APPLICATION
0 "l 0 "l :l::OO :l:: 01:" '01-3 ;:t:'t1 0'0 ('l ('l ('l
0 .... 0 .... III 0 III '"' .....Ill ....1; (1) III ""Ill ..... ..... .....
51 0 51 0 o ~ 0 ~ CIl7<" III (1) Ill.... .... rr rr rr
(1) I; (1) I; Illrr III rr rr(1) o III ....51 1-351 "< "< "<
0..... :l ..... <o:r <0 :r I; o CIl rt' 1'1
rro. rt'o. (1) (1) .....~ .....~ :r0l III Ol 0 0 0
III III llllll 51 "l 51 "l 00 01; (1) 0(1) "" .... ....
.... .... (1) .... (1) .... rt'1; <0(1) o III CIlIll ~
0 0 o 0 o 0 rr (1) 0 '00 Ol Ol Ol
::a (1) ::<1(1) rrl; rt'1; :r ('l('l 'O:r o ::r 0 0 0 t':!
(1)'0 (1)'0 ..... ..... 00 III I; "< "< "< Z
<orr <orr 00. t:lo. 0 ~ III 1'1('l rt'('l 0 0 0 ('l
~ . ~ . .....Ill .....Ill I; o tIl rt'0 III 0 rr rr rt' ><
.... .... CIl CIl III Ort' a~ rt'!: 0 0 0
III 0 III 0 rr~ rr~ ..... ..... (1) 0 .....0 0 0 0
rr.... rt''''' I; III I; III 0 ....::<1 orr orr
..... .... ....rr ....rr III ~ rt'''< .0 "< Ol Ol Ol
ot':! o t':! 0(1) o (1) <0 (1) (1) (1)
00 00 rt'1; rrl; (1) .... t:I III III III
< < 0 (1) 0 0 0
.... ..... :l '0 :r :r :r
I; I; III rr
I I ....
rt''t1 IllIZ('l ~ O'IllOOOO ('l0 t:I ~ ('l '0 Ol ::<I
....0 I; 00 III --I< ~ o I; ::<I III ~ .... ~ (1)
0.... (1)rt'a rr ('l;l:'tIll; o III H rr I; III ..... N 1-3 3:
0.... (l)'O (1) o'Orr.... o ..... 1 (1) 0' rt' .... 0 >< 0
!: ::su~ I; 0'0 (1) III (1) 0 ;I> I; 0. 0 '0 1-3
'Orr 01-3(1) CIl 1'1 51 0 o III 0 1 ('l III ..... ..... tzJ 0
(1) ..... :r>c: C rro (1) rr<o ;I> CIl ~ '0 0 0 ::0
1;0 ....(1) tIl I; < .....(1) CD rr. '0 <0 <0 0 0
510 OCllOO (1) ~Ill ~ 0 ::0 :E: I; '- "l I:"
..... 0(1)0 0.... 00 (1) (1) '0 0 '0 0 )>
rrCll <0 ~ '0 rr rr ~ 0 I; (1) <: (1) (1) '0
0 (l) I; I; CD ....-0 (1) 'tIrr 0 1'1 III I; < tzJ Ol 000
~~ I; (1) 0 I; 0.... 1'1 (1) .... ~ III 51 .... 51 CD ::0 otzJC
'01; <0(1) 51 0 I; III '0 ..... ..... .... 3: ><<:~
00 .....~ ..... '-'0 ~ 51.... (1) '0 rr rr 0 H ZtzJ
.....(1) 0....'0 rr 0.... ......... 0 I; CIl '0 1-3 1-31:"
0 III (1) '0 III 0 rr rt' 0 ~ 00::<1
rrO CDrrl'1 CD 0 III III < ;I> Z'tIt<
0 .........51 I; <0 rr III 0 'tI 3:
tIlO ....0 ..... III CD ..... .... rr '0 tl:ltzJO
OCll CDorr rr 51 0 ::0 ~~'rJ
~rr o tIl .... (l) :l 0 0
1;1; rr 0 0 1'1 ;; ('l '0
O~ 0 rr 0. iIlOtzJ
(1)0 (1) I:" ~ 'rJ::a
~ I I; :;!:
"l::OH
I:" fj >"J
o Ul
::OH
HO'rJ
OZO
;I>~::<I
H
3:
;I> ;I> lJ1 0'1ll 'tI~ OOO~ ON'" *'*''''' 0 '0
('l () 0 ~~ ;1>'" ....0~1ll ....0.... 0>0>0> I; '0 f;
I lJ1 I ....lJ1 1-300 rt' ..... 1 III NNN 0. tzJ
lJ1 0 0 00 I; ()CIl < "''tIrt' I 1 1 *' ::0 1-3
0 1 .... NI ()~ 00 (1) III ~ 000 .... 3:
I N .... "'0 OO~ 1ll0:E:0. ....0'0' "'''' '" \D H
N lJ1 \D ....0 N 0.<0 (1) 51 .... 0 \D\D\D 1 1-3
0> .... ~ I\D lJ11 1;1'10' ....0 "'lJ1~ W
N '" I HW 00> .....CD (1) CD 010 7<" '" Z
'" I ~ .... I.... 51 CIl 0 CD C
lJ1 N I ~ '0 tIl 0. III Ill::a.... ~
00 \D I; (1) ~ o CD ~
.... o III CIl CIl :ro tzJ
~ < 0 ....(1) 0'0 ::0
N CD 0.<0 ()I;<O
51 :l III o 0.'
(1)N(1).... . CIl
o NO.....
rr
;I> III 0
'0<0(1)
1'1 (1) 0. 0
00 (1)
w.~ 0 tIl
(1) (1) 0 Ul
~ .... 0> .... N .... o CIl 0 III .... ~ ....
I I 1 N I N rr tIll'1 0 1 I H
N .... \D I N I III rr"< I .... .... 000 ....
W ~ I ....'" ~ .... CIlI'1 '" '" I 00;1> '-
I I '" 0 I 0 ~ 0 .... I (Xl C8 N
'" (Xl ~ 1 (Xl I 'OO~ (Xl 0 tzJtzJ 0>
0 0 '" N .... III rt'1'1 N 0 '-
.... \D 1'1(1)0' 0>
rro. lJ1
'~..~
0'" ,... \
O~'" rTI'>
t'l0 ~(o-' tIl'
",0 ....~(o-' aO
~ . tIl 0 ~ ~.
.... ,Q(I) tllfSl'" ~>l>
0(1) ,.... ,...
rT . ~';l:' 0>;O>l> 1>>1>> ~
~t'l ~ ... <;~I>> (o-'Cl ~
~ (o-',Q Cl
<;-~ ~~ fSl e. ~ >;0,<& (l
0"" Cl'1>>'d ~rT >4
~ ... (l rTrT s:: .
0 0 >;0,.... (0-'0
';l:'~ ...
,Q~ 'd ~OO ~....
fSl <J> ~ ....
~ ~ ('1'...... ,...
~ rT 0 I>>Cl O~
01>> s:: ,...tll ~ 4
~(o-' .... ...4S::
I>> ,...fSl ,..-
fSl ,... ...
,~,.._l ,
tIlO
~
'" >l>r Cl
...0'"
Z 0 0 I>>rT~
... 0 ;-~.2l ....
0 ~ >l> >4
Cl >l> I>> ~ '"
,Q (I) ,Q ~ I>> t<l
,... ~ ~
fSl ... ~ t<l ~ ~
0 I>> 4 ....:<s>l>
':J" 5. ,... I>>~....
I>> 0 '"
... ~ 00"" ~
,Q .... ,... (0-'
~ (0-'
,..- (l ,...(0-'(0-' ~
(l (0-' 0 rTO
(0-' ~ ,... ~ 'd ....
~ rT ~,Q ~
'd ... fSl{l)'" %
rT {l) 0 ...a
,..- ... (0-' ,... '"
.... a 'drT ~
,... ,... z ~
0 rT 0 ...
I>> . a ?<
rT ,...
,... rT
0 tIl
~
~ '"
'" ~
.... 0 <fI
-D , 0
r" 0 , l-'I
, , '" I'> ....
I (0-' ~ <fI
\ '" 0 <f> Z
'" '" -l 0
'" ?:l <fI ~
\
'" ~
t<l
'" rCl
(o-'t'l ,
'" "r~ I'> Yh~
(0-' I ~ Clt'l
(0-' <fI (0-''''- \ '@
, \ ,'" <f>
I'> <f> <f>{l) 0
'" 0 <fItIl
\
....
'"
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
1-17-85
STATUS REPORT ON MOTOROLA
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
RFrI1r'TED
'~.L...J 'l"--.I_~l..."..::.l
JAN ". lQR,1.
ADMINISTRATION
PLANi\."G ut::J"T.
1. No action required.
2. No action required.
3.
AWAITING DATA
ENVIRONMENT-AIR
1. Complex source permit tAC-50-2576-2 was issued to
Motorola on January 14, 1980. Complex source rules
have since been removed from the Florida Administrative
Code, and are no longer in effect. See attached letter
from the Florida Department of Environmenal Regulation
(Attachment I).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
1. No archaeological artifacts were found during project
construction.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
1. No on-site systems for treatment or disposal of
wastewater are being used. However, a cafeteria grease
trap, which is pumped out every other month by a
commercial service,has been installed to ensure that
cafeteria wastes are not put into the public wastewater
system.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-DRAINAGE
1. All drainage facilities were reviewed and approved by
the South Florida Water Management District, Lake Worth
Drainage District, Army Corps of Engineers and Florida
Department of Environmenal Regulation. Plans and
actual facilities meet all specified requirements.
2. All drainage facilities are operated and maintained by
Motorola.
Page-2-
Environment-preliminary draft
3. Motorola contracts with Sweep-a-lot for monthly
sweeping of loading docks and quarterly sweeping of all
parking lots. In addition, Motorola staff monitors the
condition of all paved surfaces dally, and eliminates
any buildup of dirt or debris.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-WATER SUPPLY
1. A water well was installed and is operated by Motorola
pursuant to South Florida Water Management District
Water Use Permit Number 50-0ll94-W.
2. a)Backup fire water system pumps have been installed as
set forth in the ADA and are checked and inspected
regularly.
b)Further analysis subsequent to the ADA submission
concluded that the combination of public water and the
retention lake have provided adequate water supply, and
a storage tank was not installed.
clOne on-site retention lake has been constructed and
is available as a source of fire protection water. The
second lake will be added in conjunction with Phase III
of the project, as specified in the ADA and Master
Plan.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-SOLID WASTE
1. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has
reviewed the information on Motorola's chemical wastes
and handling procedures, as set forth in the Hazardous
Waste Activity Form, submitted August 1983, and has
approved them. Motorola operates under identification
number FLD 980799100.
Motorola utilizes the services of Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. (EPA ID # FLD 000776708), Chem Conn
Corp. (EPA ID # FLD 980559728) and Seaboard Chemicals
(EPA ID # NCD 071574164) for the shipment and
disposition of hazardous waste.
2. See response to 1) above.
3. Approval received September 1983, prior to commencement
of operations involving hazardous waste.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-ENERGY
1. A study of a solar domestic hot water system WaS
Page-3-
Environment-preliminary draft
conducted in June 1980, and was not found to be
economically feasible.
AWAITING FURTHER INPUTS
2. Motorola has been advised that this prov~s~on is no
longer being monitored by the TCRPC. However, for your
records, these generators have been installed.
3. Motorola has been advised that this prov~s~on is no
longer being monitored by the TCRPC. However, for your
records, a feasibility study of a roof spray cooling
system was conducted in September 1980, and it was
determined that it was not feasible.
TRANSPORTATION
1. Easement provided and bikeway constructed.
2. Motorola and the Boynton Beach Police Department
reviewed the proposed operations and jointly agreed
that no security fencing is required at present.
3. No action required.
4. The ADA provided notice of Phase I construction.
Notice of all future phases will be provided as
specified.
5. All rights-of-way dedicated as specified.
6. A report on Motorola's car pooling program was
submitted to all specified agencies in November 1984.
7. An analysis of van pooling concluded that such a
program was not feasible at the present time. Reports
were submitted to all specified agencies in November
1984.
8. In October 1983, representatives of Motorola and the
City of Boynton Beach reached an agreement that this
condition would be more appropriately met by a report
at the time that Phase I occupancy is complete and
.
PROJECT DESCRIPTI N
NAME:
1.D. NO.:
LOCATION
SIZE:
TYPE OF DEVELOPME T
EXISTING LAND USE
Impact Assessment
Prepared by
South Florida Water
Management District
'. C'~~rd
., G"'I\'''''nl"~1- \-.IV"':"
F1NAl: .. ccoptea oy ,.....:v ..Iv
<--/J' \ . ;c:7-;!j
I L ~ -L ' ;
Hotoro 1 a
80-94
City of Boynton Beach
901. Acres
Light Industry
Grassland
Motorola, the pro osed DRI, will be a light industrial facility designed
for the manufactu e of two-way, hand-held radios. Development cf this project
will occur 11 thr e phases and upon comp 1 eti on Vii 11 be compri sed of approxi-
mately 425,000 sq are feet of administrative and engineering offices; 300,000
square feet of ma ufacturing, assembly and test space; and 100,000 square feet
of storage and di tribution space. According to the ADA, the first phase of
development is sc eduled for completion in June of 1981, VJill consist of 240,000
square feet of building area, and employ approximately 1600 persons.
Construction of t e second phase will begin in Llanuary of 1986 and is scheduled
for completion in January of 1989. At this point the total building area will
be 625,000 square feet. Construction of the final phase is scheduled to begin
in January of 199 with completion set for September of 1999. 'The final
building area will consist of 825,000 square feet. Upon completion of the
facility, Motorola will employ approximately 5,420 perscns,
The proposed site is compt'isec of approximately 90 acres of land located
~Iithin the city 1 i lits of Boynton Beach. The parcel is bOllr.ded on the north
by N.W. 22nd Avenu_; on the \~est by Congress Avenue; on the south by the South
Florida ~:ater Hana ement District Boynton Canal; and on the east by the Lake
Worth Drainage Dis rict Equalizing Canal E-4. The existin9 land use for the
total site is clas ified as Grassland. Upon completion of all phases, the
land use will cons'st of industrial (47.9%), private recreation (6.5%) and
open space (45.6%)
t II. A. H,jPACT ON THE NVIRONr1ENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
2. Water Resource
a. Water Qual ty.
Drainage f
prior to d
lations ha
runoff or
gl-eater. w
adequately
om the project is to be routed through s\-Iales and t\10 lakes
scharging to LWDD Canal E-4. Although final design calcu-
e not been completed, the ADA states t~at the first inch of
he l'UllOff fl'om the 3 year. 1 hour storm, \'I!lichever is
11 be stored on-site, Assuming that the lakes are sized
to accompl ish this. the proposed retE'ntic,n Hill provide
s diment,1tiun dnd nutrient uptc.ke such that the Hater discrllrged
\, 11 be or ,~ccejJtJble quality,
T e propo<;2d pNject includes considerable pa,-;(';n.) area (3563 spaces),
! i s I'e(o;,:;,;end~d th) t a regu1 a r va":Ulln: sweepi n'J ["'ogram be e:;t,lb 1 i shed
f r these p3rking areas, and that 005ign provisjon; be included for
o 1 removal from the parking lot runoff prior to di5c~arge to the swale
al d lake system,
To e proposed mn"facturing operation does not ill: lucle the discharg!? of
a. y type of in,Justri.'11 Haste to surfac,' "Iaters; t,';E',-efore the creiltion
o point-",oUI-C" ',':ater qual it .1' proble;~s.. 1'/il1 not -'Ul," Ther~ ar'e to be
n floo'- drilin:; in ,,:"n'Jf.Jct~ring or storage ere,,'., oG inadv;:,cant in-plant
s, ills wil1 not be: r.JUted to the slo1011e and lake ,:;stem, At this tilr.e
t ere appec1r to be no plans to uti I ize outsiGe stl'!'i'ge areas to store
m nufacturing chen'.icals or process I-iastes. Shoul ( such out5ide storage
a. e,)s become necessary, desjgn detili1s 8uSt bt' ;n~luded to isol~te the
a c:a frc~l' the dninag(, system,
II sumn:aI'Y, the dr"ir;age system desigil for the !Ji'OjEct appears aieqldte
t prev,ont adver,e \"1ter qual ity impacts on-sit',! or off-site, a:;s';mlng
t' at the abllve cDnside,-ati:lI1s are noted by the dPpl icant.
b, \o;ater Qu,]ntity,
(I) Ora ~~~_SY:;,~em. The proposed 90 acre project has beer, di'Jided into
Ecual drainage basins consisting of 45 acres each with a 3,e a~re
r,tentioll/detentior. l~,ke, There I-Jil1 be two outtal' culverts into
ti1 Lake Worth Drainage District's E-4 Canal. Hunoff Hill be collected
al J routed via grassy swales to one of the tHO retention lakes. Even
th ugh the lakes only represent 6,7 percent of the r:roject area (normally
1 percent is used), they appear to provide adequate ,-etention and
de ention capability, The proposed drainage system sho\:ld prtlvide
ad quate flood protection, Based on the information provided irl the ADA,
no adverse impacts an: anticipated "lith regard to dl'ainage.
(2) ~at~!_S~P21Z' According to the ADA, the potdble water demands for
th project will be met by the City of Boynton Beach, an off-site
fa ility (see discussion under Public Facilities/Hater Supply Section.
Th' non-pota~,le \'Iater denlands will be lIlet by an on site well, The
pr bable location of the non-potable well will be near the dock yard;
th size and pumping rate have not been determined at this ti~e, Water
de and for Phase I will be .03481 MGD and for Phase II and III,
denand wil I equal a total of .09161 MGD, .
ilt the pn~sent time, considering thl? information available, no adverse
im acts on the Hater resources of the area are anticipated as a result
of the applicant's proposed use, A general ppn:it will be reGuired
fo on-site use since the withdrawals Hill be lpss than 100,OGO g~llons
pe' day.
-2-
3. NatUloal Re"ourc s
ao Topography.
The site el
propos'ed to
Based on a
be suffic;e
vations generally range between 10 to 15 feet NGVD. It is
place the minimum building elevation ct 13.8 feet NGVD.
eview of the information in the ADA thls elE:vation should
t foro protection from a 100-year flood event.
b. Soils.
c. Vegetation.
do }lildlife.
e. Endangered pecies.
Submittal of in ormation for the above sections was ~Iaived by the Regional
Planning Caunci
II. C. IMPACT ON PUBLI FACILITIES
1. Wastevlater Tr~a me_~ andJllsposal
The project is 'n the service area of the South Central Regional Wastewater
Tloeatment and O'sposal Board (SCR~ITOB). Secondaloy treatment will be provided
by a 12 MGO actOvated sludge plant with discharge to an ocean outfall. The
project site cu rently does not have access to a collection line; however,
~lotorola has be n assured hj the interim Acministrati'Je Director of SCRWTOB
that transmissi n facilities will be available when needed ,Ind that excess
capacity will a so be a'iailable at the plant to handle I'iotorola flO\~s.
The projected ow at build-out is 0.127 ~'GD based on C(.!lIpalable ['iotorola
facilities, whi h appears to be a reasonable figure, Although no problems
with industrial waste discharges are anticipated due 10 the nature of the
proposed manufa tut'ing process, tl;otorola 'o'/ill be re"pon, ible for providing
any necessar y i dustria 1 waste pre-treatment to meet sCP"rOB and EPA
requiloemcnts. In summary, the proposed means of \'1a:,toiater t;'eatment and
disposal is acceptable. '
2. S torn: Hater 01<; osa 1
The E-4 Canal conveys l'unaff to the C-16 Canal, The dppl icant. incorrectly
calculated the allowable discharge in that he utilized 100 acres instead
of the project area of 9U acres, The applicant's assumption of a starting
~!ater level of 8.0 f~et i,GVD should also be changed tc E..5 feet tlGVD to
be consistent ~ilh the opel.ution of C-16, There is adequ)te capacity in
the E-4 Canal and the C-16 Canal to provi de pos i t i ve outfall for theproj ect,
A Su,'face Hate ~1JniJgen,ent Permit villi be required pursuant to Chapter 373,
Florida Stat'll. s. The upplicant has requested a Conceptual Approval under
Application No. 09249-0 which is presently under review by District staff.
