Welcome to a meeting of your planning commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plan City, and unincorporated Hillsboro County.

The Planning Commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live, move, learn, work, and play.

For more information about the Planning Commission, please call eight one three, two seven two five nine four zero.

Follow us on social media or visit our website at Plan Hillsborough.

For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room and turn off any devices that may be a distraction.

Planning commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak.

Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk.

Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking.

State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits.

If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at plancom.org.

For action items, the meeting will be conducted as follows.

The agenda item will be introduced.

Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit.

The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit.

Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chair.

Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person.

The applicant will be afforded a three minute period for rebuttal or response.

Planning commissioners will ask questions.

Public comment will be closed.

Then upon a motion, a second and discussion, a vote will be taken.

With that introduction, I'd like to ask Commissioner Jemison to lead us in the invocation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

If you're able, please rise.

Thank you for this day.

And thank you too for the many blessings in our lives for our great country and for the opportunity to live in freedom.

We ask for blessings on our leaders, and we ask that you give each one of us here today the wisdom to make the right choices so that our decisions will be the best interest of the people at Oldsborough County.

Amen.

One nation, under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Commissioner Jemison.

All right.

With that, I will send it over to the clerk to please call roll.

Good afternoon.

Falden.

Here.

Cardinas.

Here.

Kona?

Here.

Jemison.

Here.

Googler.

Here.

Lincas.

Here.

Lauk.

Seben.

Sink.

Here.

Barry.

Here.

Orton.

Uh Lori Belangia for Michelle Orton.

Thank you.

Joseph.

Here.

You have a quorum, sir.

Thank you.

The next item is the approval of the minutes for the following meetings.

Hillsborough County Planning Commission, regular meeting minutes, January 12th, 2026.

Hillsborough County Planning Commission public hearing on unincorporated Hillsborough County Plan Amendments, January 12th, 2026.

Is there a motion?

Motion approved.

All right.

Motion from Commissioner Jemison.

Commissioner Connus, second that motion.

Second.

Oh, well, Commissioner Cona got the second.

He beat you to it.

All right.

So motion uh by Commissioner Jemison, a second to that motion of approval by Commissioner Kona.

There are any questions or discussions from the commissioners before we take our vote.

Then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed.

Motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Our first item of business today is a presentation of a plaque of appreciation presented to our former commissioner, Tony Rodriguez, for his time serving on the planning commission.

Umriguez is here with us today.

If you wanted to come to the podium and have you say a couple words after I read off your plaque here.

Um says uh presented to James Tony Rodriguez.

I didn't know the James part.

Fancy pants.

And his service was from August 2005 to March 2007, and then again recently from April 2016 through December 2025.

So he's served on the planning commission board for quite a bit of time there.

And it's in recognition and appreciation of your exemplary service on the Hillsborough County City County Planning Commission and vision, leadership, and commitment to improving the quality of life in our community.

So again, congratulations again, Commissioner Rodriguez.

And if you'd like to say a couple words.

Okay.

Thank you.

Congratulations.

Thank you so much.

Thank you all.

All right.

All right, our next agenda item on the agenda is public input, and we didn't have anyone sign up for public input for this meeting for each for items not on the agenda.

Um we will move to our action items.

And our first action item is 4A, Temple Terrace Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, Section 12-984 permitted signs, and the presenter is Yanika Mills.

Oh, Mike.

Good afternoon, Yanika Mills Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to introduce Alyssa Livingstone, senior planner with Temple Terrace staff.

She will be presenting the proposed land development code amendment uh regarding permitted signage.

Uh since this is an action item for you all today after her presentation.

I'll come back and provide uh planning commission staff finding.

Good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners.

I'm Alyssa Livingstone, senior planner with the City of Temple Terrace.

I'm here to present proposed text amendments to Orland Development Code regarding sign regulations.

This amendment pertains to section 12 984 permitted signs, modifying matrices three, four, five, and six.

Currently, these matrices restrict buildings to only one wall sign.

This creates an issue for structures on corner lots, which are limited to a single wall sign despite having multiple street frontages.

Under the proposed changes, two wall signs will be permitted on corner lots, provided that they meet the conditions of footnote X, which states on corner lots a building occupying the corner may be permitted a second wall sign, provided that each of the two wall signs is located on a different street-facing facade.

Thank you.

Additionally, this amendment is consistent with land use policy 5.2.2, which is under the downtown design consideration section.

This policy encourages high quality uh design through the city's land development code standards as it relates to site controls, such as signage, landscaping, and lighting.

And based on that review, staff recommends that the planning commission find this proposed amendment consistent and uh forces recommendation to the temple terrace city council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we didn't have anyone sign up for the public comment on this one, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions.

Not seeing a lot of excitement, then I will close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners.

Commissioner Lincoln.

Um I'd like to make a motion to find Temple Terrace Land Development Code Text Amendment Section 12-984 permitted signs consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Second.

All right, we have motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lincoln, second to that motion by Commissioner Kugler.

Are there any questions or discussions?

Commissioners, before we take our vote, not seeing any, then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye.

Aye.

Those opposed motion carries unanimously.

All right.

Next up on the agenda, we have action item 4B, unincorporated Hillsborough County evaluation of urban service area and alternatives.

And the presenter is Melissa Dickens.

Good afternoon, uh Planning Commission.

One moment while I get the presentation pulled up.

Melissa Dickens, Planning Commission staff.

Again, this is the evaluation of the urban service area and alternatives for unincorporated Hillsboro County.

This is an action item.

There is not a resolution that is being provided, but rather there is a letter for your consideration to send to the Board of County Commissioners if you all should choose.

That letter outlines the items that are contained within this agenda packet, as well as asks for support for funding and staff resources from the county to look at it.

And a little bit of background on this item.

This item was brought up at both the November and December Planning Commission meetings.

There was some discussion amongst the board members, and the uh the resolution of that item was that planning commission staff should come back in February and present an overview of what all would need to be looked at to assess the urban service area, explore potential alternatives that could be a modification or a tweak to the existing policy.

The existing policy could remain as is, uh, removal of the urban service area and a new tool or a hybrid approach.

And ultimately, staff wants to ensure that there is continued alignment with the community with the growth that's occurring, and that we are planning for our infrastructure needs.

Next slide.

Oh, sorry, I'm doing it.

Okay.

Um I'm used to community meetings these days.

Uh okay, a little bit of background on this.

This uh the urban service area was first established in 1993.

Originally, we did go back.

Thank you to Diego Guerra on our team for pulling the old files.

And the original uh purpose of this uh tool was to coordinate growth with infrastructure.

It was really very much an infrastructure planning tool.

Uh, the intent was to limit uh the cost of providing infrastructure and services, ensure the efficient use of land in the unincorporated county, uh, conserve agricultural land and ensure there was adequate land for agriculture, preserve lifestyle choices so that folks in Hillsborough County had an option of whether to live in an urban, suburban, or rural context.

And the urban service area can be amended or expanded.

There is criteria within the future land use section about how that would take place.

It's in policy 1.1.9.

Um these are also included in your packet.

These are uh staff's definitions of the both the urban service area and the rural area.

They're very broad.

This is not the adopted definition, so I want to make that clear.

Um, but really we wanted to have something for you all to reference that was uh straightforward that oops, that these are excuse me, intended to be the primary locations for growth, the urban service area where there is existing uh public facilities and services, typically within the urban service area.

These have uh higher land use densities and intensities, and certain infrastructure would be required for development within the rural area.

Those are areas that are intended to provide for agricultural uses, uh, rural residential and natural areas.

These typically have lower land use densities and intensities, and uh infrastructure is limited.

So a little bit about where we are today in the unincorporated county within the urban service area.

This also includes the Tampa service area and unincorporated county.

There's uh 2200 228,005 acres, um, and that is shown on the map within the blue line.

Uh so all that the white area there, it also includes BOM and Waimama, which were just added to the uh urban service area.

There's also the the rural area identified in green uh outside of the line, and then the two urban expansion areas, both Little Manes South and I-4, uh, which are about 47,000 acres.

Those are currently under study to determine uh whether there would be an urban uh planning for an urban expansion area where if if if it is determined that it's appropriate, where uh an urban expansion area, urban service area would be created.

Uh, because this tool has been in place for 33 years, it's something that's very heavily integrated into uh Hillsboro County.

Um we we all see it here.

Our staff this board through amendments or changes to the comprehensive plan, plan amendments, rezonings, uh, but it is something that is integrated significantly into the county's infrastructure investments.

Uh it also plays a role in regional uh projections for folks like Tampa Bay Water and uh infrastructure planning and and response time as well as maintenance.

Um then and because of that, it plays a role in the county's uh fiscal planning, budgeting, and fee structures, for example, mobility fees.

I will also say that this is based on planning commission staff working knowledge of where all it interfaces within Hillsborough County.

There would need to be further coordination with Hillsborough County staff to refine some of the concepts, both here and in the proposed scope.

But for uh as an example, the urban service area is referenced a little over a hundred times in the comprehensive plan and over 300 times in the land development code.

So that's where we see it the most, but it also is integrated into other planning processes.

And this slide is intended for visual purposes only, but it's just to show how things are interrelated with respect to the urban service area.

And uh your staff is looking at a three-phase approach.

This would require consultant assistance.

This is something that we think we really would need an outside expert on if we were to evaluate it.

We do have the current phase, which are the UEA studies in Little Manatee South and I-4.

Then we have a three-phase approach to look at the urban service area, uh identification of the preferred alternatives, determining a preferred alternative, and then executing the implementation of this.

And I'm gonna go into a little more detail on the next few slides.

So here's where we are today.

Um we have the current study ongoing.

It's anticipated, anticipated to be completed around the end of the year for both.

Um, and this uh is looking at the UEA establishment, how to plan for that, evaluating a number of components of the community, as well as taking significant stakeholder and public input.

Uh there are, we're hoping at the end of this study, there will be new policy approaches that we think will really inform the future phases of this approach.

So we're hoping that there will be some some new innovative ideas and concepts that come out of this that could inform us moving forward.

And then we move into uh it's it's phase one, if you exclude what's happening right now, the analysis of alternatives and identification of the preferred alternative.

I will say that these costs are they're they're simply estimates, they're based on the staff's best available information and our experience with prior study.

Um and they could take place, uh the tasks uh could take place at once, they could be iterative, so they're not necessarily in a particular uh order.

