because they are a threat to public health. There are many mosquito-borne illnesses that they can pass on to humans and other animals. Therefore, we want to mitigate their populations. And we're only spraying whenever we have justification, and that could come from our surveillance data or from our inspectors who go out and are looking at different larval production sites every single day. We don't have a spray schedule because everything we do is based on data that we collect. So it's based on the number of mosquitoes that we find in our traps every day. It's based on what the inspectors are finding out in the field. If they're finding a lot of breeding, they'll obviously treat then, but we don't have a set schedule because everything is based on data that we find. We don't do any individual spray requests. You can always submit a request for a spray, a request for a property inspection, or report any standing water that you have around your house. And we'll come send out an inspector. They'll come look at that area, see if it's breeding, and then based on the data that they find, we'll see if that area is eligible for treatment. But we don't do treatment based on special events. We're spraying right at sunset because dawn and dusk are the most active times for mosquitoes. So in order for our treatments to be the most effective, we obviously want to treat when the mosquitoes are most active. And we're going to be able to mitigate the population best at those times. We're going to be able to take care of your planning commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plant City, and unincorporated Hillsborough 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 813-272-5940. Follow us on social media or visit our website at planhillsborough.org. Good afternoon and welcome to the October 12, 2026 regular meeting of the Hillsborough County City County Planning Commission. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the reception desk and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. 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. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. 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 comments 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 comments will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second in discussion, a vote will be taken. With that introduction, Commissioner Seidman will lead us in the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. Would all please rise? We focus on the agenda to fulfill our mission, to promote, coordinate, collaborate, and facilitate with all the range of people to improve economic development, quality of life, and provide value-added services. Help us to make decisions that fulfill that mission. Bless us as we meet together today. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Seidman. And with that, I'd like to ask the clerk to please call roll. Good afternoon. Bowden? Here. Cardenas? Jemison? Here. Kugler? Linkus? Lauk? Here. Seidman? Here. Sink? Here. Orton? Here. Rodriguez? Here. 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, August 10, 2026. Hillsborough County Planning Commission Public Hearing on City of Plant City Plan Amendments, August 10, 2026. Hillsborough County Planning Commission Public Hearing on City of Tampa Plan Amendments, August 10, 2026. Is there a motion to approve? Commissioner Lauk? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Moved, we approve the preceding list. Second in motion. All right. Motion by Commissioner Lauk, second by Commissioner Bowden. Questions from the commissioners before we take our vote? Not seeing any, they will all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? That motion carries unanimously. All right. Next up, we have the collection of statement of interest forms for commissioners who haven't submitted theirs. And I have copies, if anyone would like one who didn't submit an interest form. Are you going to call them out? Do you know who they are? It isn't Coogler and Linkus, is it? Well, I don't know that we've gotten any from them. We'll send them an email to follow up. Has everybody here submitted theirs? I don't think Cardenas. Did we get one from? Or Steven? You can just leave it blank if you don't want anything. That's fine. But, yeah, those are the only two we haven't heard from. All right. You want me to take a moment for them to fill it out or have them just get it back to you? Yeah, you can just pass it to Carrie down there when you're done. Great. All right. Next up, we have item number two, public input on items not scheduled on the agenda. We didn't have anyone sign up for that public input, so we will move on to our action items. First action item is 3A Aldermans Ford Nature Preserve Management Plan 10-Year Update and the presenter is Diego Guerra. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, Diego Guerra, Planning Commission staff. This is the Aldermans Ford Nature Preserve Management Plan. The Aldermans Ford Management Plan was submitted by the county's Conservation and Land Management Department for a consistency review and determination based on its 10-year update which was being presented to you per Chapter 97-351 of Laws of Florida and I'm going to turn it over to county staff. Good afternoon. My name is Dan Kerwin. I work for Hillsboro County Conservation Environmental Lands Management. The Environmental Lands Management Division is part of the Jan K. Platt Acquisition and Preservation Program. This slide just gives you a brief overview of the actual location of the preserve. You can see from the first half of the slide that the preserve actually links, is a critical link in of conserved properties throughout that part of the county and some of our infrastructure. The preserve actually makes up 980 acres inside the county. It was bought between 1990 and 1995 with Jan K. Platt funds, purchased, sold to the state with the caveat that we would manage men on a lease for 50 years. It contains five miles of the Alify River frontage, Tannic Blackwater which is an absolute gem in the county. It's beautiful limestone shoals and rapids if you've not been out there. It has eight different national natural communities, seven altered landscapes and just so you know altered landscapes by the state standards is a road, a power line, something along those lines. The preserve butts up and enjoined 600 acres of Alderman Fort Conservation Park, also under the Conservation Environmental Lands Management Department. The vast majority of the preserve, 365 acres, is hydrochemic which is moist, dark hardwoods right along the river. The preserve also protects bottom land forests, black water streams, domes and basin swamps and rare sand hill habitat. Nearly 300 acres of former pasture lay within the preserve. The preserve is a home to gopher tortoises which is a state listed keystone species that provides shelter to over 350 other animals, 72 species of birds, 52 species of reptiles, 24 species mammal species are also potentially found or are found within the site. Six imperil plants grow there and we monitor these with motion activated cameras and bioacoustical recorders. There's nearly main focus of this plan is restoration of nearly 300 acres of former pasture that's heavily infested with coagin grass. the previous restoration contract we had on the property actually fell through, was cancelled in 2025. What we learned from that is instead of doing one large contract that's five years in length, we are now doing short focused contracting, much shorter in length, much more focused on the project that's going on and with much more monitoring of that project and the actions of the contractor. So the goal is to take the pasture and convert it into grasslands. Ideally it would be wiregrass. If we can get it to wiregrass, most likely it will be bluestem, but it will be open habitat for our wildlife to be able to move through it easier and potentially eventually possibly put some pines in and start transitioning maybe a little bit more toward a flatwood sandhill habitat. What you can see in the slide, that little orange hashing up in the corner is a lease that's to Durant High School that they use for agricultural purposes. Short-term goals, the state requires us to do two, and tenure goals, we actually do reevaluate more often than that, is to reassess the invasive plant of infestations, which we have already well into, develop an award the contracts for the invasive plant control, we already have one contract out on the ground, begin preliminary