TAMPA, Fla. — Tampa City Council voted 4-3 Thursday to block a land use amendment tied to a proposed Tampa Bay Rays development, in what may be the first time in city history the council has ever voted against transmitting a comprehensive plan amendment to the state.
What was expected to be a routine procedural vote sent a wave of confusion across chambers.
"We're really just here to see if you're willing to transmit this up to Tallahassee to allow them to review it for their 30 days, and then come back to the board," attorney Jim Schindberg of the Shutts Law Group said.
The request sought to rezone approximately 121.73 acres currently being considered for a new Tampa Bay Rays development, changing the site's designation from Public Semi-Public to Urban Mixed Use 60 and Regional Mixed Use 100.
The site is located in the West Shore Planning District, the West Shore Business Center, the Drew Park neighborhood and the Drew Park Community Redevelopment Area. It is bounded by North Dale Mabry Highway to the east, West Tampa Bay Boulevard to the south, North Lois Avenue to the west and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the north.
The site currently houses the Dale Mabry Campus of Hillsborough College, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Hillsborough Tax Collector's Office and other government facilities.
Under the proposed Regional Mixed Use 100 and Urban Mixed Use 60 designations, the site could support significant new development.
"Under the proposed RMU 60 and RMU 100 designations, the site can be considered for a maximum of just over 11,900 dwelling units, or approximately 18.4 million square feet of residential or non-residential uses and mixed uses," a planning official said.
The Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission reviewed the amendment and unanimously recommended it be found consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, citing support for mixed-use development, transit investment along nearby corridors and residential and employment growth in the West Shore Business Center.
The amendment was publicly initiated at the request of the Tampa Legal Department and ran outside the city's standard four-cycle annual schedule.
Schindberg told the council the amendment became necessary after months of back-and-forth with city staff over whether the existing Public Semi-Public designation could accommodate the proposed project.
"For several months we took the position that we thought that the PSP category, because it really doesn't have a maximum, that we thought that we could basically do this project under that category," Schindberg said.
"Finally, in the beginning of April, we agreed that they really said you really got to change the comp plan here," Schindberg said.
Schindberg emphasized the limited scope of Thursday's vote.
"This is not the meat. It's just a technical procedure," he said, adding that if transmitted, the amendment would return to council for a full public hearing in late September.
Council members were not without questions. Councilwoman Hurtak pressed the applicant on why the more intensive Regional Mixed Use 100 designation was being sought rather than Urban Mixed Use 60, noting that properties south of the site had not developed at the density RMU 100 would allow.
"Right now, I don't see RMU 100 fitting in the area," Hurtak said. "I'm just curious why you didn't go for what would be a smaller amount, and when you're basically getting the same thing."
Schindberg acknowledged the difference between the two designations was not large.
"Both of those are very intense categories, and most of the public comment on this has been for slightly less than either one of those two," Schindberg said. "But again, this is a comp plan. This is not, you know, this is just a study in the overall parameter."
Councilman Miranda questioned whether council members had been notified of the amendment before it went to the planning commission and raised concerns about a document related to the conveyance of approximately 22 acres of the property.
Schindberg said the document pertained to the state conveying land back to Hillsborough College and noted only three of the four members of the governor and cabinet are required to sign such a conveyance.
Miranda also pointed to language in the application describing the project.
"This is done, Councilman. And this is from the Shutts Law Group, signed by you on page 67, specifically the amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of property to a mixed-use entertainment district that may include a major league baseball field. Not shall, may include," Miranda said.
Schindberg responded that ongoing negotiations between the Rays, the city, and the county would ultimately determine the project's scope.
"I think when this comes back in September, you'll have a better sense of the way that everything is moving forward or not," Schindberg said.
Only one person appeared during the public comment portion of the hearing.
"The comp plan proposal takes public community college land and creates a residential development giveaway any billionaire developer would crave," speaker Laura Lawson said.
Lawson also raised concerns about the future of the Hillsborough Tax Collector's Office on the site and the deed restrictions on the college land.
"The land was supposed to be set aside for college purposes forever. That's what the deed says," Lawson said.
"We should not do that before we have a solid public benefits agreement that truly benefits the public and protects the college and the tax collector's office," Lawson said.