But uh really the first approach would be looking at the current conditions in the county, how does the urban service area interface with respect to land use and regulations, how does uh generally it interface with the county and the other agencies at a high level.

Uh we'd like to spend some time identifying uh the challenges and opportunities for the urban service area, uh, both in conversations uh with the community as well as elected officials and stakeholders, and determine you know what's working, where are their areas of improvement, uh, prepare a SWOT analysis, and then have a consultant assistant identifying other communities policies, some innovations that we might be able to use to compare, uh, and then provide some alternative scenarios to uh to this board to the Board of County Commissioners about what different options might be, including the status quo, and then identify the preferred alternative and a cost estimate for phase two.

And phase two, this is the much more detailed one.

Uh, this one runs a couple of pages in your packet, so I'm not gonna go into too much detail, but essentially, this is where there would really need to be much more thorough evaluation of what changes would need to be addressed if there were a different approach to be taken.

So, this is assuming that you know we try to think ahead about okay, if there is a decision to move forward with a different approach, what all would need to be looked at.

So that's why you see all of uh the different components listed here, everything from from infrastructure planning to the fiscal component, uh, transportation and uh mobility planning, uh the environmental and uh ensuring environmental and rural lands are conserved, and a number of different policy changes, uh, as well as community engagement throughout every step of the process.

And then during this phase, we would also prepare estimates, phasing and timing for phase three, which would really be the changes that need to occur.

It is so far in the future, and we haven't completed phase two that it is very general, but we want to identify that there would need to be a third separate phase that would actually be changing the land development code, changing the mobility fee structure, those things that would need to occur if there were a different alternative other than the urban service area as today proposed.

And so this is an action item.

You all are um invited to determine if you all would like to execute a letter to the Board of County Commissioners requesting for this review, uh support uh for staff resources and funding, and then specific priorities for review.

And this concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

No one signed up in the public comment on this one, so it is over to us, commissioners, for questions, comments, thoughts on all this.

Let's see.

Commissioner Sink.

Thank you.

Um, I guess I kind of have my general question is what problem are we trying to solve with this letter?

Like, what are we trying to achieve?

Is the current tool not working?

Is this something that like I guess for staff?

Like I know we have two studies currently going on that we haven't got results back.

And I know consistently for years we've heard about housing affordability and things like that in in this area.

Um, but I'm nervous that we're living in headlines from a year and a half ago, which now they're saying, you know, developers have overdeveloped.

We're seeing pricing coming down.

And so are the tools failing, or is it I just don't know what problem we're trying to solve by doing this.

Sure.

Um, so this was in response to discussion on this board.

Um, this is a board initiated uh action item.

So um, you know, as staff, we never think it's a bad idea to make sure that we're using all or we're looking at all of our tools, we're making sure that they're current and that uh maybe there's not another tool that could be better.

But um I think I would uh ask uh the commissioners perhaps if there's you know if there's more information that maybe wasn't shared last time because this is something that came from the board.

Commissioner Lincas.

I I just want to say that when this came up in the last time, I actually asked the same question.

Um so I'll I'm just want to for the record.

I think that there are big questions about why we would be looking at this, and I think that it was really helpful to see that over a hundred times in the play in, I think, and then the LDC um 300 times this is mentioned for me.

When I look at any land use decisions, I the first things I look at are really this is up there in the top two or three things I'm gonna look at is in the urban service area because that's so integral to density to whether how the infrastructure provision is.

So I guess I just thought I just has the same question.

I really am not quite sure what what um this responds to.

I think it's interesting that you brought up the idea of affordable housing.

Um, you know, certainly that is that's something that is in the headlines and that you know is important, but whether this is the right tool for that, I think there are a lot of questions about that.

So um I do appreciate the information, but I wouldn't be supporting a letter about um expenditure of further uh public resources to look at this at this time.

I think it's actually really um a helpful tool.

Um I was actually looking at, you know, I'm I'm the sort of planning nerd here in the group on the academic, but I pulled um an article this week, and I think it's 60% of Florida counties have urban growth urban service areas, and the ones that don't are usually rural with a lot with a totally different kind of set of conditions, not having to have balance the urban, the rural suburban and the rural, like we do here.

Um, to me, the larger, more sophisticated counties use this tool, and it's fundamental to the way Florida folks do planning.

So I appreciate appreciate the information, but I don't think I would be supporting a letter.

Thank you, Commissioner Lincas.

All right.

Commissioner Sink, go ahead, please.

I guess kind of a follow-up with it, too.

So we're going through water restrictions, we're going through transportation issues, we're going through lack of school, and it seems to me that this kind of works as a tool for everyone to get on the same page to understand where we need to push resources.

So I guess my other question would be to the school board, which is like without this tool, how do we plan for future schools?

Or like how does that work?

Well, as you know, I am representing uh Michelle, so I'm I don't want to I don't want to tell you more than what she would say, but um basically in and I share this before.

Whenever whenever more development comes, of course, we need to be looking ahead to uh buy land to build schools, you know, provide the funding for building the schools.

But basically, these new people that are coming in will be funding that.

So that's you know, that's pretty much how we address that.

Um, but as you know, also it in no way can we say no no more development can come in.

We just have to figure out how to provide the school in the capacity.

So that's our take.

All right.

Any other thoughts from the commissioners before I go on my diatribe?

I guess I'll speak because input from the board, Miss Dickens so politely hinted at is probably directed at me since this started off by me, and I feature heavily in this uh report.

Um this report was kind of disappointing to me.

I think it was a big swing and a miss by staff.

Um let me read you a quote here from the summary on the first page of the report.

In December 2025, the planning commission board discussed the board chair's idea to consider whether the county should remove the USA, modify the USA, or use an alternative approach with a new tool.

At that meeting in December, I specifically said I didn't know what the outcome would be.

I didn't know if Commissioner Lauck was right.

I didn't know if we were right, I didn't know if what we had now was right.

Said maybe Commissioner Lauk is wrong, and he just needs to be quiet, and we need to keep everything how it is.

I suppose go back and watch the video.

It's on YouTube.

I specifically said that.

What I was asking for was for staff to take a look at and evaluate the urban service area boundary as a tool.

Somehow we've gone past that, and now we sit here talking about whether to remove it or whether to find alternatives when we haven't even evaluated it yet.

So I think staff has gone too far on this one.

I think we should focus in, and I'd like to have staff go back and take a look at this.

Um item number two in the pack, evaluation of effectiveness of the existing urban service area policy framework in achieving what we want it to achieve.

Commissioner Sink is exactly right.

So is Commissioner Lincoln's partially, I'll partially agree with you, and I'll be the lay person on this board.

I'm fine being that the lay citizen.

Um my question is whether what we're trying to achieve is being achieved.

Commissioner Sink brings up the issue of affordability.

Commissioner Lau, Commissioner, I'm sorry, Lincoln's always brings up the idea that this tool is supposed to protect rural areas.

Is it doing that?

How are we measuring that?

What numbers and tools are we substantively using to try and evaluate this thing so that we're not just blindly hitting numbers and moving forward without understanding what we're doing?

I think there's a big miss here, and the work is good.

I'm not upset with it.

Like you said, if we do at some future point get to a point where we're looking at alternatives or looking at removing it completely, then all these numbers and all these different departments and all the 300 things that it's in, they're definitely going to be touched.

But what I'm trying to focus on here, and the direction that I tried to set you off in in December was to look at what we're using and how we're using it.

And you you do that in section two here, and I want to look at two A adopted future land use goal one and related objectives, concentrating growth in the USA and UEA to ensure growth is supported by existing planned or public facilities.

There are five different metrics we use here.

Ability to accommodate current and future population.

That's the 80-20 number that you hear about so often, right?

Do we know where that 80 number comes from?

Do we have it's from building permit data?

No, no, I mean where the original 80-20 split came from, where where is that?

How does that adopted in the comprehensive plan?

I I know that it's adopted in the plan, but like why why eighty, why not 75?

Why not 85?

Why not 25?

Why not 30?

What where did the 80-20 come from?

When when we hit 80, what does that give us?

Does that give us better, you know, utilities, better cost at utilities?

What what is that 80 buying us?

I understand, I understand that every year we hit our 80.

We're hitting that number.

Kudos.

Pat on the back, kudos, we're all doing great, we're hitting that 80 every time.

But what are we getting from hitting that 80?

And how does changing that substantively change infrastructure, housing affordability, protection of rural and agricultural lands?

Can anybody tell me that in here?

Can anybody, and it doesn't have to be here.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

Maybe we need development services to talk to us.

Maybe we need some people from the county offices who have that information to talk to us.

Somebody has to be able to explain this, because for 30 years we're hitting a number, and to Commissioner Sink's point, we have problems with housing affordability.

We have problems with with water infrastructure today.

So I'm trying to understand how our evaluation of this tool, how the results that we get from using this tool are landing on the backs of the people who live in Hillsborough County.

And again, I don't know what the answer is.

But I want staff to take a look at that, right?

And then maybe again, you'll find staff will find out that the urban service boundary is the perfect tool.

That all this is moot, and we don't have to change a single thing.

But in this meeting here and in this one, I'm looking at before me, it's even in the name of the thing, which I would like to have changed.

Evaluation of urban service area and alternatives.

How do we get to alternatives yet?

We still have to evaluate the urban service area boundary as a tool.

And I think there was a big miss here when it comes to that.

So I'd like to see this, you know.

Again, the stuff that we have after is germane, but I think right now where we are, staff needs to focus in on evaluating that tool.

And again, these bullet points here.

I started off with the 80%.

The next one is future land use categories and existing land use densities and intensities that match adopted targets.

So that's again back to the 80%.

So it's sort of a we have these evaluative points, four or five of them, but they're circular.

They like run in a circle, like okay, hit 80%.

Do the land use density support the 80%?

I mean, these it's like an overlap of doing the same thing again and again.

And the last two are good.

Coordination of timing of new development with the provisions of infrastructure and services.

That's great.

We always want to be doing that.

That's kind of a given point.

Like that's not an evaluation of the tool.

That's something we want to have done.

The last one is providing choice of urban and suburban and rural living options.

Is that how we evaluate whether the tool is working?

So could I if I could I can yeah, I can respond.

So first, um certainly uh, you know, uh perhaps the the language within the adopted comprehensive plan could be a little bit clearer, but we felt, you know, if we were to start from scratch evaluating the urban service area, we wanted to go with what's well, what does it say in our adopted comprehensive plan?

