Talking points to protect the Celery Fields

DR HORTON 171-home high-density project on Raymond Road

From the Nov. 10 Sarasota News Leader:

The Sarasota Audubon Board is urging its members and opponents of the D.R. Horton initiative to contact their county commissioners to express their concerns. Audubon has included a link to “Talking Points” for those communications.

Among those points are the following, with the organization’s emphasis:

• “The Celery Fields is a wildlife, birdwatching, and recreational paradise in the heart of Sarasota attracting thousands of local residents and national and international tourists annually.

• ”The Celery Fields is a highly regarded, award-winning feat of creative planning — a triple purpose public facility: 1. a storm water control and cleansing operation, 2. wetlands protected as a natural haven for local and migrating birds and other wildlife, and 3. a place for people to walk, exercise, kayak, and learn about the wildlife of our area.

• “The Celery Fields represents Sarasota County’s remarkable achievement in highlighting and preserving the importance of ecosystems, wetlands, native and migrating creatures, and human relationships to all of these treasures.

• “This crowning achievement in civil engineering and in public/private cooperation must not be jeopardized. All these ecological and practical values, underscored by the millions of dollars invested in realizing them, require any impinging development to be examined with extreme care and attention. Just as a dumpsite or commercial development would be totally inappropriate, a housing subdivision would likely destroy or devalue what has been achieved. There is no way to guarantee that the Celery Fields would not be negatively impacted. Once done, it could be destroyed forever.

• “There are an estimated 100,000 visitors a year to the Celery Fields — photographers, nature lovers, walkers, joggers, bikers, families, and education groups — providing an enormous boost to the local economy. Since the pandemic, interest in eco-tourism and birding has surged greatly in popularity. Just this season (Oct – May 2023), Audubon has recorded over 31,000 visitors for bird and wildlife viewing, and for its education programs.

• “The Celery Fields has two famous and incredible boardwalks out into the wetlands — one from Palmer Boulevard and one from Raymond Road. On each of these boardwalks, Sarasota Audubon has Bird Naturalists who volunteer with telescopes and binoculars, and are stationed every day, October through May, to enhance visitor birding and wildlife viewing experience. Visitors come from all over the United States and the world to enjoy the wetlands. Increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic from a high-density development will negatively affect access, use, and safe approach to these boardwalks for birders, tourists, and their cars.” 

Estimated trips added by 171 high-density homes on Raymond Rd. (courtesy of SNL)

More information from Sarasota Audubon is here

Write to: 

District 1 Commissioner Mike Moran          Mmoran@scgov.net

Copy all five Commissioners by cc'ing        Commissioners@scgov.net
County Planner Tana Spencer                     Tspencer@scgov.net

In your email you can also cc:  

Head of planning Matt Osterhoudt:              mosterho@scgov.net 

Head of Park Nicole Rissler:                        nrissler@scgov.net 

Sarasota Audubon                                        info@sarasotaaudubon.org

Citizens for Sarasota County:                      sarasotavision@gmail.com

Unsure of your district? Click here

Commissioner emails by district

Will this Benderson Initiative destroy the Fruitville Initiative?

To: County Planners and Planning Commissioners

RE: Rezone 21-02; SPA PED Rezone; Comp Plan Amendment 2021-B

To: Steve.Kirk <skirk@scgov.net>, Andrew.Stultz@sarasotaadvisory.net, Colin.Pember@sarasotaadvisory.net, Joseph.Neunder@sarasotaadvisory.net, Kevin.Cooper@sarasotaadvisory.net, Laura.Benson@sarasotaadvisory.net, Teresa.Mast@sarasotaadvisory.net, Neil.Rainford@sarasotaadvisory.net, Drew.Peters@sarasotaadvisory.net, Justin.Taylor@sarasotaadvisory.net, Frank.Strelec@sarasotaadvisory.net, Matt Osterhoudt <mosterho@scgov.net>

Dear Mr. Kirk, Mr. Osterhoudt, and Planning Commissioners:

This concerns the Aug. 5, 2021 hearing regarding the matters listed above.

I've heard from a variety of people who seriously question the changes Benderson Inc. wishes to impose on SPA-3.

Those who were involved in the development of the Ordinance for the Fruitville Initiative recall that its #1 distinctive feature was to disallow self-standing Big Box stores. The entire concept was of a walkable community not infested with giant trucks, a place built on MEC strictures in which workplaces and residences took priority. Retail was supposed to be local, not regional, in order to avoid a large volume of commercial consumer traffic.

I'm informed that according to the traffic study, the proposed 179,200 sf increase in stand-alone retail will increase average daily and PM peak trips 3,908 and 466, respectively.

But this is hard to prove - wouldn't the level of traffic depend on the nature of the retail on site? If instead of a nice butcher shop or cafe we suddenly have a Bass Pro, or Target, the traffic could become significantly greater in volume, drawing people from a distance. If this area were designed as a shopping center, that would be welcome. But the whole point of the Initiative was to create something different - local, walkable living/working neighborhoods. And the reason for that was to do something unusual, that set Sarasota apart. Indeed, I recall people in 2011 speaking about how as a "Gateway" area, the Initiative would send the message that Sarasota is not the same as every other place along I-75 - its unique attention to sensible, well-planned growth would be on display.