invasive plant treatments, which has begun. Part of that will be to utilize fire, if we possibly can, and to maintain and install our fire lanes, which we have actually already done. Long-term is to adapt the restoration plans as needed, recognizing everything is changing so fast between growth around the property, as well as just like this year, we're going to have a normally wet year, so that alters how we can do things. Achieve maintenance levels to control the target species, and integrate the newly restored restoration area into the preserved, prescribed fire management program. The goal with that restoration project is that we would be able to manage it, fingers crossed, primarily with fire, once we get it to the condition we want it to be in. We have a lot of passive recreation, horseback riding, canoeing, fishing, birding, photography, day hiking. With the restoration, the hiking experience for most visitors should be a lot better. There is no hunting, no mining, and no motorized vehicles of any kind. We do have ongoing monitoring of wildlife. Just so you can see, this is what some of our monitoring looks like of our wildlife that's out there. I thought you might enjoy a slight picture of what the Alderman Ford Nature Preserve looks like. Ladies and gentlemen, staff reviewed the management plan update and found it consistent with environmental and sustainability section policies that discuss management of natural resources and preserves to include significant wildlife habitat and language under the recreation and open space sections that discuss the integration of environmentally sensitive and natural areas into parks, preserves, and recreation amenities. Staff recommend that the planning commission find the aldermen's for nature preserve management plan 10-year update consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan for unincorporated Hillsborough County. Both myself and Janet are available for any questions you may have. Thank you. No one signed up in the public comment for this one. Are there any questions from the commissioners? Commissioner Singh? Got two questions. On your slide you showed where the Durant High School has their area in the hash marks. On the very bottom of it it showed like a red area. Can you tell us what that is? That red area on the bottom is something we've naturally noticed in more recent last, probably last couple, within the last year to be safe. There's been a die-off of oaks in that corner. The preserve has a large population of oaks, but in that whole part of the county there's been a die-off of oaks. So we're actually now, we have an arborist on our staff that we're looking, working with the University of Florida and Florida Forest Street to look at to see what is causing the oaks to die off. The plan is to figure out what that is and hopefully clear out the understory a little bit so it's a more acceptable habitat for possibly tortoises and all. What we're thinking is the drought, the flooding from the storm, and the drought being so back-to-back-to-back that it stressed the oaks plus the wind of the storm potentially altering the root structures of the oaks. We don't really know that's our best guess at this time, but that's actually kind of another project we're actually putting a lot of time and energy into right now. Awesome, thank you. Another question has, you said that you're breaking up your contracts. From one big giant five-year down to smaller ones. When that happens, do you lose pricing leverage? We haven't noticed that at this time. We're actually getting more companies to come in and bid on the smaller contracts. There's only a few companies in the area that could bid on the very large track contracts because they had the infrastructure to be able to do that. By sorting it out and coming up with smaller bites, we're actually seeing we can get some of the smaller companies to come in and weigh in and bid on contracts. Thank you. Commissioner Jemison. This is more out of curiosity on the oaks. Were they identifying more as laurel type oaks or live oaks? We have live oaks and water oaks for sure in there. I think there's a laurel oak in there. I'm not. I was just curious. I have property in eastern Heldsboro County and we had a die-off of maples and different trees trees as well as oaks and it was due to beetle infestation. We don't have beetle that we've seen. Okay. I was curious. Yeah, no, it's a very fair question. Thank you. Commissioner Lowe. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question revolves, and great presentation, appreciate it. I think the goals in here are very laudable. My question revolves around the contract. So it looks like the last contract was from 20 to 2025 and there were like three key pillars that didn't get completed. Correct. Based on what I was seeing, like the 300 acres of pasture never restored the large invasive plant infestations that weren't completely eradicated and then the controlled burns were really never brought to fruition. So are you comfortable with this one-year cycle on the contracts that those things are going to be able to get done? Right. What happened in the last contract with the five-year contract, at the two-year mark on the contract, there had been no billable elections that had been taken on the contract. And when you looked at what the contract was going to have to complete to be considered final, and get paid off, there was no way in the timeline environmentally they could have made it. It took six months for us to be able to rescind that contract. Now, like what's going on now, we have a contractor out there. The plan is eventually there will be two spray events that happen on the property, one burn. That will all be completed by this time next year. We have people out there twice a week monitoring the contractor to make sure everything's being done appropriately, plus checking to see if we need to tweak things a little bit, to make things a little bit better. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Bowden. Yeah, great presentation. I applaud you guys for breaking up the contracts because it gives more companies opportunity to actually get work done and to get paid. So I applaud you for that. And also, as you stated, is that you can terminate a contract, a shorter-term contract, you terminate it quicker and get things done and get someone in to do the work versus the long-term because then there's certain restrictions and you can't turn it around as fast. So I applaud you for doing that. Thank you. We learned. All right. Are there any more questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners? Not seeing any. I'll go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Jemison. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to find the Alderman Ford Nature Preserve Management Plan consistent. All right. We have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Jemison. Second to that motion by Commissioner Bowden. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts from the commissioners before we take our vote on this motion of consistency? Not seeing any, then we'll all signify their agreement by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, that motion carries unanimously. All right. Thank you for the information and the presentation. Next up, we have item 3B, proposed amendments to planning commission policies, and the presenter is Megan Baturney. Good afternoon, Megan Baturney, planning commission staff. You received an updated draft of the reduction in force policy that shows the proposed edits. I will be briefly going over each of the major changes. The purpose of this policy update was that the current RIF policy was created in 2020, shortly after the dissolution of the civil service. Since then, several operational and legal factors have changed, including agency structure, updates to veterans' preference statutes, and modernization of progressive discipline processes. The revisions ensure in alignment with current practice, legal standards, and organizational needs. These changes have been reviewed by our attorneys. To go, I will briefly outline the changes. To address concerns that Chair Joseph brought forward, language was added that ensures the planning commission will be provided notice of any RIF or layoffs impacting either unclassified or classified employees. We updated the definition of tenure. Under the civil service and shortly thereafter, tenure was counted as work at any of the agencies under civil service. Since it was a holdover, and it has been seven years since