So that's why those specific metrics were chosen because that's what the comprehensive plan says today.

So they're probably they certainly could be more better defined, more criteria, but we wanted we didn't want to go, well, we think we should evaluate it based on X when that's not what the comprehensive plan says.

So that's why those are more general.

The um the land use densities and intensities, uh I can clarify that that was okay.

Are we developing to the maximum density or intensity?

Or is there still density or intensity that's available within the future land use categories?

So that was actually discrete, not from not related to the first bullet point.

Um and then I I do want to say that staff did go back, I had several staff go back and watch the video and make sure that I was interpreting our team was interpreting things correctly.

So you know, it sounds like perhaps uh the perhaps there was something that you know we can always go back and and and change things, but I I do want to clarify that we I had several people go back and watch the video to make sure that we were we were addressing your direction.

Um and I think it would be helpful to get some more clarity from from the board in its entirety about okay, what what all should go into this first phase if we are going to go back and only focus on the first phase?

Um I think that would be very helpful for us.

All right, Commissioner Stephen.

So I think my question when Commissioner Locke brings this up, you know, semi-often, is is you know, why does it exist?

So maybe Commissioner Lincoln can speak to us about that.

You said you reference it often and you look to it often, and 60% of the jurisdictions in Florida have it really why?

Because if we if people want to live out there and they want connections out there and they want infrastructure out there, why would we as a municipality fundamentally try to limit where that goes?

Or why wouldn't that be just the decision of you know us, you know, as a planning commission, but also um you know, residents and developers out in those areas trying to develop to what people are looking for.

I try not to be too boring and be like a planning historian here, but yeah, I think it was adopted in 1993.

Um so it was very much part and parcel of sort of the the um evolving Florida Growth Management Act and local reactions to that, which um required local governments to play in for the separation of urban and rural areas, sorry, urban and rural areas.

So the early framework dates back to 1985, and over time you see this evolution of the tool.

Um also kind of in the 90s, um, that's when the emergence of the smart growth happened, which was very much about um using public resources more responsibly, efficient infrastructure provision, and that's the the 90s um linkage to infrastructure provision is there.

Um so that that's the origins and why you know why this was adopted throughout the state.

Um and I would say like what the staff report um that we just heard talks about is that now it's become kind of fundamental to a lot of decision making.

Um also I would just emphasize that this is policy that our elected officials have you know are supporting because it's in the comprehensive plan.

It's not something that you know we as the planning commission or developers are are necessarily deciding.

It's this is the policy that our elected officials have framed in the comprehensive plan.

I don't know if that was helpful.

And I mean on that a little bit, just no, go ahead.

Just no, go ahead.

Yeah, no, I I appreciate that real quick.

I just don't want to lose it.

Um I appreciate that.

I I would say that it seems like we're we have some conflict as far as policy is concerned with elected officials because it seems like we don't want more development in the urban core, but we also don't want more development in the potentially rural areas.

So we're kind of at an impasse and you know, in sort of a sticky situation.

And so my inclination would be you know, allow the people to decide sort of where development ends up going, or developers obviously develop where people want to be.

So um we're kind of it seems, at least in our community that we're a little bit being pigeonholed.

We don't want it here, but we also don't want it here, so then you automatically, you know, think to okay, well, where can it possibly go?

Sorry.

No, that I was just well, and I think we said it and you all in particular set it a very interesting vantage point because you see applications from all four local governments.

Um each of those decision-making bodies don't see that.

So they're not necessarily seeing the what you are about the the push and pull between the city and the unincorporated area.

Um I think if you ask some of the unincorporated county commissioners, they'd say it'd be great to have more development in the city, and maybe vice versa.

So that's that's part of the dynamics that are um unique here.

Um but I think fundamentally the urban service area's goal was to ensure that the county could plan for the growth that was coming.

It is much more expensive for the county to serve with water and sewer, just as one example, one unit per acre development or one unit per five-acre development, than it is to serve uh four, six, nine units per acre.

And so that was what the tool was trying to link was there are places where the community wants to concentrate growth and have more of that.

Uh and back when it started, I mean, there at the time the state told us the urban service area was too big and we had to contract it.

Um if you look at that map that Melissa uh had, the historical map, the reason some of those areas are labeled expansion areas is because the state said, you've got too much.

We we recognized and we use the 80% metric as a way to kind of keep track of are we um is there still land to uh accommodate that future growth?

So when we look ahead at our projections and we see that we can't keep accommodating 80% in our future growth, we said we need to plan to expand.

And that is not just a static, like every year are we meeting it tool, but it is a forward-looking goal.

So we know that between now and the lifespan of the comprehensive plan, we're not going to hit that goal.

We gotta do something different.

That's why we're we're studying the the larger areas for expansion.

Um sorry.

And and if I if if it's okay, I could add a little bit on to that, um, just because our team does work a lot with the capital facilities planning.

Um, you know, it's it's um it's much in addition to the density, it's much more difficult to okay.

If how many roads will there be, like the corridor preservation plan is tied to that, like where how are they going to be maintained, like the costs of not only serving the uh the development initially, but also the cost of the maintenance.

I hear what you're saying, and I can appreciate that absolutely, but my thought goes to, you know, I I wonder about the effectiveness of it as well, because could we not have all the traffic we're seeing if we had allowed you know some more of this urban sprawl to happen naturally as opposed to trying to confine it to particular locations.

You know, these are just things that I think maybe should be considered if there's a way to assess them, I don't know.

Um I'm sure there are other municipalities who have gone about things like this, and so I think that that's what Commissioner Joseph was maybe trying to get across.

That's exactly my point.

The confusion on both sides, both sides have valid points, and that's the precisely my point.

Is that you have us bickering with each other?

One side doesn't want it, one side wants it, and we have no metric to understand again, besides this 80% thing that no one can speak to me about.

Like, and there's just no everything else you guys do are it's great.

You guys do it's great.

There's when yes comes in here later and we're doing redistricting and you guys ask about percentages changes and why are we doing it, there's there's detailed information on everything we do.

And then this urban service boundary pops up, and it's like, okay, well, give us some quantitative reasoning behind it.

And it's like, oh, well, that's just the way they did it since 1993, and you know, we're just gonna keep it like that because that's how we're doing it.

And I'm like, well, just give me some substance here to be able to make decisions by, and nobody seems to want to do that.

I either have to listen to a narrative from 1993 or just stick my head in the sand and keep doing what we've been doing.

And I'm just asking for some clarity.

Just let's take a hard look at it.

Again, I don't know what the outcome is gonna be.

I don't know that the urban service boundary is gonna be removed.

Again, staff may look at this thing and say, oh, we've been doing it great for 30 years.

We're leading the nation.

And then everybody else in the nation can do what Hillsborough County does.

I I don't know what the outcome is, but nobody's willing to even look at it right now.

Because everybody's afraid that the urban service boundary is gonna get removed and or this person wants the urban service boundary removed.

Like, let's get some substantive numbers, some understanding of how we're doing this and how it's working, is really all I'm saying.

And and I would just add that as Ms.

Dickens said, staff is very open to evaluating it.

Um we're not saying that should not occur.

Um, and I think the difference is that staff felt that as part of those evaluations, it's important to understand what the alternative choices are.

Um, and so that's where the word alternatives came in.

Not that we're predetermining that an alternative needs to be chosen, but that we need to understand to know whether or not the urban service area is doing what it's supposed to and whether or not it should be continue in its current state or tweaked in some way.

Is there an innovation we can include, or should we move to something different?

We have to know what those other things are, what other communities are using, what some of those alternatives might be, so then we can decide the path forward.

And that's fine.

I'm not mystickens, I'm not trying to beat up on you all.

Okay, I know I'm very tough in my the this report is fine.

We I had a briefing, we have briefings before this, and I skimmed through it and I was okay with it.

And then when I started looking at the details of it, I was like, well, they kind of missed what I was talking about here.

You know what I mean?

So don't I'm not throwing staff under the bus.

And let me add to that too.

If this goes forward, I don't think this agency's staff is who needs to do it.

I think we need to bring outside resources to this question because you all are focused about dealing with the current comprehensive plan and making sure things jive with the current concept.

You guys live by it.

It's your everyday.

You're way too close to it to be able to take a step back and say, okay, well, this isn't working because of this.

And that's not a knock at staff.

You do a great job at what you're supposed to be doing, and that's what you're supposed to be doing.

So I can see after reading this report, and that's something else I wanted to bring up, that however this goes forward, I think this has to be an outside, you know, consultant who looks at this and brings outside ideas into it because you all are very close to this thing, and even the way this thing is written, I can tell, you know, you're you're pulling stuff from the existing comp plan, and I'm like, well, that's that's the same stuff we've been doing, and that's good.

That's your focus, but you know, I think we need might need some new eyes on this one.

So yeah, if I could just um I have a clarification question that I'd like to get input on.

But first, um we this is uh outlined so that it is a private consultant.

We agree.

We don't think that we should be the people who look at it.

We are too close to it, absolutely.

Um but secondly, I think it is very difficult for staff to determine, okay, how are we measuring it if we're not measuring it against what our comprehensive plan is trying to do?

Because otherwise there may be bias.

Maybe some people are very interested in affordable housing, and other people are saying, no, I want my large lot, you know, uh residential subdivision, and I want to have my neighborhood the way it is now.

So it's very difficult for staff to come up with quantitative metrics that are not all like if you look at um if you look at A and B, those are both related to the comprehensive plan because that's really I mean, that's our charge.

And so it's it's very difficult for us to independently identify metrics.

We can certainly look at some of the best practices, what you know, what do the professional organizations say?

Is there any insight, any academic insight?

Um, but I would need probably some specific direction from this board about what metrics you would want that are not in the comprehensive plane, because otherwise it's gonna be, you know, our staff potentially coming up with them for the consultant.

Well, then I think that would be helpful.

Well, then maybe step one for staff should be to find an outside consultant to help you sort through some metrics.

There has to be someone with outside eyes who can present you a suite of metrics and say, well, these are different ways we can substantively measure the effectiveness of your tool.

And then staff can look at those options and say, well, yes, this this looks like a good metric, this makes sense.

Like you said, it's going to come from all directions.

I realize the complexity of this thing.

I I said that back in December.

It's going to involve transportation, it's going to involve rural agricultural people, it's going to involve roadway development, a lot of different people.

