roll call vote.

Charlie Miranda

6:27:20PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

6:27:21PM Yes.

Luis Viera

6:27:24PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

6:27:26PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

6:27:29PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

6:27:31PM Yes.

The clerk

6:27:31PM Motion passes unanimously with young being absent.

Lynn Hurtak

6:27:34PM Thank you so much. So that concludes item number 3.

Alan Clendenin

6:27:46PM Make a motion to adopt --

Lynn Hurtak

6:27:48PM Motion from Chair Clendenin to adopt -- Chair Clendenin, you don't have the agenda, do you? So you can't read the ordinance?

Alan Clendenin

6:28:00PM I won't be able to read it.

Lynn Hurtak

6:28:03PM We'll have Councilman Maniscalco, you can second it. I have an ordinance presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan updating the future land use section, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date, and we've already made motions from Councilwoman Hurtak amending --

Martin Shelby

6:28:21PM To include those amendments.

Guido Maniscalco

6:28:23PM Amending and updating.

Lynn Hurtak

6:28:24PM Second from Chair Clendenin. I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco and a second from Chair Clendenin. Could we have a roll call vote.

Luis Viera

6:28:35PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

6:28:37PM No for the reasons I mentioned before.

Charlie Miranda

6:28:40PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

6:28:43PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

6:28:45PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

6:28:48PM Yes.

The clerk

6:28:52PM The motion passed with Carlson voting no and young being absent.

Lynn Hurtak

6:28:58PM Thank you so much.

Alan Clendenin

6:28:59PM Councilwoman Hurtak, if you don't mind, those were the two. I wanted to support your motions on that. I have a wedding, a family event to get to. I want to log off.

Lynn Hurtak

6:29:12PM Thank you so much for being here. Have a wonderful time with your family. 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

6:29:33PM Thank you so much. Item number 4. Katrina Corcoran Planning Commission staff. I'm here tonight to present ta/cpa 24-05. This is the Housing Section update. You all heard a lot tonight about the update approach with the entire comprehensive plan. I won't go into too much detail with that. I want to point out with our Housing Section that this serves as a tool to support community housing needs. It serves as a foundation for the city's programs for housing implementation. I also would like to note that there are no comments received from the department of commerce and other reviewing regional and state agencies after transmittal. With sb 180 we had no concerns with the Housing Section. We thought there had been no changes to the draft since council last saw it in February with one minor exception, did remove the definitions that were traveling with the amendment because those have already been adopted with a previous amendment. Just a brief reminder on the structure of the Housing Section. There is one proposed goal with five proposed objectives, including affordability, stability, resiliency and sustainability. Housing and healthy communities. I remember getting a question about this before, making sure that housing is close to services, very general about the design of housing, things like that. Housing supply and housing access. And with that, the Planning Commission found the amendment consistent, and we recommend that ta/cpa 24-05 be adopted by Tampa City Council. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you have on this amendment. Thank you.

6:31:13PM Any questions? Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

6:31:17PM No, I'm sorry.

Lynn Hurtak

6:31:18PM Is there anyone in the public who wishes to speak to this item tonight? Okay. Would someone -- oh. My name is sandy sanchez. We've spent a lot of time, money, and energy on this comp plan. Three years ago, I was invited to participate in a focus group. I went to about five or six meetings and then I quit. I quit because they were not listening to what we had to say. Interesting enough, once they started their public meetings, they found out that the same concerns that their focus group had were also the concerns of the public. From the very beginning to just this past may, we suggested that a housing report was needed to move forward, and we were told there wasn't one available. That is not true. JC Hudgison sends a report to Washington, d.c. Monthly showing the number of permits that have been issued and how many units are in each permit. The realtor's association can let you know about the sales of homes. And there is also a group that you can get information on rental properties, especially the multifamilies. Right now from the last report when I talked to him, a lot of our big apartment complex, 20 to 25% empty. Both carroll ann and I sent you articles from the Florida chamber of commerce and the Tampa monitor showing that folks are not moving to Florida under its present political climate and the high expense of living in Florida. This comp plan is already obsolete. I feel sorry for those folks that have construction in process. Maybe we'll be lucky enough that some of those developers will sell it to us for affordable housing. It is nothing to be proud of and, quite honestly, a little scary for future economic development, but it is a reality. We can have it all, but we need an unbiased report to delve into the makeup of these urban villages that already have everything that they need. Their quality of life should not be threatened. Remember, homeowners are taxpayers. Ask that you direct our city and county planners to do their home work before they begin another comprehensive plan. Let's not waste time and money again. Let's take a serious look at our fragile infrastructure issues in these next few years. These next few years should be used to study the different neighborhoods and see what needs to change if anything, a closer look needs to be taken at heritage communities. We need to start treating them as assets and not a liability. By the way, West Tampa has 5,147 homes that are homesteaded and additional 8,193 that are not, for 13,340. Lisa edward, councilman Maniscalco's aide, was kind enough to get that information for me from the property appraiser. Thank you.

