Estero Development Report

Volume 7, Number 5
Edited by ECCL--the Estero Council of Community Leaders
 
For More Information about Estero
…see www.esterofl.org
 
This Report is available on the Estero Fire Rescue website at www.esterofire.org
and the Estero Community website at www.esterofl.org

September Opportunities for Citizen Participation In Protecting Estero's Quality of Life

Index

Estero Community Website

During the first seven months of 2007 an estimated 40,150 persons visited this site to learn about Estero. During the same period last year we had only a little more than half as many visitors, about 23,300, an increase of over 70%.
 
The community groups sponsoring the site are:
 
Estero Community Planning Panel (ECPP)
Estero Civic Association (ECA)
Estero Design Review Committee (EDRC)
Estero Council of Community Leaders (ECCL)
Greater Estero Cultural Arts Council (Arts Estero)
 
www.esterofl.org

DR/GR - Density Reduction Groundwater Resource Area

Lee County, while growing rapidly, in 1989 set aside about 150 square miles (over 90,000 acres) in the southeastern area of the county for low density and groundwater resource protection. Half of Estero, its eastern end, is located within the DR/GR. For a map of the DR/GR area see http://esterofl.org/EsteroLife/environment.htm#DRGR .

The Estero Council of Community Leaders (ECCL) in 2005 committed itself to seeking County approval of a research program that would provide the County with the information that it needs to properly plan the area and protect the natural resources within it.
 
Development pressures on the DR/GR have grown rapidly during the last decade and they continue to mount. Some pending threats to the DRGR are:

• An attempt to construct an interchange at Coconut Road and I-75 in order to open up the land to the east for development,
• A plan to build a four-mile canal along the east side of I-75 in order to drain all or a major part of 4,000 acres of mostly high quality wetlands,
• Five, and maybe more, pending applications for new dirt and aggregate mines along Corkscrew Road east of I-75, and
• A County comprehensive plan change application that would authorize a 2,800 acre mixed use development south of the intersection of Daniels Road and County Road 82, the northern boundary of the DRGR.

Another matter that has some potential for improving the availability of clean drinking water is a pending amendment to the County’s Wellfield Protection Ordinance, a statute adopted by the County in 1989 but largely unaltered since that time.
 
The following sections detail some of the recent activities associated with these threats and actions.

Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource (DRGR) Planning Update…

On August 9th the BOCC devoted its Management and Planning meeting to discuss with staff how best to proceed to update the planning for the DRGR. The staff report to the Commissioners summarized the public hearing at the Estero Community Park as follows:
 
“Subsequent to the McLane Compilation presentation in June, the Smart Growth Committee and county staff hosted a DRGR Stakeholders workshop July 25th at Estero Community Center. The workshop purpose was to obtain public input about the critical issues of the DRGR now and in the future. Most of the discussion centered on compatibility issues with mining and is driven, in part, by the 8 pending applications to expand current mines or permit new ones.”
 
At this meeting the ECCL and eleven civic and environmental groups presented a joint statement for consideration by County staff and the BOCC. For the full Joint Statement see the following webpage … http://esterofl.org/eccl/library/Final%20combined%20statement%207-24-07.pdf .
 
The staff report presented to the Board contained two short term possible actions, twelve intermediate term possible actions and two long term possible actions. The BOCC responded with a strong sense of urgency regarding the need to move ahead expeditiously on this high priority matter. They asked the staff to come back to them soon with an action plan for dealing with all the issues associated with the DRGR, especially all the mining applications. The threat posed by the Florida Legislature taking away local control of mine permitting seemed to create a special sense of urgency on the part of several commissioners. To review the entire staff report for the August 9th meeting see: http://esterofl.org/eccl/library/Staff%20Report%20on%20DRGR%20%20Workshop%208-9-07%20%20materials.pdf .
 