So I understand that, you know, staff and on top of everything else you're doing in just the regular work, that's a lot.

So maybe step one has to be, okay, find an outside source that can bring us a suite of of you know metrics and measurements that can substantially substantively measure our tool, and then we can go forward with those.

You know, and I mean staff doesn't always have to jump in the middle of it.

I I think that's that's very good feedback.

And I think, you know, this this we recognize that this was and I think said it a couple of times in the agenda item that this was a a first cut at this, and that we would need input from in particular a number of other county departments and agencies, that step is listed in the um in that section too.

Um perhaps that's something that we need to do a bit more of before procuring a consultant and then uh asking the consultant to help us shape some of that.

I would just would want to make sure that as part of that we're having good feedback loops to you all into the Board of County Commissioners to make sure that there's consensus on those metrics on things like that before we get too far down the line.

Um so that we can we can certainly flesh that out a bit and um in in bringing something back to you all.

So uh just uh for clarification, um sorry, Commissioner Lincoln, please.

I guess um I j I kind of feel like I'm still in the same place when this conversation began where I'm not quite sure sure what the purpose of this activity is.

To me, looking at the urban service area would be like looking at zoning, or why do we have comprehensive planning?

Where it's a very broad brush tool.

Um so unless we can articulate why we have questions about it.

I'm not sure that using public resources in terms of staff time or enlisting a consultant to kind of come up with those questions about why these the questions for this is an activity that it makes sense to me.

So I I I would think that it would be on upon us if we were to write a letter to do due diligence to kind of at least frame why this is a point of conversation.

It's a good point.

All right.

I did have some questions that kind of gives you.

Oh, you want to go, Commissioner Google?

Go ahead, please.

Thank you.

Yes, I you know, I was um when when I first encountered the urban service area, I was uh I was I'm still a newbie here.

But um and I didn't have the confidence to really talk about it at the beginning, but I was trying to understand it, and I thought obviously planning, you want to know where uh your preserved land is, you want to know where your natural areas stay, and you want to know where the core urban uh concentration is.

You want to know where schools go, you want to know where your septic goes.

That's that's basic.

So I thought, well, the urban service area, it seemed to me the way I understood it was that it was a backdoor way to preserve this and allow development here.

And and I thought, so you could also do a um a preserve um preserve areas.

You could also take the opposite coin, the other side of the coin, these are preserve areas and you can develop everything else.

I thought this is this is cool.

But then what I noticed in in the meetings again and again, there was a pattern where the urban service area didn't seem to me to be working the way it was supposed to.

It was people were coming in and asking for changes to the USA to expand it.

Right.

And they wanted to build around the urban surveys area rather than build inside it.

The goal was to get development inside there, not um out of the periphery and expand it.

And so I thought maybe it's not working.

And that so it was a simple question from a newbie that do we have the data to say whether these USAs are working in terms of the goal of creating a distinction between what we destroy or what we dig up, I shouldn't say destroy what we dig up and what we keep versus what we're uh renovating or re or replacing inside the urban core.

If it's true that we're not um really redeveloping our urban cores, then we're obviously gonna put a lot more population pressure on the natural areas over time.

There's there's no no way around that.

And so I thought you you have to find a way to preserve.

Would it would a preservation uh approach be better than an urban service area?

Well, the way it seemed to me it was being used again and again and again, nobody was really coming to us with uh proposals to redevelop the in the inner core.

They were they were trying to get around the outside edge.

So they had the benefits of the city and the the backyard that looked into the into the nature areas at the same time.

That so my concern wasn't like getting rid of it, it was just to say, you know, what percentage of our of our development um initiatives are going in the direction we wanted them to, or is this not working the way we hoped it would?

That's that's really my concern as a beginner.

And I didn't voice anything until Commissioner Lauk and and uh Chair Joseph brought it up.

And I said, well, they have a lot more experience than I do, so there must be something to this.

That's that's what I I voiced my first concern about it.

All right.

That you know, I wanted to add on to that both Commissioner Lincoln's challenge to come up with points and Commissioner Kugler's points that we keep seeing this biting off of the edge.

I did come up with some points because when I read through the letter, I didn't like the fact that you know we didn't have justification for this.

It was just kind of a blank letter like we want to do this.

So I had a couple questions here.

I wanted to know, Ms.

Ornita and staff, have we seen more or less privately initiated requests for expansions of the urban service boundary since 1993?

Have those increased or decreased they've certainly increased since 1993.

Next question, okay.

Has the cost of public services increased or decreased since 1993?

I would have to assume yes.

Okay.

Number two, is there more, less or the same rural and agricultural land in Hillsborough County since 1993?

I would say less.

Okay.

Is there more or less housing affordability in Hillsborough County since 1993?

All right.

Next question.

Are the impacts to Commissioner Lauk's point since he isn't here, which is what he brought up, have we seen evidence of the impacts of moving the urban service boundary be unequal from large property owners to small property owners?

Have we had experience with that in the past?

Say if a small property owner wanted to subdivide their lot and was forced to get water.

Have we ever seen any sort of problem where the impacts from moving that boundary have been not quite so equal?

I'm not sure.

I mean, I don't understand that I'm not understanding.

Okay, we'll throw that.

We'll we'll we'll throw that.

Yeah, it's a fairness issue, but we'll throw that one.

I got four.

So that's four bullet points right here.

And these before bullet points correlate exactly with the three points behind the urban service boundary.

Um the comprehensive plan in 1993 introduced urban service area as a tool to focus development in areas with planned infrastructure, right?

Limit public service costs, which it hasn't, and preserve rural and agricultural lands.

So if I could My point just is again, I'm not looking at Bicker here.

She asked and said we should have some points to put in the letter.

So I would like to, and I have some revisions I'm gonna give you to that letter, and I'm gonna include some of these points here as justifications for why we want to take a look at the efficacy of the tool.

Again, I don't know what the outcome of that look is gonna be.

I don't know that the urban service boundary is gonna be removed.

I don't know that.

None of us here knows that, right?

But we need to look at the tool and understand if it's working the way we think it's working.

Because when these questions get answered, to me it looks like it's not.

So I would just say that it would be a comparison of if we had the urban service area or we didn't, and did the costs go up?

If we had the urban service area or we didn't, and was there more agriculture?

Like I think you you make good points.

Yes, these things are happening, but would they be happening at a greater degree if we didn't?

I think to me that's maybe the evaluation as opposed to uh how it was outlined.

Which is an efficacy measure of you're measuring the effectiveness of the tool, like you said.

That's that's what I'm asking about here.

So Commissioner Lincoln.

I I just think those are kind of straw main questions.

Like the cost of services have gone up everywhere in the world at this point.

Um so I I I just don't I feel like we're not being specific to whatever issue is being addressed locally that that requires um you know public investment.

And I just want to I I kind of shocked at this conversation.

I'll be honest.

The idea that because people want to deviate from the rules and develop um to Commissioner Cougler's point, where it's limited to be a motivation for us to change the limitations that protect land is no one says again, no one no one is saying we're changing those.

You're ahead of yourself.

Incorrectly, but if I could just continue, I don't think that in the urban area and this in the suburban area in the rural area, we're gonna see pressure to redevelop or develop land.

And as planning commissioners, we are here and I'll have under oath to support what the comprehensive plan says.

And certainly we can discuss, you know, that fact that maybe some rules are not are working or not working, and I I'll just you say we have to say why.

But the idea that it's not working because people want to develop outside of it is is a is it is a strange justification for looking at this to me.

You have the the cart before the horse.

Yeah, we're not no one here but you thinks that we're gonna we're gonna take away the urban service boundary or the urban service boundary is gonna change substantively.

What we're talking about is examining what we're using to see how it's functioning, and you throw that on at the end as just oh yeah, and maybe we could look at the C CI function.

That's no, that's the core issue.

Before we even get to whether or not it exists, whether or not it changes, again, I keep saying this.

I don't know whether it's gonna change.

Staff could go through all this and we can find out it needs to stay exactly how it is now, to your point, okay?

But no one is willing to take that look.

For 30 years, we've had our head in the sands doing the same thing, and we have all these issues that you all started off by talking about.

I know there's straw man issues, but Commissioner Sink brought them up too.

So I mean, come on, these issues are real in our community.

And again, the issue isn't getting rid of it whole cloth or keeping it whole cloth, it's for us to actually understand how it's functioning.

I still don't have some whether issues.

That's that's okay.

That's fine.

Agree to disagree.

Commissioner Sink.

But with the amount of expansion requests, I mean, of course, it's gonna be a uh a product of it.

Land outside the the service area is gonna be less expensive than it's gonna be inside of it because they need to have those resources as a developer.

I want to go out there and get that cheaper and then get it pulled in because I I just padded my profit margin, right?

That doesn't mean I'm gonna offer cheaper houses, just mean that I'm gonna make more money as a developer.

So some of the the things we're talking about aren't necessarily legitimate because we're gonna go grab that land, ask for to get pulled in, and I'm not gonna pass that savings on to the consumer.

I'm just gonna pad my profit margin.

And that's how it's worked in in the companies I've worked for for years.

Commissioner Croman.

So I appreciate the discussion.

I think it's um I was gonna stay out of it, but I figured I'd say my point.

Uh I think for a very long time.

I I do think the urban service area itself is a tool.

Do I think that it is functioning in a way that has um been adaptable to the growth that we've had?

Do I think it's solving our infrastructure problems?

Do I think it's helping?

I really don't.

I think it's becoming a barrier more than it is a tool.

And when one stuff becomes a barrier, um affordability goes way down.

So when it becomes more um to develop, um, the cost of things go up.

Now, with that said, I've sat on this uh commission for two years now, and we've approved way more restrictive rules for developing inside of the urban service area that has made it more difficult to build inside of the urban service area than we have expanding the urban service area.

So if the challenge is we want to move people into the urban service area, then why don't we make it easier to build in there?

But we continue to pass rules and regs in every city in every county uh that makes it harder to build within that service or service area.

So we can't speak out of both sides of our mouth and say we're never gonna expand out there when we make it very difficult to actually do the work inside of the service area.

So that's my thought.

I do think it needs to be looked at.

I do think as a group, we need to be having these discussions because we are we are the uh the the individual folks that have been tapped to have these discussions.

So I think it's a a very worthy debate.

And if it you know, if it takes somebody else outside of this group looking at it, uh I'd be in favor of it because what we're doing now isn't working.