its dissolution, many other agencies, such as ours, are revising the definition of tenure. Here, tenure is now defined specifically as continuous classified service within the City-County Planning Commission, not the broader Hillsborough County government. Incorporation of formal counseling into discipline calculations. The previous policy deducted retention points only for written reprimands. The updated version adds formal counseling to that calculation. This further underscores our culture of performance and accountability. Veterans' preference. We have moved to generalized language. Since the language was brought into reference section 295.07 Florida statutes, allowing flexibility for future legislative updates. Veterans will continue to receive additional retention points to ensure compliance with the state law. So behind our changes, again, the rationale is that we want to ensure compliance with updated state law and administrative code. We want to continue to improve fairness by incorporating newer HR practices, such as the formal counseling, and aligns our policy language with actual agency structure and operations. staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendment to ensure the RIF policy remains accurate, equitable, and legally compliant. Are there any questions? Thank you. No one signed up in the public comment for this item, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions. This item, I'm not seeing a whole lot. Commissioner, Commissioner, will help me? This is just point of clarification. This is a binding vote. It doesn't move past us. Or it goes somewhere else. No, that's correct. This is our bylaws and policies, so if the buck stops with us, that we have the required number. All right, are there any other questions or comments on this one real quick? Going once, going twice, then I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item. Commissioner Jemisin? Mr. Chair, I make a motion to find the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission policies consistent or approved. All right. Second. All right, we have a motion of consistency or approval by Commissioner Jemisin, a second to that by Commissioner Lauk. Any questions, comments on this before we take our vote? Since this does require a specific type of vote, I'm going to turn it over to the clerk to take a roll call vote on this one. Bowden? Yes. Cardenas? Yes. Jemisin? Yes. Lauk? Yes. Steven? Sink? Yes. Joseph? Yes. Motion carries 7 to 0. All right. Thank you. All right, thank you. Good job. All right, next up we have item 3C, bylaws amendment, rebuttal time limits, and the presenter is Mr. Sean College. Good afternoon, Commissioner Sean College of your Planning Commission staff. This was an item that was requested two meetings ago, requested by the Planning Commissioners to consider a bylaw change adjusting rebuttal time limits. Language was first considered by you in your last meeting, and we made a small adjustment to that based on direction from the Planning Commission. Currently under consideration now is this bylaw change that would allow three minutes for rebuttal for items with ten or fewer public speakers, five minutes for items with more than ten but not exceeding fifteen public speakers, and ten minutes for rebuttal for items with sixteen or more public speakers. That is at the request of the Planning Commission for your consideration. A bylaw change does require a two-thirds majority vote for approval, and that concludes my presentation. All right. Thank you very much. I don't believe we had anyone sign up in the public comment on this item either, so I will turn it over to the commissioners for questions, comments, discussions. I did have a question. Is this our final vote on this one? I can't even remember if this is the first or second time. Yes, commissioner. This was brought to the board as text at your last meeting, so as required by the bylaws, this is the second meeting we are considering the text, so you can vote today. All right. All right. Are there any questions, comments, thoughts on this one? Not seeing a lot of excitement. Commissioner Willow, I see you're moving. Okay, for a motion. All right. Then going once, going twice on ideas, I'll close the public comment and open it up to motions. Commissioner Lauk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move we approve the bylaws amendment for rebuttal time limits for applicants. All right. Motion of approval by Commissioner Lauk. Second. Commissioner Bowden. All right. We have a motion of approval by Commissioner Lauk, a second to that motion by Commissioner Bowden. this one. Bowden. Yes. Cardenas. Yes. Jemison. Yes. Lauk. Yes. Seben. Yes. Sink. Yes. Joseph. Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. All right. Next up on our agenda, we have item 3D, City of Temple Terrace, FY27 through FY31, Capital Improvement Section, CIS, Schedule of Projects Update. And the presenter is Erica Larson. Good afternoon. Katrina Corcoran Planning Commission staff. I'll be this presentation today. So this is the City of Temple Terrace FY27 through FY31 Capital Improvement Section or CIS Schedule of Projects and this is an action item. In terms of review and analysis, Chapter 163 requires that the schedule of projects or the list of projects addressing the level of service and adopted within the comprehensive plan be updated on an annual basis. This update would replace the existing CIS schedule that identified projects in the CIP that affect level of service and those items make up the schedule of projects. Chapter 163 also requires that the CIS include basin management action plan or BMAP projects that are updated annually. BMAP is a framework for water quality restoration. Per Temple Terrace staff, there are no active BMAP projects that meet this requirement. This update is accomplished by ordinance which is explicitly permitted under chapter 163 and again this is a routine annual update that we come before you with each year. Finally the plans of other agencies are incorporated with this review. This slide shows the fiscal year 27 through 31 CIS scheduled projects. You can see the LOS areas. There are six of them including sanitation, parks and rec, stormwater, transportation, wastewater, and water. Across these LOS service areas there's a total of 107.2 million dollars across 84 projects. This slide shows the LOS priorities within the CIS schedule. It shows the project types identified in terms of those priorities which are outlined in capital improvement section objective 1.1. As you can see here there is about 63 million dollars or 59 percent toward eliminating deficiency. Over $40 million towards repair replace and renovate and just over $3 million or 3 percent with that there is a total of 97 percent of the projects that address replacement of facilities and elimination of deficiencies and again this is in line with capital improvement section objective 1.1. Continuing on with staff's consistency review staff look at the funding source criteria for the capital improvement section specifically looking at policy 1.5.5 this policy states the general fund should not be used for those facilities with dedicated revenue sources of the general fund expenditures staff found that none of these types of projects relied on general funds continuing on and looking at capital improvements policy 1.5 point 10 and 1.5 point 11 they state that all projects within the first three years of the city CIS be funded with committed revenue sources these include ad valorem taxes gas taxes and user charges staff reviewed the funding sources and timing and found 27 through fiscal year 31 CIS scheduled projects be found consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the Temple Terrace comprehensive plan and that this recommendation be forwarded to city council for approval this concludes my presentation I'm available for any questions that you may have and I believe in this case that Temple Terrace staff are online for any questions as well thank you all right thank you very much we didn't have anyone sign up year was fiscal year 26 through 30 for 39 point 1 million and looks like the biggest difference is that 88 point 7 million underwater for the water plant rehab I'm wondering how that's going to be funded if not out of the general fund I would ask the Temple Terrace staff see if they can answer your question I believe they're online good afternoon this is Marissa Robinson with City of Temple get an answer to you at a later date so they don't have an answer to the question is that