.he correction- rEferred to ,above in reference to \'later levels and allowable
discharge are ,elng \'1orked out in our project revie~l.
-3-
3, vht":r ,u :211.
pntabl Hater demands Hill be met by the City of Hoynton Beach according to
a conv ,rsation liith PelTY Cessna, Utilities Director foy' the City. Potable
water emand for Phase I equals .037 MGD, Phase I! equals .096 MG9 and the
t0cal emand for all three phases is .127 NGD. The City of Boynton Beach
\'i3S is lied a permit (5U-OO'l99-W) Harch 16, 1978 for iHl annual allocation
of 3,8 billion galliJns per year (10,7 NGD) \'lith a n~axi"lucn day d~lr.and not
to exe eel 16.0 tl,GD, Total allowable inst'llled capacity is 14,95Q GPi1 from
22 wel s. The City's current treatment plant capacity is 8 MGD b~t
fadli ies are beinCJ ex[w:ded to a capacity of 16 t'lGD. The City is also
d"'ielo ing a nel'l \'Iellfield on the Jarvis property located south of S.~.;.
15th A'enue between Canal E-4 and the Florida East Coast Railroad.
T~I" ~:o t recent 12 months of pumpage data indicate that the average delY
\'Ii ',heir wal duri:1CJ ti,.is tir.:e interval ~:as 6.81 /0150, considerably belm;
th2 al ocated qUi,ntity, Because 'of the 10\; \"later demand from this project
(,127 ::(;0), WJ prOblem is anticipated in the City supplying this proj~ct
\ijt~l p table water.
Pa rt II I. SUN>tARY
The notr.ro a faci 1 i ty wi 11 provide the type of light industry now being encouraged
for the St te of Florida, Upon completion of th~ project the total building
are~ HI I I onsist of 825,000 square feet of administrative and engineering
offices, m nufacturing, assembly and test space and storage and distribution
area. The plant lii11 employ approximately 5,420 persons.
RECQtt,iEtWil.' ION
In reviewi, g the \'iater related aspects of the Application for Develop:1!ent
Approval, he District has determined that no adverSE! impacts of a regional
nature are anticipated to result from the subject project. However, the District
has determ ned that the following issues require resolution du~ing the devE!lopment
pha se:
1. It is ecommended that a regular vacuum sweeping progl'am be estabHshed
for th parking areas, and that design provision be included for oil
remova from the parking lot runoff prior to discharge to the s\;ale and
lake s~ stem,
2, A Surf ce \~ater Management Permit will be required pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S
3. A Gene, al Permit Iolill be required for the on-site water supply purusant to
Chapte 16K-2,032, Florida Administrative Code,
This revie' performed by the District as a contractual consultant to the Regional
Pl ar.'] i ng C unc il is in lended to provi de an overview aSSeSSITIE'nt of potenti al
regi(ln~l i lpacts, as indicated in Chapter 3BO, Florida Stilt.utf'S. This review does
nnt cons'i ute a tacit or conceptual approvill of the proposed project with r2Jard
tn the Cis rict's permitting authority as provided for in Chapter' 373. Florid1
Statut2s,
-
-4-
(Do
300
DRAINAGE
PHASE III
I
I@
"1.,.::/,,-,-
iJJ.J~:J '
;"cc
~ Yf- 2--2..rn;r .. II t::I.
,..,
\....
~'
~_":4
'-:--"~5-
.,
~
~ ~
- -
. ..r-,
r
!'
I'
>-
r .:
~;r-~
f: 7;; f" "-
..:::;.;.......~.
------'
1
"
-"'.....--"'
,
- ~
."
,.............
_0 '
~ ~":_C;:~=--=!.'...~:
I
I ." '
, "
~-
....
.,
"
,I
!LI.
.'
-. ' .; -"~~ - ,,'
,.::r__<J",~
f. ;/'''--j ,:", . ;)"-r-:::'"J- . '. ", ,'^
': "' I,. L=-j . \ .. ~
;;1, CQ~ ~= . J.~:'~
,.' CJ . l
,.
:'
\
" '
.
"
1
;
<)
i ;'
,I -
~
;;.
"'
ci
ci
::
~
.'
. :FiOLA
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIGN,~L. l~tI?;CT
SHEc.11-12
...=:;:::>yi....::,,:;l'
"'C57 5.JC~~~~;:-.;~:..~~.~...::::;...,G.:..~~
.....<.-'.._.....,'~......,-....,.~...
~.G'..;'...,"''' S"'!::L.....:V,l. ')E"':;:~
60": ~"f (;I:.&.;:.... .......U.A 5,E-H CC'.,JN7Y ~:"C:;:l:~;>.
.,_:"...~--,...
MAP
G-3
I
I
I
-
--
e;N
(~o
EXIST NG LAND USE
~~c.c
;000
FlG:::-iDl\ NO US'::: ANO COVeR
CUS5:F1C1nON SYSj'~,...l
-----
"jm...........I1~..."..,"~
-.---.
320
j
ri\~\
l i (\,~0
"-----y
-
I
I.
I
i
~
~'" H. W. 22 A~~
ii'lI11l1'lflmmmrm'
~'
320
~1!1I"~"I'1r.in~"
ii'
I
Y't)CTo/2.Cl.-!l
310
bRASS L;C;NO
SIn
LL-D.o. 80Y"!~~ _,_
I;
"
,
!i
:i
,
,I
I
,
I
'-. ,J O'~_.r;::; 'OJ A
' rfl "1," ~
J.. ~/i" j .~-", <ol ...:","'
I
'3-":Y~.'~I8'C~C!-l O\l,"<1_""'C"'C~' ,'P"~~' '~1~'"
~_J- ~. -~. ~J_
I.
,
,
i
\
\
I
\
\
\
I
\
\ ..
.
)1
II
/g
I '
1:1
" j""'----
,
I
1151 I
1_- d
':t' .rl
i_' I 1
_ I U
Ij.."mltj""""'tl_IIl""'t";llIllfll'"'__"Ill"~
= d
= ' ~
I ~
~ ~
~I
~I
~I
II
I ~
, , ~
~ I ~,
";I;;:;~~I;::::'~::.-4.1""I"~I1~~II'~1l;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;J~_
. -- --.--'- i \f
I
J
I
.
I
.
~ ---- --- -----.--
Ii
~1l!ttllIHIf..It',.I_~..--..-..,.,_
\ 320
.
"
\
~~
~"
'?
%.
740
DEVELOP',IENT OF R"G!ml.~L IMPACT
-<E.:::"'...."...i;:;::;:h.
.~~..c.......,..._.
POST !I",'':l(~=:'" S-:,",...,l-t \ .';.."'1'110"'"
........,. _..------ :~.....~._..,.
:~';,;lI4.'1 S~!:l~C." "":!Y=."
-I~:~""'.'''-'
??;..:>
o
SH~;:T
1"
~"-
WI.-
-
.-
GENERAL LOCATION
'"
'"
a:
z
co
::>
I-
'"
o
a:
o
..
...
'(ill
1\(jJ
BOYNTON R::J.
-'
'"
'"
I-
,.
'"
'"
I-
;;
"
N.W. 2 AVE
-
.'.'.)
I
--y
.
:".'.':
,
,
,
,
,
i
N W 22 ve
iII".O'"OtQOl.-A
~~ SITE -
<c;
ATLANTIS
HYPOLUX 0
,'.'.'-'.'.'
i
!...'..
.
'"
"
z
"
co
;<
'"
-._....,1
,.,
.
I
,
i
LAKE WORTH \
2 miles
I ................... _.)
, .,
j i
, I
, i
I
!
,
.
j
i
!
J : '\ I
(.:; , i \ ('
, ',',
' / '
;! \ , '
I' MAN LA
._.':'.; I '/'
! \! j ,.) I
! 'I!; :
._~ i HVPOtiJXO r{'i; !
-; L.., i I if !i "
, I ri IL)/ I
j i / i ~'I I~'
"j'-'.'. 'i g i. i
i.._._. .....-1.:; U i
I q .!
i:!: , (
it;
~ ,IJ
~;:;
..
,...
.
i
i
I
f~ .. <'
j,
r~""
i '"
!
!
I
.
"
j-
,-
/I -
;..
it'
;/
i,
i,
.,
i/
I
f!
..,
......- I'.'-'t
I, ,
- , .'"
.' I
.. .
" I
~ .
I
,
j
j
i
~._._.
I
f'
,
I
,
;
i
80YNTO
BEACH
'"
'"
,
\-
'"
~
"
'"
w
'"
"i
DElRA"" BEACH
3 miles
n,7~~4"""o ~~P'"'I - -
J'i;"'.J"~;J ~~.}-:l~;1.A
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMP.\,CT
o....""Y~O~. 'JE..olO< ?"~.'''' 5'0 '-":.... C':t.NTY ;C"1_:;f'lC.\
..::::;:I~ ! ....e.~::l...
''''M'K1''_.~..''
PCS-; llLJO<LE'" 5:::"ul-l,l. ':E?~.;GA~I
::;;~~~~:'A-;..S--;0:'.S..c.,i'" 1';;'~~1f'1
r".'.'''-,..."''l
,
.;{
'!
;f
"
I
,
LANTANA
AN
A_lie
O~.en
L
''-'-r'
, ,.
.
MAP
A
SH"Tf
11-1
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Annual Report, Division of Environmental Science and Engineering: Air Pollution
Control, Palm Beach County Health Depart8ent, 1978,
Appra i sa 1
of the Water Resources of Eastern Palm Beach County, Report of
Investigations #67, U.S.G.S. and Florida Department of Natural Resources,
1973.
Economic Aspects of the Proposed Palm Beach County Road Impact Fee Ordinance,
Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems, Florida International
University and Florida Atlantic University, January 2, 1979.
Florida Model Energy Efficiency Building Code, State Energy Office, 1978.
Health Systems Plan, 1979 - 1983, Region VII, Health Planning Council, Inc., 1978.
Highway Capaci~y Manual, Highway Research Board.
Palm Beach County 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Manage8ent Plan, Area Planning
Board of Palm Beach County, 1979.
Regional Energy Plan, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 1979.
Report on the Proposed Palm Beach County Fair Share for Road I~provements
Ordinance, Palm Beach County Engineers Office, August 10, 1978.
~01 Facilities Plan, Palm Beach County South Central Region, Russell & Axon, Inc.
1979.
Water Quality Characteristics of Several Southeast Florida Canals, South Florida
Water Management District, Technical Publication =77-4; 1977.
Water Resources of Palm Beach County, Report of Investigations ~13, U,S.G.S. 1954.
IV-l
TREASURE COAST REGIO'iAL PU,Ni:ING COUNCIL
STAFF
f'lark L. Gumula
J. Kevin Henderson
HO\'lard Mui se
Lincoln N, Walther
Executive Di rector
Regional Planner
Reg i ona 1 Pl anner
Regio'lal Planner
Regional Planner
Regional Planner
Sam Shannon
Thomas J. Ba i I'd
Nancy E. Curci 0
Dorothy A. ~laymon
State Lands Researcher
Fiscal Person
Lois H. Becker
Jan Jensik
Carol L. Swenson
Secretary
Secretary
Administrative Secretary
5
~
~ .
~
o
u
j
J
I
]
1
1
.
DRAFT
S U r1 11 A R Y ,A, '! D
RECOf'lMENDATIONS
1
]
J
I
] .
J
~
f
[
r. ~_;' <c_
..
INPACT ASSESSt'lENT SUMMARY
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, requires that regional planning councils, in
preparing a regional impact assessment report, analyze many factors in the
areas of environment and natural resources, public facilities and services,
and the economy and public finance. For the proposed Motorola project, most
areas will receive only minor impacts. A few, principally those affecting the
economy and government finance, will receive significant beneficial impacts.
Transportation will be the only area with substantial negative impacts.
Development of recommendations with respect to the proposed project required
consideration of the degree to which negative impacts could be overcome, and
the relative weight of the project's benefits and detriments. Reduction or
elimination of negative impacts can be achieved through conditions attached
to the project's approval. Such condjtions may specify modifications to the
project iself, controls on the phasing of its development, or requirements for
the applicant to assist the community in providing adequate services or facili-
ties to meet the demands created by the project.
The situation may arise wherein the conditions necessary for complete mitigation
of negative impacts might effectively prevent the development of the project.
Such conditions might prove prohibitively expensive for the developer, or might
place such severe restraints on his project as to make it infeasible. In such
a case, consideration must be given to the potential benefits of the proposal.
If the positive impacts of the project are great enough, approval may be war-
ranted even though complete mitigation of negative impacts cannot be achieved.
The benefits of a proposed development to the community may be perceived to
outweigh the adverse consequences. Those adverse consequences are the price
that a community or region may be willing to assume in order to take advantage
of the positive features of the development.
The proposed Motorola facility will have a very positive impact on three aspects
of the area's economy: employment, income, and public finances. When completed,
it is estimated that Motorola will employ more than 5,400 persons and have an
annual payroll in excess of $71,000,000. Since a significant portion of the
labor force will be unskilled or semi-skilled and easily trained, 80% of the
employees are projected to be available from the local labor pool. This could
have a strong positivp effect on the unemployment rate for the County, which
stood at 6.9% in August 1979. That represents 15,000 people out of work.
The fiscal impact on local governments will also be quite positive. At build
out, the project will generate almost $240,000 annually for the School Board,
while creating little direct demand for school services. Similarly, Boynton
Beach will receive almost $210,000 annually, with only minor additional demands
for services. The impact on Palm Beach County will be considerably less posi-
tive, however, as the demand for new road facilities created by the project
will cost more than the revenues the project will generate for such facilities.
The positive fiscal impact of the project may be partially offset by the demands
of the additional population which the project will draw to the area. The
applicant's estimates more than 1,000 workers will be hired from outside the
III-l
------------
-
region. These workers and their families will create demands for schools,
water and sewer services, police and fire protection, and other government
services. Since the provision of services historically has often lagged
behind the demands created by new grO\~th, the population induced by t'~otorola
may offset the positive fiscal impact of the facility itself. In addition,
some of this new population may live in municipalities which will receive no
revenue from Motorola. The result could be a negative fiscal impact on such
communities.
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The environment and natural resources in the vicinity of the project will
receive minimal impact from the project. Since the site has been previously
altered, it contains no wetlands, vegetation, or wildlife habitats of signi-
ficant value. The canals adjacent to the site have typical water quality
which should not be significantly affected by the project if the recommended
conditions and requi rements of the South Flori da \.iater :~anagement Oi s tri ct
are met. Adequate handling of solid wastes should preclude any serious impacts
from toxic or hazardous waste.
The only significant negative impact of the project \o/ill be on roads. Most
roads in the area are currently adequate, but will generally deteriorate through
the development period of the project, By the end of the project's second phase
in 1990, several roads will be operating at service level F, with volumes upwards
of 50% over capacity.
Although Motorola will not be the primary caUSe of the overloaded facilities,
it will be a part of the general problem of grO\'lth in the area, outpacing the
community's ability to build nevi roads, The r':otorola facility '.,lill be a con-
tributing factor to highway congestion by the addition of traffic to roads
which will already be overloaded.
The recommended conditions to the Development Order would mitigate Motorola's
impact on the highway system. However, since r':otorola \'lill be responsible for
only a part of the highway problem, those conditions to the Development Order
cannot be expected to result in roadways operating at satiSfactory levels of
service. Substantially more than mitigation of ~otorola's impact will be
necessary to accomplish that. It will take a major cocmitment from the com-
munity at large to upgrading highways before the transportation system can
be expected to provide adequate levels of service in future years.
Despite the projected roadway conditions near the project, approval ~ith the
recommended conditions should be given because 0; the facility's major positive
impact on the region's economy. Motorola's contribution in jobs, income, and
taxes, along with the mitigation of its negative i~pacts, were found to be a
reasonable basis for local government approval o~ the project,
II [-2
The recommendations required under Chapter 380.06 Florida Statutes are those
recommendations adopted by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council at
the regularly scheduled December 7, 1979 Council meeting.
It is the recommendation of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council that
the Motorola Manufacturing, Development an9 Ad~inistrative Facility be approved,
with the fOllowing conditions to the Development Order:
1. The Motorola ADA, plus the following additional information submitted to
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, shall be made a part of the
Development Order by an express condition of the Development Order:
a. Supplemental information su~mitted under a cover letter dated
October 11, 1979 from John Gesbocker of Heery & Heery Architects
& Engineers, Inc.;
b. Supplemental information provided under a cover letter dated
November 21,1979 from Mary Lou Lackey of Motorola, Inc.
2. In the event the developer fails to commence significant physical develop-
ment within four years from the date of rendition of the Development Order,
devel opment approval shall termi nate and the development shall be subject
to further consideration. Significant physical development shall mean site
clearing and.foundations for the facility.
3. In the event of discovery of archaeological artifacts during project con-
struction, the applicant shall stop construction in that area and notify
'.
the Division of Archives. Proper pr"otection, to the satisfaction of the
Division of Archives, shall be provided by the applicant.
1. A program of regular vacuum sweeping of all paved surfaces on the project
site shall be instituted and carried out by Motorola. A description of
111-3
~
I
ij
I
~
~
I
I
U
~
ij
~
~
u
~
~
J
J
1
this program shall be provided to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,
South Florida Water Management District, Palm Beach County, the Area
Planning Board and City of Boynton Beach.
5. Motorola shall request the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(OER) to determine w~ich of their projected chemical wastes would be
classified as toxic or hazardous.
6. Motorola shall develop and institute special handling and disposal procedures
for its toxic or hazardous wastes which are acceptable to DER.
7. Plant operation of the proposed DR1 shall not be permittee to begin unless
conditions 5 and 6 above have been met.
8. Motorola shall fully investigate the options for meeting hot water require-
ments, completely or in part, through the use of solar energy or waste heat
recovery. Results of this investigation shall be presented to Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council and the City of Boynton Beach and, if cost-
effective, Motorola shall implement the most feasible and effective of these
options during construction.
9. The applicant shall provide an easement along Conoress Avenue to accommodate
a bikeway/pedestrian path, in accordance with the City's and Palm Beach
County's Comprehensive Plans.
10. Prior to the commencement of operations in Phase I, or any subsequent
expansion of the facility, the intersection of all project drive\~ays I'lith
Congress Avenue and N.W. 22nd Avenue shall be improved with left turn lanes,
right turn lanes and traffic signals, as warranted by the Palm Beach County
Traffic Engineer.
11. Prior to the operation of Phase I facilities, the intersection of Congress
Avenue and N. W. 22nd Avenue sha 11 be improved I'lith 1 eft turn 1 anes, l'i ght
111-4
turn lanes and traffic signals, as warranted by the Palm Beach County
Traffic Engineer.
12. Since Motorola's Phase II-b operations will generate traffic in excess of
the 5,600 trip threshold set in the a9reement between Palm Beach County
and Riteco Development Corporation dated August 1, 1978 and relating to
traffic impacts of the proposed Sandhill project, Phase II-b shall not
become operational until the highway improvements described in the following
sections of the Riteco a9reement,have been completed:
Section III - Traffic signals;
Section IV - left turn lanes, N,W. 22nd Avenue and Seacrest Boulevard;
Section V - Intersection of Congress Avenue and N.W. 22nd Avenue;
Section VI - Four-lanin9 Congress Avenue.
13. Motorola shall dedicate to Palm Beach County the following rights-of-way
alon9 Motorola's entire roadl'/ay frontage;
Congress Avenue 60 feet from centerline;
N.W. 22nd Avenue 54 feet from centerline.
I
I
I
I
I
j
"
J
,
The applicant shall reserve an additional 20 feet along Congress Avenue to
be dedicated to the County in the event the County adopts plans to widen
Congress to eioht lanes. The applicant shall also reserve an additional
6 feet along N.W. 22nd Avenue for dedication to the County in the event
an interchange is built at 1-95 and N.W. 22nd Avenue and M.W. 22nd Avenue
is planned for widening to six lanes.
Construction of Phase 11-c shall not commence unless the applicant, the
~
-....;.:.
~
14.
State of Florida, or Palm Beach County, has contributed $1,600,000 or
J
i
1
j
I
,
J
j
provided an equivalent value in high~/ay improvements for the widening of
I II-5
.._--_.------~-----~-~-_.._--
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Congress bet\1een Boynton and Hypo 1 uxo Roads. The amount of the contributi on
shall be reduced with credit for the following:
a. Contributions by the applicant to any highway bond issue. The amount
of the credit shall be calculated in a manner similar to the property
tax credit already incorporated in the above amount.
b. Any road impact fee made pursuant to the Fair Share Contribution for
Road Improvements Ordinance, if it is reinstated, or any similar
ordinance which may be adopted.
