The Bonita Springs City Council voted 4-3 to transmit proposed future land-use map and text amendments for Seagate's Ravenna Lakes project to state reviewing agencies, a procedural step that allows state and regional agencies to comment but does not approve the development.

The transmittal vote follows a lengthy staff presentation, public comment from dozens of residents both for and against the project, and debate among council members over wetlands protections, traffic and whether leaving the decision to Lee County would produce a denser development with fewer city conditions.

City planner Mike Feagon, speaking for Community Development, told the council that the hearing before them was a land-use hearing, not a zoning hearing: "This is not a zoning hearing. This is a land use hearing in determining whether or not you heard enough tonight to transmit a proposed future land use map change and text change on that property." He reiterated staff's analysis that portions of the site include high-quality wetlands and uplands that the city's and county's policies treat as non-urban.

Seagate's representatives said the applicant would place higher-quality wetland areas in the city's resource-protection future land-use category and include about 100,000 square feet of commercial space intended to serve rooftops east of I-75. Alexis Crespo, speaking for the applicant, clarified a point frequently raised by residents about state road work: "We were not submitting to you that FDOT is improving the Bonita Beach Road intersection. What they will be doing through... their improvements will be the on ramp." She said FDOT's project would lengthen on-ramp queuing lanes, not necessarily add signalization at Bonita Beach Road.

Applicant counsel and planning witnesses also urged transmission as a way to obtain formal agency comment. Neil Montgomery, another attorney for the applicant, said: "This is a transmittal hearing. It doesn't approve anything. It sends it to the state and the state agencies will review it and comment." He noted that FDOT and other state reviewers would evaluate regional impacts, including traffic and stormwater.

Public comment was split. Dozens of residents spoke during the public-comment period. Opponents raised wetlands and wildlife loss, flooding and traffic impacts, citing broader development east of I-75 and the potential cumulative effect on downstream waterways.

- Dr. Sigfredo Hernandez said the city has lost what he described as "more than 20,000 acres of wetlands in the last 25 years" and warned of impacts to wetland-dependent species and to aquifer recharge.

- Several speakers, including Chuck Nichols and Jim Lucas, urged the council to pause and refrain from transmitting while the effects of nearly 2,000 permitted but not-yet-occupied units east of I-75 are better understood; they also cited concerns about emergency-response times worsening with more traffic.

Supporters, many of whom live in nearby communities such as Bonita National and Valencia Bonita, argued the project would bring controlled, higher-quality development rather than a denser county-approved alternative and would add local commercial services. Joe Nolan and Will Hejager George, among other supporters, said they believed Seagate builds high-quality communities and that the commercial square footage would reduce vehicle trips west to grocery stores.

Council debate reflected the split. Council members who voted to transmit emphasized that the city's adoption process and subsequent state review would allow conditions and that leaving the site to county review could produce higher densities and fewer city protections. One council member said the choice was between "being a driver or a passenger," arguing that transmission would allow the city to secure lower density and impact fees rather than cede control to the county.

Opposing council members cited the city's comprehensive plan and Florida statute guidance on sprawl and contiguity, and they pointed to staff analysis and the city's repeated choice to retain the site's existing DRGR (designated resource and greenbelt) protection in past plan cycles. Several council members said the parcel east of I-75 has historically functioned as stormwater retention that protects downstream neighborhoods, and they worried transmittal could erode the city's DRGR protections.

On procedural specifics, a motion "to transmit" the proposed map and text amendments was made and seconded; the roll call was: Council member Carr ' Aye; Mayor Gibson ' Aye; Council member Corey ' No; Council member Follick ' Aye; Council member Fitzpatrick ' No; Council member Bogaz ' No; Deputy Mayor Purdon ' Aye. The motion passed 4-3. Council members and applicant representatives stated the transmittal could be paired with an adoption-stage commitment limiting density to the 299 units the applicant proposed (counsel said the applicant was willing to include a cap at adoption).

What the vote does and does not do: the transmittal sends the proposed future land-use map and comprehensive-plan text amendments to state agencies (including FDOT and the regional water-management district) for comment. It does not authorize building permits or zoning changes; those would come later through zoning/PD and permitting processes and could be subject to additional city, county or state conditions. Applicant and city staff said the state review would provide FDOT's assessment of impacts to regionally significant roadways and that the Water Management District would re-review environmental and stormwater impacts.

Next steps: state agencies will review and comment on the transmitted amendments; the city will receive those comments and may bring the matter back for adoption hearings with potential edits or conditions. A final development approval, if any, would be subject to separate zoning, permitting and technical review processes.

Votes at a glance: the council voted to transmit the proposed comprehensive-plan map and text amendments for the Ravenna Lakes/Seagate project to state reviewing agencies; the motion passed 4-3. The transmittal is procedural only and does not authorize development.

Ending: Council members and applicant representatives said the coming state and agency reviews will be determinative for technical issues such as FDOT's regional traffic findings and Water Management District stormwater evaluations. Residents who spoke signaled they will continue to press concerns at subsequent hearings; the applicant and some council members emphasized the opportunity to secure local conditions and infrastructure funding via the city process.