Following public comment, Councilwoman Hurtak moved to not transmit the amendment to the state, and the motion passed 4-3, with council members Young, Vieira, and Cleverly voting no.
After the vote, a staff member noted the significance of the outcome.
"We have, first time probably in history, we have not transmitted a comp plan or future land use amendment," the staff member said.
CRA board votes to pull Rays item from August agenda
It was the second vote the board took Thursday involving the Rays. Acting as the Community Redevelopment Agency, the board also voted to remove a placeholder item about the Rays stadium proposal from its August 20 agenda.
The motion came from board member Carlson, who said the CRA, a separate legal entity from the city, had not been brought into negotiations despite a unanimous vote the previous month directing Hillsborough County and the Rays to negotiate directly with the CRA board.
"The CRA board is a separate legal entity from the city. At the city, the mayor can negotiate on behalf of the city and then present something to the city council. But on the CRA, the mayor and her staff are not authorized to negotiate on our behalf," Carlson said.
Carlson said he had spoken with both the county and the Rays after the prior month's vote but drew a clear distinction between being briefed and being involved in negotiations.
"The chief of staff sent a memo to us the other day offering to brief us, but that's different than being involved in negotiation," Carlson said.
Carlson argued that keeping a placeholder on the agenda without substantive negotiations in place would only draw large crowds without productive results.
"My point is we can put it on the agenda when they're ready. Right now they're obviously not ready, but the next time a whole bunch of people are going to show up to advocate for this, so that will be too late to change the date. So why not take it off this calendar and then we'll address it when they're ready," Carlson said.
Carlson also described his preferred approach to the negotiations.
"This should be a robust community-oriented negotiation to get our votes. They need to do things for the CRA board that help us get our supporters in line," Carlson said.
Board member Hurtak seconded the motion and expressed frustration that the CRA had not been more directly engaged.
"I don't see how we get a solution by August, but also I'm very concerned that we haven't been consulted," Hurtak said.
"If they don't want to negotiate with each of us, if they only want to negotiate with the people that they think are listening to them, that's a really dumb idea, but that seems to be what's happening," Hurtak said.
Hurtak also pushed back on the urgency being placed on the August timeline.
"Just because it's your emergency doesn't make it mine. And if you aren't coming to me and negotiating with me and working with me and showing me reasonable progress for reasonable things, they're making all these plans for something they don't even have plans for yet," Hurtak said.
The CRA's attorney weighed in on the broader dynamics at play.
"If I was in the Rays camp, I would say I think we've got to park this thing until November because otherwise we're just whistling in the wind," the attorney said.
Not every board member supported removing the item. Board member Clendenin argued that keeping the placeholder on the agenda cost nothing and kept the door open for community input.
"It doesn't cost us anything leaving it there. I think it's important that we at least send a signal that we are cooperative and trying to figure this out and leaving the door open for discussion," Clendenin said.
Board member Viera agreed, calling the Rays proposal the most significant issue to come before him in nearly a decade in public office.
"We're debating the merits of the issue when the real issue before us is the reasonableness of having a place saver for what is the biggest issue to certainly in my 9.5 years of public office by far and away," Viera said.
Viera said board members have a responsibility to actively engage rather than wait.
"We have a duty to reach out to them on things that concern us. I've always taken that philosophy on this. We have to be actively involved. This is the biggest issue we're gonna vote on," Viera said.
Board member Miranda raised broader concerns about the pace and transparency of the process.
"Until that November vote is taken, we should discuss nothing because we don't know what's going to happen in November. If that ad valorem tax is decreased, how they say it's gonna be possibly by the people who are paying for it, what's gonna happen to everything we do?" Miranda said.
The motion to remove the item from the August 20 agenda passed. As of now, it is not clear when the CRA will take up the conversation again.
Share Your Story with Jada
Jada Williams is focused on the issues that matter most to people in who live in Tampa and West Hillsborough County. From downtown Tampa to Town ‘n’ Country and Westchase, Jada works to bring you updates and solutions on everything from crime to infrastructure. Reach out to Jada below with your concerns for your neighborhood.
.
Florida memory care facility files for bankruptcy after $1.5M court judgment
A Pasco County memory care facility filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy weeks after a judge ordered it to pay a $1.5 million award to a resident's family in a wrongful death lawsuit.