On August 17th Bill Spikowski, the planner hired by the Estero Community Improvement Foundation to implement the “Effective Planning Alternatives for Rural Lee County” funded by a grant from the Elizabeth Ordway Dunn Foundation, spoke to the Estero Council of Community Leaders (ECCL) to outline the research plan and demonstrate how the results of the study could assist the BOCC to plan the DRGR and the other rural lands in Lee County. A copy of his DRGR research, enforcement and planning diagram may be found at http://esterofl.org/eccl/library/DRGR-Planning-Flow-Chart-Spikowski-8-17-07.pdf .
 
On August 27th the ECCL and the other members of the DRGR Coalition sent a letter to County Board President Bob Janes and the other members of the BOCC urging them to implement a research agenda in conjunction with and prior to developing a plan for the future use of the DRGR lands. The full letter may be viewed at http://esterofl.org/eccl/library/Judah%20Research%20note%208-27-07.pdf .
 
The staff Action Plan for the DRGR will be presented to the BOCC at their regular meeting on September 11th. The BOCC is expected to approve a plan for updating the planning for the DRGR along with the commitment of funds necessary for its implementation. A copy of the draft action plan to be discussed at this meeting and may be reviewed at the following website once the September 11th agenda is posted … http://www.lee-county.com/publicresources/ApNspage_T21_R54.htm .

Background

On June 11th McLane Environmental presented their report on all prior DRGR studies to the BOCC. The report’s principal conclusions generally substantiate the designation of the DRGR and the protection that it affords the critical resources located in the area. It also identified some information and research gaps that need to be filled if the BOCC is to properly plan the area.  To review the McLane Report see http://www.lee-county.com/dcd/Downloads/Documents/Studies_Reports/GroundwaterResource/DRGRdraftreport.pdf .

Wellfield Protection Ordinance…

On August 27th the Lee County Local Planning Agency (LPA) discussed a proposed amendment to the county’s Wellfield Protection Ordinance that has not been significantly changed since its adoption in 1989. Lee County has two wellfields in the DRGR east and northeast of Estero and the City of Bonita has another wellfield located within the City east of I-75.
 
Several organizations, including ECCL, raised questions about the ability of the Ordinance as amended to protect the area’s water supply given the proximity of several existing mines and the eight new DRGR mine applications that have recently been filed with the County. The model used by the County to provide the protective boundaries for the wellfields was selected long before the Federal Court in Miami Dade County found that several of the permits for mines in their Lake Belt mining area were issued without adequate modeling and analysis. The Court found that some of the mining activities were dangerously contaminating the adjacent wells and thereby threatened the area’s water supply. Thus the testimony and the questions asked by several members of the LPA focused upon the ability of the model being used to:

• assess the impact of existing and new mines in the area upon the wellfields,
• assess the mine’s impact upon surface water and flowways and their interaction with the aquifers below, and
• assess the mine’s impact on the secondary porosity of the area, water traveling through the underground rock and other material to the wellfields.

After hearing this testimony the LPA voted 4 to 3 to continue consideration of the Ordinance for at least another 30 days. Prior to this vote the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) had planned to conduct public hearings on the Ordinance on Sept. 11th and 25th. All attending the LPA meeting assumed that the BOCC hearings and votes would be postponed.

The Fountains Comprehensive Plan Amendment…

On May 21st the developers of The Fountains, a proposed 2,769 acre mixed use development generally located at the intersection of Daniels Parkway and State Route 82, just south of Lehigh Acres and in the northern-most section of the Density Reduction Groundwater Resource (DR/GR) area, appeared before the Lee County Local Planning Agency (LPA) to seek their approval for the development. County staff recommended that the Board of County Commissioners not transmit the change to the State for approval for 16 reasons, the first of which is its location in the DRGR.
 
The County’s Local Planning Agency (LPA) also discussed The Fountains Comp Plan proposal at their July meeting. After consideration of the then forthcoming McLane DR/GR study consolidation report, the applicant and the LPA agreed to postpone the Hearing until the LPA’s August meeting. The LPA did hear testimony from groups that attended the meeting to comment on The Fountains. The ECCL, The Conservancy and the Regional Growth Management Coalition (RGMC) all spoke in opposition to the development until the County’s 20 year old plans for the DRGR are updated.
 