what I'm understanding we just have to vote without the information we need to make the vote is that the suggestion I know that in planning commission staff review that we found that they were in compliance with those funding requirements but I can't answer beyond that in terms of the funding agreed so just to understand fiscal year 26 they're in compliance correct but we don't know how they're funding it into 27 what was this can you give me the specific project that you're concerned about it Robinson again I have our deputy director of finance Jennifer Newman in the office with me and she'll be able to answer this for you thank you hi yes good afternoon so we have been in discussions and have can you identify yourself for the clerk oh I'm sorry I'm Jennifer Newman I'm the assistant finance director for the city of temple terrace so we have in discussions with our bond council and with our advisors and we're going to be doing revenue bonds could you could you say it one more time it's a little low in here oh sorry we have been in discussions with our bond council and advisory boards and we're going to be issuing revenue bonds to pay for those updates all right thank you thank you all right are there any other questions comments thoughts from this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this one commissioners sink I see you moving over there I move to find city temple terrace fiscal year 27 through 31 capital improvement section schedule a project updates to be found consistent right commissioner jemisin sorry I second all right we have a motion of consistency by commissioner sink second to that motion by commissioner jemisin are there any questions comments discussions from commissioners before we take our vote and I'll signify their agreement by saying aye aye those opposed uh oh we're gonna have to turn it over to a roll call vote powden yes cardenas jemisin yes lauk no seban yes sink yes joseph yes motion carries six to one commissioner lauk voted no all right thank you very much all right next up we have item 3e city of tampa four year twenty seven through four year thirty one capital improvement section cis schedule of projects update and the presenter is again katrina corcoran good afternoon again katrina corcoran planning commission staff i'm here for the city of tampa fiscal year twenty seven through fiscal year thirty one capital improvement section or cis schedule projects and again this is an action item again once again similar to our previous presentation in terms of review and analysis chapter 163 requires the schedule of projects be updated on an annual basis and this update would replace the existing cis schedule with the schedule listed in your packets chapter 163 does require the cis to include the basin management action plan or b map projects to be updated annually so we coordinated with city staff on those projects city staff identified the projects in the capital improvements program that affect level of service and these items again make up that scheduled projects this is accomplished by ordinance explicitly permitted under chapter 163 and finally the plans of other agencies are incorporated by reference this slide shows the fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 31 schedule of projects broken down by LOS areas you can see that there are six LOS areas including parks and rec solid waste stormwater transportation wastewater and water this total funding is around 1.01 billion dollars across 78 projects this slide shows the LOS priorities broken down identified by the city and this is consistent with the level of service priorities that are outlined in capital improvement section objective 1.1 and policy 1.1 2 which state that the schedule of projects should be planned to eliminate existing deficiencies replace worn out facilities and address future growth again you can see here the deficiency and replacement around 53% followed by deficiency at 35% deficiency replacement and future need at 8% and smaller categories around here continuing on with staff's consistency review staff looked at the CIS schedule of projects in coordination with the coastal high hazard area or CHHA there are 26 projects within the coastal high hazard area this is expected given that large portions of the city of Tampa are within the CHHA area these projects are consistent with CIS objective 1.4 and they renovate or replace existing facilities enhance recreation areas or provide protection from flood hazards with that planning commission staff recommends that the proposed fiscal year 27 through fiscal year 31 CIS schedule projects be found consistent with the goals objectives and policies of the Tampa comprehensive plan and that this recommendation be forwarded to the city council for approval I'm available for any questions that you may have and I believe that city staff are in person all right we didn't let me double check make sure leave we had anyone sign up in the public comment for this item no we did not I'll turn it over to the commissioners for questions comments discussions of this item I did have a quick question I was reading through it I didn't enhancement of recreational areas in the coastal high hazard area what what does that entail I think that that means it's related to recreational areas that are near the coastal area so think of parks and things like that so making sure that you can access the waterfront what are the enhancements though I would assume that it's things like enhancing those areas like the parks because as we noted in the presentation parks and recreation is considered an LOS area so enhancing those park areas all right just seems strange to me to do enhancements in the coastal high hazard area I get the flood mitigation and the other infrastructural maintenance things that have to go on but to enhance not that parks need enhancing too but it just seems anti to the coastal high hazard policy we get beat over the head with all the time to enhance parks in the coastal high hazard area as opposed to enhancing parks outside of the coastal high hazard area within the city of Tampa that seems a strange move to me I digress all right Commissioner Lau I giggled when I saw staff was recommending approval in the coastal high hazard area so I dug a little bit and to ease your concerns most of it's in the most of the money's being spent at Howard F. Kern wastewater all right are there any other thoughts questions or comments on this one not seeing any from the commissioners then I will go on ahead and close the public comment on this one and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item anyone thank you Mr. Chair I move we find city of Tampa FY 20 fiscal year 27 fiscal fiscal year 31 capital improvement section scheduled projects updated consistent and forward to the governing body for a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner well is there a second commission all right we have a motion of consistency finding by Commissioner Lowell a second to that motion by Commissioner Bowden are there any questions comments thoughts from the commissioners before we go on ahead and take our vote not seeing any they don't all signify their agreement by saying aye aye those opposed that motion carries unanimously right next item of business we have is 3F city of Temple Terrace comprehensive plan vision update and the presenters are Yoneika Mills and Diego Guerra good afternoon Yoneika Mills Planning Commission staff I'm here with Diego Guerra to provide an overview of the Temple Terrace comprehensive plan update with particular focus on the vision process and the updated vision developed through public engagement so over the past several months planning commission staff city of Temple Terrace staff and a consultant team have engaged residents businesses community stakeholders to understand the priorities of Temple Terrace today we'll review that engagement process key findings proposed vision and themes and how they'll guide the next phase of the comprehensive plan update this was an eight month process began in early 2026 with a project kickoff and review of existing planning documents the consultant led the community outreach analyze feedback to identify common priorities and themes and develop the draft vision and engagement report summarizing the results the goal was to ensure an inclusive process that reflects the community's aspirations through 2050 for Temple Terrace before discussing the vision staff reviewed relevant planning documents we reviewed population and employment projections and as you