Basically, if that was the premise of the original form-based code of the Initiative, then allowing large, free-standing retail (requiring truck service areas) would disrupt the street grid and draw extraneous traffic in ways that would make a hash of that original premise. What Benderson is seeking basically undermines what started as a coherent, unified plan for a certain kind of community - sabotaging it, with County permission, into incoherence and conflicting goals.

It seems to me - and others I've spoken with - that what Benderson seeks is not a minor modification, but a transformation of the vision, purpose, and inherent nature of the Initiative. If this is the case, then we are not dealing with an "amendment" - rather this is a radical imposition of a shopping mecca upon what was conceived of as someone's living/working space.

What would it say if instead of creating a showcase for Sarasota's good planning sense, Sarasota County ended up compromising its principles and destroying that very goal?

Thanks for giving this your consideration at your hearing of August 5, 2021.

The Planning Commission hearing will be online here.

Tom Matrullo
Citizens for Sarasota County

A citizen asks about site selection for the new county administration center

1301 Cattlemen Road, the red dot, is one site now being considered
for the new County Administration Center

1301 Cattlemen Road seems to be the frontrunning site for a new County Administration center. The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners had a lengthy discussion last week about this location, introduced by Commissioner Mike Moran.

A resident of the area is conducting some early inquiries and raising questions about traffic based on her years of experience of the area's roads. Cattlemen Rd. at Bee Ridge is a notoriously poorly designed intersection, and 1301 Cattlemen is north of that, and just south of Bahia Vista and Cattlemen.

The emails below need to be read from the bottom up.

------ Forwarded Message --------

From: Glenna Blomquist <glennablom@hotmail.com>

Date: 4/2/2021 1:45:38 PM

Subject: RE: New Administration Center consideration

To: bgaubatz@scgov.net ]

Dear Mr. Gaubatz,

I understand you have been assigned to work on the new administration center.

My concern is that the board is jumping on the 1301 Cattlemen location because the county owns the property.  This location is a poor choice because of transportation limitations.  Arteries of travel, both roads and transit, are insufficient for the numbers of employees and visitors that would attend this center.

Before any planning moves forward, consideration of road use needs to be brought into the picture.  Surely, it is obvious that this location is a bad choice.

I live in this neighborhood and I'm attuned with existing traffic problems, recent traffic studies, and also the limits of augmentation of travel avenues. 

Please let me know if you have been brought in the site selection conversation with our commissioners, particularly Commissioner Mike Moran for District 1.

Sincerely,

Glenna Blomquist

=======

From: Glenna Blomquist <glennablom@hotmail.com>

Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 1:16 PM

To: Paula Wiggins <pwiggins@scgov.net>; Kwamena Sankah <Ksankah@scgov.net>

Cc: Jane Grogg <jgrogg@scgov.net>; Michele Norton <mnorton@scgov.net>; Michael Moran <mmoran@scgov.net>

Subject: New Administration Center considerationCaution: This email originated from an external source. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information

Dear Paula and Kwamena,

As I read today in the Englewood Sun Newspaper, one site under consideration for the new Administration Center is 1301 Cattlemen Road. Did the consultant(s) do a traffic study for Fruitville Road and Palmer Boulevard relative to the discussion of possible Administrative Center sites, including 1301 Cattlemen Road proposed site? Are there impact studies for the area?  Have you been asked for input? Will traffic studies be required?  If traffic studies have been done, would you please forward them to me?

Assuming that many employees, and visitors, will arrive to this destination daily, how are they going to travel from the east?  What impacts will this have on Fruitville Road, Lorraine (formerly Iona) Road, Packinghouse Road, Porter Road, Cattlemen Road, Palmer Boulevard, Debrecen Road, East Road, and Apex/Coburn Road, and Bee Ridge Road?  

Please note that although there is a SCAT transit station at 5951 Porter Way, bus routes are not established for east county, and any bus traffic would also add to the burden on local roads.  Certainly, an administration center should be readily accessible by public transit.

As I listen to the budget meeting discussion, what occurs to me is that land planning might be important prior to and outside of a budget meeting.  Perhaps this would start with long range planning staff creating relevant requirements within the consultant's request for professional services, considering all necessary components.  Budget costs are paramount, however transportation impacts are equally important and should not be late in the review.

Thank you,

Glenna Blomquist

========

Considerations of the ways and means of siting and building and paying for a new Adminstration Center are still in the formative stage. A discussion of some length about all this was held at the Board's latest budget meeting on March 24, 2021 accessible at this link. Begin around 1 hr and 42 minutes.

"That final loophole is astonishing" -- Lobeck on Hi Hat Master Plan

Letter sent March 19 from attorney Dan Lobeck to the Board, offering salient reasons why the Master Plan for Hi Hat Ranch, which will be addressed Tuesday March 22, fails to be sufficient in many ways. The text has been redacted to put the focus on Mr. Lobeck's last point, regarding road sufficiency and traffic:

Hi Hat Ranch

Honorable County Commissioners:

I and my firm represent Saddle Creek Owners Association, Inc., which operates the Saddle Creek Subdivision directly adjoining the proposed Hi-Hat Ranch Village development (and sharing a border about a mile long), which is before you for public hearing this Tuesday, March 23 .