The $1,600,000 amount is in constant 1979 dollars and the value of all contri-
butions, improvements or credits shall be adjusted to 1979 dollars using the
consumer price index.
15. Construction of Phase II-c shall not commence unless one of the following
conditions is applicable to Congress Avenue between Boynton and Hypoluxo
Roads:
a. the road is operating at the then current design level of service for
highway planning designated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization;
b. the road has been improved to six lanes;
c. the six-laning of the road has been included in the Palm Beach County
Transportation Improvement Program; or
d. Palm Beach County has budgeted preliminary engineering studies for
six-laning the road,
16. The applicant shall establish and actively support; through the provision
of information and incentives to employees, a car pooling program. At the
end of the first year of Phase I operations, Motorola shall provide a
written report to the Treasure Coast Re~ional Planning Council, the
111-6
Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineer,
and the City of Boynton Beach on its activities and an evaluation of their
effectiveness.
17. Within one year of the commencement of Phase I operations. or any subsequent
expansion of facilities, the applicant shall undertake a study of the feasi-
bility of establishing or participating in a van pool program and shall
transmit the results of that study to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Palm Beach County
Traffic Engineer, and the City of Boynton Beach.
18. Upon commencement of Phase I operations, or any subsequent expansion. the
applicant shall provide the Palm Beach County Transportation Authority with
information regarding the general location of its employees' residences and
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
shall consult with the Authority regarding the feasibility of establishing
or expanding routes to serve the plant. If bus service is provided to the
plant, the applicant shall provide boarding and unloading space on-site or
provide space for turnout bays along Congress and N.W. 22nd Avenue. if
needed.
"
III-7
:'1)
<ito'
PROJECT AtlALYSIS
---~-~~~ _.~-_._-----_._-_..-
AIR
Air quality within the region is generally good, with the occasional exception
of heavily urbanized portions of Palm Beach County (Palm Beach County Health
Department 1978). Palm Beach County is designated by EPA as a nonattainment
area for ozone, meaning that the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
ozone was exceeded in the past. In response to nonattainment designation, a
comprehensive air quality monitoring system is employed in Palm Beach County
and plans have been developed by the Department of Environmental Regulation
(DER) and the ~letropol itan PI anni ng Organi zation (NPO) to control stationary
and nonstationary (complex) air pollution sources.
Notor vehicles contribute the majority of total air pollutants in Palm Beach
County (PBCHD 1978). Polluting byproducts of gasoline internal combustion
engines principally include (in descending order of magnitude) carbon monoxide
(CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and oxides of nitrogen (NDx)' Ozone can be found as
a byproduct of chemical reactions between hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen,
oxygen in the air, and light. As motor vehicles are the principal sources of
essential precursors to ozone, they are a major cause of excessive ozone
concentrations. '
Federal regulations control the quantity of pollutants emitted by new vehicles
(usually measured in grams per mile traveled), and these regulations become
gradually mOl'e stringent through 1987. It must be recognized, hm'lever, that
the direct relationship between increased vehicle use and increased air pollu-
tion will continue, as only the numerical ratio between the two will change.
Furthermore, vehicular emissions per mile increase as average vehicle speed
declines. This relationship means that as more vehicles are used, air pOllution
levels increase; and as the roads become congested, air pollution levels increase
even faster.
Vehicular traffic will be the major source of air pollutants associated with
the project. In 1981, the applicant estimates (ADA p. 13-3) that 3,528 vehicle
trips per day generated by the project would produce 5,170 pounds/day carbon
monoxide, 448 pounds/day hydrocarbons, and 229 pounds/day oxides of nitrogen.
These parameters would be increased 32%, 43%, and 135%, respectively, by the
year 2000, the projected completion date for Phase III. These estimates are
summarized in Exhibit 13-1.
TABLE 13-1, AVERAGE DAILY EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY)
Phase Year Mi1 es/Day CO HC NOX
I 1981 26,460 5,170 448 229
II 1990 72,930 5,972 527 402
III 2000 97,650 6,835 641 539
SOURCE: nOTOROlA AOA, PG, 13-3
The applicant notes that a complex source permit will be required for the project
because the number of on-site parking spaces will exceed 1,500 during Phase II
construction in 1990. Application for this permit is scheduled for mid-November,
at the time of this writing. Measures proposed by the applicant to reduce the
air pOllution impacts of this project include parking lot access design and
staggered work shifts,
13-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
An additional special air pollution permit may be required by DER for control
of volatile organic compounds which would be used during various manufacturing
processes. The intent of this regulatory function would be to control the re-
lease of vapors from liquid organic solvents; however, this is an issue which
can be satisfactorily resolved between Motorola and DER.
The impacts of vehicle emissions associated \~ith the l1otorola development, as
proposed, will be negative and unavoidable. During temporary periods (dependent
upon meteorological conditions) local air quality may be significantly degraded.
It should be noted that if measures of air quality are determined to be in excess
of State and/or federal standards, even for short periods of time, further con-
struction which would produce increases in air pollutants may be prohibited by
DER and/or EPA.
This potential problem is illustrated by the case of Palm Beach County, which has
been designated a nonattainment area for ozone (primarily a byproduct of auto
emissions). Under the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, Palm Beach County
now must present a plan for altering transportation patterns in order to reduce
pollutant levels. If the program is not successful in meeting a series of dead-
lines, federal sanctions may be imposed, including a prohibition on construction
of new pollution sources and cutoff of federal funds for transportation needs
and clean air planning.
1
Designated nonattainment areas may be an entire region, a county, or a portion
of a county. With respect to the proposed l1otorola project, it should be recog-
nized that every additional source of air pollutants allowed in a given area
"uses up" a portion of the assimilative capacity of the area, so that the
threshold for nonattainment de~ignation becomes that much closer, and the
amount of further development a 11 OI'/ab 1 e that much 1 ess.
Evaluation of specific adverse impacts of air pollution associated with the
Motorola industrial development is difficult for the following reasons:
1) Seasonal meteorological conditions provide good pollutant dispersion during
most of the year, but also result in lo\~ level temperature inversions at night
during the fall and winter. These periods of low level stratification are asso-
ciated with increased probability of air pollution hazards; 2) The project con-
sidered alone will not be a major factor in reducing air quality within the region
but could have noticeable impacts on the immediate surrounding area; 3) The impact
of air pollution due to vehicular traffic generated by the project will be dis-
persed and not easily separable from present and future background levels gen-
erated by traffic in the region and areas surrounding the project site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Amelioration of the adverse impacts on air quality as~ociated with the develop-
ment may be assisted in three principal ways. First, the roads in the area
should be maintained at a level of service which provides for free traffic flow.
Second, monitoring requirements for the complex source permit should be care-
fully adhered to in order to identify significant air pollution hazards, should
they occur. Third, all parties associated with the project approval should co-
operate to insure that maximum feasible use is made of alternative transit modes.
Car pools and van pools may be the most practicable iinnediate solution, with bus
service provided as ridership potential merits.
The adverse air oollution related imDacts of Motorola would be almost entirely
related to motor vehicle traffic and' are best addressed under TRANSPORTATION.
13-2
WATER
There are no permanent water bodies within the project boundaries. An existing
ditch (L-22),which bisects the project site perpendicular to Canal E-4, is dry
most of the year. This ditch will be filled by the applicant, and a quit claim
deed has been previously filed for this purpose. South Florida Water Manage-
ment District (SFWMD) Canal C-16, also known as Boynton Canal, extends east-
west along the southern border of the project site. lake Worth Drainage
District (LWDD) Canal E-4 is adjacent to the site along the eastern boundary.
The site lies wholly within the LWDD. Both Canals C-16 and E-4 are elements
of an extensive canal grid designed to control water elevations east of Con-
servation Area No.1, from south of the West Palm Beach Canal to Broward County.
Water elevations in Canals C-16 and E-4 are maintained generally between eight
and ten feet mean sea level (MSL), in order to satisfy the dual purposes of
flood protection and water conservation. C-16 discharges excess waters east
to Lake Worth, and thence to the Atlantic Ocean via Boynton Inlet. E-4 connects
freshwater Lakes Cl arke and Osborne to the north of the project site 11ith fresh-
water Lake Ida to the south. Water quality within the canals is typical for
this area. Data collected by USGS in 1976, and reported by the applicant (ADA
p. 15-2), for C-16 is in substantive agreement with earlier surveys in 1970-71
(USGS 1973) and 1940-50 (USGS 1954), and indicates that while most Class III
water quality standards (Chapter 17-3.121, FAC) are generally maintained, some
are exceeded.
Groundwaters in the LWDD are strongly affected by the canal network due to,
direct hydraulic connection between surface and ground~/aters. Canal stage
levels are ~aintained low enough to provide flood protection during the wet
season and high enough to prevent excessive groundwater losses to tidewaters
during the dry season. Mean annual rainfall for the area of the project is
approximately 60 inches, of which 70% falls from May to October. The USGS
water table contour maps for Palm Beach County (USGS 1973) shol1 that ground-
water levels in the vicinity of the project site on October 1, 1970 were
approximately +9.0 MSL, and on April 30, 1971 were approximately +7.0 MSL.'
These values occurred during an abnormally dry period, as rainfall was nearly
40% deficient during the year these measurements were taken.
Groundwater quality is generally good in, the area of the project site. There
is no present evidenc~ of saltwater intrusion into the shallow water aquifer
in the Boynton Beach area, although problems of this nature have occurred to
the north and south (SFWMD, USGS). Waters of the Floridan aquifer are approx-
imately 1,000 feet below ground surface, and are regarded as excessively
mineralized (high in dissolved solids) to be useful for most purposes.
Overall, the project site does not have particularly notable water resource
implications. Impacts on water resources associated with and adjacent to the
project site are directly related to the proposed drainage and water management
plan, and are discussed under DRAINAGE and the report by SFWMD staff in
Appendix 1 .
15-1
FLOODPLAINS
The project' site is wholly within the 100-year flood prone area, as identified
on Federal Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 120196-005B. City of Boynton Beach.
One hundred year flood stage is estimated by the map to be +11 feet NGVP
(essentially equivalent to +11 feet MSL). Topography of the site varies
from +9.7 feet to +18.8 feet, with the great majority of the site between
10 feet and 14 feet elevation.
The applicant's consultants provide calculations fADA Section 22) which' esti-
mate the 100,year flood elevation on-site to be 13.78 feet MSL and indicate
that minimum building floor elevation should exceed this figure. South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) staff review has revealed that the initial
information used in these calculations may require revision (See Appendix 1),
and DRAINAGE} which, in turn, could result in minimum floor elevations being
revised upward slightly. Discussion with the applicant's consultants indicates
preliminary plans call for building floor elevation of +14 feet MSL, which would
be satisfactory. It is very important that new construction be sited above the
100-year flood elevation; however, this issue can be resolved during final sur-
face \'iater management permit reviel'. by SFW~1D and prior to building permit approval
by the City of Boynton Beach. Also included in the ADA is a letter (p. 17-2)
attesting that the City of Boynton Beach is participating in the Regular Phase
Type National Flood Insurance Program. If constructed above revised minimum
100-year flood elevation, potential flooding conditions on-site would be ade-
quately mitigated.
17-1
,.
J
J
LJ
l
J
J
:I
,I
')
J
I
II
~
TABLE 20.1 PALM BEACH EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS 1970-August 1979
Labor Force
Employed
Percent
Unemp 1 oyed
March 1970
March 1971
March 1972
March 1973
March 1974
March 1975
f.larch 1976
t'larch 1977
March 1978
January 1979
February 1979
March 1979
April 1979
t~ay 1979
June 1979
July 1979
Auqust 1979
141,693
146,325
155,215
167,284
181,480
187,523
192 ,453
195,320
206,288
222,941
224,332
227,446
221 ,753
215,008
218,625
220,706
217,689
138,141
139,736
145,582
161,617
171,710
167,338
172,335
174,849
193,345
206,578
211,773
215,031
209,867
202,969
203,086
202,970
202,761
2.5
4.5
6.2
3.4
5.4
10.7
10.5
10.5
6.3
7.3
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.6
7.1
8.0
6.9
SOURCE: LABOR FORCE SUMMARY, OFFICE OF RESEARCH & STATISTICS, DEPT. 0F COMMERCE
I.
II;
, 20-2
TABLE 20. 2 ESTI~lATED EMPLOYMENT IN NONAGRICULTURAL ESTA3LISHt1ENTS,
WEST PALM BEACH/BOCA RATON SMSA (PALM BEACH COUNTY)
Government
Federal
May 1975 May 1979
141,000 180,900
17,400 25,400
12,500 19,000
4,900 6,400
2,200 3,200
10,900 16,300
6,600 8,000
38,200 46,000
5,800 6,200
32,400 39,800
1,700 1,800
4,600 5,700
5,500 7,500
4,300 4,700
2,300 2,600
1,900 2,500
8,200 10,500
3,900 4,500
10,000 14,200
34,200 40,300
4,800 5,100
2,500 2,800
8,900 10,300
18,000 22,100
23,700 30,700
1,300 2,500
Total in Nonagricultural Establishments 1
Manufacturing
Durable Goods
Nondurable Goods
Food & Kindred Products
Contract Construction
Transportation, Communication, Electric, Gas
and Sanitary Services
Trade
Hholesa1e Trade
Reta il Trade
Building Materials & Farm Equipment
General Merchandise
Food Stores '
Automotive Dealers & Service Stations
Apparel & Accessories Stores
Furniture, Home Furnishings Stores
Eating & Drinking Places
Miscellaneous Retail Stores
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
Services & Miscellaneous & Mining
Hotels & Other Lodging Places
Personnel Services
Medical & O:her Health Services
Other Services & Miscellaneous
lA11 industries are classified according to the Standard Industl'ia1 Classification
Manual, 1967. All data are adjusted to first quarter 1975 benchmark levels.
SOURCE: SMSA LABOR t1ARKET TRENDS, FLORIDA DEPARn1ENT Or LP,BOR AND H1PLOYNENT
SECURITY
20-3
_u_u__._____.._
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 20.3 ESTH1ATED GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURES
(1979 Dollars)
Tota 1
Amount
Estimated Percent
to be Spent
Within the Region
TOTAL
SOURCE: MOTOROLA ADA.
$12,566,000
10,006,000
585,000
1,800,000
6 ,119 ,000
$31,076,000
50%
90%
85%
15%
60%
Materials
Labor
Equipment Rental
Professional Services
Administration/Overhead
TABLE 20.4 ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL
Phase I Phase II Phase III
(Throuoh 1981) (1982-1990) (1990-2000)
Assembly 519 1 ,427 1 ,427
Stock 85 234 234
Qua 1 ity Control 96 265 265
Technicians 284 782 782
Mechanics 53 146 146
Supervisors 31 84 84
Clerical 149 411 689
Designers 37 102 170
Eng i neers 209 575 964
Financial/Planners 48 133 222
t1anagers 95 261 437
TOTAL E~1PLOYEES 1,606 4,420 5,420
TOTAL PAYROLL (000) $21,199 S58,382 $71 ,589
SOURCE: MOTOROLA ADA.
TABLE 20,5 NONCONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT BY INCOME RANGE (1979 Dollars)
Under $5,000- $7,000- $10,000- S15,000- Over
$5,000 6,999 9,999 14,999 24,999 $25,000 TOTJI.L
End of Phase I 0 39 800 334 300 133 1,606
End of Phase II 0 106 2,201 919 827 367 4,420
End of Phase III 0 130 2,699 1,127 1,014 450 5,420
SOURCE: MOTOROLA ADA.
20-4
The vast majority of employees associated with the proposed Motorola facility
will be directly involved with the production of two-way, hand-held radios.
At a facility such as this, unskilled workers and those with vocational train-
ing constitute the largest segment of the work force. From discussions with
the applicant, positions needing no experience will be those in the areas of
assembly, stock, quality control, and clerical (approximately 50'n. Those
needing some vocational training include technicians, mechanics, designers,
and approximately 50% of the clerical staff. A support staff of highly
trained and technically skilled individuals will be needed in administration
and engineering. These jobs will require a college education (See Table 20.4,
Estimated Employment and Payroll).
The applicant estimates that 80% of the Motorola work force will be hired from
the local labor pool, with the remainder drawn from outside the region. Of
its total 5,420 employees at build out, 1,084 employees are anticipated to be
recruited outside the region. This assumption appears to, be a valid one, based
on the following information. The 'local labor pool in Palm Beach County has
steadily increased over the past decade. With continued growth, this trend
most likely will continue (See Table 20.1, Palm Beach Employment Statistics
1970-August 1979). The most current data, from August 1979, indicate that
nearly 15,000 people are unemployed in Palm Beach County. At the end of
Phase I, the facility will fill approximately 1,220 positions ~Iith individuals
who are either unskilled or have some vocational training. With the number
of unemployed in the County, and an increasing labor pool, the applicant should
easily satisfy its employment requirements locally, without recruiting outside
the region. At the end of Phases II and III, 3,667 and 3,713 unskilled and
vocationally trained individuals, respectively, will be needed by Motorola.
It appears that there will be more than enough potential workers available
to satisfy the demand.
Since the vast majority of workers will be involved in assembling and packaging
hand-held radios, the applicant has held preliminary discussions with the Palm
Beach County School Board regarding the subject of technical training. The
School Board representatives indicated a ~1illingness to \'Iork I,lith lototorola in
developing and strengthening existing educational programs so they more closely
relate to job opportunities which will be available at Motorola. Also, employees
will be recruited from Florida Atlantic University, which offers both bachelors
and masters degrees in electrical and mechanical engineering.
20-5
,',
J
_u
,;;;;.
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
~
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed facility will have a substantial positive fiscal impact on the
City of Boynton Beach and the Palm Beach County School Board. Each of these
government entities will gain revenues, but encounter little or no additional
capital improvement or operating and maintenance costs. In the case of Palm
Beach County, the excess revenues generated by the project will be offset by
the need to expand highway facilities.
Projected annual revenues are shown in Table 20.6. The table was developed using
the 1979 mill levy and a total assessment for the facility based on building
costs increased by 15%, plus a land assessment derived from the average assessed
value for industrially zoned land. lThe annual ad valorem tax yield at the com-
pletion of Phase I would be $62,000 for Boynton Beach, $70,000 for the School
Board, and $73,000 for the County. When t~e project is fully built out, the
yield to those 90vernments ~Iould be $209,000, 5236,000, and $245,000, respectively.
The project \~ill have its most positive direct impact on the school system since
the facility contains no housing and will add no children to the schools. The
only service that might be needed bJ the facility from the schools might be for
some technical training programs.
Indirectly, the impact of Motorola on the public schools may be less positive.
As discussed in the Ef1PLOYMENT AND ECONOmCS section of this report, the proposed
facility would probably result in the inmigration of over 1,000 workers and their
families to the area. These families will bring additional children to the
school system which is having difficulty building facilities to keep pace with
growth.
Like the school system, the City of Boynton Beach will receive a substantial
positive impact from the f10torola facil ity. The tax revenue generated by
Motorola will more than adequately cover additional administrative and operating
costs for various City services such as pol ice and fire protection. In addition,
the project will make use of existing capacity or planned expansion of facilities,
such as sewer and water.
As with schools, the City may have less positive impact from the secondary impact
of the project. The population growth induced by the project in Boynton Beach
will create additiona~ demand for recreation areas, water and sewer facilities,
and public services such as police and fire protection. The impacts of this
growth may partially offset the primary or direct positive fiscal impact of
the facility itself.
Unlike the City and School Board, the County \.,ill incur a substantial demand
for capital improvements, As estimated in the TRAr:SPORTATION section, the
project will produce a demand for high\'lay facil ities \':orth $1,600,000 more
than the revenues the proj ec t wi 11 genera te for hi gh\'/ay improvements . Although
the project \'Iill have a positive fiscal impact \'Iith respect to other County
functions, it will fall far short of generating revenues sufficient to meet
the hi gbay needs of the tra ffi c it produces, As \'Iith the School Board and
the City, the additional population induced by the project may place demands
on County services,
lAll tax yields are in constant 1979 dollal's.
20-6
20-7
.."-'-"'"-
7""
,
I
I
I
i
I
rl
~
,
'.