can see from this slide Temple Terrace is projected to grow by 26% in population and 23% employment this highlights the need for proactively planning for Temple Terrace's future in early 2026 staff launched an update the update with a scope meeting with the City of Temple Terrace staff we created a project page to share information as well as gather feedback and throughout this process we maintained communication with the City of Temple Terrace staff we had bi-weekly meetings and then August of this year we held the joint meeting between the planning commission as well as the City of Temple Terrace City Council and we did incorporate the feedback that we heard from that meeting so a key part of this effort was to hear directly from the stakeholders through as many avenues as possible to make the participation accessible we offered interactive activities and we offered the survey in English we offered in Spanish and we offered it in Arabic some of the questions that we asked the stakeholders were what do you want to protect what needs improvement what they love most about Temple Terrace and how they envisioned Temple Terrace over the next 25 years some of the top priorities that we heard were that the neighborhood look and feel they love they love the parks and open spaces they love the sense of community some of the areas of improvement were getting around without a car developing downtown and 56 street corridor I want to actually read some of the actual comments from the survey we student he said I like Temple Terrace because we have nice parks like bush gardens many shops and everything is close to me we heard from a Lewis elementary student he says I love the calmness in all the neighbors we need more crosswalks we heard from a resident that lived in Temple Terrace 20 years or more between the age of 35 and 44 and they said it's a tight knit or close by central to nearby attractions restaurants and other cities through local government citizens have a say in what happens or changes and can influence public services it has a sense of community in the middle of Hillsborough County and it's rich in events that bring us together we also heard from a resident that's lived in Temple Terrace one to five years between the age 25 and 34 and they desire to see affordable housing and better public transit so those are some of the actual comments that we heard during this update process there is a full report in your backup of the comments as well as a link to the packet of all of the comments I'm now going to turn the presentation over to Diego Guerra he's going to go over specific engagement activities that were undertaken as well as the rest afternoon ladies and gentlemen again Diego Guerra planning commission staff during the process the consultant conducted one-on-one interviews pop-ups throughout several community events to include local markets the schools also canvassing various neighborhoods throughout the entire community going door-to-door and then holding I believe we held two community meetings overall ultimately some of the metrics as you can see on your slide overall there were 141,000 impressions on social media which is quite a lot we had over excuse me over a thousand survey responses which was above what we had expected and over 260 attendees at our public outreach events overall as previously mentioned there are key areas of concern comments and those comments and concerns were sorted into eight themes category areas to include river parks and trees connected neighborhoods and walkability main street economic development just to name a few the after the workshop that was held in August the consultant went back to not the drawing board but went back and added those requested edits revisions and additional comments to the vision and came to the current vision that you see on your screen which is temple terrace will preserve its distinctive character while building on the strengths of its regional location the city will support economic fatality protect and enhance its natural assets including the hillsborough river the tree canopy strengthen and retain its neighborhoods continue to provide high quality public services and facilities and foster vibrant connected and welcoming community for all so for next steps after today the division will be presented to the temple terrace city council on November 2nd and there will be a second hearing later in the month of November with expected work on the overall comprehensive plan and its sections beginning early 2027 overall that concludes our presentation we recommend that staff well I'm sorry we recommend that the planning commission approve the city of temple terrace comprehensive plan vision update and forward this recommendation to temple terrace city council we're available if you have any further questions or concerns comments thank you we didn't have anyone sign up in the public comment for this item so I will turn it over to the commissioners questions comments thoughts on this item much excitement on this item and open it up to motions from the commissioners on this item thank you mr. chair I move we find city of temple terrace comprehensive plan vision update consistent and forward to the governing body for further consideration right we have a motion of consistency finding by commissioner jemison I'll second all right we have a motion of consistency finding by commissioner will out second to that motion by commissioner jemison are there any questions comments or thoughts from the commissioners opposed that motion carries unanimously all right thank you ladies and gentlemen thank you presentation all right next up we have our briefings and our first briefing is 4a tacpa 26-09 comprehensive plan map amendment 4408 west richardson avenue and the presenter is megan mccarthy good afternoon megan mccarthy planning commission staff this is the briefing for tacpa 2609 located at 4408 west richardson avenue the amendment is privately initiated small scale on the site is approximately 0.53 acres the request is to go from a public semi-public future land use designation to residential 10 the subject site is located within the south tampa planning district the port tampa city neighborhood as well as the coastal high hazard area this is an aerial of the subject site with the subject site shown outlined in yellow the surrounding area is characterized by a mixture of public quasi-public uses and single family detached uses with limited townhomes to the northwest to the east of south manhattan avenue is mcdill air force base which includes the tampa terminal doppler radar system the u.s water services corporation and scattered warehouses the subject site borders the city of tampa owned public quasi-public lands to the south east and west which remain undeveloped additional public quasi-public lands exist further to the north along south manhattan avenue as a part of historic landfill to the west of south wall street are single family detached homes this is the adopted future land use map the subject site is shown outlined in black and is designated under the public semi-public future land use category the PSP category lies directly west of the subject site and east of south manhattan avenue which includes mcdill air force base to the north of the subject site is the residential 10 future land use category reflecting the existing single family residential neighborhood to the northwest adjacent to the subject site to the south and east are the community mixed use 35 lands as a result of previously approved plan amendment from 1998 TACPA 9819 initiated by the city of Tampa the site is also located fully within any coastal high hazard area shown by that teal line there this is the proposed future land use map showing the subject site under the proposed residential 10 future land use designation under the adopted flu of public semi public there are no defined maximums for residential or non residential development development potential is determined by compatibility with the surrounding area under the proposed R10 designation the site may be considered for five area the proposed R10 designation would introduce a low density residential development pattern and quasi public uses would no longer be required on the site under the R10 designation any non residential uses would be subject to locational criteria and this concludes my presentation I'm available for any questions thank you any questions from the commissioners on this one I did have a quick question that's this site looks familiar to me didn't we get one recently