We greatly appreciate the outreach, communications and cooperation of Jim Turner in the review and preparation of the proposed Master Development Plan.  In particular, we appreciate the relocation of the proposed Regional Sports Complex away from Saddle Creek, to a more suitable location north and east of the original site near Saddle Creek.

<A section relating to future high school, sporting areas, and another section on ground water have been elided> 

Transportation

Access to Saddle Creek is from Clark Road.  We are alarmed that the Transportation Conditions in the Master Development Order fail to address the need to maintain adequate capacity on Clark Road to handle the huge increase in traffic from the proposed Hi-Hat development, and to make the developer pay for needed road improvements for that purpose, as a Condition in the Master Development Order and as required by the Sarasota 2050 policies of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.   The same problem exists as to impacts of the development on many other east County roads.

Proposed Transportation Condition 11.B.7 provides that each rezoning in the development shall evaluate the need for widening or building only four road segments: two segments of Bee Ridge Road, North/South Roadway B, and Fruitville Road between that roadway and Lorraine Road.  That is despite the fact that the Traffic Study has identified sixteen road segments which will need improvements to handle the traffic from the Hi-Hat Ranch development, including the need to widen Clark Road from two lanes to four in the vicinity of Saddle Creek and elsewhere. 

Further, Transportation Condition 11.A.6 provides that no Development Orders throughout the development shall be approved if certain biennial monitoring of traffic impacts show a roadway becoming congested below the adopted level of service unless “funding commitments” are made sufficient to resolve the deficiency (with the developer paying its proportional share for the new capacity and the taxpayers paying the rest) or – now get ready for this, because it is actually in there -- if the Development Order includes “other traffic mitigating measures” including “the promotion of telecommuting, ride sharing or transit” acceptable to Sarasota County and “that are intended to eliminate the impact from Hi Hat Ranch development on the deficiently operating facility(ies).”

That final loophole is astonishing.  If the developer commits to promote ridesharing and telecommuting (perhaps with flyers given to purchasers), and “intends” -- intends -- that to be enough to take care of the traffic, and if County staff signs off on that, the developer is good to go gridlocking County roads in reality.   (“Whoops, sorry about that, but we really, really intended our promotion of ridesharing to keep the roads drivable.”)

Policy VOS 2.9 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan (in the Sarasota 2050 provisions) requires that each Village development “shall provide adequate infrastructure that meets or exceeds the level of service standard adopted by the County and be Fiscally Neutral or Fiscally Beneficial.”

Instead, the Conditions now before you are woefully inadequate to comply with that requirement.  And the County has not even done a study showing who is going to pay for all the road improvements that will be needed and are in part planned east of I-75 that the County Commission is in the course of approving. 

Ben Franklin and others said that a failure to plan is a plan to fail.

More planning is needed in and for this Master Development Order, for the protection of the people of Saddle Creek and very many more, before it deserves to be approved. 

Thank you very much for your considerations.

  

Dan Lobeck, Esq.

Florida Bar Board Certified in

Condominium and Planned Development Law

Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.

2033 Main Street, Suite 403

Sarasota, FL  34237

Telephone:  (941) 955-5622

Facsimile:   (941) 951-1469

www.lobeckhanson.com

To the Planning Commission regarding development in Sarasota County

UPDATE: This Hi Hat proposal received a unanimous recommendation from the Sarasota County Planning Commission (PC) on January 21, 2021. The 8-0 vote means the project will go on to the Board of County Commissioners for official consideration.

The Planning Commission meeting is now available here.

A number of Sarasotans wrote the PC to advocate for much more detailed analysis and consideration before giving any recommendation to approve this giant plan. Below is one of many.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission:

As you address the giant Turner family project that comes before you this evening, I ask that you consider the concerns raised by a spokesperson for the Miakka Community Club. There are thoughtful, informed observations about Water, the Ecosystem and Environment, and traffic that warrant close attention. Surely you have read Ms. Ayech's letter, but for ease of reference it is posted here for public awareness:

http://sarasotavision2050.blogspot.com/2021/01/hi-hat-project-could-change-whole.html

But I urge you to consider the larger context as well.

When a project of this scale and complexity comes to you, the impacts to be considered are manifold, and in this case, will alter the character of East Sarasota County permanently. This warrants a further observation:

Have you driven through the Hi Hat ranchland recently? It is not simply a rural area of great natural beauty; it's also a vast segment of the county that connects major roads - Fruitville to the North, and Clark to the South. Bee Ridge Road will likely be extended eastward to enable future residents to come and go. There is also a major FPL Power line extending north through the property from Clark to Fruitville..

While the Turner project might seem at first glance to have considered many aspects of this complex plan, there are surely elements of public value that can additionally be addressed. For example, there's the possibility of extending walking, horseback, and bicycling trails north from Clark to Fruitville, which then could link northward to Lakewood Ranch, and southward possibly to the Legacy Trail. This would add great value as a human and natural corridor - but often is not the sort of thing normally found in plans for housing developments and commercial centers.