6:34:35PM Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to speak tonight? Okay. Let's see, would someone be willing to read the ordinance? Oh, motion to close.

Martin Shelby

6:34:45PM For number 3 we didn't do that, for purposes of the record.

Lynn Hurtak

6:34:51PM I have a motion to close number 3 by Councilman Maniscalco. I have a second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. Do I have a motion to close item number 4?

Guido Maniscalco

6:35:02PM So moved.

Lynn Hurtak

6:35:02PM Motion from council member Miranda, second from council member Maniscalco. All those in favor? Any opposed? Councilman Maniscalco.

Guido Maniscalco

6:35:12PM I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, ta/cpa 24-05, an ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan updating the Housing Section, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.

Lynn Hurtak

6:35:26PM I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Do I have a second? I have a second from Councilman Miranda. Can I get a roll call vote, please?

Charlie Miranda

6:35:39PM [Inaudible]

Guido Maniscalco

6:35:41PM [Inaudible]

Luis Viera

6:35:43PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

6:35:45PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

6:35:48PM Yes.

The clerk

6:35:49PM Motion passed unanimously with Clendenin and young being absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 19, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Lynn Hurtak

6:36:07PM Okay. Item number 5. I know. I know. We're not interesting enough. Good evening, council. Shawn college with the Planning Commission staff. I am presenting comprehensive plan amendment 24-06, which is your Coastal Management Section update. Outreach for this update was conducted in conjunction with the future land use section, minor changes, grammatical changes to make sure it all worked together correctly and numbered correctly. No definitions since transmittal because they have already been adopted. And the intent of the policy section is not changing. However, there are some policies that we're proposing to change, and that is because the department of commerce and house bill 180, they did cite initially seven policies in the Coastal Management Section, similar cited in future land use. We were able to change their mind on two of those, leaving five policies that they considered problematic with house bill 180. We do recommend in this adoption that you revert those five policies back to keeping them what's currently adopted in your plan. It's not problematic for your plan. Like the updated wording using. With that, we would recommend Planning Commission -- Planning commissioners did find this consistent with your plan, and we recommend that you adopt it with those changes.

6:37:44PM Thank you so much. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak to this tonight? I have a motion to close by Councilman Maniscalco. Second from council member Carlson. All those in favor? Aye. Anyone willing to read this ordinance?

Guido Maniscalco

6:38:04PM I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, ta/cpa 24-06, an ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, updating the Coastal Management Section, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.

Lynn Hurtak

6:38:18PM Okay. So I have a motion from council member Maniscalco. I have a second from Councilman Miranda. Roll call vote, please.

Guido Maniscalco

6:38:26PM Yes.

Luis Viera

6:38:30PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

6:38:32PM No.

Charlie Miranda

6:38:36PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

6:38:39PM Yes.

The clerk

6:38:41PM The motion passed with Carlson voting no and young and Clendenin being absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 19, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Lynn Hurtak