north of there that's correct TACPA 2514 is located generally in this area one of these parcels here that was included the historic landfill but this one does not include that okay and that one was not consistent when it went through right because obviously it's still public quasi public on your map so that was I believe when that was consistent at the planning commission and it was found it was denied at city council that sounds right that sounds about right all right were there any other questions from the commissioners on this one not seeing oh commissioner Cardenas I mean when you pull in down there it's it's almost feels like you're like going into a restricted military type of area is there you are the the mcdill fence is just to the east of this site but everything west of this site that slowly over the last 10 plus years has gone from industrial and in this case kind of bordering on these former landfills and it's all been developed into residential so this is just what has been happening down down in this port Tampa area over the years if I may the west boundary street is actually on the mcdill air force base property and there is a fence like we were saying right to the west of that west boundary street that kind of delineates a little bit where you would see the restricted areas right permission to say it looks like this is the only private parcel on that entire section south of richardson is that right there is one more privately owned but south of richardson is generally all public publicly owned can you show the if approved what that map looks like one more time questions or comments on this one from the commissioners not seeing any well thank you for the information look forward to it coming back move on to our next agenda item 4b TACPA 26-10 comprehensive plan map amendment 302 east waters avenue and the presenter is quinn steel good afternoon quinn steel planning commission staff this is TACPA 26-10 which is a map amendment for 302 east waters avenue the request before you is privately initiated in small scale covering approximately .44 acres and the request is to go from residential 10 and community mixed use 35 to a unified community mixed use 35 across the entire site here is a general location map the subject site is located within the university planning district in the sulfer springs neighborhood here is an aerial of the subject site which is outlined in yellow it's located at the northeast corner of east waters avenue and north branch avenue the site is located between north florida avenue to the west which is a transit emphasis corridor here and I-275 to the east the surrounding area includes a mix of commercial and residential development with commercial activity generally concentrated along east waters avenue and north florida avenue immediately north and east of the site are single family detached homes which are separated by east rampart street to the north and an alley to the east to the east and west along east waters avenue are commercial uses with a strip commercial plaza to the south there's also an existing transit stop directly in front of the property further out of frame to the southeast is the old sulfur springs dog track this map shows the adopted future land use as cmu 35 along east waters avenue allowing medium density and intensity residential and commercial uses at 35 dwelling units per acre or a 2.0 FAR which surrounds the site to the east and west along the northern portion of city residential development at 10 units per acre and limited neighborhood serving commercial uses at a .35 FAR which are subject to locational criteria to the south of waters avenue is UMU 60 to the west along north florida avenue is CC 35 and then there's another pocket of CC 35 to the east here which is adjacent to I 275 this map shows the proposed unified CMU 35 designation across the entire site under the adopted R10 and CMU 35 designations the site can be considered for 9 dwelling units or just over 22,000 square feet of non residential uses FIR can only be used for residential development within the CMU 35 portion of the site under the proposed unified CMU 35 designation the site could be considered for 14 dwelling units or just over 37,000 square feet of residential or non residential uses the proposed amendment would introduce the potential for commercial general and multifamily uses on the portion of the site currently designated R10 the potential residential density and residential and or non residential intensity would also increase that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions thank you are there any questions comments from the commissioners on this one not seeing any well thank you for the information and we will move on to our next agenda item 4C TACPA 26-11A comprehensive plan map amendment 4014 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and associated parcels and the presenter is Emily Phelan good afternoon Emily Phelan planning commission staff the next three amendments are all related but are being presented on separately this is a briefing for TACPA 26-11A located at 4014 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and associated parcels this is privately initiated small scale approximately 40.31 acres and the request is to go from public semi-public to urban mixed use 60 it is located within the West Shore Planning District the West Shore Business Center the Drew Park neighborhood and the Drew Park community redevelopment area this site may look familiar it was submitted out of cycle in April and was ultimately denied by city council back in July the original amendment was this entire subject site here but it has been broken out into three separate amendments and the subject site is southeast of North Lois Avenue and West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard the subject site currently has the Hillsboro Tax Collector's Office the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as well as other government facilities to the south of the subject site is Hillsboro College and the field located Steinburn field is the southwest corner of MLK and North Dale Mabry Highway along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is a mix of commercial and industrial uses along Dale Mabry is primarily commercial uses a single family detached neighborhood is to the west of the subject site located approximately here this is an overall aerial of the three amendments the next two will be after this presentation this first one was up in this corner here this is the adopted future land use map the subject site is outlined in black and represented with the public semi public designation which is to the east and south of the subject site to the north in the gray is the light industrial designation and to the west and to the northeast of the subject site in the red is the community commercial 35 which has the single family detached neighborhood that was previously mentioned this is the proposed future land use map the subject site again is outlined in black and represented with the urban mixed use 60 designation under the current public semi public designation the maximum residential density and non residential intensity is not defined instead the maximum development potential is determined by the compatibility of the proposed project with the context of the surrounding can be considered for just over 2,400 dwelling units or just over 5.7 million square feet of residential non residential or mixed uses this amendment would define residential and non residential maximums and promote a mixture of uses it would also remove the requirement for public semi public uses to be required on the site and that concludes my presentation if you have any questions all right commissioner sink wow I mean I think everybody asked the same question why did they break it up into three separate ones when it went down at the last vote so they originally submitted as part of the august cycle as the entire site and then they made a modification to their application to break it up into three as far as specifically why they did that I will leave that up to the applicant to address that at the hearing next month and I did have a quick question what UMU 60 did that change from the previous one that we approved yes so I will go back to this map it's a little easier so the original request of the previous amendment 20 TACPA 2603 that site was primarily regional mixed use 100 and it had a sliver of UMU 60 that was adjacent to the residential 20 okay so they decreased the density right so they because they modified