One further point as to context: The public of Sarasota County really has no clear information regarding the number of homes already approved for construction, or the percentage of undeveloped land that is committed to future residential or commercial development. Given the rampant developer activity already approved by the Board of Sarasota County Commissioners - whether at Skye Ranch, or any of Pat Neal's many projects, or those of Mr. Beruff, or Mr. Kompothecras, or Wellen Park, or many more - we who live here are therefore unable to gauge in any clear, rigorous and informed way what impacts are coming. Unfortunately recent practice has abandoned comprehensive planning. Random, piecemeal plans of developers now take the place of a comprehensive vision shared with and benefitting all.The public would benefit from an overall mapping of exactly what's planned and what's approved -- without such information, the future nature and reality of Sarasota is in fact largely unknown. 

Given the absence of regional as well as of state oversight for local planning, I urge each of you to deeply consider what you can contribute to help developers with giant aspirations to make their projects the best - not only for thousands of future buyers who don't live here now, but also -- and especially -- for the people who live here, work here, and experience anxiety about the visionless direction of growth in Sarasota County.

Sincerely,

Tom Matrullo

Citizens for Sarasota County (CSC) is a coalition founded in 2014 to promote ethical, responsive government that preserves and enhances Sarasota's unique natural environment and cultural heritage while building a sound local economy based on effective stewardship and innovation. 

CSC

===

Blog

Facebook

Twitter

YouTube Channel 

Hi Hat Project could change "the whole ecosystem"

UPDATE: This Hi Hat proposal received a unanimous recommendation from the Sarasota County Planning Commission on January 21, 2021. The vote was 8-0, the project will now go on to the Board of County Commissioners for official consideration.

The Planning Commission meeting is now available here.

======

Perhaps the largest development project Sarasota County will see in a long time - Hi Hat Ranch - comes before the Planning Commission Thursday Jan. 21. According to Miakka Community advocate Becky Ayech, not only is this plan vague and counter-rational, it' will also change "THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM."

The project takes in 10,000 acres stretching from Fruitville Road to Clark Road. Proposal calls for 13,000 residences with a 30-year build-out.

Hi Hat Ranch

Below are resources for comments to the PC from Ayech of the Miakka Community Group - feel free to write to the planning commissioners using any of the information below.

==

PLEASE USE ANY OF THESE COMMENTS.  REMEMBER, this is quasi-judicial, so only facts, not opinions.

PLEASE ACT IMMEDIATELY

For example: my water quality has greatly diminished since I moved into my home..HI Hat cannot use their irrigation wells for back up lawn watering.  my well is my only source of all my water needs.

RE; HI HAT RANCH DOCC and MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Good day Planning Commissioners,

The Applicant, Hi Hat Ranch has provided you with a plethora of information.

Unfortunately, one criterial piece of information is missing and many of the guarantees hinge upon that information.

While many maps were provided, the map showing where the Villages are going to be located is not clear at all.  I understand there may be 3 or 4 Villages, but I could not find a map that so indicates the locations.

Much of the information provided is relative to the timing of the Villages, specifically infrastructure, discussing the incremental development of utilities

The Applicant has indicated that the first Village would be located at the Hi Hat Ranch offices.  This location is akin to a hole in the doughnut.  The road to the offices is located on Fruitville Road, 2.1 miles from the Ranch’s western boundary.   It would be safe to say this would most likely be the same distance from Bee Ridge Road.  This would necessitate running utilities’ lines either from the Bee Ridge Road facilities or from the extension of utilities out to the Hamlet known as Lakepark Estates.  This would be ‘leaping’ over lands where it would make more planning sense to begin the Villages and then move easterly.

Therefore, the responses provided discussing these phasing approaches is meritless.

The MDP MUST show the location of at least the first Village

WATER QUALITY

The Applicant has provided information on monitoring and testing the SURFACE water quality, but is offering nothing for ground water protection.

The Applicant has several wells for the agricultural operation (see attached Water Use Permit).  The Applicant is purporting to use these ag wells as back up wells for lawn irrigation, if the back up lakes and stormwater ponds fail and that is only after the reclaimed water is not available.

The agricultural wells MUST NOT be used as the third way to water lawns.  Existing legal users that are in the Hi Hat Ranch area only have their domestic wells to meet ALL their needs.

Many of the wells on Hi Hat are drilled deep and cased shallow, allowing upward migration of poor-quality water, when then moves laterally into domestic wells.  (See attached minutes from the Southwest Florida Water management District Governing Board {SWFWMD] meeting. And well construction records from Sarasota Health Department)

The Ranch is located in the SWFWMD’s Southern Use Water Caution Area (SWUCA) where ground water withdrawals are not only causing upward migration of poor-quality water but also saltwater intrusion.  The proper plugging and abandonment of these wells would help the existing legal domestic well users and the Florida Aquifer and the Arcadian Aquifer.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The Applicant stated that the aggregate mining will continue, not only for financial reasons, but because the development will need the fill.

There are NO NATURAL LAKES on the property.  While ultimately, they will provide nice lake front property, this changes the whole ecosystem.  Species that are currently not on the property will be drawn to the large water source.  These may include predator species that would kill exiting species.  The flora and fauna would change as well and again the existing flora and fauna support a myriad of species which may not be able to utilize the deep water.

Recognition MUST be given to the potential species changes and plans MUST be provided to show how this change would be mitigated.

The Applicant states they will create new wetlands by scraping off the top soil and importing the appropriate wetland soils. Healthy, thriving wetlands need a hydrological regime. 