,
I
!
I
.
I
I
I
Finally, it should be noted that some of the new wo~kers moving to the area may
reside in various municipalities other than Boynton Beach. These communities
would have to provide additional services to these residents, while receiving
no taxes from the Motorola project, The result is that the fiscal impacts from
growth induced by the project on neighboring municipalities could be negative.
J
I
I
I
I
.
I
.
I
I
20-8
- -- ._.__..,_..,------~,----._--
EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMICS
The August 1979 labor force in Palm Beach County was 217,689. Compared to the
1977 average of 187,092, the labor force in Palm Beach County has expanded
approximately 16%. During that time, the unemployment rate fluctuated between
a low of 5.4% in April 1979 and a hi9h of 10.5% in March 1977. The unemployment
rate as of August 1979 was 6.9%. An improvement in the economic health of the
local economy has been partially attributable to the overall economic recovery
from the 1974-75 economic recession. Strongest gains have been made in the
construction industry. In addition, the manufacturing sector, especially the
transportation equipment and communications industries, have sustained major
increases in employment due to plant expansionsl (See Table 20.1, Palm Beach
County Employment Statistics, 1970-August 1979).
As reflected statewide, the nonagricultural establishments have continued to
show increases in employment. Between 1975 and 1979, an additional 39,000
persons found jobs in the nonfarm sector in Palm Beach County. This consti-
tuted a 28.3% increase in the total number of persons employed; however, during
the same time period, creation of jobs in the manufacturing sector had increased
even more rapidly, 46,0%2 (See Table 20.2, Estimated Employment in Nonagricultural
Establishments, West Palm Beach/Boca SMSA (Palm Beach County).
Construction
The applicant estimates that the construction expenditures will total $31,076,000,
Construction expenditures by phase are as follows:
Phase I
Phase II
Phase I II
$ 8,339,000
14,107,000
8,630,000
$31,076,000
TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS
An estimate of the percentage of construction expenditures to be spent within
the region is documented in Table 20,3, Estimated Geographic Distribution of
Construction Expenditures. Ninety percent of the labor expenditures are anti-
cipated to b~ spent within the region.
Permanent Employment
The start-up of facilities operation in Phase I is projected to begin June 1981
and will have 1,606 employees, Phase II operations will be fully operational
in January 1989, with 4,420 employees. The plant'\'lill be built out in Septem-
ber 1999, bringing the total employment to 5,420.
"
1Florida Labor Market Trends, Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security.
Fl ori da Labor ~1arket Trends, Flori da Department of Labor and Employment Securi ty.
20-1
,
j
I
I
,
j
Page-4-
Environment-preliminary report
employee/relocation patterns are stabilized, rather
than at the commencement of Phase I actiities, as
specified in the Developement Order.Reports were
submitted to all specified agencies in November 1984.
9. Staggered shifts are in effect as set forth in the ADA.
WASTE\,ATER
The Motorola project site is within the Palm Beach County South Central 201
planning area. Boynton Beach and Oelray Beach dominate the area, and an inter-
local agreement between these two municipalities forms the foundation for the
wastewater treatment facilities plan in the South Central area. The final 201
plan, released in June 1979 and adopted by all parties concerned, calls for
expansion of the present 12 million gallon per day (MGO) regional plant to
16 ~IGO in 1984. Municipalities which join the system are responsible for
construction and maintenance of their individual sewaae collection and trans-
mission systems, while the regional treatment plant is administered by the
combined City Councils of Boynton Beach and Oelray Beach, sitting as the South
Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Board.
The applicant projects wastewater treatment requirements as foll~ls (ADA p. 21-3).
Phase
Date
Employees
1606
4420
5420
Potable Water Demand
I
II
III
1981
1990
2000
0.037 MGD
0.096 MGD
0.127 folGD
These projections are based on previous experience by the applicant, equivalent
to approximately 23 gallons of wastewater per employee per day. No industrial
1 iquid wastes .lill be discharged through the sani tary sewer system (See SOLID
WASTE for discussion of hazardous industrial wastes).
The present 12 MGD capacity of the regional wastewater treatment plant is pro-
jected to be adequate for the service area until 1987, when a 4 MGD expansion
is planned. In 1981, "Ihen t'1otorola "Iould first require service, pl-ojected
excess capacity is 3 folGD. r'1otorola's requirements at that time, treatment
for 37,000 gallons per day, represents 1,2% of excess capacity.
The project site is not presently served by a sewage transmission line; however,
the 201 facilities plan calls for a 16-inch main parallel to Congress Avenue
along the west boundary of the site. Construction of this line is the respon-
sibility of the City of Boynton Beach, Communications between the applicant
and the City (ADA Addendum) indicate that wastewater transmission facilities
will be available to folotorola by late 1980, ~Ihen the plant \'Iould be initial1y
staffed.
There are provlslons in the 201 plan (p. X-39 through X-42) for user charges
and an industrial cost recovery system, Since portions of South Central 201
facilities construction will be paid for by EPA grant funds, a plan to repay
these funds in proportion to the share of 201 facilities used by industrial
and commercial customers must be prepared by the 201 authority. Motorola
would not be subject to these chal^ges, however, since the only "Iastes to be
transmitted from the site are domestic in nature.
Overall, the l'Iastewater treatment system for the area represents an outstanding
example of coordinated planning and provision of services, and no adverse
impacts are anticipated due to Motorola,
--_._-_._._------_.--.._--_._-----~--~.-
__J
21-1
..
I
I
!
J
i
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
DRAINAGE
The project site lies wholly within the boundaries of the lake Worth Drainage
District (lWOD), and is bordered on the south by South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMO) Canal C-16 (Boynton Beach Canal) and on the east by lWOD
Canal E-4, The applicant reports both Canals maintain a water level of +8.0
feet 11Sl.
Exhibit 22-1 shows the project site, surrounding canals, and a general repre-
sentation of the proposed surface water management system. Upon project comple-
tion, the 90-acre site would be broken down as follm~s:
Impervious surface
Grassed area
lake area
58 acres
26 acres
6 acres
64.4%
28.9%
6. 7~;
TOTAL
90 acres
100.0%
The general drainage concept employs routing of surface runoff from impervious
surfaces through grassy swales to two on-site lakes. The lakes would discharge
through weir-type controls via two culverts to Canal E-4. The applicant presents
extensive calculations in the ADA which indicate that the system can function
effectively. Preliminary review by SFWMO staff (Appendix 1) notes two errors
in calculations by the applicant. Initial canal stage of +8.5 MSl rather than
+8.0 MSl should be assumed, due to the present management regime for Boynton
Canal C-16; and calculation of allowable stormwater discharge rate to E-4 should
be based on site acreage of 90 rather than 100. Correction of these figures
\~ill result in a requirement for slightly greater lake storage capacity and
slightly reduced rate of discharge from the two lakes to Canal E-4. Recommended
minimum finished floor elevation of +13.8 feet MSL may be" revised upward, de-
pendi ng on hO~1 these des i gn correcti ons are made. SF\,n'1D Surface l'later l'lanagement
Permit review, in progress at this writing, is expected to address these points.
SFWMD also reports that quality of waters discharged from the site should be
adequate, assuming several recommendations are adhered to by the applicant.
Due to the large area of paved surface, regular vacuum sweeping should be
provided for, and parking design should include oil and grease traps between
paved surfaces and the swale system, prior to conveyance of stormwater to the
on-site lakes.
RECOMMENDATION
Overall, drainage for the project would not involve adverse regional impacts
on water quantity or water quality, assuming the above concerns are adequately
addressed by the applicant.
Structural and design improvements to control water quality may be addressed
during Snl~1D permit review, Provision for vacuum sw,eping of paved areas is
best accomplished by a condition to the Development Order:
1, A program of regul ar vacuum sweepi ng of a 11 paved surfaces on the project
site shall be instituted and carried out by Motorola. A description of this
program shall be provided to TCRPe, SFWMD, Palm Beach County, the Area
Planning Boar'd and City of Boynton Beach.
22-1
WATER SUPPLY
The City of Boynton Beach operates a potable water supply system consisting
of five separate ~Iell fields, a recently expanded 16 r~GD treatment plant,
2.6 million gallons of storage capacity, and a cast iron water distribution
network. Present treatment plant capacity is expected to be adequate beyond
1990. The City's well fields contain a total of 16 wells, ranging in depth
from 50 to 240 feet below ground surface. South Florida Hater Management
District reports that present maximum permitted withdrawal capacity for the
City's well fields is 16.0 MGD. All tap permeable strata of the Anastasia
formation, primary component of the shallow aquifer.
Water distribution mains do not presently extend to the proposed Motorola site.
The Boynton Beach Draft Comprehensive Plan calls for extension of a 16-inch
potable water main along Congress Avenue, bordering the project site on the
west, during 1980. This line would'be constructed by the City, with developer
participation, as provided for by City ordinance. Motorola, accordingly, would
be required to pay a prorated share of capital costs for provision of the 16-
inch water main.
Projections by the applicant indicate potable water demand will be as follows:
Phase Date Employees Potab1 e l~ater Demand
I 1981 1606 0.037 MGD
II 1990 4420 0.096 MGD
III 2000 5420 0.127 MGD
These projections are based on a water demand of 23 gallons per employee per
day, as experienced at other Motorola plants, and are equal to expected waste-
water flow.
The City of Boynton Beach has indicated ability and willingness to meet potable
water requirements for the project via a letter from City Manager Peter L. Cheney
to the appl icant (ADA Addendum). First phase needs of 37,000 gallons per day
represent less than 2% of present average excess capacity. Based on all avail-
able information, the project will not have a negative impact on potable water
supplies.
Nonpotable water use for irrigation and miscellaneous needs is estimated to be
0.092 MGO at project completion. This need would be met by a well or wells
located near the dockyard on site.
23-1
l
~
I
~
i.
I.
I
'.
~
!
I
,!
I
~
,J
1
'I
.
I'
I
I
I
SOLID 14ASTE
Presently, solid waste collection services within the City of Boynton Beach
are handled by the municipality's Sanitation Division of its Public Works
Department. Costs for such services are covered primarily through a monthly
service charge being assessed against the individual customer.
Sol id wastes collected by the City are deposited at the 245-acre Lantana Road
sanitary landfill, approximately seven miles northeast of the proposed DRI.
The City's total solid waste stream going to the landfill, at present, is
approximately 27,725 tons per year (TPY),
Current estimated usable life of the Lantana Road landfill is nine years.
However, a new sanitary landfill (South County) is planned for the area and
wi 11 be in servi ce by 1981. The 1 andfi11, I'lhi ch I,Ji 11 recei ve the City's
, solid wastes, will be located west of the Florida Turnpike and south of Boynton
Road, approximately 4-5 miles southwest of the proposed ORI. The projected
usabl e 1 ife I)f the new 1 andfi 11 is 18 years.
The applicant has estimated that rlotorola 1'lOuld generate a total of 5,263.3
tons/year of solid wastes, and 7,811 gallons/year of chemical wastes by project
completion date in the year 2000 (See Table 24.1). Solid wastes for the pro-
posed DRI would consist primarily of paper and packing material (e.g., corru-
gated boxes, etc.). Solder flux, freon, and solder oil are anticipated to be
some of the chemical wastes generated from t1otorola's plant operation. A
licensed and State-certified scavenger company l'lould pick up and dispose of
the expected chemical wastes through an informal agreement. The company which
would pick up the wastes may dispose of them by using the material to oil dirt
roads, but the usual method presently employed by the firm is open pit disposal.
TABLE 24,1, PROJECTED SOLID/CHEMICAL WASTES BY PHASE
Solid Waste Chemical
Phase Cu, Yds. /Day Tons/Day Tons/Yr. Gal./Day Gal./Yr.
End of Phase I (1981) 25.42 4.19 1,529.35 9.6 3,504
End of Phase II (1990) 66.19 10,92 3,935.8 ' 21.4 7,811
End of Phase II I (2000) 87.37 14,42 5,263.3 21.4 7,811
SOURCE: MOTOROLA ADA, P. 24-2
The proposed development would not significantly affect the City's ability to
continue its solid waste services; however, some of its projected chemical
wastes (e.g., trichlorethylene, trichlorethane) are classified as toxic or
hazardous wastes I'lhich should be subject to special handling and disposal
procedures. No major problems have been perceived by the City of Boynton
Beach relative to the proposed project's solid wastes. The City's total
amount of solid wastes (being transported to a sanitary landfill) in 2000
is projected to be 65,710 tons per year (Palm Beach CO'jnty Solid Haste
24-1
Authority, 1979). Motorola's 2000 estimate of 5,263.3 tons/year amounts to
approximately 8% of the City's projected total solid \'/aste stream
Although Motorola would produce relative small amounts of hazardous wastes,
such \1astes are of concern as there are no approved disposal sites in the
area and the primary regulatory agency, the Florida Department of Environ-
mental Regulation (DER), has no comprehensive legislation to sufficiently
control the handling and disposal of the wastes. In addition, Ibtorola's
scavenger company appears to be improperly disposing of hazardous wastes in
an area (Dade and Broward Counties) where more than 70% of the hazardous wastes
in the State are produced.
Motorola would also have to alter its handling and disposing of their ex-
pected hazardous wastes when the federal hazardous waste regulations become
effective (date unknown, but could be as early as Dececber 31, 1979).
Those regulations would most likely require a formal waste disposal agreement
between the originating industry and the waste carrier; the utilization of
a manifest system where handling and disposal procedures can be better con-
trolled and monitored and the disp~sal of wastes only at approved hazardous
waste sites (Florida has none at the present time).
REcor'1MENOATION
The following measures, which need to be taken by the proposed DRI to mitigate
the expected negative impacts of the development's che~ica1 wastes, should
be incorporated into the Development Order:
1. Motorola shall request the Florida Departnent of Environ~en:al
Regulation (OER) to determine which of their projected chenica1 wastes
would be classified as toxic or hazardous.
2. Motorola shall develop and institute special handling and disposal pro-
cedures for its toxic or hazardous wastes which are acceptable to DER.
3. Plant operation of the proposed DRI shall not be permitted to begin unless
the two above conditions have been met.
24-2
:J
.
J
I
I
I
.
.
.
I
ENERGY
The applicant reports that electricity will be the only energy source utilized
by the proposed project. Based on prior experience with a similar facility in
Plantation, Florida, average use of electricity is predicted to be 53 watt-hours!
feet2/day; with a peak demand of 4.3 watt/feetL. At project completion, this
translates to 43,410 kilowatt hours per day average electricity demand. For
comparison purpose, this quantity of electricity would power 16,000 average
sized homes in Palm Beach County at 1976 consumption rates.
Electricity for the project would be supplied by Florida Power and Light. A
letter from FP&L indicating willingness to serve the project is included in
the ADA Addendum. The same letter, however, also notes that substantial improve-
ments to the electrical distribution system ~1ill be required, including a new
distribution feeder from Boynton substation in 1980, and improvements to sub-
stations, additional feeders, and new transmission lines thereafter to accommodate
electric demand of Phases II and III.
I
Sound initial design to maximize the energy efficiency of the proposed facility
is in the best interests of the applicant and the region. Oversimplifying
slightly, there are three basic options available: 1) increase electrical
generation capacity to accommodate growth in demand; 2) reduce demand by more
efficient electricity use (conservation); or 3) use existing generation facili-
ties more efficiently (load management) to accommodate demands. A substantial
body of information now indicates that options two and three are considerably more
cost-effective than option one, especially when combined.
I
The Treasure Coast Regional Plcnning Council's adopted Energy Plan specifically
addresses industrial energy use, with the following three policies:
I
I
I
1. Encourage waste heat recovery in co~ercial and industrial
facilities;
2. Encourage use of solar energy for commercial and industrial
establishments;
3. Enccurage use of computerized load management where cost-effective
and economically feasible.
1
The applicant reports (ADA p. 25-2 and 3) that energy conservation considerations
will include high efficiency lighting, limiting fenestrations to north and south
exposures, reflective glazing, design for energy use zones to minimize consumption
during partial operation, and possibly evaporative roof cooling by \-Iater spray.
Specific mention is made of peak load management through control systems, thus
addressing policy number three above. The use of solar \,ater heating is rejected,
due to a lack of facility requirements for domestic hot water or for process
applications of low or medium heat. However, a facility of this size is certain
to have cafeteria facilities, ~Ihich \-Iould use considerable energy for hot \,ater
heati ng, Hot wa ter requ i rements cou 1 d be met ~Iith ei ther heat recovery devi ces
utilizing \,aste heat from space conditioning or lighting systems (policy one) or
by solar collectors (policy two),
I
I
I
I
25-1
The City of Boynton Beach enforces the alternate pages of the Florida r10del
Energy Efficiency Building Codes (FMEEBC), which provide for the most complete
and stringent energy-efficient building codes available for South Florida. The
applicant will be required to comply with this code during building design and
construction.
Consideration of effective alternative transportation modes should be underway
soon. This will require cooperation between Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County,
the r'letropolitan Planning Organization, and ~lotorola. Car pooling and van pooling
may initially prove most cost-effective, and measures to encourage both should be
instituted during project planning. In additlon, provisions for joining the futur
bikeway system for Boynton Beach should be made during initial design.
RECOr~MENDATlONS
Motorola will add substantially to .energy demand in the region. The information
submitted by the applicant indicates a strong commitment to energy-efficient
building construction and plant operation. However, opportunities to further
strengthen energy efficiency of the project may exist. Certain of these oppor-
tunities are directly related to ani are presented under TRANSPORTATION. Con-
sistent with adopted Council policy, the following condition is recommended to
the development site:
1. Motorola shall fully investigate the options for meeting hot water requirelnent
completely or in part, through the use of solar energy or waste heat recovery,
Results of this investigation shall be presented to Treasure Coast Regional'
Planning Council and the City of Boynton Beach and, if cost-effective, Motorol
shall implement the most feasible and effective of these options during con-
struction.
25-2
.a
~
II
I~
"
'I
I.
i
I,
f
is
!.
I
,
~
tI
,
,
i
tI
[J
[I
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
There are six major parks (i.e., can be classified as urban-district or regional
parks) over 100 acres in size within a nine-mile radius of the proposed project,
where over 75% of its employees are expected to reside. Together, they offer
almost 3,500 acres of recreational areas. Only the Palm Beach Pines State Park
has no recreational facilities, at present. The other five parks are at least
partially developed and offer a \1ide range of recreational opportunities, in-
cluding boating, hiking, fishing, equestrian pursuits, tennis, etc. Dreher
Park is a municipal recreational facility located in the City of l1est Palm
Beach. Okeeheelee Park, John Prince Park, Lake Ida Park, and the Morikami
County Park all are County recreational facilities. The closest major recrea-
tion areas, John Prince Park and Lake Ida Park, are both 4-5 miles from the
proposed project.
Within nine miles of the project there are also eight public ocean beach facili-
ties in the area, totaling almost 110 acres in size. In all, the recreational
areas offer over 2,5 miles of public ocean beaches. The beach facilities include
Phipps Ocean Park, County Land Beach, Lake Worth Beach, Lantana Nunicipal Beach,
Ocean Ridge Beach, Boynton Public Beach, Delray Public Seach and the Delray South
Beach. The Delray Public Beach includes the largest beachfront area (6,480 feet)
and is only six miles southeast of the project.
Motorola plans to provide a 5,85-acre recreational area for its employees on
the southeast corner of the site. The type of facilities to be constructed on
the site are not yet determined. However, other Motorola plants provide tennis
courts, volleyball courts, softball diamonds, and jogging trails.
Each Motorola plant has recreational activities and programs which are financially
supported by the fh'm and has organized a recreation cO:i11littee to administer them.
The company also contributes monies to cover the cost of such recreational items
as uniforms, equipment, and related expenses.
The applicant estimates that approximately one-third of its employees would
participate in the company-sponsored recreational programs. No parks or open
space area would be donated by the company to any of the local governmental
entities.
Applying recreational standards to the nine-mile area surrounding the project
site, a sufficient amount of urban-district parks would appear to exist in the
year 2000 if they are all adequately developed. However, at least two more
miles of ocean beach swimming areas will be needed in the area by the year 2000
(one linear foot of beach per two users per day). In addition, at present there
appears to be a shortage of community parks in the a~ea also (Florida Department
of Natural Resources 1976).