their request to be UMU 60 across the entire site per their procedures manual they were able to reapply in the August cycle and we approved it last time at RM 100 didn't we yes and then city council for reasons that city council decided on didn't approve it right they denied the transmittal to the state coming back again correct all right are the other pieces I know we're going to find out in a second here but are any of the pieces still RMU 100 or no they're all all three requests are for UMU 60 so less density in the core of the city is what they're asking for now after we've already approved higher density in the core of the city along transit routes just to be clear right they are requesting the UMU 60 okay I just want to make sure I'm understanding it in my head so all right any other questions from the commissioners on this item we will look forward to this one coming back and move on to our next one item 4D TACPA 26-11 B comprehensive plan map amendment 4100 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Associated Parcels and the presenter again is Emily Phelan Planning Commission staff this is a briefing for TACPA 26-11 B located at 4100 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Associated Parcels this is privately initiated small scale approximately 33.85 acres and the request is to go from public semi-public to urban mixed use 60 again this is located in the Westshore Planning District the Westshore Business Center the Drew Park Neighborhood and the Park CRA this aerial outlines the subject site in pink the surrounding area is the same as the previous amendment however on this site it does contain a portion of Hillsborough College the remaining Hillsborough College is on the next amendment and just for reference it is this sliver right here this is the adopted future land use map it's outlined in black represented with a public semi-public designation which is to the north east and south of the subject site to the west is the residential 20 with that single family detached neighborhood this is the proposed future lane use map again the sites in black and represent with the urban mixed use 60 designation under the public semi-public designation the maximum residential density and non-residential intensity is not defined instead of maximum development potential is determined by compatibility of the proposed project with the context of the surrounding area under the proposed UMU 60 designation the site can be considered for just over 2,000 dwelling units or 4.7 or just over 4.7 million square feet of residential non-residential or mixed uses the proposed amendment would result in defining residential and non-residential maximums and would promote a mixture of uses the public semi-public uses would no longer be required on the subject site and that concludes my presentation if you have any questions thank you any questions from the commissioners on this one not seeing any we will move on to our next agenda item 4.E TACPA 26-11 C comprehensive plan map amendment 4002 Northdale Mabry highway and the presenter is Emily Phelan again Emily Phelan planning commission staff this is TACPA 26-11 C located at 4200 Northdale Mabry highway this is privately initiated small scale approximately 47.57 acres the request is to go from public semi-public to urban mixed use 60 again it's located in the Westshore Planning District the Westshore Business Center Drew Park Neighborhood and Drew Park CRA and the subject site is located here outlined in pink it is to the Bay Boulevard and Northdale Mabry Highway the surrounding area is the same and it does contain a portion of Hillsboro College just for reference it is this portion of the overall three amendments this is the adopted future land use map the site is outlined in black is represented with the public semi-public designation which does surround the subject site this is the proposed future land use map with the site outlined in black and represented with the urban mixed use 60 designation under the public semi-public designation maximum residential density and non-residential intensity is not defined instead the maximum development potential is determined by the compatibility of the proposed project with the context of the surrounding area under the UMU 60 designation the site could be considered for just over 2,800 dwelling units or just over 6.7 million square feet of and defining maximum and non-residential maximums and would promote a mixture of uses public semi-public uses would no longer be required on the site and that concludes my presentation if you have any questions thank you are there any questions from the commissioners on this one not seeing any one quick question this is all in the vicinity of the potential Ray stadium correct right are there any other questions thoughts from the commissioners not seeing any well thank you for the information and we will move along to our next agenda item item number five executive director's report and the presenter is Melissa Zornita good afternoon Melissa Zornita executive director at your seats you should have a copy of my report just highlighting a few items that have transpired in the last month we made a presentation alongside the Tampa Hillsborough express rate authority staff to the board of county commissioners about our work that we're doing together on the riverview community plan and their study of extending the crosstown expressway down into south county down 301 corridor the board of county commissioners was happy with the progress that has been made and understanding of the fact that that community plan update will take us a little bit longer given the fact that we're working in conjunction with Thea and some of their work needs to get done for the residents in that area to react to to be able to incorporate updated strategies about the land use pattern and some of their goals for their community we we've identified goals and some of the broader strategies for their area but before getting things too detailed they want to see what Thea is progress is and what they're looking at in terms of that facility so that will take a little bit longer than the normal year that a community plan update might take and the board of county commissioners was comfortable with that we've had a number of briefings with the county commissioners individually on the status of the urban expansion area project and that those were before we did our last outreach meetings which were last week in the little manatee south area and then next week we'll be out in the I-4 corridor area for the final outreach for that segment of the project we've had a number of discussions with the city and some neighborhoods around the stadium district as we're loosely calling it the group of neighborhoods that have been convening are actually working on do they want to have a coalition and what name does that want to be given modeling sort of after the heights area how they all call themselves the heights so we were invited to myself and Mr. Wong from the TPO were invited to attend some neighborhood meetings that they were having with Councilman Carlson and Commissioner Cohen to hear some of their concerns and begin to identify what could be done to address some of them in particular there are a lot of concerns about transportation so we have invited FDOT to come talk to them city mobility as well then on at the end of September we had actually I take the best October 1st city council asked for a report on what was going on we explained that we'd been attending these neighborhood meetings and that if it was the pleasure of city council we could move forward with scoping out what a planning project to address some of those concerns might look like and city council did request that we do that so that will be coming forward in the coming months I also wanted to highlight that last week myself and Adam Gormley from the county development services were interviewed by OPAGA and I should all the initials in that organization means but it's got policy in it and it's accountability government accountability office of I'm not sure what the second P stands for but it's they are doing a study on urban service areas statewide and wanted to get some information about our urban service area I provided them not only the information that's in the adopted comprehensive plan but information from your discussions that you've had over the last year and they found that to be very helpful we also provided them information about the two expansion studies that are going on so I'm not sure what will come of