The Applicant did not provide data and information on sites where this type of creation was successful not data showing how many have failed.  There wasn’t any information provided to show how the hydrological needs of the wetlands would be met.  In phosphate mining, as an example, wetlands the mitigate are held to a hydrological regime that is artificially maintained by the phosphate company until they are released as ‘successful’ by DEP. 

The Applicant must show how they are going to accomplish this wetland scrape land and create a new wetland scheme.

TRAFFIC

During the Workshop and then in a smaller meeting, the Applicant lamented the ugliness of the approach to the Mai Entrance to the Villages from extending Bee Ridge Road, forcing residents to pass the County’s Water Treatment Plant, the Hazardous Waste Collection Facility, the Animal Shelter and Rothenbach Park.  He stated the roadway in this area would have to be realigned and that the Applicant would have to build a bridge across Cow Pen Slough.

An alternative road, with a beautiful country (at least for now) view would be to use the existing road leading into the Ranch from Fruitville Road.  This would add additional congestion to an already over taxed, constrained scenic road.

Again, this is why at least the first Village should be located on the western boundary of the Ranch and should so be indicated on the map.

DO NOT ADOPT THE MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR HI HAT RANCH UNTIL THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Becky Ayech
President
Miakka Community Club

====================================

 More from the Herald Tribune

More from this blog on Hi Hat

Four Housing Projects that will overrun Northeast Sarasota

====================================

The emails of the Planning Commissioners: 

Andrew.Stultz@sarasotaadvisory.net, Colin.Pember@sarasotaadvisory.net, 

Kevin.Cooper@sarasotaadvisory.net, Laura.Benson@sarasotaadvisory.net,  Justin.Taylor@sarasotaadvisory.net, 

Neil.Rainford@sarasotaadvisory.net,  Frank.Strelec@sarasotaadvisory.net, Teresa.Mast@sarasotaadvisory.net, 

Drew.Peters@sarasotaadvisory.net

Mega-Hotel developers on Siesta Key seek to lift density requirements for all Sarasota County

Three developers planning Mega-Hotels on Siesta Key have recently filed pre-applications with Sarasota County. 

All three are asking the County to pass an Amendment to the UDC (Unified Development Code) FL Land Use Policy 2.9.1 that will remove density requirements for Transient Accommodations. Current zoning permits 13 units per acre for multifamily use, and double the density for hotels. The proposals would increase density from from 26 units per acre to 170 units per acre -- that's four to seven times what's currently allowed. 

****NOTE: This change in density will affect ALL of Sarasota County.****

All three developers -- Gary Kompothecras, Mike Holderness and SKH 1 LLC. -- request Special Exceptions to raise the permitted 35-foot height to eight stories: 83-85 feet.

The Comprehensive Plan requires that new development not increase density on Barrier Islands. The developers propose two changes to density:

• One would exempt hotels on Siesta Key from the maximum density limits.  
• The other would exempt hotels in the entire Sarasota County from maximum density limits.

These exemptions, if approved, would both be permanent. 

These are radical proposals that will increase density and affect traffic, safety, and the environment. They  will change the nature of Siesta Key and the entire County.

Please sign the Petition against Hotel changes

Please be prepared to attend future Planning and County Commission meetings and to express your opinions.

See the pre-applications to Planning here

This? 

Siesta Beach

Or This?

Hotel developer Gary Kompothecras is a major backer of the entrenched political machine. Both Kompothecras and Holderness have contributed to Michael A. Moran's campaign this year. SKH 1 is represented by Robert T. Anderson Jr. of Sarasota.

 

More on the hotels and opposition:

Siesta Key Coalition Zoom Meeting about hotels

Sarasota News Leader 10.1.20: Redevelopment of Siesta Key Beach Resort Hotel and Suites would increase rooms from 55 to 170, preliminary application says

Siesta Key Association

Hament to City: Request for Reimbursement

During the Pence visit of Feb. 28th to Sarasota, there was collateral damage. Some of us were in that traffic halted by His Nibs coming to grift Vern's supporters, on the very day he, Pence, was assigned the task of overseeing the nation's response to the Corona Virus:

The people who were unable to make their appointments on a Friday evening in season; the people who never got to work, or were unable to get home from work; the people who failed to get to their paid-for seats in theaters and concert halls; the people who needed healthcare workers who could not get to them -- these costs are incalculable. The callous contempt for the public raining down from the Trump/Pence Nightmare is beyond computation

From Gabriel Hament to the City of Sarasota:

Madam Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor, Commissioners and Mr. Barwin:

Thank you, Mr. Barwin, for directing the Sarasota Police Department (SPD) to complete the calculation of the cost associated with Vice President Pence's security detail on Friday, February 28th. As reported by the Herald Tribune and Tampa Bay Times, the objective of the Vice President's visit was to raise funds to support the campaigns of Republican candidates to the US House of Representatives. Dollars raised during the Vice President's evening visit to the Longboat Key home of Congressman Vern Buchanan were for the benefit of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). A dinner ticket came at $25,000/person.

What else came at a cost of $25,000 was the security detail bill that City of Sarasota taxpayers must now absorb.

According to the SPD's calculation, City of Sarasota taxpayers have now been hit with a $25,670 security detail bill, to be specific. 

From a fiduciary standpoint, I believe a reasonable effort should be undertaken to recover these costs and make taxpayers whole.