6:38:58PM Thank you so much. Our final comprehensive plan update, item number 6. Katrina Corcoran, Planning Commission staff. Here to present City of Tampa fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 31 capital improvement section or CIS schedule of projects update. In terms of review and analysis, chapter 163 requires that the schedule of projects be adopted or updated on an annual basis. The schedule of projects is a list of projects addressing level of service that is adopted within the comprehensive plan. This update would replace the existing CIS schedule in the plan with the schedule that is listed in your packets. This latest schedule reflects the adopted capital improvements program recently approved. Update is accomplished by ordinance, which is explicitly permitted under chapter 163. Again, routine annual update where we come before you each year with this information. City staff identified projects in the C.I.P. That affect level of service. These items make up the scheduled projects. There was also a recent chapter 163 update that requires the CIS to include basin management action plan or bmap projects that are updated annually. Bmap is a framework for water quality restoration. These bmap projects are coordinated with City staff and the environmental department. Finally, the plans of other agencies are incorporated by reference with this review. This slide shows the fiscal year 27 through 31 CIS schedule of projects broken down by los service area. You can see the different areas including parks and rec, Solid Waste, stormwater, transportation, wastewater and water, with the largest funding areas being with water and wastewater. There is a total of 78 projects with $1.01 billion. This slide shows the capital improvement priorities by type. These project types that are identified by the city are consistent with the level of service priorities outlined in the capital improvement section objective 1.1 and policy 1.1.2 which state the schedule of projects should be planned to eliminate existing deficiencies, replace worn out facilities and address future growth. Again, you can see here the majority 53% deficiency in replacement, 35% with deficiency, about 8% with deficiency replacement and future need. The remaining 5% is replacement and future need. Again, that is consistent with the direction from within the comprehensive plan. Continuing on with the consistency finding, looking at the objections that you see up top here, this looks at the coastal high hazard area and limiting public expenditures for infrastructure and facilities within it. After review, staff found that the projects within the chha were minimal and either to serve existing development, repair replacement or enhance access to natural areas. The following capital improvement section objective and policy that you see here discusses the CI schedule of priorities shown on the previous slide. Remaining objectives and policies listed here are related to infrastructure and public facilities. With that, the Planning Commission found the proposed fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 31 CIS schedule of projects consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan and recommends adoption by ordinance. I'm available for any questions that you may have along with City staff. Thank you.

6:42:26PM Okay. Does anyone have any questions? Anyone in the public wishing to speak to this? I have a motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Would someone be willing to read this ordinance?

Guido Maniscalco

6:42:46PM I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. This is cip-cis FY 27-fy 31, ordinance amending the Tampa Comprehensive Plan capital improvement program and capital improvements section schedule of projects by replacing the fiscal year 2026 through fiscal year 2030 capital improvements section schedule of projects with the fiscal year 2027 through fiscal year 2031 capital improvements section schedule of projects, providing repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, providing an effective date.

Lynn Hurtak

6:43:18PM Motion from council member Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. Roll call. Yes.

Luis Viera

6:43:28PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

6:43:30PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

6:43:31PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

6:43:33PM Yes.

The clerk

6:43:36PM Motion passes unanimously with young and Clendenin being absent. Second hearing and adoption will be held on November 19, 2026 at 11 a.m. in City Council Chambers, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Lynn Hurtak

6:43:51PM Thank you so much. Now on to item number 7, Councilman Viera, this is your resolution to ratify the veterans committee.

Luis Viera

6:43:59PM Yes. Mr. Shelby, thank you for that, madam chairwoman. I saw this, Mr. Shelby, don't we need to continue this you told me or am I wrong?

Martin Shelby

6:44:09PM That's correct, sir. The applications are still in process in order to finalize the resolution. The administration and the mayor's office is working.

Lynn Hurtak

6:44:18PM Do you have a date?

Luis Viera

6:44:20PM Yes. Mr. Shelby you told me the second week in November.

Martin Shelby

6:44:28PM Realistically, I don't know. We were talking about December.

Lynn Hurtak

6:44:34PM How about December 3rd?

Luis Viera

6:44:37PM I make a motion, if I may.

Lynn Hurtak

6:44:38PM Go right ahead. I have a motion from Councilman Viera to move item number 7 to December 3rd during staff reports. Yeah, resolution will be during staff reports, correct?

Martin Shelby

6:44:52PM That's correct. Or, actually, you could have it under the consent docket.

Lynn Hurtak

6:44:58PM Okay. Let's put it under consent.

Martin Shelby

6:45:00PM That will be fine. Thank you.

Lynn Hurtak

6:45:02PM I have a motion from Councilman Viera. I have a second from council member Carlson. Do I need to roll call this?

Martin Shelby

6:45:09PM Yes, because of --

Lynn Hurtak

6:45:10PM Okay. Roll call. Viera?

Luis Viera

6:45:16PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

6:45:16PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

6:45:17PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

6:45:19PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

6:45:20PM Yes.