that but wanted to make you all aware that there is a statewide look at this issue as well let's see coming up we have not only our November meeting on November 9th but also our annual awards program on October 29th at the JCC beginning at 5 15 p.m. if you haven't RSVP'd you can still let us know if you want to use your complimentary ticket to the event would love to have you all there there's a listing of recently taken plan amendment actions by the four local governments I won't go through each of those in detail but if you have any questions please let me know I also passed out for your information an update on our work program our work projects that we've got I think the last time I gave one out was several months ago so I wanted to provide you an update that adds some of the projects and requests that have been made by this board by the board of county commissioners city council as well as it includes all of our ongoing and recurring work and things that are still we haven't started working on yet are listed as pending and then there are a list of the completed items in order that the list doesn't get too long we'll probably start dropping off the completed items at the end of the year so that those just reflect those that have been completed in this calendar year but I'm happy to answer any questions about any items on that list as well the last thing I want to say and then I'll turn it over to y'all to ask me questions is that with our chair's resignation we will be having a tight number of you all that are needed here for a quorum there will only be eight sitting members on the board we need six in order to conduct business so I'll just use this as an opportunity to emphasize how important it is that you all are here at the meetings so that we can keep moving things forward for applicants in particular the public hearings are where those items are and very critical to many of those projects timelines that the applicants want to move forward in a timely basis as I mentioned in the workshop we are anticipating that the county will begin advertising for the vacant positions after the election in November and they usually give about 30 days for people to respond it looks like that would then put a decision on those members in January so that's we're going to be down for a couple of months here so just appreciate you all doing your best to be here that concludes my presentation thank you all right commissioner well question regarding the HCCP 2615 front street in Val Rico yes racking my brain and I can't recall that one looks like staff recommended inconsistent PC recommended consistent board denied yeah that was the one in Brandon that was just north of the railroad tracks and front street there it was an isolated parcel yes yes see the barbecue guy wasn't it the restaurant yeah the seafood restaurant is right next door yeah and that actually was didn't it was a four to one vote by the board of county commissioners they need five affirmative votes to change their comprehensive plan and so it failed on that basis so close vote for them right commissioner sink look at two questions the i saw pima map is getting beta tested do we know what that's going to come out of beta like for general use or is it i think that the new version of pima for is online for the public now okay yes awesome um i'll go as i think about it again okay i did have a question the paga group that's a it's a state or office of policy again i'm forgetting that second p some policy and government accountability and they get assigned reports by the legislature so i understand it and they were assigned this topic as a report we really were the tip of the spear see that i had to go through all that right that was actually my question so is this looking like a possible state preemption move or like i don't know and they did not provide a timeline on when they had to have the report completed i assumed maybe wrongly i guess but i assumed it was for this next legislative session that they had to have their report completed so i guess that is a possibility that there could be some pending legislation on this topic that's something we'll try to monitor yeah you should definitely monitor it there's a lot of stuff moving into this next session people are trying to get a lot of business done really quick in this next session so it's going to be hot and heavy for sure all right are there any other questions on any of these things for our executive we'll one one thing just to talk to everybody i was able to go down to the meeting last week for the USA expansion and the team does an amazing job there was so much data and the staff did a fantastic job of breaking it down and spending time with the constituents out there trying to listen to them and understand it so we have more we have one more coming up right yeah we have the final round of meetings for the i4 corridor next week i don't have those dates right in front of me but yeah there's one on saturday and one that's i think on thursday the 22nd they're super valuable to go to like i learned some stuff and was kind of listening to people talk and it's actually really valuable so if someone has time to go it's your living proof that we can actually make it out of one of those in one piece i did not get to the cac for the tpo though i did have one more quick question for you this uf guest lecture for the master of urban regional planning program did you go up there i didn't it was a virtual presentation so they have a speaker series for the program and they asked me to be one of the speakers and i'm happy to report that then one of the students asked me to mentor them as part of their mentor planning student program so i at least got caught the interest of one student well we have we have several flip students up there in their program now that's why i wonder if you were actually there and got to see them yeah no unfortunately it was virtual cool still cool yeah all right are there any other questions for our executive director not seeing any we'll thank you for the information thank you we'll move on to our next agenda item business other business chairs business i have none old business uh plan amendments for missing middle housing yeah should have stayed by the other microphone i'm sorry um this is uh as you requested at the last meeting based on the issue commissioner sink brought up we'll have this as a standing item each month um my update for this month is that we have started some gis analysis looking at um where there might be some opportunities to bring the the density up um also trying to understand if there could be an opportunity to utilize some uh policy tools to accomplish this um for example in the update we had proposed a rounding up policy that ultimately got removed by city council but maybe this is an opportunity to employ that in a pilot project type of way um and uh so we're working on that analysis and we have a meeting with city of tampa staff later this week good any questions comments commissioner saying he seems satisfied all right good job all right are any from any from the other commissioners on this not seeing any all right then we will move on to item 6c new business is there any new business for us from anyone commissioner this is really school board business but I just wanted to let you all know that the ground lease was approved for affordable housing at the McLean middle school and that was a big deal can you share how much land for housing there would be it's in Brandon correct correct and just to let everyone know we are not removing McLean middle school it is a closed school right now but we are using it administratively it will be the modulars that are out there we are removing those and it's about six acres for 100 to 150 units right thank you very much that's a cool update all right any other new business from the commissioners not seeing any then we will move on to committee reports are any committee reports from the commissioners I do not have an MPO committee report because my meeting is on Wednesday of this week and I will take notes and email them to miss Zornita to have printed out and waiting for you at your next meeting so you can read through them at your leisure are there any other committee reports from anyone not seeing any then that is the end of our agenda for this meeting what time are we going into our next meeting is at 530 all right so at 530 we will be back here for our public hearings and at 428 p.m. this regular meeting is adjourned 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 6