So why would we continue, like you said, to put our head in the sand and and continue the same process?

So if you're not gonna fix it inside the service area, then that's why you're seeing the expansion on the outside, and you continue and you're gonna continue to see those requests.

So that's my thought.

Commissioner Cardenis.

Yeah, uh, you know, this is uh I don't uh for some reason we're getting personal and emotional about it, but really what we're doing is we've got a guide that we're following, and we're just saying, do we understand it?

Do we understand the metrics behind it?

That's that's pretty simple.

It's really not that complicated.

And that those metrics are those metrics helping our community or not helping our community.

Are they holding our community back or are they are they doing what and you know I think that that is the basis of the understanding of it that we're getting caught up in the way I feel about it versus the way somebody else feels about it, and that's not really what we're here to do.

It doesn't really matter what you think or what you think or what I think.

It's just it's a guide that we have.

Do we understand the guide?

Because you know, it you know, nowadays it's it's very easy to follow something.

But are you questioning what you're following and are you questioning how that is creating a map and the metrics that are used for that?

That's pretty that's pretty straightforward.

And and our our job is to serve our community and make sure that we're doing the best that we can do that.

And this is this is the guide for our community.

This is this is if you're in the urban service boundary, this is a guide.

So it should sh this shouldn't be such an argument.

It should just be like, uh-huh.

That makes sense that we should understand what we're doing and why we're doing it, why it does what it does.

Commissioner Kugler.

Thank you.

Yes, it I I echoing uh Commissioner Cardana's thought, it's it's a pretty simple for me, it's a pretty simple question.

It's a scientific question.

Are they working in terms of the goals we wanted to achieve and achieving them?

Or is it a faith-based um uh item?

Is it uh is it something that we simply have faith in without really um uh being skeptical about how it's working?

And if it is working as as uh Commissioner Conan mentioned, that it's and and Commissioner Sink also echoed this idea that it's encouraging development around the urban service area, expanding out into what is more natural lands, agricultural lands, that is a problem.

And I and I would say we should have a robust response in terms of preserve land.

Um at the at the uh the joint uh plant city um um our county commission meeting uh recently, about a week ago or so, um the mayor uh of of uh Plant City did say that they have a uh quite a robust um effort to preserve land uh between Tampa and Plant City to keep that uh green space open.

So that's a good sign.

Commissioner Bowden.

Yeah, uh I really like this discussion because uh, you know, it gives gave me some thought and and and what I've seen in within the uh the urban core and then what's happening outside, you know, we're talking about infrastructure, basically that's pretty much the driving thing, the in the the infrastructure.

And the question becomes are we maximizing the core for what we can do, and are we uh we doing that are we actually maximizing that as far as infrastructure?

Because I can think of communities that are in the core that still have infrastructure issues.

So when we start talking about uh the cost outside of the urban core, uh we use use a lot of utilizing that as a tool to restrict development, is it really doing that as far as infrastructure?

So when there are um like you're saying you go outside the urban core, you can get the land cheaper and then bring it into the urban core, and then um the cost is to the developer uh less, but the overall thing is that the um the people that are still been in the urban core for 10, 15, 20 years still do not have the infrastructure.

So I think the thing is to look at the tool and say how can we maximize what we have?

It sort of goes back to the uh uh is it the uh the the water hazard thing, you know, there's land within it that we can maximize the utilization there versus uh adding on additional uh properties or space uh uh properties within that area.

So I I'm all for maximizing what you presently have and being able to say that you know, we've we've uh reached whatever percentage, you know, 90, 95 percent before we look at, you know, expanding, or you know, if we we can't do that, then maybe we might look at another tool how we can actually um make things happen for people that are looking for affordable housing, just housing as a whole.

Commissioner Lincoln.

I'm gonna try to make this my last comment because I don't want to belabor this, but I think this discussion has been really interesting, and I I I I appreciate Commissioner Cardinals' point.

There's nothing personal here.

Um I it sounds like a lot of the conversation is reverting to my first point that I was made about.

I just wanted to know what we're looking at and that the idea that we're also gonna look at it efficiency inside the urban service area as part of this conversation, if that's where this conversation is going.

Um I think that's well taken and very interesting.

It's very different from the tone of the kinds of conversation that that was happening around this issue in prior meetings, but absolutely agree you that you know, looking at at this, um, but I I still kind of agree we need to be so be a little clear about what the issues we're concerned about are.

So is it infrastructure provision efficiency?

Um I think that would be helpful for to give staff so that um that we can feel more comfortable with whatever they're able to come back to us with.

Commissioner Sink.

Oh, turn your mic on.

Sorry.

So I guess my question is is this more a request for information than it is a request for propos like reports, like as a board, should we be asking to create questions like your 80-20 rule, like very valid.

I would love to know the answer, but that's more of a a request for information than it is to like to to do a whole study, right?

So, like maybe is our first choice or first opportunity to go just do information searching to understand it ourselves before we actually give staff the questions that we're gonna ask them to seek or to find a consultant to do it.

You're exactly right, and that's why I said it was kind of a miss at this level when I went through this.

I thought we were a little bit ahead of ourselves again to Commissioner Lincoln's point.

I have I have those same same and I adore Commissioner Lincoln.

There's nothing I know we go back and forth in debate.

That's that's our relationship, but I have the utmost respect for Commissioner Lincoln, she knows that.

I wouldn't even be on this board if it wasn't for Commissioner Lincas.

Okay, so she you can blame her that I'm here.

Okay.

The utmost respect for her, and I adore her, okay.

But uh to her point, I think you know, and I'm exactly the same.

I don't know what the outcome is, so for us to just quickly jump to Lila, let's just get rid of the urban.

So that doesn't make sense to me either.

That's definitely not the situation.

And I think it's uh what Commissioner Sink said is what I was trying to get across that we need to understand this thing, and to Commissioner Lincoln's point, I would expect that we're gonna find that.

We're gonna find that we need to be more efficient with what we're doing in.

I've had private conversations with Ms.

Zornita, where if you ask me what my opinion is, what is what should come out at the end of this, it's gonna be a layered approach over time.

Where we're not just waiting 30 years, we're gonna have tranches set up in years in areas where we can understand how we want things to move.

That would also give the development community some understanding of how things are supposed to move and some stability.

Okay, but I wanted staff to come back and say that because they get paid to do this, and I shouldn't have to come up with all these ideas sitting up here.

But instead, this is what came back, and again, I'm not gonna dump it all on staff.

You all do an excellent job of the everyday work you're supposed to be doing.

This is well beyond your everyday having to deal with applications and things, and then this came up out of left field, and you've reacted and responded to it well, and like Mrs.

Ornita brought up, this is a first bite at the apple, so this this isn't falling on the sword here about anything.

You know, there's still time, you know.

We're we're kind of still discussing this inside ourselves as a board and agency, so I have no problem, you know, pushing this out and letting you take another bite at it and come back again and we have more discussion on this, you know.

Commissioner Seaban.

So I understand the request for information, but some of this is is stuff that we don't know that we need yet, I don't think, because you know, from my understanding, you're not allowed to connect to mu municipal water and sewer unless you're in the urban service area.

Is that something that we really want?

Is that having negative effects that we can't necessarily articulate?

You know, there just needs to be more thought that goes into these things.

Um I don't know that that you know, we can sit here today and come up with a list of questions that are appropriate that are gonna trigger the right responses and right thought processes here.

You guys are closer to it, so maybe those kinds of questions are something that you all could come up with potentially and say, you know, is this having maybe we talk to the county um is this having negative effects consequences that we're not looking at, or you know, could this be better handled?

I don't know that we can come up with an exhaustive list sitting here of things that need to be considered or ways in which we should be looking at this better.

And I guess my question for the group at this point would be I I think we've gotten a lot of great feedback through this, but um I think from our staff perspective, given the workload that the staff has today.

The reason we went with an approach of moving towards a consultant is because one, we're very close to it.

We think they would be able to look at it with fresh eyes and bring an objective outside perspective to it, probably having worked in a lot of other communities besides Hillsborough County.

Um, but two if if we're asked to do this, it is it will bump other projects that the are in line to be worked on if we're doing it all in-house for staff.

So, you know, I I've tried to kind of compartmentalize the work into what we could bring back in a reasonable amount of time.

Um happy to take another swing at the at the scope, but I think um it would we would all be better served by us contracting with an outside person, even to I mean, we'll pull all the boxes.

I mean, Diego already got them from the warehouse, you know, we we did a good bit of research, but um I guess it's a uh it's a question of how much additional staff time we should put into that versus having somebody come in and do it kind of with with fresh eyes, look at it um with a different perspective.

You know, we we did a good bit of research, but um I guess it's a uh it's a question of how much additional staff time we should put into that versus having somebody come in and do it kind of with with fresh eyes, look at it um with a different perspective.

So that that would be my recommendation given what is on staff's plates right now.

Yeah, you know where I fall on that.

I definitely like outside eyes because again, I think staff is way too close to this, and staff's instinct is going to be to go to what exists in the comprehensive plan.

That's what they do every day.

They're excellent at it.

There's no better in the business than our agency staff, but because of that, it's kind of a bias on their part, right?

When it comes to getting outside the box, right?

Inside the box, they're excellent, untouchable, but when it comes to stepping back and getting outside of it, they might not be as nimble or as quick to be able to do that.

So and I don't know how extensive, you know, it has to be.

Again, it's more kind of information finding, so I don't, you know, know if it has to be this whole big phase thing, but you know, I I would I would definitely think you're gonna need some, especially after reading through this.

You know, this gives me a little bit of pause because this is very close to what exists now.

This is I read through this and I'm almost like, well, this is almost circular, you know, and I mean we need to break that circle and go outside of that and understand things a little more broadly.

So that's you know where I fall on it.

Commissioner Kugler.

Uh thank you.

Uh could it be as simple as just a uh straightforward scap analysis?

We know uh by definition what the what the USA is supposed to do and what is it doing?

And simply that gap is what we have to deal with.

That that simple difference from what it's supposed to do to what it's doing is the simple analysis that'll lead us toward maybe um asking the right questions.

Commissioner Carnegie Carnanis.

Uh I guess my my question of thought is is it or I feel like we're almost searching for more of an objective?

You know, is this your urban service boundary serving the citizens of this community as we grow to the best to its ability?

Something along those lines?

It'd be because it seems to me like we're we're we're trying to reach an objective, and if we're aiming for an objective, what presents itself is going to be guided based on that.