It is clear that the Vice President's visit served no public purpose, only a private one. 

Given the severe hardship facing the City and the City's small businesses over the coming weeks and months, returning these dollars to the City's coffers--dollars that were removed for private benefit--makes a great deal of sense to me.

The City is now designing a small business support fund which I believe will be discussed at next week's Commission meeting. 

Twenty-five thousand dollars is not an inconsequential sum; five $5,000 grants could go a long way in supporting the City's struggling business owners.

We must keep in mind that this security detail bill could have been far less or avoided altogether.

In a proactive manner, Mr. Barwin attempted to contact the office of Congressman Buchanan to request that the Vice President consider an alternate route, time (as roads were shut down at rush hour on a Friday) or mode of transportation. 

Neither Mr. Buchanan nor his staff returned Mr. Barwin's call.

I recommend that the Commission and Administration open lines of communication with both the NRCC and Mr. Buchanan and request the NRCC reimburse the City of Sarasota. 

Mr. Buchanan's spokesperson and an NRCC representative, Meredith O'Rourke, are copied.

Respectfully,

Gabriel Hament

After the Nov. 2 Rally for the Celery Fields

A question:

What town, what community would receive the gift of an extraordinary water management system that not only protects our homes from floods, but also provides a fertile environment for birds, and a pristine open space beloved by people for its tranquil beauty -- what community would receive this inspired gift, and then direct public planners to put heavy industry right next to it?

We know the answer: The people elected as custodians of Sarasota County have never shown they have a clue about the evolving genius of the Celery Fields.

Board of Sarasota County Commissioners

In January it will be three years since James Gabbert brought his waste processing proposal to the Church of Hope. Three years since the community came out in force to tell him and the County: NO WAY.

Now, after saying little and doing less, the Board can come back on Wednesday Nov. 6 at 1:30 pm and direct the Planning Dept. to rezone these parcels for industry, offices, or affordable housing.

There are a lot of reasons why industry is wrong here. Here are two:

First, anything like what Gabbert wanted, or like the warehouses Bob Waechter owns, or a Restaurant Depot, would involve more big trucks or car traffic. Gabbert’s rising WTF there will soon be adding 100 trucks a day to Palmer Blvd., in and out, all day long.

Second, this is a gateway. Gary Walsh and others have noted the dramatic impact that they experience when, heading west on Palmer Blvd, they come through the underpass -- the world suddenly changes. The cramped corridors west of I-75 open up, turn green, then suddenly it's wetlands, birds, a huge open space and that radiant hill. 

Gary Walsh

This landscape is telling us a story - it’s introducing us to East County, to the rural Sarasota that's ranching, nurseries and farms, but increasingly getting sold and subdivided into single-family gated communities. East Sarasota's rural life is disappearing -- although Becky Ayech and others out East are fighting to protect it, with intelligence and determination.

If we rezone this gateway to allow industrial uses, this beautiful introduction to East County could also disappear. Instead of entering a prelude to a pristine open space, we’ll find a concrete barrier of 80,000-square-foot-buildings and parking lots. Instead of a walkable central open space drawing people and nature into communion, we’ll have Gabbert’s WTF, So and So’s What the Hell, and some other guy's Vision of Mordor piling on noise and traffic, devouring the light, and despoiling our landscape's story.

On Wednesday Nov. 6, the Board can try to “split the difference” by taking parcels 1 and 4, east of Apex, out of surplus lands and designating them for passive recreation or an urban forest. Great, so long as that’s a permanent and irrevocable designation.

But it’s still not adequate. Parcels 2 and 3 west of Apex should not be rezoned for industry, or for anything except simple uses that serve the community. They are public land.

Here's the chess game we're dealing with:

If the Board orders Planning to rezone parcels for industrial use or offices, the process will take several months, and then return to the Board for a vote. At this point, a public hearing will be necessary.

Note: the Lambert Advisory report the Board paid for to justify sale to industry did not consider actual conditions - neither surrounding land uses, such as the nearby Celery Fields, nor the poor roads, nor the community's input, nor the market's trending toward residential in the area. Its spreadsheet price study is also out of date.

Here's the big thing: The public hearing for the rezoning is likely to be entirely gratuitous -- that is, there will be no applicant. The Board will simply be voting on an application originated by itself. And yet, if for example they vote to approve industrial rezoning on Parcel #2, then it's a fait accompli: Gabbert, Waechter or someone else can buy the land from the County and build, so long as it meets whichever zoning the Board has approved. 

We see what they are doing here. They are pre-approving the sale of rezoned public land to a private developer, and once that rezoning is approved, the public has no further say, no public hearing. 

That's why, if the Board votes to rezone in ways the community feels are inappropriate, it will be essential to step up when Planning brings its plans back for approval. With no specific applicant named, Bob Waechter can wait in the wings till it's a done deal. This is just one way it all can go down. Let's call it the Waechter way.

Here's the thing: We've told our elected officials all this and more repeatedly over the past 35 months. We've told them that our wildlife area will need to expand and evolve to accommodate more visitors, some who come from overseas to explore this treasure.

We need to keep saying it:  Keep these parcels for public uses. We need our public lands to remain free from an industrial zoning concocted in 1975. For our central park to fully realize its potential, our planning process must totally be free from the degradation of developer greed and backroom cronyism.