Prior to the August meeting of the LPA the applicant asked that the matter be pulled from the agenda for that meeting and also from the September agenda. County staff indicates that the applicant can resubmit their application for hearing after September.
A copy of the staff report on The Fountain’s development can be found at http://www.lee-county.com/dcd/PlanAmendments/DRI/CPA200601.pdf .

Coconut I-75 Interchange…

On August 8th Carla Johnston, Chairperson of the MPO and former Mayor of Sanibel, released the following statement:
 
“Lee MPO Chair Carla Brooks Johnston released an independent research report on questions which she deems critical to the MPO’s making an informed decision on how to spend the $10 million dollars earmarked for a Coconut Road I-75 Interchange.
 
Her charge to researcher, Darla Letourneau, a career professional familiar with Congressional appropriations procedures, was to determine the following:
 
1) What exactly did Congress vote for when inserting Congressman Young’s Coconut Road Earmark?
2) Could the Lee MPO reallocate the funds to higher priority projects, if it wished?
3) What is the exact procedure for re-programming an earmark?
 
The research paper documents that:

1) Congress didn’t vote $10 million for “a Coconut Road Interchange”; Congress voted $10 million for “I-75 widening and improvement.”
2) The money can be reallocated immediately on a loan basis, and permanently by making a technical correction in the legislation to what Congress actually voted.
3) There are a number of ways someone in our Congressional delegation can initiate such a legislative technical correction.

Johnston stated, “Fifteen honorable elected officials comprise the Lee MPO. We need the answers to the above questions prior to our August 17, 2007 meeting when we decide on how the Coconut Road earmark money will be spent. In setting our county-wide priorities, we include the economic development needs of the majority of county businesses, the needs of residents and visitors in our rapidly growing population, and we strive to protect the environmental resources which make possible our economic viability. Our staff and the Florida Department of Transportation staff constantly update the data we use in decision making. The Lee MPO, in setting priorities, affirms this staff work and affirms the support of our Congressional delegation’s vote. I do not think anyone believes that Alaskan Congressman Young’s self-interests should determine Lee County Florida priorities.”
 
The MPO staff attached Mayor Johnston’s release and the full report to its website linked to the August 17th Coconut Road agenda item but did not amend the agenda description so as to provide notice that the MPO might act on this information. The agenda for the meeting may be accessed at http://www.mpo-swfl.org/content/Agendas/MPO/2007/Aug/M00.Agenda.pdf  and the full report that is linked to the Coconut Road/I-75 agenda item at http://www.mpo-swfl.org/content/Agendas/MPO/2007/Aug/M08.I-75%20Coconut%20Interchange%20Scope.pdf .
 At the August 17th meeting of the MPO Mayor Johnston offered the following motion in order to “frame the debate”: (click image below to enlarge)

After testimony from several members of the public on both sides of the issue, the MPO members voted 10-3 to approve the motion without amendment. In the course of the discussion by the MPO members FDOT, the County attorney and MPO staff indicated that items 2 and 3 of the motion needed to be heard by the MPO’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) prior to MPO approval.
 
A second motion was approved with one dissenting vote authorizing the MPO Chairman, with the assistance of MPO staff, to hire appropriate assistance in Washington, if necessary, order to obtain the necessary Congressional approval for the reprogramming of the $10 million.
 
The ECCL testified as follows at the meeting:
 
“As the Johnston/Letourneau study indicates the U.S. Congress voted for the $10 million in question to be used for “I-75 widening and improvement”, not “a Coconut Road interchange”. The Estero Council of Community Leaders urges the MPO to reprogram the $10 million so that the will of the 535 elected members of Congress is satisfied, not the will of one or more devious members of Congress responding to their campaign contributors and not the public they are elected to serve.
 
Secondly we would urge you to repeal the changes you made to the Lee County Long Range 2030 adopted as a result of this deception.
 