But if we try to aim too small, we're just gonna miss it.

Yeah.

Good point.

I'm gonna go to Commissioner Sink first.

Actually, Rich just Rich has brought up a really good point.

Um is any of the questions that we're searching for part of our current studies we have going on right now for the Little Manatee or the I-4 expansion?

Like, do these topics get tackled in that analysis too?

Or like can we look at that study and find any nuggets of information that we don't without incurring a whole new contract or something, I guess.

Sure.

I mean, I would not I don't think there is any room in that contract to ask them to completely tackle all the the kind of the big picture question that has been asked here.

But I do think that the results of that will be informative because they're going to look at and have we've given them a free reign, like look at whether or not it is just move the urban service area line, or do we come up with a whole new policy structure for this area that works better that allows for you know um a different approach to I'll pick on mobility fees and and planning for transportation.

Um is that a do they come up and propose a different approach and then that could inform kind of what go what we do in this uh larger question because they may come up with some of the alternatives.

Yeah, um and remind do we know when those are gonna come back or when we're gonna have first look at it, even help us guide even giving staff questions.

Sure.

So we just had the the first outreach on the Little Manatee South area.

We're anticipating the outreach in I-4 in uh April, based on the fact that we're trying to coordinate that with the update of the plant city comprehensive plan and not confuse the public about these two efforts that are going on.

Um the results of that will shape some of the scenarios that they look at.

The scenarios will have with them different policy approaches.

Um so you might be able to see some of those first draft ideas like mid to late summer.

Um, and then the the entire study is supposed to conclude by the end of the year.

I'm going to jump in here really quick and push back a little bit on what you said, because that those two studies were a little bit of the impetus for what started this.

Those two studies, and I want to clarify, correct me if I'm wrong, Miss Ornita, please feel free to jump in.

Those two studies were directed by the Board of County Commissioners to bring back an action to expand the urban service boundary.

Is that correct or incorrect?

Well, to come up with urban expansion areas.

Right.

So it may it may move the line or it may come up with a different approach for that.

The difference between what we're saying here and what's going on, and she's right, we can cherry pick information from those studies as they go along.

The end game of those studies is to expand the urban service area, period.

Okay.

Period.

There's going to be an expansion of the urban service area, period.

What we're talking about here is understanding whether the tool is doing what we think it should be doing.

That's what the Board of County Commissioners missed.

They decided among themselves we're going to expand it.

Population's growing, we need just need to expand it.

What we're asking here is, is the tool functioning as we think it should be functioning?

So that's it's a little bit different.

And yes, we'll get a tons of information from the two studies going on now, but the two studies don't care about whether or not the tool's working.

The two studies care about getting more developable land.

That's a that's a huge difference there that needs to be recognized.

Am I okay?

So Miss Ornita's nodding her head.

I am right about that, so I'm just just checking.

Commissioner Cardenis.

Yeah, I would say very much so.

I mean, there's a difference to look at areas to see where we can fit something versus to see if what we're doing works.

We have uh completely warn everybody out this year already.

I told you, I told you in December it was coming.

So do we all have some directions?

Some Commissioner Cardenas, yes.

I mean it'll it all it almost feels like we should have uh a um what do you call it?

A workshop a workshop a workshop on this.

I mean it's because it's more of a brainstorm, it's more of like an objective.

Hey, what are what's our objective?

What do what are we trying to figure out?

Like it and it and it and I'm surprised that it's taking this long for this to present itself, and I'm happy that we're having a conversation.

But you know the same way that it's set in place to control our growth.

Well, is it really doing it in the way that we need it to, or is it something being missed and and what's being missed?

That I don't I don't think that we're gonna figure out in a workshop what's being missed or what's not.

I think we're gonna figure out what we're trying to figure out, what we're trying to understand, like what's most important, what those objectives are.

A workshop might be a good idea.

I see you nodding.

Yeah, so just throwing out an idea.

Um we could uh do a very small scope of services with a facilitator to come in and facilitate a workshop on this topic and and kind of develop out the objectives for the larger evaluation.

Yeah.

Um, and uh see how quickly we could align that with one of your meetings.

Okay, good.

That facilitator also we're not the only place, the only place in this country that has had to go through something or do something like this.

What else has been done where and where has it been successful and where are they finding the best because why reinvent the you know, right reinvent the yeah, um I mean absolutely there are consultants who could do that.

Um I'm feel like we might be looking for two different things, like we might be looking for somebody to facilitate a meeting.

But if you want them to come in with and in informed with information on that, like it might be just some different skill sets we want to pull in.

That's all.

Commissioner C.

Couldn't we just reach out to a consultant who's facilitated things like this in the past and say, hey, can you help us figure out what we need?

Maybe like an exploratory situation, you know, we'll contract you for X amount of hours and you help us figure out what we need in order to assess this.

Yes, under our con under the contracting policies of the planning commission, um, we have an approved provider list.

We could see if any of them would meet the you know, have that kind of information and and be able to do that.

Um there uh and we could if for something that's less than $50,000, like we can interview three and and pull from that list.

Um it gets more complicated when it's more expensive.

So starting maybe with something small like that might be a good approach.

Commissioner Sank.

them would meet the you know have that kind of information and and be able to do that um there uh and we can if for something that's less than 5000 like we can interview three and and pull from that list um they it gets more complicated when it's more expensive so starting maybe with something small like that might be a good approach commissioner sink I'm also curious to know if there's I mean I I believe there's varying levels of understanding of this even on this board and if it'd be valuable to get us all on the same baseline so that we have clear understandings of words how it plays out like we can all choose different words that have the same outcome but I think that we all have varying understanding of the topic and maybe if we have a baseline of all of us or a reminder everything it might be valuable so we can have better conversations how you doing up there Miss Dickens you all right I'm doing fine commissioner seabens I just want to echo that I think that's a good idea maybe if we had like a training session on all the details and actually the ins and outs of how it worked and then maybe the same day come in and have the consultant whoever is chosen you know to talk with us through what next steps would look like and what questions we want answered after we've you know been enlightened and I think just um I'll add that I think that will really help staff because I think that's what makes this so challenging is there are so many different aspects and you know we we do go by what is adopted that that is our charge and um you know it's very difficult to uh determine what's important um and so I think that that would help provide some clarity commissioner seven um last thing to note I think it might be also helpful if we had someone from county staff come in and talk to us about the applicability and how this actually plays out in real time I think that would be my be reading my mind I was thinking the same thing all right and I just want to say kudos again on the report Ms.

Dickens I know I kind of set it off and went in on it but as I say at all the meetings as I said recently in Plant City the only reason I'm able to do that is because you all as staff do such an excellent job with setting these things up and making them consumable.

You know if it was scattered if it didn't make sense then we'd be up here arguing different things but because you do such a good job at laying these things out someone like me can come through and read through and understand and under see the things that I don't you know necessarily agree with and that I want to pull out and talk about so it's really a testament to your good work and like I told you know Ms.

Corcoran when you do a good job you end up getting more work unfortunately so keep up the good work and you know no hard feelings again I definitely want to say that you did a good job on this report I don't agree with it.

I definitely want to see some changes but that doesn't mean the work itself wasn't good.

And I just want to say that again so if I can just to make sure I'm recapping it and have clarity on where we go next um and because it might be that we can get county staff here more quickly to have some maybe education on how they're using the tool um we can provide some information uh you know uh do some education on it but I think it might be good to have that from an outside source as well um and then but so we can see if we can perhaps have somebody from the some folks from the county come explain how they're using it in March.

But I think it might Melissa gave me a look there um that was like yeah maybe not um so okay I won't overpromise um but it just may take us a couple months to bring this back to find the right person and get all the schedules to align commissioner seabin all right last thing so I think there maybe somebody from state county staff to talk about how it's implemented on a practical basis um when plans are approved etc and then maybe somebody else or the same person to talk to us about impact fees um and how um fees are considered and what effect they that might have so we can sort of do a whole compare and contrast about um different levers we can use those might be the good outside sources to use like you just said maybe it's about finding those departments in the county that uses them and understanding whether or not it works or doesn't work for them how it does or doesn't work for them might be a way of getting outside of our agency and getting some feedback on these things so keep that in mind Commissioner Bowden.

Yeah also if you're talking to the uh county staff if they can provide or they can actually talk to where they are in regards to uh providing infrastructure in in areas yeah all right any other thoughts or comments from the commissioners miss ornita is dickens you feel that I work on for shoes I'm good so when are we talking about this coming back in April May time frame?

I think that's probably realistic.

We got like a room renovation in between there too, so keep that in mind.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, I'll talk about that in my report.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

That's one going once going to watch on the commissioners.

That's it.

All right.

So we're not taking an action on this one, and we're going to push it off till April May time frame.

So thank you for the information, Ms.

Dickens.

Thank you for bearing with us.

And we will move on to our next agenda item.

All right.

That is the last action item so everybody can relax if feasible after that.

We're on to briefings and presentations.

And 5A is an update on the urban and regional planning program at the University of South Florida.

The presenter is Commissioner Lincoln.

I hope you all aren't tired of hearing from me.

Okay, let me.

I have actually never come up here, so let me make sure I understand how to open this.

Okay, I I know we're we're running tight on time, so I'll try to be quick.

Evangeline Lincas, I'm planning commissioner and director of urban and regional planning at USF.

So I was actually just recently invited to before Tampa City Council to do a commendation because of our program has had some recent achievements, and it compelled me to think that you all may be interested in hearing about the urban and regional planning program in your backyard.

So hopefully I'm not the only one interested in that subject here.

But um I thought I'd share some some information, general information about the USF Urban and Regional Planning Program to you commissioners and also our community.

So at USF, we have a Master of Urban and Regional Planning Program.

That's our our signature kind of program or major program.

It started in 2009, and we have almost 200 alumni at this point.

So we're we had traditionally called ourselves a relatively smaller program, but I was actually looking at uh some numbers kind of on average.

We're we're kind of mid-size at this point.

We're we're we're certainly kind of grown.

Um we also have an undergraduate urban studies minor, and that's something that we're looking to grow every time we offer an undergraduate course, it fills up.

Um so there's a lot of interest clearly in the undergrads at USF in studying urban planning.

Um and I've got some quotes here just from some of our students, including um Diego, who is part of the staff here now.

Um so we have some bragging points on this slide.

We have 100% job placement, and that's the measure that we have to report to our planning accreditation board um based on domestic students.