[J
The above statistics are significant when determining the recreational impacts
of Motorola on the area. The nine-mile area, where 75~ of the plant's projected
employees will reside, includes a number of municipalities which are presently
struggling \;ith the problem of meeting recr'eational de::;ands \'lithin their areas.
Motorola's employees will create additional demands (recreational services) in
these areas, yet only the City of Boynton Beach win receive direct economic
benefits to offset the additional demands for services.
~I
[I
27-1
On the other hand.
recreation demands
employees on-site.
to fruition.
the project would be taking positive ~easures to reduce its
in the area by providing recreational facilities for its
Such measures are commendable and should be followed through
In summary. the Motorola project can be expected to have mixed impacts on the
area's recreational services. including the positive impacts of providing on-site
recreational facilities for its employees. Negative recreational impacts can be
expected to occur in the form of additional recreational service demands being
placed on the surrounding area's localities as a result of Motorola without
receiving any direct compensation from the firm to meet those increased demands.
REcom.1ENDATION
The negative impacts of f1otoro1a can be adequately resolved by the following
condition to the Development Order: '
1. The applicant shall provide an easement along Congress Avenue to accommodate
a bikeway/pedestrian path. in accordance with the City's and Palm Beach
County's Comprehensive Plans.
1
,~
/~~
~+(;
r~~
~~
~
i
s'
.
'(,
~
;.j.:
"
0,'
',,~,
t.;
27-2
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
HEALTH CARE
The applicant intends to provide a limited range of health care services at
the facility, delivered by a full-time Occupational Health Nurse, including
treatment of minor injuries and illnesses and preventative medicine programs.
Security personnel would be trained in advanced first aid and CPR (cardiopul-
monary resuscitation), and Motorola would provide ambulance service for any
worker requiring transportation to a hospital.
I
I
I
The project site is within the primary service area of Bethesda ~iemorial
Hospital, a nonprofit tax supported institution. Bethesda provides a full
range of medical services and, according to the 1979-1933 Health Systems Plan
for the region, averaged 71% occupancy of available beds during 1977. Thus,
there appears to be excess hospital capacity available for meeting the needs
of population growth in the Boynton Beach area, as well as for the South Palm
Beach County area, in general.
]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
28-1
POLICE PROTECTION
Police protection services within the City are handled by the Boynton Beach
Police Department, which is located on Northeast First Avenue less than blo
miles from the proposed development. The Police Department has a total of 69
sworn personnel on staff and a capability of handling all misdemeanors and
felony cases. In addition, the Department has its GloJO crime scene and iden-
tification section, and an organized crime unit.
Motorola plans to provide an on-site security- system to protect its employees'
automobiles and plant property. The development's security system would in-
clude both a guard force and closed circuit television cameras strategically
placed on the site. The guard force, which would be trained in industrial
security techniques, would be on duty 24 hours a day. Building entrances
woul d be manned by the guards and "Toami ng" security guards woul d patrol the
parking lots during the day shifts. Staggered shift starting and ending
times is expected to help reduce the need for traffic control measures.
The Boynton Beach Police Department has indicated a willingness to service
the proposed development. In addition, they have stated that no significant
problems are anticipated in extending police protection services to Motorola.
. ~<r
29-1
..
I
I
I
FIRE PROTECTION
I
I
I
The Boynton Beach Fire Department provides fire protection services for the
City. Within the City there are two fire stations. They are approximately
equally distant from the proposed DRI and ~lOu1d both anS'der a fire call at
that site. The fire rating for the area covered by the two stations has been
set at "6", which is considered to be a "good" rating by the American Insurance
Association. The stations are manned by a total of ~5 firemen, with 15 of the
personnel being on a shift each day (one shift equals one day). In addition,
these stations house a total of seven major pieces of rolling stock (See
Tabl e 30.1).
TABLE 30.1, FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ~IHICH VlOULO SER'/E EOTOROLA SITE
I
I
I
Station
Personnel (Firemen)
Per Shift Total
Equ i p~ent
1
11
33
1 - 1250 gallon pu~per (Class A)
2 - brush trucks
1 - emergency t','IO truck (pumper)
1 - rescue truck
2
4
12
1 - 1000 gallon pumper (Class A)
1 - 750 gallon pu~per (Class A)
SOURCE: BOYNTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT
The applicant states that all buildings of the proposed development will be
fully sprinkled and will have automatic alarm systess ccnnected to the main
security desk (ADA p. 30-1). In addition, fire hydrents \,lill be placed on-
s~te in accordance with the City's codes and insurance underwriter requirements.
Water storage facilities and electric and diesel backup pumps will also be
provided at the plant. Other fire prevention/protection measures Motorola
plans to employ include emergency alarm system testing, internal fire brigades,
fire drills, fire training and the administration of fire prevention programs.
The Boynton Beach Fire Department has indicated a l'iillingness to serve the
proposed development. In addition, they have stated that no significant
problems are anticipated in extending fire protection service to Motorola
(Boynton Beach Fire Department, 1979).
_':'l.Cl 1
TRANSPORTATION
BACKGROUND
The site of the proposed Motorola facility is located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of N.W, 22nd Avenue and Congress Avenu~. Both of these
roads are two-lane facilities and provide the only access to the site. Along
~/ith Congress, 1-95 is a major north-south route for traffic coming i:1to or
leaving the general area. Access to 1-95 is gained via Congress and Hypoluxo
Road or Lantana Road on the north, and Congress and Boynton Road or S.W. 15th
Street on the south. -
Hypo] uxo, Lantana and Boynton Roads are the major east-\'Iest r0utes through the
area and constitute the primary links between Congress and 1-95. N.W. 22nd
Avenue provides access to the area of Boynton Beach east of 1-95, but provides
no interchange with 1-95. Clearly, Congress Avenue is the major route to the
site for traffic coming from virtually every direction.
The projected impact of the proposed facility on these roads was developed on
the basis of information obtained in a traffic study of the Motorola facility
in Plantation, Florida. The trip generation rates developed from that study
compared favorably with rates developed by the Institute of Transportation (ITE)
from national studies of industrial plants and office parks. Table 31.1 compares
the rates derived from the study of the Plantation facility with those from ITE.
Since Phase III of the proposed facility is comprised exclusively of office
buildings, and since the Plantation facility contains no distinct office complex,
ITE office park rates w~re used for projecting Phase III traffic.
TABLE 31.1 , TRIP GENERATION RATES
Plantation Facility
Trips/Employee
ITE3
Industrial
Trips/Employee
HE
Office Park
Trips/Employee
Average Weekday
Peak Hour (a.m.)
Peak Hour (p.m.)
Peak Hour (p.m.)
2.2
0.31
0.37 (1)
0.25, (2)
2.01
0.44
0.39
3.3
0.63
0.54
(1) Site Peak Hour 3-4 p.m.
(2) Street Peak Hour 4-5 p.m.
(3) Institute of Transportation Engineers
"
--,
- ;,'~
SOURCE: tlOTOROLA ADA, P. 31-6,
."=:~
.~
~he Boynton Beach facility is planned to have work starting times staggered at
15-minute intervals from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a,m, Day shift ending times will be
similarly staggered between 3:30 p,m. and 5:00 p,m, In addition, the manufacturing
personnel will generally work a 7:00 a,m. to 3:30 p.m. shift, while the office
.;
.,i
Jj
~1
31-1
I
I
J
I
I
.1
I
J
I
personnel will have an 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work shift. As a result, peak
traffic conditions for the plant are expected to occur between 3:00 and 4:00
p.m. The staggered starting and ending times are expected to help to minimize
the impact of shift change on local traffic.
Although plant traffic is anticipated to peak between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m.,
existing street or through traffic peaks bet~leen 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. Since
the combination of Motorola and street traffic is greatest during the latter
hour, the traffic analysis was done for the 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. peak. That is
the critical hour for traffic conditions. Table 31.1 indicates the trip gen-
eration rate for the facility during the peak hour for street traffic. Motorola's
differing peak hour serves to lessen the potential impact of the facility on
surrounding roads and tends to increase the efficient utilization of the
facilities.
Based on the survey of employees at Motorola's Plantation facility, the following
frequency distribution of trips by distance was used: 25~/0-3 miles; 50%/3-9
miles; and ?5%/more than 9 miles. Further, based on projected POPulation dis-
tribution, it loJas assumed that 45% of the plant trips ~.ould go north on Congress,
41% south on Congress, and 14% east on N.W. 22nd Avenue.
~
This traffic assessment is required by Section 380.05, Florida Statutes, to
determine the extent to loJhich the proposed project "efficiently uses or unduly
overburdens transportation facilities." In order to accomplish this, existing
traffic, projected traffic from the development, projected traffic from other
developments, and proposed highway improvements, are analyzed to determine
traffic conditions and the impact of the proposed development on them.
A standard method for classifying highway conditions is level of service. It
provides an indication of the overall operating speed of traffic and the
stability of its flow, and is determined from the ratio of traffic volume to
roadway capacity. Table 31.2 provides a description of six levels of service,
as defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. level A represents the best level
of service, with level F the worst, level of service C constitutes a common
design level for urban highways and corresponds to traffic volumes that are
near or equal to roadway capacity. Higher levels of service are associated
with traffic volumes less than capacity, while unsatiSfactory levels of service
are associated with volumes greater than capacity.
I
I
I
I
Finally, it should be noted that the ADA analyzes traffic conditions for three
phases of development. However, the project will actually be built in six
phases (see PROJECT DESCRIPTION and Appendix 31-A). Table 31.3 contains
estimates of employment and trip generation by all six .phases. ADA Phase I
consists of the first of the six phases; ADA Phase II includes phases 2 through
4, 0 f the si x phases; and Phase I II of the ADA contei ns Phases 5 and 6 . Although
the ADA traffic analysis is done only for three phases, reference to the six
discrete phases of development is necessary in developing the recommendation
.at the end of this section,
31-2
TABLE 31.2, LEVELS OF SERVICE
Level of Service
Volune!Capacity Ratios
A
Free flow ~lith low volume, high speed 0.75 or less
and unrestricted maneuverability.
B
Stable flow with speed somewhat 0,76-0.87
restricted, but maneuverability
relatively unrestricted.
Stable flow with restrictions on speed 0.88-1.00
and maneuverability; generally accepted
design level for urban highways.
C
o
Approaching unstable flow with 1.01-1.12
tolerable operating speeds and little
freedom to maneuver (tolerable delay).
E
Unstable flow with slow speeds and 1.13-1.25
momentary stoppages (intolerable delay).
F
Forced fl ow \~ith very low speeds and 1 .26 or greater
stoppages of possibly long duration
(jammed) .
SOURCE: HIGHHAY CAPACITY f1ANUP,L.
MOTOROLA ADA.
TABLE 31.3, AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS ANO EMPLOYr-tENT BY PHASE*
ADA Phase
Phase and Year Employment
I-a I (1981 ) 1,606
II-a 2,668
II-b 3,553
II-c II (1990) 4,420
III-a 4,920
III-b III (2000) 5,420
Average
Daily Trips
3,528
5,869
7,817
9,724
11 ,374
13,020
*Employment and ADT values are cumulative.
SOURCE: MOTOROLA ADA.
31-3
'I':
"
~~
I
I
I
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Existing
I
I
As can be seen from Exhibit 31.1, current traffic conditions in the area vary
widely. Both N.W. 22nd Avenue and Congress are operating at acceptable levels
of service, although Congress is at capacity. Virtually all roads west of
Congress are operating at better than service level C, except for Boynton
Road, which is at level D. Roads east of the site tend to have lower service
levels, especially Hypoluxo and Lantana Roads, which are operating at service
level F.
t
I
I
I
I
Phase I
The r~otorola plant is projected to add 3,500 trips daily to the road system at
the end of Phase I. Slightly over 400 trips will be generated during the 4:00
to 5:00 p.m. peak hour. Exhibit 31.2 depicts Phase I conditions, including
Motorola volumes, through traffic (non-Motorola) volumes, and level of service.
At the end of Phase I, volumes on all roads increase due both to the addition of
Motorola traffic and to the growth of traffic throughout the study area. Since
no road improvements are planned in the area, traffic conditions will generally
deteriorate,
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
Congress Avenue, throughout the study area, is projected to decline to level of
service D, with Motorola contributing up to 12% of the total traffic and fully
two-thi)'ds of the increase in traffic. In the north part of the study area,
Lantana and Hypoluxo Roads l'Ii11 remain at service level F, )'eceiving an even
greater volume than at present. Motorola will account for several hundred
trips a day on each, representing 44% of traffic gro'.'lth on Lantana Road and
76% of the growth on Hypoluxo Road.
Also adversely affected will be Boynton Beach Road l'lest of Congress, with a
projected decl i ne to servi ce 1 eve 1 E, and S. H. 231'd Street east of I -95 11ith
a decline to level D. The volume of Motorola traffic on each of these will not
be very large.
Phase II
By the end of Phase II, the t~otorola facil ity 1.';11 be producing over 9,700
trips daily and over 1,100 trips during the afternoon peak hour. As shown
on Exhibit 31.3, these trips will add to severely overcrowded conditions on
Congress Avenue. Despite its projected expansion to four lanes by 1990, Congress
Avenue, in the vicinity of the plant, is projected to be carrying nearly 40,000
trips daily, considerably over its proposed capacity of 24,000 vehicles/day.
The r~otoro 1 a faci 1 ity I''; 11 account for approxima te ly lO of that volume, or
about 4,000 vehicles/day. Approximately 28,500 of the 40,000 trips, or 72%,
will represent growth in non-Motorola traffic between now and 1990. Throughout
the study area, Congress will be operating far over capacity. Severe over-
crowding is also projected to occur on Boynton Road east of Lawrence, with
I
31-4
w
~
C-
Z
c::
::>
r
<
Q
c
o
.J
'"
I
i
j
f
!
~
l
~
"
~
~
I
~
3
,
~
"
ffiO,-
,.,.
~
.
TRANSPORTATION
EXHIBIT 31.1, EXISTING CONDITI
'1"---
J
1
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
J
I
--~
NS L
.
------- -------~-~I-r
. ,,~,-_. li 1
o,n
2l
"~0J
.74
HF
53:11J3
_9>
2l
9S0a
...H1
2l
H7a'
0.5S
2L
55.'))
l-IY?OLUXO
1.n:
2l
lZ9Q3
K.N.22..,.\V::
%~.;:~}\ 5rl~
.72
HF
~l::OJ
.:"'~~~.;"-~
"~:,-.,,
-' w
=< 0
c:: Z
t- w
c
> :: 0,21
c:: 0.7;1 < 2l
< .J
I- 2, 210J
:; ]:;CIJ
5'
_r~
(;ti=' I
l:'~o."'''' L": I
"'" .....;e:
.
.55 - ,
4'" I
13;v:)
------ ---1 ~J.~ J'j
I sW,;>3 ".
~1___ --: 0.1
1/
C.35
1l
3:t:::.)
J...---------...t
I
I
I
I
.J-
___ ,.;:11'" ~..y l\,l;>),l:.l AREA
. 0 ".,,,JfC"''''SC:;
SOURCE: nDTOROLA ADA
C'>
.,
e.
c::
o
z
o
o
,51
<'0
2J~~; t
,9~
2L
9~'J-)
BOYNTO~.l ?~.
.
I.C~
6'~
lO~:7:'J
0,0) - r,[IT h':..t'~.':"'i:.,;'.:_:!~' ~.:::~
0:.. - N;~ Ir:;','.;tO t:,",::;\;.:
(lO~J - 197;': ,\'.'E~__\r,: D:,iU :~:.;nc
_ - l('.'::-l.S 0; $~::'::(E ~-~
... - lE\::I.S or S:-~1;i~[ c<'
umll - In:l~ Cf SE:;}!':l !:_F
1,6
2l
l~J':::;)
i I
, I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
1
L__+
J
1.61
2l
1570\)
_21
2l
21t':J
J
I
I
J
J
1
J
J
)
I
1
. I
-}-
.E5
, 2l
(iSJ,)
'S.\'I. 15
I __
r'll
.99
2l
9J:):)
"\~" -,--,~O-~ 07 A
Ii ':7~J (~---' :J ( /1-.1. C . L~~ .5~-j
l'..J(TO~ !.'.;","ol ;>.......... :1,::":P'i COJ"'T'I'J:..0'1'~"
D~\/c.LO?""=irl c:= n::.S ::.:.;~. t~.~;-;'.C:T
...::::.. 1_::"1
..,.". ....~ ." .
;.; 5.: :. _:... _::.. ~: -.'" . . : ~ -. :,..".
o ;-~~:;':~~~-~i:~~':'~ 'i':; ~.~~~
.''-0 ~'_._ "..-,
31-5
-
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
)
J
]
I
.1
J
I
I .
I I
I 1
CONDITIONS (1981) 1 ,:;~~ I!..-
-------r-----j;;::. -~-lll
. .:,.-... I
0,92 r "."
(21~~ l,~ o.~~ ! I
seaJ W5l (n~: i I
5.,___ f i
~O.;..
\J.) ,
-
,.,.
.
::~~r' l~(:;R
/ 7coa
>-
I 0.9# ~l
i.~~~ ! (5~) 51
t~..:: ! 2'\~~ t3
,~;:.:. i iC;,
r
,,,,,1-+' _ L
~;; ! -r-
("'.:1 ,1
:.,:--.. ..";..
~-"- <','IIi) 07
C.'S 2.11: 1 .~,
. " i (3J)
p':-:'l ,I 2'7"'~
l~ i~) II ,~.,,-'
, "S,\'!. 15
I "I
----------t J I
: -I'S\: 23 J/-"olmo
I ~ C.'" If..L 1.0'
r- 2:.. ---;- 2l
(l'" /: (Hi
~3:; ~ l~)GJ
I
I
I
I
I
I
- - --+
~
<:
c:
,...
>-
c:
<:
...
~,
::;
0,92
2:,
(tIZ}
s,:)y}
TRANSPORTATION
EXHIBIT 31.2, 'PHASE I
'"
,.,
c:
z
c:
::>
>-
<
o
E
o
~
...
'1'-- -
J
J
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 0 I'n<:"c.u"c~
__~_ P?'U..I"" '...,....::r A'f="
1-11
2t
(112)
170"J
~
O.~E
2l
(2;8)
6~O}
1.77
2l
(10)
l]7~~
HY?OlUXO
O,~l
2l
(10)
~lO'J
I
J.. - --- -- -- -'f
I
I
I
I
-I-
SOURCE:
ilOTOHOU\ f,DA
1.35
2:
(52,)
13;:':\l
1
I
I
L__~
I
J
(1S-:)}
~o.n
2l
(0,")
22:0
I
I
I
J
I
1
I
]
J
J
I
J
-)0
1'1.',,).
223A'I=..
tel
()
Z
u
C
::
<
~
~,' ,,\
~~/t7~
,,~, .
.."
B~
CO
c;o
zO
0,
<>1
8QY:"iTO',l, ?'J ~1
~.~1 I ""'
(.:&
(2:1:)
ll><;'}
0,20
2:.
r:~)
2""0
LE
t:"
tic:':'
V5::
(....
'":I;:
o.C) - .=.~T '/C"~~':/:~-:~~~( :';~"'iO
195~t ~ ~~~~~~~~:;?;~:~~:::_-;~ :~.~~::
--l
... - l
J11J1J1- L
l
J
['------
~ @:\ ~"\ r\,~.:,;___.,~j '0:-'-;"0';7 ":\
j '. '_ ,I .7,J ,,'J;', "~" ',_ _:_ ,;--"
~ (/ \
:"l _ [0...)(1(1.... [.::,,~1 P...:.... ,1:;':"':;'"fC':;--.1'r'fJ'..';:'.' >.
"
;JS C': ("::: --: :-:
tL':J C!=" s.~: .:~ ~~:.
: '. .>" :.;. ~..::~ :-:
()~~V':::L'J.:;'.'.::;.I G:~: :::=-~.. =-.~;.:-;_ ~.'.~_::r_::::7
'"::~' ! -, =' .
; -;:'" ~.:- -..
c ~.~~ ';-~. ':.'~' ~ -:.~~':.. ~ ":: i". ~ ~
.--.-......