We might have to give our commissioners hell so Sarasota’s Celery Fields can remain a heaven.

Elian Rosaire

Let's do all we can protect this beautiful place, and secure a healthy future for all of Sarasota County. We can start by sweeping out those who think it’s still 1975, and bring in people of vision, spirit, integrity, and common sense. 

Think of this not as our last stand, but as the first spark of restoring human sensibility and intelligence to Sarasota County in 2020.

Have you signed the Petition?

Board rezoning and sale of public lands at the Celery Fields

Wednesday, Nov. 6

1660 Ringling Boulevard

1:30 pm

Update from Adrien Lucas

WTF underway at Celery Fields

LTE to the Herald Tribune from Dennis Robertson:

Reading H-T's front-page article of Monday, October 14, 2019, one would be left with the impression that James Gabbert's TST Ventures plan for a giant debris demolition facility had been "successfully fended off" and the insanity of a waste dump being built right at the edge of an established nature preserve had been stopped.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Butting-up right next to the Celery Fields quads in question in that article, construction of a Waste Transfer Facility is well underway.

In August 2017, multiple ad-hoc groups and hundreds of protesters did beat back Gabbert's proposed giant 16-acre debris demolition plant in the quads. In voting to oppose Gabbert's plan, Commissioner Nancy Detert observed that the time had passed for industry in the area. Everyone thought that was the end of it.

It was not.

Bob Waechter

In 2015 county commissioners, urged on by warehouse landlord Bob Waechter, had approved Gabbert's plan for a "Waste Transfer Facility" (WTF) on 4.3 acres he owned next to I-75 and adjacent to our public lands.


After being beat down with common sense in 2017, TST Ventures reverted to that 2015 approval.

Anyone who bothers to consult the EPA's manual on siting transfer facilities knows that such sites must accommodate giant trucks.

Entrance to WTF at Palmer and Bell Rd.

Gabbert's WTF will service more than 100 trucks per day filled with waste, adding to already congested, inadequate roads.

Where are the current traffic studies?

WTF wall 50' from canal

A facility like this should be 200' from any waterway, Gabbert's is only 50 feet away from drainage that ends up in Sarasota Bay.

Truth to power be damned, who in the county and state signed off on any of this? And why?

The thousands who protested can now bring their toxic construction debris and pesticide-laden yard waste to his facility near an established preserve and Audubon Nature Center.

To add insult to injury, on Wednesday, Nov. 6 the County Commission, stewards of this nature preserve, will consider a plan to rezone and sell our public lands for yet more industry on parcels closer to the Celery Fields.

The public needs to be there.

Questions about County survey

A citizen's letter to the presenter of Sarasota County's paid survey, which was reported on 9.27.19 in the Sarasota News Leader.

Slide courtesy of the Sarasota News Leader

Dear Ms. Ghomshe,

I did not attend this year's presentation of the annual Sarasota County survey this year, however I had several problems with last year's report, as I believe I may have expressed to you in person in 2018.

As I read in today's Sarasota News Leader, I again have questions.

I have heard this to express our population:

"Hi! Nice to meet you.  How long have you lived in Sarasota?"
"Oh, a long time - three years."

The past includes merely yesterday, and so the experience of many new residents is only today and tomorrow.  Likely the combined satisfaction rate of 95% just reflects what people notice:  Their garbage gets picked up, so they are happy.  And of course, there's no state tax:  This is heaven for folks from MN, IL, IA, NE, MI, etc.

The fact is, a majority of our residents know very little about our county government.  Here is the proof: 

Each respondent was asked whether he or she lives in a municipality or in the unincorporated part of the county, Myrick said. “We actually used GIS [software] to plot where they actually live versus where they said they lived,” she explained. “A lot of residents are confused about where they live …”:  

If you don't know where you live, you likely are not voting in local elections:  These are not engaged citizens, more like "visitors" enjoying the scenery.

"One possible explanation for the high number who had no idea how to respond, he pointed out, is the influx of new residents."

Why include respondents who do not have the experience of really living here?

Regarding the “rainy day fund” reserve:  

"The correct answer in the survey was that the fund is doing better, Scacco told the board members. Yet, only 22.6% could provide the proper response. Conversely, he said, 38% had no idea how the fund is doing, while another 9.1% responded that it is doing worse."

How heavily can you count the responses of detached citizens on other subjects if they are so disinterested in management of their tax money (if indeed they pay any property tax in Sarasota County).  Are your respondents landowners whose primary residence is declared to be Florida?

I disagree with Commissioner Hines: “What I think I know or I believe, living in the community, is reflected in your numbers,” Commission Chair Charles Hines told Scacco at the end of the presentation. The survey “really gives us an idea of what people are feeling,” Hines added. “A very loud minority … can affect our policies.”

There are only a minority of people in this county who have the vaguest idea about what is going on.  If that minority wishes a voice, then that voice should be heavily weighted in any discussion of future policies of our county.

In talking with people in general, I have not met ONE PERSON who understands the impact of the Community Planning Act of 2011 on our traffic woes (see this History of Florida Growth Management, p. 17ff).  Tallahassee has much to do with counties' problems.

I took issue with last year's findings, particularly on the undefined subject of "Safety".  I take issue again with methodology of this year's report.