Um yeah, I think that's the key points there.

Um we also have three certificate programs.

So we have smart cities, and that's really the technology kind of side of urban planning software, um, data visualization, GIS, LIDAR.

We have a coastal and it's now been changed to coastal and flood resiliency planning certificate, and we have a community development certificate.

Um so we try to we've got some new topics that address uh the current issues that are face Floridians as well as um long-standing issues.

And those certificates can be taken by folks who are not necessarily in the degree program, although they're also widely used by folks in the degree program.

So this is our big bragging point in that why we um were invited to have a commendation before City of Tampa, um, that we just went through a re-accreditation process.

So we were first accredited five years ago with the planning accreditation board, and um that one kind of found some points for improvement and you know, as as these processes always do, um, and that we were up for re-accreditation, and we just earned the exemplary um seven-year maximum term by the planning accreditation board.

So this is just a signal of the quality of our program in terms of many areas, facilities, students, faculty.

Um, in the report that's associated with our reaccreditation, they cited numerous areas of excellence, including our partnerships in the community, our committed faculty, and our demonstrated commitment to student success.

Um I we're excited on time, so I'm not gonna belabor this, but we've adopted a new curriculum in tandem with a lot of community feedback.

We've won awards at the national level.

This is a team that a couple years ago won the American Planning Association's national planning um the the national APA student design competition.

They placed third.

We um went have won a lot of state awards, including just last year.

We won student planner of the year, and we also won that just two years before that.

Um so these are some of the students who've been recognized as the top planning students in the state of Florida at USF.

And then we um win local awards as well, and one that we just won, gosh, was it just last week or maybe the week before?

Um, our faculty member Liz Strom, who actually founded the program, was recognized with APA Suncoast Legacy Award.

Um so she founded the program and she really kind of set the blueprint for all the community engagement and student success work that we do and have been recognized for.

Um, one of the bragging points of the program in recent years has been creation of a studio program.

And um, prior to this, you if you have you have to at USF have an exit requirement for a degree.

And we had these kind of old fashioned, sort of dreary, comprehensive exams that students didn't weren't crazy about.

So a couple years ago, we implemented uh studio program where students get involved with a real client in the community, have a real deliverable that they have to work on, they have to do project management skills, teamwork skills.

Um our first official studio um won the APA Florida Student Project Award.

For that, we worked with the St.

Pete Innovation District, and the students came up with all kinds of projects about identity and wayfinding for the St.

Pete Innovation District.

And near and dear to my heart, as Temple Terrace's planning commissioner, we're currently um doing a study that's based in Temple Terrace in partnership with the planning commission.

And we're looking at the Fowler Avenue Corridor redevelopment future land use policy.

So the students are just a little over a month into that work and going to come up with some ideas and solutions to complement the many ongoing efforts in the community there.

We also have a fellowship program that was one of the points that the accreditation um cited as one of our outstanding points, and this really is, I think, probably one of the best things about our program.

We have partnerships um all across the region, public and private sector partners who are working with our program to employ our students essentially.

And the fellowship program essentially gives our students a tuition reimbursement, and then students also have a professional development opportunity like an internship with these partners.

So we actually are in sort of an open call, and I've got lots of folks even wanting to sign up again to be part of that partnership.

And I've got some quotes in here from the students who do this.

This is Rachel Kling, who's a relatively recent alum with Vanesh.

Um, as she worked as a um as a fellow with Banesh.

Um we've these are um Michael is currently with Forward Panellis.

Um Marcus recently graduated and is now working in Pinellas.

He was with the EXP on the private sector side.

So we've got students being placed all around the community doing all kinds of really interesting work and really benefiting from this fellowship experience.

And we were recently highlighted by the Planning Accreditation Board as the only program in the United States that has this kind of model, and then we're highlighted on their best practices page.

Um we have um endowed scholarships, um, and these are some students who recently won those endowed scholarships, and those come from our community partnerships and support.

And we're very happy to have a 100% pass rate on the AICP exam to certify planners.

Um that's part and parcel of kind of why we're so excited about the reaccreditation once you're an accredited planning program.

Um, you um the students who graduate from the program have a fast track to becoming certified planners, and we're really geared at uh training professionals to become successful, and that this past rate exemplifies that.

We also have a mentorship program in partnership with APA Suncoast, so the local professional planning organization.

Students can do that for two years while they're in the program.

And we've got a plant student planning organization, so they lead student-led initiatives around about learning around the about learning about the career.

Finally, um, this is a picture from just a couple days ago.

I think it was Thursday last week.

We have um an advisory committee where like 50 plus members.

We've got folks representing all kinds all parts of the region, um, from down from Sarasota and up to to um Pascoe County and public, private partners, folks in the education side, folks in professional side.

So we've got um tremendous interest in our program, and this group's been really influential in shaping our curriculum and helping us figure out how to do things um more effectively in the community and shaping our um studio program as that has evolved.

So we meet with them twice a year and we we seek their feedback, and we're we're always welcome to have new members if there's any interest.

So that's the program.

Um again, I I went kind of quick because I know we're kind of tight on time, but if you do have any questions, I'm happy to answer them for you.

All right.

Any thoughts, questions, comments from the commissioners.

I will say I thank you for the presentation.

It was great.

Um, obviously, you and I go back very far.

I know everybody thought we were bickering like little siblings up here, but that's where way back in 2015 when I first started my PhD.

I took Dr.

Lincoln's planning history course as an elective just for fun because my background is in architecture, so I thought, well, what easier of an A, but a planning course, because I pretty much know all that stuff already.

And I would come into her class every day, get there early and wait for the first class to leave, grab the first seat in front of her lectern, and as soon as she brought up something I had a I had a disagreement with, we'd be bickering back and forth in front of the class about this or that.

So that's kind of our relationship.

And one day she told me there was an opening on this planning board, and that because I had such a boisterous opinion, I should apply for the opening on this planning board, and that's how I got here.

So she will always have my adoration and respect, irregardless of how much we may debate and go back and forth up here or in real life or at a coffee shop or wherever we are.

And the program that she has helped to build there at USF is an exemplary one.

They do a lot of great work.

We get a lot of people coming through here as interns and then turn into employees.

I think one just walked in the room there who used to be outside the classroom with me, waiting for the first class to leave so we could get into her architect, or sorry, her planning history class and learn from her.

Um but you are a definite benefit to the community.

The program is a benefit to the community, and you do a really great job.

So I'm glad to hear that it's going well with the accreditation and the programs growing and growing more roots into our community because really excellent work.

So thank you.

Any other thoughts, comments from the commissioners?

Everyone seems worn out after that first item.

So all right.

Well, thank you.

All right.

Next up on our agenda, we have item 5B, Temple Terrace Land Development Code, LDC Text Amendment, SEC 12-921 off street parking and driveway requirements.

And the presenter is Yanika Mills and Kim Ford.

Good afternoon, Yunika Mills Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to introduce Mr.

Kim Ford, engineer with Temple Terrace staff, uh, who will be presenting on a proposed land development code amendment regarding driveway requirements.

This is a briefing for you all this afternoon.

Um action is required.

Kim.

Thank you.

How do I change the slides?

Uh this error right there.

Very good.

Uh we need to do some major revisions to our driveway code.

Um we review applications for driveways as part of our right-of-way use permitting.

And the code does not address uh keep the street water in the streets.

There's flooding in garages in people's homes because uh driveways are not sloped upward.

And we have some revisions that go along with other items in the code.

We have pavers, site distance addressed, tree routes being uh cut out more than they were before.

This is all to help with the review of the applications with the contractor with the homeowners, get a better product and make the uh reviews more uh quickly reviewed and completed.

Uh the aprons are sloped upward.

You can see we've we're adopting Hillsborough County's detail for driveway apron.

And it's it's a good detail.

Fits well with what we need.

Um we've slightly increased uh the amount of the width of the driveways that are allowed with a percentage increase from 25 to 30 percent to allow more parking uh not on the street, but in properties.

You can see we're striking through a previous detail that uh has a couple of uh errors on it and replacing it with the adopted Hillsburg County driveway detail.

Any questions?

All right, thank you.

Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners?

Not seeing any.

Well, thank you for the information.

Look forward to this coming back to us for action.

All right.

Next up is item five C Plan Hillsborough 2025 annual report.

And the presenter is Katrina Corcoran.

Good afternoon.

One second while I pull this up.

Good afternoon, Katrina Corker and Planning Commission staff.

I'm here today to present on the Plan Hillsborough 2025 annual report.

Uh quick overview of our strategic plan.

It is from 2024 to 2029 and is broken down by pillars and goals, which you can see on the slide here.

Um, as we go through this presentation, we talk about the accomplishments and things, studies and things that we have done as an agency.

It will be broken down by these pillars as we go throughout.

Um, they include integrated and connected communities, partnerships and community engagement, resilient and natural built resilient, natural and built environment and technology and operational enhancements.

Uh with that, I'll start off with some by the numbers highlights.

We've served over 2100 clients.

Uh we've had over 90 presentations to outside groups, um over 65 comprehensive plan amendments across all jurisdictions, including 370 other consistency reviews, and over 1,300 maps created.

Starting off with the first pillar of integrated and connected communities, uh, we have a number of projects that fall into this pillar, including the City of Tampa future land use or flu section update and community outreach.

And with that, staff released surveys, conducted several outreach meetings and released drafts of the flu for public review.

We also have our Hillsborough County urban expansion areas or UBAs, and those focus on I 4 and Little Manatee South as potential areas for coordinated future development.

We have our Riverview Community Plan, which was at the BOCC's request.

Staff are working on updating that community plan while the Tampa Hillsboro Expressway Authority or THIA conducts a separate US 301 corridor study.

We have the TPO's Bright Line Station Area Survey and Study where the TPO considered potential users and infrastructure needs for a potential future Bright Line station.

And finally, we have the Temple Terrace Multimodal Connection Study, where we looked at the potential for a new trail network to destinations in Temple Terrace.

Our second pillar here is partnerships and community engagement.

The first item here being the Plant City Comprehensive Plan Update and Visioning Survey.

So we're working on an update to the Plant City Comprehensive Plan.

We've also been working on updating the vision for the Plant City Comprehensive Plan.

We had a survey with over 1700 responses as well as a joint workshop within the last couple weeks between the Planning Commission and the City Commission.

For the FSU Hillsborough County Flu study, we work with students to identify areas that may require future updates to the future land use map.