:l1-6
-~-----------.~--
EXHIBIT 31.4. PHASE III CONOlT1~, (2ooo,!...___f_,-:-:.::____-,--I,
, I .l.:lIl1ll1lll11llJ1l1l11l1ll1!IIIII1I1::Jlllhli!lIAlflI'l~lIIl1il~lillil!;iIl:II!IiIl~ 1 I,
,~ 2,(~ ~ 1.5; 3",,/ - l~) a 'I I 1l.13'
EE I ~L:E ~:'3 /'fV.. ;. g . 1 ttO
I ~ (m!) f.' (1~~2l ~ (9~2~ l.2,~ E, om
I -- \9::.(>> == .3:.-.:.r}) ~ ,_:',.,~ !.'-~ -=:L- 'uno!)
ffj EE 'f. 2",. ti;~) E I
I ~ ~ E ln3:~ 3
lili ~ ~ il 1
, . '" '" '" "i I
1--- - -- - -- -- - --l-:: n; HY?CLUXO '" ;;} I I
~ ~
I ;;; 0,07 ""=_-= .c.~, E t 0,]3
I EE ~LD _ =c ~tv S , ~:..o
[jj 115:;) =~=~ (22;~) E (,50)
I ;l; go;" ~ :: lZ:;':} ~ II 1%50
I ~ ~ _==_= ~
I S, _ E L_--t
~ _ a
I f;.~ "'~;c :; J
1 ~ (:;~>=} -===_= 0_91
I ~..,~<1 ::__~ _ E (1'~~
~ - ~~
I ~ 1E E I
I ff ~ ~ -'>-1
I i ~ "" ""." ..;, j 1 ."
~l ~<E] li,.t.= !!!~~~/1-- ~ {~~g~
- ~ ~= ~
I ~E ~c: (,')::.::: J-t
I ~ ~ 1,<) ~~ 2.1: 1.<3 = 1.1;' ~t
1 l;;t ~ \g ~ (3~\ ~~ F';~; (l'o~~~ I {d~ ~t
I (~~='~ ~_~ (12.J) ~ V2')'J 0_ '"- 5:::?':: ;:::. 3.;_J..;'
,_.. u- -""=- ;. ...,:;;:: .... ~..
3..,...... >= 4'~C') sc -.." ..=..
H ~ :-:~OY"r" ",'.
", :1lI11::::':1I111JJ:::!:1iI1l1l:11:]i:]1I:JJIIl!llJll!.;iII~ n'''''' 1.22 a _\- - +--
"I~ ~,~ ~ J
l._r_1
.l- - - - - - - -- - -- ~r 2.rr; Pl;~~~' ,,-3 I
I . :)~.r'" C"'"
.;LtI {u I3 O.t.~
I (1k'l (' ' S I 5L
<'J''' = ('-:; a I (l!Q)
J g' ;~\:o 3 lsm 'S.\'I. 1$
I (2m) ~ t1 J 1.57
.J- ----------} g If I ('C~~
1 ::: ;::: I "'c..':'>
:;: ~ .~+::--
1 ~T~t:tj;\Y~'H!n~::~1l1nip:I;;I1H1iJ l
I 2 I ;,0" /I! '
t-"'" ~,----'-
",C: II
;'.:-:
~.,,;,.
\J..) I-
-
..-
TRANSPORTATION
'"
"
a:
z
<=
::>
>-
<:
'"
c.:
o
.J
"-
___ ";'1\U,::t... '''''',u:;r ....ll""
;
I
~
~
~
~
l@9
I, ,\ j
j, f;'\>
~f \
,
,
. 0 l..j<:~::"'''''''C''
O.OJ - r:;r \0U.:~~~/C:'':-;C::-' :::.:.;:~
Ol - .t,~ITtCJ:'.\f~iJ l;.~,:::::
(OS)) - ~.~l~:~;:..:\ ~~.:J>~!C T:-:: .:'_~~:::
orjcn - .;\~",-.,,\. H,..,F,1,
r:DTOROLF, ADA
SOURCE:
_ _ l.n'ELS tJ~ S:~:'. ;c~ ;.-~
..._ H.'JUS OF S::;:':~(>': c.:.
llllll)l- U.VEl~ (:? s:.~..:t~ ::-::
,
I
I
I
1
I
1
J
1
I
1
J
1
-j-
D=~V~LO?.'..:::;~7 0;:-
;:-::::":. :-';:..~ e.~:-.;.::: I
"~~;'rQ~"-O~8'0C1 ,1:,\
f . I' .1 't . if"
) _ ,~'-'_ _J ',.. :..1 _ -'- _:~;,--.
l-::::':;''' l ..::: ~ ..
--, .......-..-'
i-_ .:: - :. . :. -' . :: - - - ~ . - '.- - ,
c. ;..~ :;;_::~.;;:c~~':.';~ :; ~..; "!
('..)r;J'o ~'::":>-l ,....._.., p.:':"':~'C0'J.'.r,/.p_':H:;~
..~:,-._-_....
31-~
--
~ll'II.
-
-
~
~~-_._-
~
~
j
I
I
I
I
j
I
!
~
"
~
~
"
"'"
0;
0;
;0;
(1990) f1 o,~;
st!..-. (~C"
-------~--- ----~-~f om '
== ..~-.... I le...'C:J ..
.- ,-",.1~"'.4\ I
I;: .
11" '" Ii. .
. :) ~ C ~30 I.
2l 1.B~"" .tt['; ~ I
(<?~I ,~~o "3." F;") E I
13;\);) (!..~~).~ l';iC} 1,.15 5 r
&.3.....') ~ Ere -1L 1 C.15
0,37 _ I~:,:~ E I (to
<co '" < ,}.> S (1"1
(s"") ~_ . '" I 13?;'
B~J'J ~ I
HY?OlUXO I
I
I
1
L...:._+
. I
~.
\.lJ .
-.
roo
TRANSl=JORT A TJON
EXHIBIT 31.3, PHASE II
'"
~
e.
Z
c:
::>
>-
<
o
C
o
-'
L-
-r--~- -- --
.
I
I
I
.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
11.0
J (~D
(2':')
12<\0
, .. i. .1
J..----------~t
I
I
I
I
.J-
I
'.
I
I
I
---l
~_n
w
o
z
'"
c:
~
<
-'
(l.(3
2l
,,..,.,,
F'''I
S';C'J
1l!
s
is
J
(~3;3.) ::
ffi
I
;;;
:E
S -~
N.W. 22~V= ;i.~.:--L
~';';:'O 1;:.5~!
c>:: ,....
~= 1 15 1.E;' C)
c::~ ~cr €~~~' 1.1!l ~
~~ (~~~~~ ~g~g : (11~~ ~
. 0:: : l,'!:) ~
O.E.5
2,
(~~;j
2,1(;.)
1:!..!l'
(E':5~
H:.:'~
0.75-
2t
(137?)
!?:::::
0,91
t,!...D
(Eol
nC;10
'1' E. .. 'L
::::: 'ij ~,-r-
g t1;:;:..g J
I '~i- II ~ :~~
=: (J-::j E 11:"Jli:::
113m ~ ;;r ~
; - I
---------11 f f
I ~h:,': "(.3 . lI111)tll:1l1ll1ll-
I~l il u~ '
t-3.. l.$? _ _ _..1. 2~
'C // ['"',
(17;: 1~;;}J
i~::").
."
1,50
(to
t5,~q
35S~3
___ 10;"......"'1' 1";:>JlCT ARlO...
. 0 lJ1r;;:RCloU.....,,:;:
~,
0.(1,) _ AJT \'vLU"=:/CP;'ClT'f ?:.;lO
OL .. A:mU?AiED Lt:;?,'/;E
(OJoj - r:Jr('~cu. ~R;.~:'I': rGi:'L -;Y).i=i!C:
O:J;:I:) - It:R~~GK TRAF;: Ie
S.OURCE: nOTOROLA ADA
_____ - LEVELS or- S[~jl[~ A-3
... - If'.'iLS OF st,,':,Cf ,=-)
11111111- lHi:lS OF SE;:.;IC=: t-i="
~
I
I
I
J
I
1
J
1
I
I
I
J
-t
.5.\'1.,15
O::VE::LO?:/::'~~I c:= M:::S ::.::..!.... t\~?-;..~T
....E::;... J, .... :;:;=- ~
F\C '''--''''7'',~ 'Rq-o, 7 j"\
tJ'.7,J:......~ :.., '...\.-,i . ~..~;._~i
;..:~. o:.:~~;.;';:~..~::'! ::;...>-.
o ;"~~.':.:.'~'~-;:.~-;~:;-;'~: ~~.~;.
........---...........
[l.,)'fl,:l'. r:: .:.,:',.. p".~\,' !J~':':'" c?',;~rY. P..V'l':)'\'
31-7
-
..
;a....
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
volumes from 23% to 87% over capacity (service level Fl. S.W. 23rd Street
will also decline to level F. However, not all roadway conditions will worsen.
The projected four-1aning of Lantana and Hypoluxo Roads will result in levels
of service better than C.
Phase I II
With the completion of the Motorola facility, just over 13,000 trips d~ily, and
1,600 trips in the peak hour, will be added to the surrounding road system (see
Exhibit 31.4). The plant will add up to 6,000 trips daily to Congress which,
by the year 2000, will be carrying more than 50,000 vehicles per day. Despite
this projected volume, the Year 2000 Cost Feasible Transportation Plan for Palm
Beach County calls for Congress to be only four lanes.
The entire length of Boynton Road will also be severely overloaded. As with
Congress, the Year 2000 Plan calls for Boynton Road west of Congress to be
four lanes, despite projected volumes close to 50,000. East of Cong~ss, the
road is already six lanes, but even this will be inadequate for the projected
Year 2000 volumes. The ADA concludes that both Congress Avenue and Boynton Road,
throughout the study area, should be six-laned by the year 2000. Projected
volumes of approximately 50,000 on large sections of both roads suggest that
eight lanes may be necessary to adequately handle traffic.
Other inadequate roads I'Ii 11 be Lantana Road and S. W. 23rd Street, both of which
will operate near or at service level F. N.W, 22nd Avenue, I'lhich provides direct
access to the site from the east, will be near capacity. Hypoluxo Road and
S.W. 15th Street, which will provide Motorola traffic with access from Congress
to 1-95, will operate at level C or better.
ANALYSIS
As can be seen from the traffic projections, several roads carrying significant
amounts of Motorola traffic will be seriously deficient during one or more
phases of the development, Exhibit 31.5 summarizes the changing conditions
on the major highways in the vicinity of the project, Two roads, Congress and
Boynton, stand out as being deficient in every phase. Congress Avenue will
range from service level D in Pha~e I to level F in Phases II and III. Simi-
larly, Boynton Road, between Lawrence and Congress, will range from level E
to F.
Other roads will have problems during one or two phases. Lantana Road and
Hypoluxo Road, ','Ihich provide access to 1-95 traffic from the north, will be
seriously over capacity in Phase I, but will be operating at a satisfactory
level in Phase II as a result of four-laning, By the end of Phase III, hOl'lever,
Lantana Road will again become overloaded. Boynton Road, which provides access
for 1-95 traffic from the south, \'/i11 be adequate in Phase I but I'Jill become
deficient in Phases II and III, This section of road is currently a six-lane
facility. It should also be noted that 1-95 will be over capacity by 1990 and
will remain deficient in the year 2000, despite widening to eight lanes.
31-8
_....._._-~-----~- ..~.--_._-------
I
I
I
I
I
EXHIBIT 31.5, SUt-lt-1ARY OF TRAFFIC COtlOITIONS
Congress Avenue
(south of Hypo1uxo)
Congress Avenue
(north of Hypo1uxo)
J
I
Boynton Road
(1-95 to Congress)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
[
Boynton Road
(l'lest of Congress)
N.W. 22nd Avenue
Hypo1uxo Road
(Congress to 1-95)
Hypo1uxo Road
(west of Congress)
Lantana Road
(Congress to 1-95)
Lantana Road
(west of Congress)
1-95
(Lantana to HYPo1uxo)
1-95
(Hypo1uxo to Boynton)
1-95
(Boynton to 5.1'. 15th
SOURCE: TeRPe STAFF
Existing
1979
~
\J)
(}),'.c~,
I"
i"
o
([),.,,',..
\',
1:--,,"
,
o
t~,.',:
~9
o
...,."...
.:".
.:'~~'
o
o
o
o
Phase 1
1981
(1)',
~ - ,,;,~.
~":",
c'oc
".'
()
o
.'.;.
;>~" .
"',;o--r''''
"..''l''
o
o
o
o
o
o
Phase II
1990
..,.~
--;~.
"--'.;;;>
(I
.,.,0,.,.,
tt>j
'~.:~.
o
o
o
o
~,'.
~
..
.~ ,. -
,,;.~ .
()~',;
. '
I'
e
LEVEL OF SERVICE
OAtB CI)C&D
31-1
Phase II I
2000
.,.,',c:'
:~'-
',""1
."
. h'~' _'
t....".
....""": ~~
C).,.';'
..
.~ ,
o
o
~
'81
..:
"
.:::,'
..
f;~,'
\iC
."~,',
-.J,
"
E&F
-----::::".,,-.,.-..-=-
The proposed Motorola site is a portion of a previously ~~proved development
called Sandhill. Riteco Development Corporation, the di'J=loper of Sandhill,
had planned a commercial tract and five multifamily parc=l s for the ['lotorola
site. These uses were projected to generate 12,685 trips per day, only 335
trips less than ~'lotorola's projected 13,020. In contrast, the Sandhill plan
was projected to generate 2,682 peak hour trips, over 1,000 more than the
1,634 projected for ~1otorola. It appears that the 140torola pI"oject ~Jil1
actually have a lesser impact on surrounding roadways than the existing
approved plan.
In ol'der to mi tigate the projected traffic impacts of tree entire Sandhill project,-
Riteco Corporation agreed (See Appendix 31-B at the end of section) to provide
the fo 11 o\'li ng hi ghl';ay improvements (or payment in 1 i eLl tnereof): faur-l ani ng of
Con9"ess Avenue and N.\ol. 22nd Avenue along Riteco's enti,e frontage ($137,000
and $000,000, '"espectively); dedication of rights-of-;'i'lY )n Cangress and N.H.
22nd of 120 and 108 feet, respectively; signalizin~ the intersections of N.W.
22nd I\venue with Congress, Seacl'est and any project roacd2Ys, \'Ihere \';arranted
($50,000 for Congress and Seacrest); left turn lanes on the east and west
approaches tll the intersection of t,UJ. 22nd Avenue and S:!acrest Boulevard
($12,000); and construction of the intersection of Congr:!ss Avenue and N.W.
22nd Avenue for 500 feet north, south, and east of the i~tersection ($60,000).
The payments total $859,000; however, 5600,000 of that tJtal is for four-laning
N.H. 22nd Avenue, which is projected not to be needed by the f'10torola ADA. I'lost
of the improvements are timed to occur ,,,hen a specifi ed nur;ber of uni t" are
occupied or an associated numb2r of daily trips are genE~ated (generally 5,600
trips, except fOl' four-laning N.W. 22nd, ~Ihich would OCCJr at 11 ,199 trips).
Similar agreements have been made with several other dev=lopers in the area.
The result, as sho\om in Exhibit 31.5, is that a signi-'ic?nt length of Congress
Avenue, between Hypol uxo and Boynton Road, has cornmi t-r;er.ts to fou)'-l aning by
d~velopers. In each case, the commitment does not have :0 be met until the
particular project passes a specified threshold. Further, provision is made
fot' the developer to reimburse government if it should Lndei.take the widening
of Congress before the project crosses its threshold.
The projection that Congress will be four lanes by 1990 is based primarily on
these commitments. However, these commitments do not provide a reliable
projection of timing. Given the uncertainties of the de'/elopment process,
it is imposs i bl e to determi ne \'Ihen the various 'improvements wi 11 be provi ded .
A possible additional contribution that might be made to expanding highway
capacity \..ould be Motorola's contribution to the County's fail' share roaJ
impact fee. However, that fee was suspended on November 13 and is scheduled
to be revie~led in t~arch 1980, Since rJ,otorola hopes to creak ground befoi'e then,
it \..ould likely not pay the impact fee on Phase I, even jf the fee is eventually
reinstated. If the fee is reinstated, I.lotorola '::auld pal a total fee of 51 :8,650
for Phases II and III, based on the ordinance's current '-ate of S12.50(tril'.
Another potential mitigating factor may result from efforts currently under way
by the Florida Department of Commerce to secure $2,000,COO in State moniC's for
the purpose of four-l ani ng Congress Avenue from Boynton :;'Jad northvlard to tile
31-11
I
I
vicinity of N.W. 22nd. The provision of this money would be directly related
to the Motorola project and represents part of the State's efforts to promote
economic development. The County would be required to match the funds, but
this could be satisfied by the County continuing the four-1aning of Congress
northward to Lantana Road from the point reached with the use of State funds.
I
I
I
l
,
.
One highway improvement that could have the potential to improve conditions
markedly in the area is the addition ,of an interchange with 1-95 on N.W. 22nd
Avenue. For the large number of Motorola trips that use Hypoluxo, Lantana, and
Boynton Roads to get to 1-95, this could eliminate the impact of those trips on
these roads and Congress Avenue. The proposed widening of N.W. 22nd to four lanes
by Riteco would provide considerable excess capacity which might be able to handle
the additional load. Such an interchange would also provide an alternative route
for a large amount of non-Motorola traffic. Although an interchange would be
expensive, the prospect that six lanes on Congress may not be enough by the year
2000 may make the alternative fiscally attractive. The possible addition of the
interchange Ivarrants close study by the r.letropolitan Planning Organization and
the Florida Department of Transportation to determine what impact it would have
on traffic conditions in the area and whether it would be cost-effective.
I
I
I
FISCAL H1PACT
The proposed facility will create costs for new and expanded roadways to meet
the traffic generated by it. It will also generate revenues that will be available
to provide the needed additional road facilities. The purpose of this section is
to estimate the net fiscal impact of Motorola with respect to rpads.
I
.
The method used to 'estimate costs and revenues is based on the report, Economic
Aspects of the Proposed Palm Beach County Road Impact Fee Ordinance, produced
by the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems in January,
1979. That study set out a methodology that could be used to calculate the
net financial impact of any proposed development on roads. The approach taken
is to estimate the cost of building the lane miles of road needed to accommodate
the project's daily traffic. The property tax and gasoline tax revenues generated
by the project and available for highway improvements are then credited against
the cost to determine the net impact.
Cost = number of trips x,average trip length x cost/lane mile
capacltyjlane
The formula states that the cost is obtained by dividing the total daily miles
of travel created by the project (number of daily trips times the average length
of a trip) by the capacity of a lane of roadway and multiplying the result by
the cost of building one mile of one lane of road (lane mile).
The capacity of a highway lane is 6,000 vehicles daily and the average cost of
building a lane mile of road was estimated to be $300,000 by the Palm Beach
County Engineer's Office. When built out, Motorola will generate 13,020 trips
daily, with an average length of 7.3 miles (estimated using second table in
Appendix 3l-A), Using these values to solve the equation yields:
I
I
I
I
I
,
t
t
31-12
Cost = 13,020 trips x 7,3 miles $300 000 1 ,,/'1 =
6,000 vehicles/lane x , an_ ml e
15.841 lane miles x 5300,000/lane mile =
$4,752,300
The result of the above equation is to charge the project for the lanco miles
of road needed to accommodate every trip \'Ihich ends 01' begins at the project.
However, all those trips have an origin or destinJtio~ at some other location,
such as a horne or store. If the sa;n2 fOnTIula were ap;Jlied to the land uses at
the othel' end of Hotorola's trips, the l'esult ',';ould be to count the cost of the
tri p hli ceo Therefore, to el imi nCt te doubl e counti ng, tile inpiH::t of a project's
traffic, the figure der'ived from the cost equation should be divided by t~IO_
Applying this to r'10torola, the C'lst of r~otorola's shai'e of trips \1hich begin
or end at the plant is $2,376,150.
~lotol'ola's share of cost = 54,7i12300 = $2,375,150
Once the road cost has been determined, it is necessary to reduce it by the
revenues available for roads which are generated by propel'ty taxes froiTI the
facility arid gasoline taxes from the vehicles going to and fro~~ the facility.