The clerk

6:45:23PM The motion passes unanimously with young and Clendenin being absent.

Lynn Hurtak

6:45:28PM Thank you so much. That concludes our regularly scheduled program. Do we have any new business tonight? Council member Carlson.

Bill Carlson

6:45:35PM Just one. I've been asked by the community to provide an off-site commendation for ashley butler, the owner of ice cold air discount auto repair in recognition of her service to the children and families in the Tampa Bay region.

Lynn Hurtak

6:45:51PM I have a motion from council member Carlson. Second from Councilman Maniscalco.

Guido Maniscalco

6:45:55PM Second. Is this the one on dale mabry? Yeah, great business. Woman-owned business and always very positive quotes. I love driving by there, always something inspiring, and they do great work.

Lynn Hurtak

6:46:07PM Wonderful. All in favor? Aye. Okay. That's all? Councilman Maniscalco?

Guido Maniscalco

6:46:20PM No, I'm good. Thank you.

Lynn Hurtak

6:46:21PM Councilman Miranda?

Charlie Miranda

6:46:22PM None.

Lynn Hurtak

6:46:23PM Councilman Viera?

Luis Viera

6:46:25PM Yes, ma'am. I have a few, if I may. Please let me -- Sebastian has these motions. I have a few. I motion for an in-person staff report February next year, written report address concerns therein. Following up on the work that he did, that we got the memo on.

Guido Maniscalco

6:46:48PM What is this about?

Luis Viera

6:46:53PM I'm sorry. Tom Degeorge, if you remember, the smaller concert venue sites in Ybor City.

Guido Maniscalco

6:47:01PM Second.

Lynn Hurtak

6:47:02PM Motion from Councilman Viera. Sebastian, if Sebastian could come and bring the written reports, that would be handy.

Luis Viera

6:47:11PM Yeah.

Lynn Hurtak

6:47:14PM This is a motion to -- in-person staff report about music venues.

Luis Viera

6:47:25PM Smaller music venues in Ybor City and to address the concerns --

Lynn Hurtak

6:47:31PM To address the concerns about small music venues in Ybor City, and that's going to be on February 1st.

Martin Shelby

6:47:42PM There is no meeting. It's February 4.

Lynn Hurtak

6:47:45PM February 4. Sorry. So I have a motion and a second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor? Aye. Okay. Next.

Luis Viera

6:47:57PM Thank you. I motion, the law firm of bush ross is having their 45th anniversary, and for all their work in the community, I wanted to give them a Tampa City Council commendation, if I may.

Lynn Hurtak

6:48:08PM Motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Luis Viera

6:48:14PM Then Councilman Clendenin was here for this. But there is an organization called the wattaka, w-a-t-t-a-k-a. They are a choral group of venezuelan americans who sing and work in Tampa City Ballet and different organizations. I wanted to give wattaka venezuelan choral group and their founder astrid sanchez a Tampa City Council commendation for all the amazing work they do in Tampa and in the arts and in the Hispanic community.

Lynn Hurtak

6:48:45PM Motion from Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. Is it an off-site commendation?

Luis Viera

6:48:50PM Oh, yeah. All these are off-site.

Lynn Hurtak

6:48:53PM Yes. All in favor? Aye.

Luis Viera

6:48:57PM The last one -- I mentioned this a few weeks ago. David Mechanik is taking a back role in HART and many other things. All of us know David Mechanik, his work on the tpo, HART, just an amazing citizen lawyer. I wanted to give him off-site, if I may, Tampa City Council commendation.

Lynn Hurtak

6:49:17PM Commendation for David Mechanik from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Luis Viera

6:49:25PM That's it. Thank you, council.

Lynn Hurtak

6:49:26PM Wonderful. Do I have a motion to receive and file?

Charlie Miranda

6:49:34PM Make a motion to present a commendation -- [inaudible] [ laughter ]

Luis Viera

6:49:44PM I'm stealing the silverware on the way out.

Lynn Hurtak

6:49:48PM Good, good, good. No, I don't have anything. Motion to receive and file by Councilman Maniscalco, second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor? Aye. We are 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. ▶ meeting video the information contained in these pages represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript. Persons requiring a verbatim transcript may need to hire a court reporter. © - City of Tampa (813) 274-8211