I await your response,

Glenna Blomquist

County officially drops traffic concurrency standards

Courtesy of the Sarasota News Leader

Subscribe to the SNL

County Code revision puts into effect standards for transportation analyses related to new construction, as detailed in 2016 Comprehensive Plan policy

May 30, 2019 by Rachel Brown Hackney, Editor & Publisher

Only proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Critical Area Plans can be subjected to more intensive traffic reviews, staff says

Florida’s historic and new capitols. Courtesy State of Florida

In 2011, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 163 of the Statutes to allow local governments to either continue analyzing proposed developments for their impact on transportation systems or to use an alternate approach, which focuses not just on traffic but on upgrades to bicycle and pedestrian accesses related to the new construction.

As part of its 2016 update of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, the County Commission approved a new transportation policy that reflected the Florida Statute changes. That policy, 1.3.12, says, “Sarasota County shall continue to review individual applications for rezoning, special exceptions, and approvals under the Land Development Regulations for safety, adequate ingress and egress, compatibility, operational issues at impacted intersections and circulation, as provided in the County Code, but shall not apply traffic concurrency standards to them. The county will review proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Critical Area Plans, and take into consideration their effects on the multi-modal transportation system and the adopted levels of service, and any need for facility improvements they cause or exacerbate.”

However, Matt Osterhoudt, director of the county’s Planningand Development Services Department, explained to the board on May 21, the commission never actually approved changes to the applicable county ordinance to reflect the Comprehensive Plan modifications.

As a result, following endorsements from eight speakers, the commission did just that, on a 4-0 vote. (Commissioner Michael Moran was absent from the meeting.)

Included among the changes is language that establishes traffic impact analysis and site access assessment requirements for specific types of projects.

Osterhoudt emphasized that “more of a robust analysis” of traffic impacts is warranted with proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments and Critical Area Plans (CAPs). Those reviews would include the adopted levels of service for the roads that would be affected, he said.

“Level of Service” refers to a driver’s assessment of how well traffic flows on a road, with “A” being the best level and “F” the worst.

Former Commissioner Christine Robinson of Venice — who had to step down from the board in November 2016 because of term limits — was among those eight people who applauded staff’s efforts to take the steps necessary to amending the County Code.

Former County Commissioner Christine Robinson. Image courtesy Sarasota County

Representing the Argus Foundation of Sarasota, which she serves as executive director, Robinson also pointed out that the County Commission adopted the use of mobility fees, “as a result of a technical report that was brought to [the board].” Those fees replaced the previously used transportation impact fees, she noted, which could be used just for the road network. Conversely, Robinson pointed out, mobility fees paid by developers can be used for sidewalks, for example.

“It’s up to you to decide how to use those [mobility] fees,” she told the commissioners.

Earlier on May 21, Paula Wiggins, manager of the county’s Transportation Planning Division, pointed out that mobility fees would not produce enough revenue to cover the implementation of the county’s 2040 Thoroughfare Plan. However, Wiggins noted, staff has plans for a mobility fee update in 2020.

Another speaker during the later public hearing on May 21, Dave Langhout, vice president of Kolter Homes and past president of the Manatee-Sarasota Building Industry Association, offered the latter organization’s full support of the changes in the Code of Ordinances. “I can’t help but just use one word,” he added: “Finally.”

The lone person who did not endorse the revision of the county regulations was Pine Shores Estates resident Sura Kochman. Her neighborhood borders the site of the planned Siesta Promenade mixed-use development on the northwest corner of U.S. 41 and Stickney Point Road.

A table in a county staff report in August 2018 offers these details about anticipated traffic generation related to Siesta Promenade. Image courtesy Sarasota County

During her public hearing remarks, she quoted from a June 10, 2015 memorandum from then-County Attorney Stephen DeMarsh to the commission: “If a local government adopts a mobility fee system as an alternative to concurrency, the alternative mobility funding system adopted may not be used to deny, time, or phase an application for site plan approval, plat approval, final subdivision approval, building permits, or the functional equivalent of such approvals. Notably missing from this list are rezones, special exceptions, [developments of regional impact] and similar board-level discretionary approvals. As the statue is currently written, if the Board repeals concurrency and adopts a mobility fee system, it may not only deny Comprehensive Plan amendments because of traffic impacts, but also may deny or condition rezones and similar development approvals because of adverse traffic impacts so long as any conditions imposed do not constitute a concurrency system.”

Deputy County Attorney Alan Roddy. File photo

If the ordinance changes proposed that day were approved, Kochman asked on May 21, “Does this opinion still apply?”

(Opponents of Siesta Promenade have pointed to the thousands of extra vehicles it will add to one of the county’s most congested intersections.)

Deputy County Attorney Alan Roddy, who said he believed he actually wrote the 2015 memorandum, explained that it applied to the situation prior to the 2016 update of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the opinion Kochman read would not apply if the proposed amendment to the County Code were approved.

In making the motions necessary to put the changes in effect in Chapter 94, Article 7, of the County Code of Ordinances, Commissioner Alan Maio said, “I was here in 2015. It’s exactly as Mr. Roddy said. … This is not a policy change. It’s just enacting what we did in 2016.”

Courtesy of the Sarasota News Leader

Subscribe to the SNL