The property tax credit for t'10torola \-Ies calculated using Tzble 6, Property
Tax Credit for Non-residential Uses, from the FAU/FIU report. ' This credit is
a lump sum value to account for tdxes paid twenty-five years into the future,
as well as for taxes paid ten years into the past (for undeveloped land). The
table established a cl'edit of $54,719 for $10,000,003 worth of estir;Jated sales
price. Based on t10toloolu' s assessed value at build out of 535,017,000 from
Table 2D.6, ~10torola's property tax credit would be $191,610.
r~otorola's motor fuel tax credit is based on Table 7 in the FAU/FIU report. Like
the property tax credit, the motor fuel tax credit repr'esents a lump sum value
for a tl'anty-five year stream of taxes, The calculation of the credit is done
separat",ly for the 20D,CGD square feet of office space and the 625,000 square
feet main building, Adjustments are then made to compensate for the fact that
Motorola's average trip length and trip generation rates are different from
those used to develop the table.
Motoro 1 a's tri p 1 ength of 7.3 mi 1 es is longer than the average of 6 mil es used
for transportation planning in Palm Beach County. Since each i~otorola trip
~till be longer than the County average, it \;ill conSUL,e rr:ore gasol ine and con-
tribute f:1ore gas tax revenues, Similarly, ~lotorola's higher generation rate
per square foot of industrial facility will generate more travel, more gas
consumption and more revenue. In contrast, the revenue from office-related
activities will be reduced as Motorola's generation rate is lower than the
County's standard rate for office space. 0
The following equation is used to calculate the moto)' fuel tax credit:
31-13
motor fuel tax credit = credit rate from Table 6 x
square feet of space x Motorola trip length x
standard trip length
Motorola generation rate
standard generation rate
The equation states that the credit is calculated by multiplying the credit
rate per square foot times the square footage of the facility, and multiplying
that result by the adjustment factor for average trip length and trip generation
rate.
The credit for the 625,000 square feet main facility is:
Credit = $201/1,000 square feet x 025,000 square feet x 7.3 miles
6,0 miles x
15.6 trip ends/l,OOO square feet = $397 394
6.0 trip ends/l,OOO square feet '
The credit for the 200,000 square feet of office space is:
Cedit = $269/1,000 square feet x
7.3 miles
200,000 square feet x 6.0 miles x
15.6 trip ends/l,oOO square feet = $54,002
20.0 trip ends/l,OOO square feet
Total motor fuel tax credit is:
$397,394 + $54,002 = $451,396
Finally, credit should be given for Motorola's share of improvements agreed to
by Riteco (Appendix 31-8) if that agreement essentially remains in force.
Motorola should receive a credit for its pro rata share, based on traffic genera-
tion, of the dollar value of all improvements except the four-laning of N.W.
22nd Avenue which the ADA does not indicate is warranted before the year 2000.
The value of the impruvements specified in Sections III, IV, V and VI of the
Riteco agreement is $259,000. Applying the ratio of Motorola's trips to Riteco's
trips (13,020/22,400) to the value of the improvements results in a credit of
$150,544.
The net fiscal impact of Motorola's traffic is $1,583,726. This represents
the cost associated with its traffic minus credits for property tax and gas
tax revenues, and highvlay improvements provided by l'lotorola:
Cost
Property Tax
~1otor Fuel Tax
Improvements
$2,376,130
(191,610)
(451,396)
(150,544)
$1,582,600
31-14
. -. '-'."'--.,.
---_.._._---~-
The $1,582,600 represents the additional cost to government of meeting the
highl'lay impacts created by the r'iotorola project, over and above the direct
revenues it generates for that purpose.
ALTERNATE nODES
Alternatives to the use of the privately OI'med automobile could serve to reduce
t'10torola's impact on surrounding high\!ays. HOI'lcver, such alternatives are not
currently under serious consideration. The site is not no\~ served by bus. The
neal'est routes are along Boynton Road to Lu\lrence and north and south along
Seacrest. Since 5o'Tleemployees al'e anticipated-to li'/e near the Seacrest corridor,
the possibility exists for expansion of that route to ~he plant. Unfortunately,
this would not provide relief where it is most needed, i.e., along Congress
Avenue. Al though !'iotorola has made no, provision for publ ic trunsit, sllch pro-
vision could be easily incorporated into the site's design.
Due to the nature of the proposed facil ity, a prcllising alternative might be the
encouragement of ridesharing by employees. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council has "darted the follOi'ling pol icy I~ith r'cgar-d to the use of ridesharing
and paratransit modes of transportation:
"Encourage public agencies and private businesses to promote car
pooling and van pooling through incentives such as priority
parking areas, exclusive car pool/high occupancy vehicle lanes,
provision of vehicles and support facilities, and insurance
discounts."
The applicant has indicated in the ADA that its Plantation facility has had a
reasonably good rate of participation in car pooling, with an average of 1.3
persons per vehicle. Such programs can greatly reduce the number of trips
generated by a large employer, such as f.1otorola. Further, since the United
States has become increasingly dependent on foreign oil supplies and, thus,
susceptible to disruption of these sources, there is a need fOl' both the private
and publ ic sectors to prepare not only contingency plans for such disruptions,
but to also initiate ongoing energy conservation programs. Ridesharing offers
great potential to meet that need,
From discussions Ivith the applicant, Motorola has active ridesharing programs,
e.g., car pools, van pools, at some of their other facilities. S~aring rides
is one of the most cost-effective energy conservation measures that can be
implemented by private companies. Benefits to companies have been documented,
to ci te a fe~l:
1. saving investment funds in land and parking facilities;
2. reducing employee absenteeism and tardiness;
3, expanding the potential labor market;
4, reducing traffic congestion at rush hours;
31-15
5. minimizing decreased facility operations during energy
supply disruptions;
6. creating an image as a positive community citizen,
Successful programs have strong support from their top level management; have
assigned a specific individual the responsibility of coordinating the ride-
sharing program (many times, someone in the personnel department); are actively
promoted throughout the company; and provide incentives such as providing
vehicles, preferential parking places and gifts, adjustments in work hours
(leaving a few minutes early to avoid rush), public recognition.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
The roadway system currently serving the proposed Motorola site is generally
operating at acceptable levels, although Congress Avenue is right at capacity.
Only Lantana and Hypoluxo Roads east of Congress Avenue are operating over
capacity.
Projections of future traffic level" and roadway improvements indicate that
traffic conditions will deteriorate as volumes grow faster than roadways can
be improved. By the end of Phase I in 1981, volumes on all roads will increase
due to both the addition of Motorola traffic and to the growth of other facili-
ties throughout the area, Since no improvements are scheduled, levels of
service will generally decline. Congress Avenue will exceed capacity and
experience a level of service D.
By 1990, the end of Phase II, conditions I,Jill I'/orsen considerably. Both Congress
Avenue and Boynton Road wi 11 be seriousl y overloaded, with vol urnes upI'lard of 85%
over capacity. These conditions are projected to occur although Congress is
anticipated to be I,lidened to four lanes and portions of Boynton Road are already
six lanes, Projected volumes indicate Congress would need to be widened to at
least six lanes before 1990.
By the completion of the project in the year 2000, conditions are projected to
deteriorate further. Even with the addition of improvements planned for in the
Year 2000 Cost Feasible Plan, most roads in the vicinity of the project will be
operating at service level F, at least 25% over capacity. t-lany I'oads will be
closer to 50~; over capacity and Congress is projected to ,be at tI~ice its capacity.
Only a fel'l links, most notably N.~J. 22nd Avenue and Hypoluxo Road east of Congress,
will be operating below capacity with service levels at C or better.
The situation projected in the vicinity of r.lotorola is similar to that I'lhich is
projected throughout Palm Beach County. Based on population and land use pro-
jections for the year 2000, two long-range transportation plans were adopted
by the r.1etropolitan Planning Organization. The Year 2000 Needs Plan called
for a high level of service and was projected to cost 5900,000,000 in 1977
dollars, Projected revenues during the period to the year 2000 fell $331,000,000
short of the cost of the Needs Plan. A second plan, the Year 2000 Cost Feasible
Plan, called for more modest improvements that would result in congestion and
conditions similar to those of the Miami area tOday. Assuming no inflation,
31-16
the Cost Fe sible Plan approached financial feasibility but still fell 581,000,000
ShOI't of n" ds (RepoI't J:!n the Pr.oposed Palm Beach County Fair Share Contribution
for R.oad In Iov<:'!;:.ents._Ordin~C0_~_~, p.4). Cleal'ly, gro\'lth in traffic is olJ;:stripping
the Co~mty' ability to pro':ide the facilities necessary to accommodate the in-
creased de nd,
As is true throughout the County in general, the r10toro-la pt.oject will create
traffic de (lnds, the cost of \./hich will exceed the revenues generated by the
project th t ~Iill be available for trilnsportation improvef"ents. It is estimated
(see FISCA' InPACT under TRNiSPO;nATlO:I) th:!t r'lotoro1a \,!ill create the need for
additional highway facilities \;ihich win cost almost 1.6 million dollars r.1ore
than t'1~ r venues genera ted for l"oadl"ay improvements.
Although torola's traffic, in and of itself, wiTl not be the cause of congeited
higtMa:,.3 i the vicinity of the project, it \1i11 cnntribute to \./orsening the
situation. t.lotorola's contribution to the transpurtation conditions can be
mitigated hrough the provision of additional highway faci11ties to sel've the
der:w:ld ere ted by t.!otO)'O 1 a, I ncreas i ng roa.d..:ay capaci ty I'li 11 promote a freer
flOl" of tr, Hie, I'!h'icn \'li11 also mitigate the impacts of the project an energy
consu:r;ptio and air quality by contdbuting to more efficient fuel use and the
reduction n the generation of air pollutants, '
The impuct of t~oto)'olC\ traffic on an already overloaded higrMay system, 2S ~iell
as on ail. uality and energy use, can be mitigated by the fonowing condithms.
to the Dev lopment Ordel':
L
Prior
cxpans
Con~;re
right
Traffi
o the commencement of operations in Phase I, or any subsequent
on of the facility, the intersection of all pl'oject ddve\'lays with
s Avenue and N,I,I. 22nd Avenue shall be improved \'lith 1 eft turn lanes,
urn lanes, and traffic signals, as \'ian'anted by the Palm Beach County
Engineer.
2.
Prior
Avenue
turn 1
Traffi
o the operation of Phase I facilities, the intersection of Congress
and N.\'), 22nd Avenue shall be improvi:'d ~Iith left turn lanes, right
nes and traffic signals, as warranted by the f'alrl Beach County
Engineer.
3. Since :otoro1a's Phase lI-b operations I'lill generate traffic 'in excess of
the 5, 00 trip threshold set in the agreement bet\'leen Palm Beach County and
Riteco Development Corporation dated August 1, 1978 and relating to traffic
impact of the p~'oposed Sandhill project, Phase II-b shall not become
ope\'at'onal until the high~'ay improvements des,cribed in the follOl':ing
sectio s of the Riteco agreement have been completed:
tion III
tion IV
tion V
ction VI
- Traffic ,signals;
- Left turn lanes, N,W. 22nd Avenue and Seacrest Boulevard;
- Intersection of Congress Avenue and 11.\01. 22nd Avenue;
- Four-laning Congress Avenue.
31- 17
4. Motorola shal dedicate to Palm Beach County the following rights-of-way
along Motorol 's entire roadway frontage:
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Congress
N.H. 22n
The applican
be dedicated
Coneress to
6 feet alone
an interchan
is planned f
5.
Construction
of Florida,
equivalent v
Boynton and
with credit
venue 60 feet from centerline;
Avenue 54 feet from centerline.
shall reserve an additional 20 feet along Congress Avenue to
to the County in the event the County adopts plans to widen
ight lanes. The applicant shall also reserve an additional
N.W. 22nd Avenue for dedication to the County in the event
e is built at 1-95 and N.W. 22nd Avenue and N.H. 22nd Avenue
r widening to six lanes.
of Phase 11-c shall not commence unless the applicant, the State
r Palm Beach County, has contributed 51,600,000 or provided an
lue in highway improvements for the widening of Congress between
ypoluxo Roads. The amount of the contribution shall be reduced
or the fallowing:
a. Contribu ions by the applicant to any highway bond issue. The amount
of the c edit shall be calculated in a manner similar to the property
tax cred t already incorporated in the above amount.
b. Any road impact fee made pursuant to the Fair Share Contribution for
Road Imp ovements Ordinance, if it is reinstated, or any similar
ordinanc which may be adopted.
The 51,600,0 0 amount is i~ constant 1979 dollars and the value of all
contribution, improvements or credits shall be adjusted to 1979 dollars
using the co sumer price index.
Construction of Phase II-c shall not commence unless one of the following
conditions is applicable to Congress Avenue between Boynton and Hypoluxo
Roads:
6.
a. the roa is operating at the then current design level of service for
highway planning designated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization;
b. the roa has been improved to six lanes;
c. the six Janing of the road has been included in the Palm Beach County
Transpo tation Improvement Program; or
d, Palm Be ch County has budgeted preliminary engineering studies for
six-lan ng the road.
7.
The applica
of i nformat
end of the
written rep
t shall establ ish and actively support, through the provision
on and incentives to employees, a car pooling program. At the
irst year of Phase] operations, t-lotoro1a shall provide a
rt to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the
31-18
------~--------'---~ --
--
~le1:ror)u i tan PI anning Orgilni lation, the Palm Beach County Tra ffie Engine",,.,
and tile City of Boynton Beach on its activities and an evalu'ltion of their
effect; en.~ss.
8, \>iithin ne yeal' of the commencement of Phase I operations, or any subsequent
eX~3nsi n of facilities, the applicant shall undertake a study of the feasi-
bil ity f establ ishing or par'ticipating in a van p::lol program and shall
tt'ans;"i t the results of that study to the Tn'asure Coast ~egional Planning
Council, the N::t.l'Cp,)liti:\n Planning Organization, the Palm Beach County
Tfaffic Engin22r) iJ,lij the City of Boynton B~each.
9. Urcm co,,,mencem~nt of Phase I opera tions, or any subsequen t expansion, the
arplicant sha1l provide the Palm Beach County Transportation Authority :~ith
information regarding the general location of its employees' residence-5 and
sh:ll consult \,lith th~ Authority regarding the feasibility of estao1ishing
or ['"p, nding l'outes to serve the'p1ant. If bus set'vice is pt'ovid'et! to the
p15nt, the applicant 5ha11 provide boarding and unloading space Do-site or
provi d _ space fat tw'nout bays illong Congress and N, ~'J. 22nd J\'Jenu2, if
needed.
31-19
TRANSPOR''ATION APPENDIX 31-A
I,
-II07'OROJ..A ,NC.
CDrnTTJUTJ;c~.rt;Dns Products Division
November 21, 1979
'j
,\
'I
I
I
!
I
,
I ~
}k. Sam Sha non, Executive Director
Treasure Co st Regional Planning Council
50 Kindred treet
P.O. Box 23 5
Stuart, Flo ida 33494
)j
:1
il
:1
Ii
"
I'
i
I
Dear Sam:
Attac~ed ar
Motorola's
November 1
tables
roposed
, 1979.
which contain additional information on
facility as requested at the meeting on
i
Ii
11
~ ;
i,
The first
and averag
phases of
able contains estimates of the estiwated emploYillent
daily traffic associated with each of the six (6)
he project.
The second
existing P
centages a
table contains data on the estiD2ted distance which
antation employees live fron the f2cility. All per-
e cumulative..
If you need any additional information, please feel free to
call our office.
Sincerely,
~~L~
Hanager t
Facility PlaDJi~g
at tachmen s:
cc:
Jack
Fred
Ray
Gesbocker
Hilton
chocki
E;:,WI ..',' SU;>iR !:iE BL VD., FT. l AU ~ fl OAt E. F L 33322 (305) ..nS.5001J
No toro1", Iue.
Estimated Charactecistics bV Phase
ENPLOYHE'T
Total Average
Phase 1st Shift 2nd Shift Jrd-Shift TOTAL' Daily Tr~
---
I 1365 161 80 1606 3528
II 2268 267 133 2668 586')
III 3020 355 178 3553 7817
IV 3757 4t,2 221 !,420 9724
V 4257 442 221 4920 11374
VI 4757 t,42 221 5420 13020
-
Notorola, Inc.
Estimated Distance from Employee's
Homes to Existing Plantation Facilitv
I
Niles
Cumulative Percent
J
.
j
1.5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
6.6
27.2
35.0
37.3
37.3
45.3
59.7
70.7
75.4
80.7
84.4
89,5
90.7
92.2
92.4
J
I
J
,
j
20
96,3
,
I
25
97.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
~
H
<
"
~
.1
J
~
~l
1
..
'.
. l
T~MISPORTATH~N APPErlDIX 3t -8 '- -.
~vr L-
!) ,
hGRZEtt2Nr BEr:~:::r
PllL..'i BE.:\Ca COUNTY. F!.O~ !O~
J\ND
RI~ECO DEVE~rMENr CO~?O~IO~
.
i
I
.
.
THIS ^Gl\EE.'lENT, ....II.. thi.. l,t
,.19~78 ,
d~y O~ A'':';;-..a'';.
by ~nd bettloHHtn tha COUN'rY' 07 P~I-'i. BEACH. t;h:otJ'i":1. ':.~e BO'>"~O OY CQUS-zr
CO~~IsstONERS of ~ald County hercln~ft~~ re!~~~e~ to a~ ~COU~~-
and Rl~ECa DEVELOPMENT CO~?ORATIO~, a Flo:idA co=?O~a~ion, he~e~n.f~cr
referred tQ-4S "RITECO..
,RECITALS:
~HZ"EAS_ RITECO is pre~@n~ly davalo?i~9 ~ sin;le and mulei-
!a~ily subdivision kno~n as Sandhill, ~:e ~~=~ic~la~ly desc:i~ed in
Exhibit 'A', attached ~ereto and ma~~ a par~ r.~r~ot; and
~E~EAS. the propos~d dev~lop~~nt. ~~en occu?ied~ ~ill
generate adllltlona:t t~"Uic in the ":,,.. o~ the s."dhill project in
trl~~ per day and
W/lEIlEAS, Rl~ZCO and th.. cotilnr wis:-. to ?=ovid.. fo:: th..
~ddition~l t~affic i~p~c~ ~& i~ O~~U:3.
NOW.. ~HEREi'OitE, for good a.nd. valu~~l~ c:c~siC:e:ra.e!on,. r-ccei?t.
of which 1s hereby acknowledse~, tha partie, ~~r~~o, in~e~ding to be
leg"lly bound, a9r.... a~ follo~s:
SECTIOl! :r
RIGHT'S OF W?>.':"
RITECO "hall donate to th.. COL~T'f th::=.h pla""i..,. J:iSht5'
ot. 1J3.'j b3 indicated In tho P.!:lm Uoach CO\Jn~y ~ho:'"ouS'ht~:-e plan a.~
, follo~:..
Congress Avenua
N. W. 22nll AvonUB
tHn..r Ro"d
120 feet tot"l
108 feet tot"l
loa feet total
(5,;; feet fro", centerline)
C5~ fee=. frc~ c~nterline}
CS~ feet fro"," centerli",,)
provided, hOW8V~:r:, that: vhere the dcYe-lo?r.'ten~ .1;bC~3 only one side of
right of way, then only half of ri9ht of way is =cqui=~ to b" donatea.
-SECTION Ii:
FOUR-1J\NINC N. \-1.. 22~:n A"E.~~L:~
!
!
It i, undc~stood ~nd ~gr~cd th~t N. ~. 22~~ A'lenue should b~
!our-lanttd tl:O~ th~ eZll:lt: -project l:ou:l~a::y to C:>:-:..;:::es.:s ^v=-:ro~ .;)nd that
RITECO shall bet re:!lpol"1:dblo. for the const.n}c,;:io~ of the b~ditional
two l~nc~, u~ln9 paln Beach County st~ndQrd~ ~~~ s?ccitic~~ion~_
- 1--
..~---
--.--..........-
-.~_.._._---
.'
, '
.
I
i
I
;
l
I
c
\
Jfi
.,
,
.
'Tl"::l:J CO':l::1truc!;lon 3h~11 no~ b~ r~'iuiccd b~'o~o- the- oo;;c:..:?"",t.iof\. of
SOl) of t.n.. re:Jiic.4n~i~1. (h:velo~::iJt;'J;;:' or a~ s'.1ch ti:-:'l~ .::;.:; ~~~ C'jP:.i4.14t.ion:
o~ r~3idan~ial ~n~ co~no~c~~l/?~o~~s~ion~~ traffic g=~s~~clon equAt~
I
.
thb tr~f~lc 9cn.r~tod by SO, 0: ~a ~e3id~nt~At de~elo?~n~. Fif~f
pe~ cent ot re~i~anti~l tr~f'i~ s~na~~~ion shal~ b~ ~~~~~ to ~.