In August 2005 and again in December 2005 the MPO voted to defeat proposals that would have amended the Lee 2020 and 2030s plan to add an interchange at Coconut Road and I-75 along with some adjacent segments to Coconut Road.
 
Only after the MPO and its staff had been informed by Congressmen Young and Mack that the funds could not be readily reprogrammed and could be lost to the region and state did the MPO vote in March 2006 to amend the Long Range 2030 Plan and the Fiscally Feasible Plan to include the $10 for the interchange and its related improvements.
 
On January 23, 2006 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young wrote then MPO Chair John Albion as follows:
 
“The authority provided in Sec. 117 with regard to projects authorized in Sec. 1702 on SAFETEA-LU is quite clear and unambiguous. Projects for which funds are designated are available only for that project. The state in which the designated project resides is free under the terms of the law to build, or not build the project. However, the law does not provide authority for a state to use funds designated for an authorized project on some other project.…
 
As the second session of the 109th Congress proceeds, the Committee will, as the Committee has historically done on previous reauthorizations, work to pass into law a bill to amend SAFETEA-LU. This bill, which in previous Congresses has been titled a corrections bill, will seek to make improvements, rectify errors and modify aspects of SAFETEA-LU. With regard to Sec. 1702, my past experience on this committee suggests that where a state elects to not utilize funds designated for an authorized project, the committee will incorporate the effect of that decision as appropriate when developing the bill. In an era of funding shortfalls, it is an important responsibility of he committee to see that all funds provided in SAFETEA-LU are in fact used for their intended benefit on the transportation system.”
 
On January 31, 2006 Congressman Mack wrote to then MPO Chairman Albion as follows:
 
“While I respect the right of local leaders to make local decisions, there are several federal implications of this vote which I wish to call to your attention.
 
First, as a result of discussions with the Transportation Committee it does not appear the $10 million for the Coconut Road Interchange project can or will be re-programmed for other purposes. Second, if the MPO chooses to not utilize this $10 million for this project, there is a reasonable chance that my colleagues in Congress will work to rescind these funds in light of the overall emphasis of reducing federal spending obligations.
 
Moreover, the unintended message from the MPO to my colleagues in Congress is that our region is willing to reject scarce federal resources. I am concerned that the MPO’s vote will make it difficult for Southwest Florida to have future success in securing federal resources for other important projects, many of which will not fall under the MPO’s purview.
 
In light of the ramifications of not utilizing this $10 million for the Coconut Road Interchange project, coupled with the strong support of many other Southwest Florida leaders who want to proceed with this study, I encourage the MPO to reconsider its decision at the earliest possible date.”
 
In our opinion “but for this misinformation” the MPO would never have voted in March 2006 to approve a detailed amendment to the Long Range 2030 plan and to the 2030 Fiscally Feasible Plan.”

FDOT Letter to the MPO

On August 24th Stan Cann, District Secretary of District 1 FDOT, sent a letter to Chairman Johnston stating in part the following:
 
“We have determined item numbers 2 and 3 of your motion, which was made and ultimately passes, violate Title 23,sec. 450.316 (a) of the Code of Federal Regulation.”
 
Those sections relate to involving traditionally underserved populations and providing additional opportunities for public comment in the decision-making process.
 
The letter continues: “It is important the MPO board take corrective action.”
 
The letter goes on to state that until the MPO takes this action FDOT will not approve the County’s five year Transportation Improvement Plan thus preventing federal approval of that plan prior to the beginning of the next Federal fiscal year commencing October 1, 2007; no federally funded projects included in that plan will be authorized; future Transportation Improvement Plan amendments and Long Range Transportation Plan amendments will not be processed and certification of the MPO process could be jeopardized.
 
The letter concludes with the following:
 
 “…FDOT strongly recommends that MPO board, at its next meeting, rescind its motion taken at the August 17, 2007 meeting to delete all Coconut Road interchange related projects in both the 2030 LRTP and the TIP, as well as its insertion of additional reference to both the LTRP and TIP to widening and improvements to I-75. After rescission, if the MPO board desires to remove the I-75/Coconut Road interchange project from the LRTP and TIP, FDOT would require the MPO follow all federal, state and MPO specific requirements, including advertisement and public involvement.”
 
