Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Yellow Fever Creek Preserve topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council to stop water-tank plan at Yellow Fever Creek Preserve
Summary
Multiple speakers urged Cape Coral City Council to reconsider siting a water storage facility at Yellow Fever Creek Preserve, arguing the location would damage habitat, reduce property values and contradict preservation goals; council set related comprehensive-plan and land-use hearings for April 2.
Dozens of residents urged the Cape Coral City Council on March 5 to shift the city’s proposed water storage project away from Yellow Fever Creek Preserve, saying the facility would harm wildlife and breach long-standing promises to preserve the 14-acre site.
The issue surfaced repeatedly in public comment, with residents saying they learned of the project only recently. “Homeowners were left in the dark while the city spent thousands without their input,” resident Noel Tolbert told the council, urging members to visit the site at night and watch how lighting would affect nearby homes and the preserve.
Speakers described the preserve as rare habitat and warned that constructing the water storage tanks, associated towers and required mitigation—fencing, large concrete foundations and camouflaging—would damage upland ecological communities. “The city designated Yellow Fever Creek for preservation, a rare and precious commitment,” said Michael DeRosa, who urged the council to look for alternative commercial sites or to add undisturbed acreage elsewhere as mitigation.
Council members and staff acknowledged the public concerns and confirmed procedural steps: the council introduced Ordinance 85-24 to amend the comprehensive plan and Ordinance 6-25 to change the future land use designation for property at 3115 Del Prado Boulevard North; both items were scheduled for public hearings on April 2. Council also introduced Ordinance 11-25 to rename park amenities at Festival Park (public hearing April 2), which is unrelated to the Yellow Fever matter but appears on the same land-use docket.
Utilities director Jeff Pearson outlined technical constraints discussed in earlier staff reports (presented earlier to council) and staff have sought possible mitigations including relocation of the structure up to about 500 feet west or additional buffering and lighting controls. Council members said they are listening and suggested exploring whether additional preserve acreage can be added as a compromise.
City staff and multiple speakers noted legal, permitting and cost implications of moving the project. One resident flagged the need for federal permits for work affecting endangered species and nearby waters; speakers also questioned whether a land swap would increase long-term taxpayer costs. City staff repeatedly said alternatives had been considered but that cost and engineering factors informed the current siting.
The council set public hearings for April 2 on the proposed comprehensive-plan and future land-use amendments related to the project, giving residents an additional formal opportunity to comment before any final decision.
Ending: The council did not take a final vote on the Yellow Fever Creek site at the March 5 meeting; the dispute will return to a public hearing on April 2, when the council will receive formal public testimony and staff recommendations.