We also expanded our future leaders in planning or FLIP program from four to five days, and we created an alumni connection program, and that looks into where our students have gone with their careers.

And finally, we have schools coordination.

We continue to collaborate with Hillsborough County Public Schools on a range of county planning efforts, including the USA expansion work, the UEA study work, and various school siting initiatives.

Our third pillar is resilient natural and built environment.

Starting off with the City of Tampa section updates, so we have recreation and open space, solid waste and capital improvements.

All of those were heard in front of City Council late last month, and we'll be back in front of City Council for a second adoption hearing this month.

We also have our Hillsborough County USA expansion study fiscal model.

So with that, staff updated this model with demographic estimates and budget figures for that work.

For the USF Studio and Tampa's environmentally sensitive areas or ESA, staff worked with USF students to evaluate the ESA flu category.

And finally, we have the TPO's traffic signal prioritization study, which looked at replacing old signals, incorporating new systems, and making traffic safer.

Our fourth and final pillar is technology and operational enhancements.

We have a reclassification working group and onboarding platform.

We created a career conversation guides for supervisors and a reclassification/slash pay progression request form to standardize procedures across the agency.

We have a request for proposals or RFP process that is was created for procuring consultants and it's all centralized.

We also have a project management framework that is a best practices guide on project management for staff.

We've created a public engagement dashboard, which is a tool that tracks key performance indicators to identify trends and make database decisions on future outreach efforts.

So with that, we've created that tool and we'd be implementing it more in 2026.

We've utilized geofencing to maximize paid social media advertising.

And with that, we've had paid ads for survey participation, where we've used that geofencing to be able to find our communities that we're outreaching to and then target that ad in that area.

And it's been an efficient and cost-effective tool.

Finally, we have the TPO merger study and peer exchange.

So staff have continued discussions about a potential regional MPO merger and completed a peer exchange to guide next steps.

And with that, we do have our annual performance measures, which were included in your packet for review, and I believe Melissa's Arnita will be talking more about that later.

But those performance measures again are based on the annual report and the numbers that you saw earlier as well.

We will also be continuing tracking and implementation of the 2024 to 2029 strategic plan to make sure that we're following all those goals and strategies that are listed in there.

And with that, that concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

All right.

Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners?

And a lot of excitement.

Well, thank you for the information.

And we will move on to our last briefing item, uh 5D Plant City CPA 25-08 comprehensive plan map amendment 25022508 2600 East Sam Allen Road, and the presenter is Yanique Mills.

Good afternoon again, Yanika Mills Planning Commission staff.

I'm here to present PC CPA 2508, located at 2502, 2508, and 2600 East Sam Allen Road.

This is a properly initiated plan amendment, small in scale, it's a little over nine acres, and the request is to change the future land use designation from Hillsborough County Residential One to Plant City Commercial.

Here is a location map.

As you can see, it's located within the northeastern portion of Hillsburg Plant City.

It's within the economic opportunity overlay, as well as the Northeast Plant City area, Mr.

Plan.

Here is an aerial of the site outlined in pink.

There is vacant lands, excuse me, to the east.

To the west is vacant land as well as to the north.

Those properties are owned by the school board.

On the south side of Sam Allen Road is the newly built South Florida Hospital.

Then we have a large subdivision further to the west is uh North Park Isles, and then we have a subdivision here, which is Philstone.

Again, uh the site is within the Northeast Plant City Area Master Plan.

Uh it is envisioned for uh commercial uses.

Um and there is a small portion of natural preservation here.

Um the site is currently um under the unincorporated Hillsborough County Residential One Future Land Use, but as you can see it has already uh transitioned into Plant City, meaning it's already been annexed into Plant City, and they're just awaiting at Plant City future land use designation.

Other future land use designations in the immediate area include the yellow here, which is residential six.

We have uh in the red, which is uh plant city commercial, and then in unincorporated Hillsburg County, we have the light green, which is residential one, then we also have a presence of um residential two in the yellow, and then other future land uses.

This uh brown here is a residential 20.

Um, and then we have this light pink here, which is like commercial office.

The applicant is proposing to change uh the future land use designation to commercial.

Currently, under um the uh future land use designation, the site could potentially develop up to nine dwelling units or over 107 uh thousand square feet of non-residential uses, of course, subject to locational criteria.

If it were to be approved for commercial, the site could potentially develop up to 31 units or over 150,000 square feet.

So the uh amendment would potentially uh increase in residential density and non-residential intensity.

That concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, comments from the commissioners?

Not seeing any.

We'll thank you for the information.

And we'll continue on to our next agenda item.

Item number six, our executive director's report.

Good afternoon, Melissa Zornita, executive director.

Um at your seats, you have a list of the meetings and updates.

Um, I'm not gonna go through all of it in uh because of the time, um, but I wanted to highlight a couple of things.

Um the Tampa Future Land Use.

We have uh issued a we issued a new draft back in January based on City Council's motions giving us direction on a number of different items from back in August.

Um, the largest of those items was doing a uh revisiting of essentially all of the policies to ensure compliance with Senate Bill 180.

Um, so there were a number of changes that we made in that document.

We um briefed all of city council about that.

We had pub a public meetings last week, one uh in person and one virtually.

Um we got good feedback.

Um there are some things that some in the community that based on city council taking certain things out in August.

For example, they removed a number of corridors from being transit-ready corridors based on some of the concerns in certain parts of the city, but then when they took a corridor off the map, for example, Columbus is one that we're hearing a lot about.

Um they took it off all the way east-west throughout the whole city, and now we're hearing from a number of residents, um, neighborhood associations saying we'd like that added back, or at least from a the portion that is in their neighborhood or community.

Um so we've been sharing that information with city council that um uh a couple council members were actually there at the in-person meeting to hear it directly from community members.

Um, but uh we're not in a position to make those changes right now.

The changes need to go be made by city council.

So that hearing is on February 17th, so we're looking forward to that next week and seeing what um hopefully they will move forward with transmitting that to the state for their review since that's the next step.

Um we've also concluded uh the series of four in-person redistricting public meetings.

You'll get to hear more about that later tonight from Yassert.

Um, and we've had, as I mentioned earlier, the first round of um public meetings on the urban expansion areas as part of that.

We did go and meet with all of the county commissioners to make sure they knew where we were up uh in the process as well.

Um a couple of things to to highlight under the information items.

Next month we have your regular meeting.

Um, as part of that, um, those public hearings, you will have the second public hearing on the redistricting at 7:30 at night.

That's specified what time it has to be at.

Um, we can't start any earlier than that.

Um, we do have a couple of county items that will be added to the to the public hearing.

So hopefully you're not sitting here for too long between one thing and the next.

Um then on the 24th, we have the planning commissioner retreat.

Um that's going to be held at Thea's offices.

They have a really nice boardroom that they've offered to let us use for that.

Um, so uh, and um we'll be sending out some more information on details about parking and um when food will be provided, all that sort of good stuff.

Um we are working on, we've heard from the county.

Um, we had a pre-construction meeting last week about the renovation of this boardroom.

Um that is going to begin on March 13th.

They've strategically uh planned it for after your next meeting, and they believe it can be done in two weeks.

Um they are prefabricating all of the dais stuff and everything so that it can just come in and like be put together so they don't have to build it all in here.

Um they are replacing the carpet, they are trimming this column down to what is absolutely necessary so that people can better see around it because that's uh and maybe open up some additional seating because of that.

Um, those are the major things that are occurring.

Um we will be reserving a backup room for the April meeting just in case.

Um hopefully we don't need it, but we want to be prepared.

Um the last thing I wanted to mention is um that oh, actually, two more things.

Um I will be sending out some information about the APA National Conference that is occurring at the end of April, beginning of May in Detroit, and um we have it budgeted that if uh a few planning commissioners want to attend, that that could happen.

Um, so I'll send you the information so you can look at the program and all of that information.

If you ever see something else like uh Commissioner Stevens attended some ULI uh conferences and things like that, if you see anything that you think would be helpful to your role here on the planning commission, we very much want to try and support that the best that we can.

Um I did want to give an update on the um awards from the following up on the last public information committee meeting.

Um, and actually maybe it's following up on the first public information committee meeting for this uh looking at next year's awards.

We have been doing extensive searches for a better trophy than what we have, and we have not been able to find anything that uh has the kind of space that we need to write on it, looks classy and and um has the weight that I think we appreciate in the current trophy.

We have, however, found another vendor who does the the existing trophy another vendor in Hillsborough County.

So we would like to stick with the current trophy.

Um we don't think the costs will be significantly less with this other vendor, but we think the process has the potential to be a lot smoother than what we encountered last year.

So we'd like to stick with that for now.

Um and uh we'll keep looking and keep our eyes out.

If anybody sees a really great trophy that they think we should use at an awards event you're at, please let us know.

We will go try and find it.

But so far it's been a little disappointing in our search.

And then below I have all of the plan amendment updates.

Most of the items that you have heard move forward and were adopted by the local governments.

Two of note that did not were the Marisol property on Davis Island.

You probably read about that in the paper.

And um and then also a plan amendment in the city of Tampa that was down by McDill Air Force Base in the as like south of Gandhi and they wanted increased uh density there.

So those were the two sort of of note.

I'll conclude and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, comments?

Commissioner Kugler Thank you.

Yes thank you for bringing up the um transit ready corridors.

Yes.

Because I do I I was aware that there was a contentious meeting where they were pulled back significantly and uh both Columbus and MLK which are key arterials for East Tampa were taken back.

Uh and they are not just transit ready they are actually transit corridors with bus service from net park all the way to the airport.

So it didn't make sense and and I'm glad that they're going to reconsider um reinstating some of those that sounds great encouraging.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right any more comments or questions from the commissioners not seeing any well thank you for the information.

And we will move on to our next item of business uh seven others bit other business um chairs business I have none I'm definitely not making any more old business uh I don't believe we have any if I'm not mistaken does anyone have any new business for us and committee reports no not seeing any next TPO board meeting is this Wednesday so I don't believe I had one last time did I don't I can't even remember now.

Yeah before last meeting yeah.

All right so with that I guess we are done with this and what time are we coming back for the other one?

Should we do like 45 or 30?

Maybe we try for 530 and then okay we could always go longer if necessary.

Okay.

All right so 530 we will be back for our first public hearing of the evening and at five o'clock PM this regular meetings adjourn.