The MPO has scheduled a special meeting to address this issue expeditiously on Friday, September 28th at 9 a.m. In addition the Technical Advisory Committee and the Citizen Advisory Committee will meet on September 12th to review this issue. Watch the MPO website for the agenda and backup materials for these meetings at http://www.mpo-swfl.org/agendas.shtml .

Estero/City of Bonita Springs Coordination

The Bonita Springs City Council and the eight member delegation of Estero leaders met for their fifth three-hour work shop on Friday, August 10th at the Bonita Springs City Hall.

Vote Estero Presentation and Discussion of the Two-mile Buffer…

Jim Boesch and John Ruehl of Vote Estero presented their proposal for a “straw vote” regarding incorporation of Estero on the January 29, 2008 Presidential Primary ballot and asked the members of the Bonita City Council to waive their objection to incorporation within two miles of their northern border. The Charter of the City of Bonita Springs includes a moratorium which prohibited it from annexing any property in the Estero Fire Rescue district for its first five years. That prohibition expired on December 31, 2005. Thus the City has had about 20 months where it could seek to annex Estero property immediately adjacent to the Bonita northern boundary. The discussion made it clear that the current Bonita City Council is not yet prepared to drop its objection to Estero incorporating any land within two miles of its northern border.
 
The southwest Florida legislative delegation could waive the two mile buffer and support the introduction of Estero incorporation legislation into the Florida Legislature in spite of the City’s objection. However the Legislative delegation refused to do so several years ago when presented with an incorporation proposal by another group called “Save Estero”.
 
In order for the “straw vote” to be added to the January 29th ballot, the County Attorney’s office must review the proposal for compliance with statutory standards and the Board of County Commissioners must approve the proposal, and its language, at least 120 days prior to the election. That deadline is October 1, 2007. Commissioner Ray Judah expressed his opposition to the proposed referenda at the August 10th ECCL/Bonita Springs meeting.
 
This initiative was discussed at the August 17th meeting of the ECCL. The ECCL has always supported efforts to preserve the right of the residents of Estero to choose their form of governance and confirmed at this meeting their desire to do so. Issues raised relative to the Vote Estero initiative were:

• The absence of specific ballot language for the community to review prior to its presentation to the BOCC for their approval,
• Questions about the advisability of conducting such a vote at this time,
• Questions concerning why the advisory referendum (“straw vote”) will not be voted on by residents of the Estero Community Planning area north of Estero Parkway, many of whom have expressed an interest in being included in this survey,
• Concerns about the residents residing within the two-mile buffer north of the City of Bonita Springs being fully appraised of the greater difficulty of their being included in an incorporation effort due to the two mile buffer,
• Concerns about the timely availability of a full, accurate and fair description of the advantages and disadvantages of incorporation including the limitation upon municipal powers to influence many of the decisions and resources that affect the community.
• Concerns about the timely availability of a full, accurate and fair description of the incorporation process and the length of time it takes to implement.

Attracting a Hospital to Serve South Lee County…

The group agreed with Sam Levy’s report on the Lee Memorial Visioning 2017 progress report and our efforts to use this process to promote a hospital for south Lee County. Lee Memorial has asked to meet with the joint City of Bonita/ECCL representatives in September in order to update us about their future plans for a hospital in the area.

Sandy Lane (in Estero the road is now called Via Coconut Point)…

The Estero representatives reported asking County Commissioner Ray Judah to seek Commission report for directing staff to initiate the negotiation of an interlocal agreement with the City of Bonita Springs regarding the section of Sandy Lane from Coconut Point and Old 41. Comm. Judah attended the meeting and also was asked by the City representatives for assistance regarding further widening of Bonita Beach Road and with the I-75/Bonita Beach Road Interchange.

Density Reduction Groundwater Resource (DRGR) Area Planning…

The City and the ECCL updated each other about their separate efforts to improve planning for the DRGR. The ECCL is encouraging the County to move more rapidly so that they may catch up with the City’s planning, thus enhancing to ability for the two governments to coordinate their respective efforts.

Estero Parkway Flyover Construction Contract Approval

On August 7th the BOCC voted unanimously to approve a $35.1 million contract with ZEP Construction for the construction of a four lane roadway and two two-lane bridges over I-75 on Estero Parkway between Three Oaks Parkway and Ben Hill Griffin Boulevard. The contact calls for ZEP to complete the project within 540 days, early 2009.
 
The vote also authorized an $18.1 million loan from the County’s General Fund to assist in the financing of the project during the present fiscal year rather than delaying it another year and adding further to the cost. When the project was first considered several years ago the estimated cost was about $17 million.

Permitted Commercial Building Value Continues Expansion

July building permits of all types fell precipitously as a result of the rush by developers to obtain their permits in June to avoid paying the big increase in road impact fees that became effective on permits issued on and after July 1st.
 
The value of commercial buildings permitted in Estero during July totaled only $2.9 million. Nonetheless during the first seven months of 2007 Estero’s total commercial permits are valued at $138.4 million. Estero’s commercial permits during all of 2006 totaled $184.7 million. (All figures are exclusive of the underlying land). At this rate 2007 will set another record for the value of commercial development permits in Estero.
 
The major projects that contributed to the seven month total are:

$42.8 million in the Coconut Point Town Center;
$24.2 million for the WCI Headquarters building on west Coconut Road
$6.8 million for the Argonaut Chevrolet Dealership at I-75 and Corkscrew
$3.1 million of the Estero Ridge Shopping Center at US 41 and Estero Parkway
$2.9 million for the renovation of the Villages of Country Creek Clubhouse
$1.8 million for the Animal Hospital of Estero on Corkscrew Road
$3.8 million for Broadway Shoppes on US 41 near Broadway
$2.3 million for Corkscrew Palms on the south side of Corkscrew
$2.2 million for commercial buildings at Coconut Trace on US 41
$4.8 million for the renovation of the Country Creek Clubhouse
$2.9 million for Empire Builders office complex at the Galleria on Corkscrew
$4 million for the Estero Fire Rescue Headquarters on Three Oaks Parkway
$8.8 million for retail stores at Estero Interstate Commerce Park
$7.2 million for Miromar Outlets expansion
$3.02 million for Paradise Shoppes projects on US 41
$1.08 million for the Park Circle development on the north side of Corkscrew
$840,000 for the Estero Medical Center on the north side of Corkscrew
$640,000 at the International Design Center
$850,000 for the Lee County Utilities facility on east Corkscrew Road
$512,000 for Estero Park Commons projects

The permits issued thus far in 2007 are widely distributed throughout Estero unlike 2006 when most of the commercial construction activity was at Coconut Point.
 
REMINDER: The building values understate the cost of each residence or commercial building because it excludes the value of the underlying land.

Estero’s Housing Permits Continue To Slow

During July only 8 housing units with a value of $2.7 million were permitted in Estero. Year to date 384 housing units with a value, exclusive of land, of $108.3 million have been issued.
 
Housing units permitted during the first seven months of the year were by far the lowest in the 8 years that the County’s system has tracked Estero’s permits. This result reflects the declining trend established in 2006. The County permitting information used in this report may be found at http://www.lee-county.com/dcd/Reports/EsteroReports.htm.   
 
The following table shows how the first seven months of 2007 compares with the same period during the prior seven years:

Not only are the 2007 total housing units below all prior years, it is only 42% of the total during the first seven months of 2002, the season immediately following the tragedy of 9/11/2001 and the second lowest year.
 
In spite of the decline in the number of housing units permitted, the average building value, excluding the land beneath it, continues to increase, up 15% from the prior high set last year and more than double (up 105%) the average in 2000, in spite of the slight decline in the share of more expensive single family homes.