11.199 ~~1p~ p~~ d~y.
"i'ha a~Vet cb\i<;~t!.on 0' P..I.7ZCO 'P~~ h~ s~~i.s~i.ed a: itx.-r~O'S-
,-
o?tLon by 3ith~1' tn." ~ct~l~l COh~t::U=t.i.O:'1 o~ the ad~i~i:;)i'l.l.. tUQ< l..:.nQ$L-
.'l:!o hi'tX'alt1~;.,q.,,;g .!'.>>t. fo:;:,,~~.: b::: in lie\\. tne::'eo~ pa.y~t\!:: to t;ir. COUH'l'~
in .t.h.::t :JU.:.;) 0: S600,CQO...OO c!~a an~ ?a:t:l,;:)l~ .a~ t.h, ti..-,..s,. th~ f01J~-lar.tn9'
~otild b& wa~~~~ta~.
~~T!a~ !'tt:
,!p,>,~:'r(: S!QIA,tS
~
R!TECO nh~ll hD~r t~~ co~~ o! th~.f?ll~~i~g ~~at!lc sLgn~l~~
~
Congre3~ i1.venu-31 a'= 1:;.. w. 22n1 ,^Ven'Ja>
Se~crc~~ coulevard at n. ~.. 22~1 hVe~~~
hlle:':<b \!arr~n~~a, all. ?:."'oj ect: ro.:)c\.ll'::Ys. a;1-~
N, W. 22nd AYenc~
In th~ ca:ae of the- ~e'\."~lo?~~nt. roac!-,.Iays and ~t. W.. 220& Avc::~u
P-ITECO sh;!)l':" PZly fo~ lh!l.tr3.f~ic: !';;i'3r;~15 ....~e::"1 ....,a~r~:'t~~~ by tra.ffic
gen~~~~e~ rro~ ~lthLn th~ Sa~1hll~ D~~elo?~en~ and i~~~al1ed.
In the:. c2l.~'., of Co<n;:::-e~:t A'J;..-nU~ ~'=. U.. w. 22;-:.~ ".'J~nue> and
Se3Cr.o,!)~ BODlev;'ccd, at ~!. W.. 2'201;1 ;'v~;).u.tt, ?:r-:2~O ShZl~!. r.c>~ be requ)..):"e(
t.:). p3:J fa:: th~ sign201~ b$!'or~ OCcup?l':.ion o~ 25"s o~ t'tao: re:.r.d!::nti~1..
rlev~lo~rn.n~l O~ a co~~i~~~ion of re~iden~i~l.and co=~e~c1al/?~cfe~~1;
dc'Jela?":h.....n~ ~nicb c-qu<.:.l..,:,-- th~ traffic gen~:::,~~ian of 25\ of ~hs 1:e:s-t-
de~ti31 d~v~lopm~n~.
"tWanty-fiv& p;:o:::ce:""~ of th~ rc~d.d~n=ia.l t.caf!ic qeneratLon
1~ a55uc~ to b~ 5,600 tri~. per cay,
. '
Xf th~ t.rlllfic s!gn41s a~ Con9:."~s3 ~"'enue- a.~~ S... \1.. 22nd
,,'we-nu,'VI And bt Seacr"c="t' 8oulcv..,.=~ an::!. N. W _ 22n-:1 A'J~:1.u~ AJ:6 instal.lcd
by th~ cou~rr .prlo~ to th; p~ojec~ ~eY~!o?~~nt tr3~~ic O?er3tlon
equ~11in9 25~ a! th~ ~~jlde~tj~l de~~lop~e~~1 th~n a~~ in th~t event
nrrECO ~h~lt r~i~bur~~ th~ COUS7r .for thcs~ t~~~Cic ~i;~a13 upon tbe
25'- rej.ld~i)tl;Jil trl'!:!i.c Strn~r<!'ttio:\ fiSiu::-e b~ir\g :::'c).~':1~~
2 -
. ~ -J
.-
.
'.
I
I
I
l
,
!
i
-'
".(
,
OWYL
In n~ evcn~ sh~lt th~ to~al con~ri~u~!o~ ~C~~ R~rECO for
th~ tra(Cic si~~ls ~t Can9r~3s A~cnu~ ~nd N. H. 2Z~ Av~n~~ ~nd
bt Se~~re3~ aoulQv~~d and N. W. 22nd ^~cn~~ ex:eed SSOrOOO.CO.
.
;
I
SECTro', '[If
LEF't' 7U~~ u:es
.
N. W. 22nd ~v~nu. and Se~cre~~ 3o~lev~ra
~ITECO ahall p~y to Pal~ 8~ach Co~n~y~ Flo=ij~~ tho S~
or $12,000.00 to~ con,tructian ot lote tu~ lanes on th, eas~ an4
we~t App&oaches of N. W. 22nd Avenua t~ S~acces= Boule~~rd. Thi~
.li'ay"'~nt :>hall not b.. duo priol:' to th~ oc=?aeion. ot 2S~ ot th~
residen~l~l dev&lopm.n~, oc a ~o~bina~ion a: =e$~e~~lA~ an~
co~~etclal/pro'c~~ion~l dev~lopm~N~, y~ich eg~~15 a traffic ~ener&-
ticn oe 25\ of ths re~id~ntiai dev~lo~~n~_
Twenty-t_va percen~ of ~h9 re~i~en~i~~.tra~fic gene~Ation 1s
AS3u~ed to ba 5,600 t~ip3 pee day.
SEc-rto~ V
INTC:t{SEC:1"rD~ O? COS:;?"E5S r..v-=::;:,;,~
ANa N'. W. 22~;D ;'::-==~UE:
RITECO shall construct to Pal~ Eea~h Co~~~y ~t~n&~r~~ tbe
full into~s~ction of Cong~es$ Avenu~ and N. W_ 22~d Avenu~ for sea
fee~ north, south# and ca~~. Thi~ cO~5tr~c~i~~ s~a~~ no~ be regutced
prio~ to the occu~~tion o~ 25\ of th& re~id~n~i~L dcY~lopmen~ Qr a
co~in~tion at r~~lden~l~l and co~~~r~ial/?~O~~5Si~~~~ cevelo?osn~~
~hich equ~l3 a traffic ~eneration o~ 25\ of t~~ re.tdent~31 ~e~elo?-
rnent..
JlITl!:CO-""'y ....tbfy U.... oblig~"'i.o'" o~ thi.,. S.."tion by per--- _
lorMin~ tha actu~l con3true~ion o! th~ in~e:s~eion itselt o~ in 1ieu
thereot by ",aking pay~ant to th.. cou~rr o! ~5),OOO.OO duo ~hen_th.
construction vould be req~Lred.
"r\Jenty-tiv& per:"ce-n~ of the- r~.51een,=-ial ~a.!ric 9"an~"at:.ion
is ass~~ed to b~ 5,600 trip3 per day.
,
i
SECTIO~ VI
i
I
I
l
I
I
i
I
!
fOUR-UNING CO~'GRESS
"'-PII-
r. " .:..~ ....:.
JHT.E:CO i3t it:t option sh.:lll elt'h~::- CO=-'5~=t.:c:t:. COa'3::'es5 ^venu~
to ~ tour lan& ro~J~4Y to ?~l~ Bea~~ County s:a~~~~d> ~nd $pecific~-
tion~ r~~ tho entiro fronta~o of t~~ R~L~C0 ?=~?e=~y on Con9~e5~
:. ) -
------_._--_._-~~_._-_.
:.-1
1
,)
)
J
J
I
I
~
~
I
~
I
~
~
h
fl
H
11
ii
"
.
,
ii
,.
!i
1
~l
. (
\. .
2JJY L
.
AVt!J)\'H!f 0';': in l1n1.\ thcr."~o~ P.1;.TECO 5h~tt l:'iaX":: a C.:lS~ cOn~:l.::H",(;ipn to.
P~h.l B~~'Ch count:! o! ~lJ7 #oao..~.!L ~:tis CO:ls::..=-:.:c.:~iOl) 0'= CZt.::..:: COi')t&1hU'
tio~ sb~ll not ha T.equi~ed prio: to t~~ occu?a~ion of 25\ o~ th.
.
i
,
.
.
re~id~n~i~l u~lt~ oC 25~ 0: th~ cor.~~rclal/?r~~a~3ton&~.3;u~:o root~gl
'lOl'hicheVb:( OCCd:'.4J !i::":Jl-:..
5E;cr!O~ VII
>.s s IG:I~ES':'
--
I~ 13 a9r~cd by th~ p~~tie' h~~eto ~~~~ RX~~CO ~~ fr~~ly
b..:'J:!:dS01 .\.'t.:J obl~.9.:\t:.in:n;;.} H:1d.J:J: t~ts. a.j....~~lc:'\~ to. ~n'f 3~~.eqU~..!: -c:.ey~lQ.?'
c:ont~.).:;t:.o:: O~ b'.1ildlJ);'o I::,:;ch ~'.lch ;s3~ignga ~~.a.ll. aJ..~Q. .:::....d.:"lt.:ll.t.n ~,,(> s.~:
rlgni: t.:::) :'~':3it:jn it~ ob:~tgut.ton:'J ~~!:..""e~f"a(').~>:' u:l~~l 5-'.1.:;h t!=.~ .:I!;. t'h.s
con3tr\.H.:t.ioOl ~nd i~pt'cvc!"~.:t;'\~:'" l:e:S:'J,;.r:ec~ 1-'.~~:!'.H1.::';.e)7 h~v& ~3e"l ca::i.?let~...
SE.C"tICS 'l.."l:I!:
NOt'!C:: TO P.\R7!":.:S
"'t1 tlott{..:~~ gi.va:';l ~l.!r.~u~r:.t. tc;.. th!O te::-;::,.:i- o~ this ;..,recJl\cnt;.
or t..:;1ich bony partyb::'"\:I C~:J;1r8 tc 'JiVe h~::'e:.l;)~~=- $h.~lt. Q~ in wt"Jt:J..n~-=
.:snJ ddliv.~ed p~r3oil;)11y... telc-gC.-1lfhC:d,. 0.::: 3en~ .rcS'l~t:C!'red or ce.rt.j...fl~.
t:lZ1il.. Ol:1d ~h311 b~ cbnclusiv~ly pr!:31.:..;:-:sd to h:a.J~ bee:. given by such:
doliv~~y~ ~ll notice~ 3h~11 b~ 9i~en to eac.h of tha !ollo~in5:
RI7ZCO I;EVEt.O?:-;2~i.'" CO~?O?.J\7ro~ -
169 Ea~t Fl~gler St=e~t
Kl3~l. rlarid. 3313L
COU);'!'"! 1\'("1'O;l~;;:,(
?~l~ De~ch Count) Cou~t H~~~s
l'.. 0.. Bo)f. 193~
~le~t:. ";?,"l~ U&lIC-:"... rlo~i:;a ))-401.
S!;CTIO~
TV
-~
I-IOl'?:JS 0:- GENO=~
h"h"::t6V;!>;: he-rein the cont.ext. sOo requt::es th~ 'U,35 of t~tr
~jn;J13r ~h~ll incl~d~ tn~ plur~l. th~ us~ o~ the ~~s~Jlinft 5h~lL
1nclud~ thtt ncuter .lInd th~ us!!' or re?c<?se-n=~ti.v~ sh;).11 includ~ t~U:J.9
=ec&lv~~, exccuto~, etc.
SF:Cl"to:{ X
,
i
INTEC?..ATIOS
Thl:::: !n3tru.rl'~cnt. c:nbodi~~ th~ ......~:>le r.-;r"cc:-:':cnt: o~ the- p~=t:1.e::J
.bnd UiO....O ~:::o no p'::."o;al~~" te'C;n~" canclit1.(l;13 0::: ool~~~~lon::;. other
thc'1n t:h:..)':1" h{!::~tn cO(lt..).In~d. ";his ~'\"j=cc,~:"':':. :;.;).):11 s')?e::-::;.c'~:" ..:!'tll.
- << ~
~
.
I
h
~:
,I
C
M
4
"
" .
, i
'f
c
l
....
;;rL
reprcscnt~tiQn, Advertisc~~n~s, brocnure3,
prcvlou~ co~~unic~tion~,
propos.a1.3 O~ a9rE:am.nt:~" eitheC' \ret''!J....l o=- ",,,itten,.. bet'Ueen thet
pa~tl.s h.reto ahd not h~~elD contaLn&d.
.
i
I
.
SECTIO~ XI
SEVZAA3ILI7r
In the event th~t any part, ter~ or provision o! this
~9reem.n~~3 by ~ court of co~p.te5t jurisdiction found t~ be
111e9_1, the validity of the re~L,in9 portions and provisions shalL
not be affected and the right" and ol>U",adon, of th.. parti"" shall.
be. const1:'l.1ed and.enforcN ag if thi5 .A9.:etlt"en~ did not 'contain t:he
particular part, tero Or provision held to be so invalid.
SECTIO~ XI:::
COll'llTE~l>...a?'!
This Agree~nt ~y be ex~ted sl~ultaneously in two (2)
or mor$ ca~nterpart9, ~~ch 0: vhich 5h&11 bD ~ee~ed an original,
but all. 0: ",hien tOgOttHl1:t': I.lhZlll. co~~tit\1to one an" t.h", ~amo in9tr~";l!Jf'it_
SECTIOll X:!I
CAPTIO!l3
C~pt~ona ar. inclu~~ for convanl~nc~ only bnd ~hall be
91ven no lC9~1 effect WhAt::~o9V&r..
SEc.-rOll XIV
k'1.ENOME~""1"
7hia A~res~.nt bet~~~n the p&~tie~ ~h.ll not bs ~m~nd~
or lnOdified in any "'..nn.... .,,,ee,,,p!: i.n vrr::ing executed by ..11 p,,~tic,.*
SECTIO~ xv
APPLICA3L:: VI'"
-.
This ~9re~nt *h~ll. ~ 9~verne~ by ~nd construed in
accord4nc~ y!th lh. law~ ot th~ S~at& ot Florida.
SEeTIO>! 'r.JI
P"\~T:::E:S
~cept Aa heroin and othe~vi~5 ey.pcc531y prcvide~1 the
~onven~n~s. condltion~ ~d b9r~c~~0t3 cont~i~ed in thi3 A9ree~~nt
.,.h3l11 bin.:1 lInd inure to the- betler!'i.t. of th'3 p~'t.t.e:s h~:-eto, their
rC3p~ctlv6 hair" por~on~l repre5~nt~tlvc3. 5UCCC~50~~ and ~ssi9n3..
-.5
"
t .
i.
.
I
1
1
"
'-
1
I
.
,
j
1
1
-~
'-
//5' 1 n
A'V} L---- '
G
s~e-rtc~ X\1tr
Exec-us IV:: n~::E~:"r$
l'lo.thi.ng in thi.:t ~g-ce;!:':\~"~ i~ inteild~ !::o con~,::" u,?O:\' 01:'
.
l
I
t
.
91....;>> :In:! ,p.'J':'3::ln, t.t::r.t 0:- co:;po~;:a.t..to.n oth,~ th~n th!:7 ?~=':.I.er~ ]lec~t.Qp.
3nd thsir h~1~3, parson~l repCC3cnt~tiv9~, ~~~c~~~oF~ ~..d a~,19~.
.:Any right,) re;:\ady ot: clalt::a. unc!it= 0::: by re~5-0:\ o,E tht30. A3C'l!l:PJftCG'!:... Al
t~.r..,:!t ~:l4 condLt.lon3 of th1.~ 1\9:=ecMen~ s!":lIill. h!l fo:: ~5t sol. i'l,,04
c:xcl'':':)i.~.!.. bC:,\Qftt:. ot: t.ha part;i":ts hc;::~t;.t;). aml tn3;.i.:: sticca.5SoOC:J .l'ln4
bss.t9n~.
IN \-Jr";N~S:3 \tlHEPEO?, thit\. j\green::.en~ h~~ b~el'J" e-,,~u!:.:c;t in
~ul~ipl~ Q~igin~l3 on t~~ a~y ~nd y~~= [r~~~ ~bo~~ Yr!~~a~~
"'~;;S"C:
"11"7 . ;. t,.
J....:..i:.-.iZ~:#.?:.(. I J. /l)_-t.t~.~.,~
Corpo~~~c Sec~c~~~y
itt.7i-:CO D?:.~J=:!:.;)?M~~r;:" CO?~O?J\Tr.O~
. t \ . L \\ \. ~ -) 1\ . \'~
By ~_v_.i d. -1, .j"C'-z\~ I"
/ Pr"''''='~ \' J
L/
-,. ,..
l-litne:i.J:
" '--
J:-o I,>
(')
ATTEST:
PAtH BEACH COUaTY. flO?in~. BY
?s-ao~5';] Of ceu:!., CO:'_'HSS!OIlERS
6Y~1:<:C.- 4~~'~?/7.-
I:.JS. 1313 ( th)I"';:-I~l1
JOHN S. OU~KtE. Cl~~k
CJ.-; , LA"] / '
ay:~~~
Oep"~1 tlerk
Ac?ROVEO AS TO FORIl
AnD lEGAL SUFFICIEIlCY
..
1;/;.. ," f.", Ud7J
County Attorney
.
!
- & -
.. ----~-
-"---,"-------
-,
( ~
- ,. _ rI11
. ..::' C' - '_ .riz,~-
l,T.(:A1. 01.SCMIPrWIf /)
A. Tuct or ]"04 1ylo: In ponton. or So<'lo,. 17 ..oJ 2"_ 7'o~n_."l;> ~""'h.
.I1MgQ: ~l !:......t. P;alctt.r.cach Count)'. Flottd.. ..ore pa(':!;~l.\.rl1' l~sc:.rtx4 ;I.
1'0\10111": CCU-"CI1'" .i t.h. SO'Jt.h~at cot'nil!llr' ot "-1'U Sec::tt~1') 17; t_he:nc:.a. ::1).00'19"&
1'l1onJC tb. So~th 110_ of ..1d Scc:.tlon 11 tar 50...o~ fer:t; the-ne;ot:;:il. .44.tJ3"'?:, ~lona.
... th. :t..ltl'.rl.y :rtloht of VlIIt" ItOft ot Concce". Aven",. t~..,: 1~ 50.;:'':) fee.':. Eo.,,:. ~ncS .
pat'Ail1.1 to th. \:001. lina of f'IoOltd Section 17. to: 25S$..C~ ~=.t; t.hC:M:c- ~~9"'Oa.'9""
! Alon% the Sotolc.ho:l1 l'fs."~ of' "'!JY Itn. ot the ~.... "'~~1':!' t;:'.:a~n.J!c nt:t'::lcr; C;sn...t
: 1..-21 a. reC:Qtdfid 1~ OH1ctal Recorda .tO'ok 1132 .at t.a1e 512 ~~ thlt rl.t~l!.c ~ccorri,
.o! P...l,. ba:.u.b C:o\l.nt.1. FlQddA ,'Jl)d ita ~":lt.tl1 ext,=:",t()n CO:' IJS:'::ll rcp:'C to a.
. pootn't, an:A c"""". c:onc;~W. to th. SGut.he.as~. l>.~d.nz. :;~L"29'11-': {r::;ftr the r.a4!.u.$
potn't CJf :u~14 C:u1;'V_; th.-nee .101'1.1 the cltnt.~ Itn. o! t~. 1..::.... ';.~.:)t":h P::'..a!n~g;A .
D1!1ttl<:t F.q\J:at1.J,.tna C.an~l l-4'.,,:. tec:ordcd in. OfClet.l. ~,::cQrds !oo., 11)2 ';u:; PAZ_
612 of thll Public: Rqcord. of P.ab. '!e..ch Co~ntl. flo:-l:!. !o: t~!t (o11g..,!:\& fotJr
(4) COQ~~.~; (l) thence northe~Qt~rly alan; the _~e 0: t~~ !~~t ces::13ed
eUN." hav!n:, .. t":tdlo, of 7}O.OO tf!et: and a. ce.:'I:r.a1. a.n~te of '.0'... '11" fa: 53.29
fe." to.ll. p"tnt 0% t~n.Jency: (2) thencR lU2-)>';)::>"'l !o~ 3;'3.63' ta ~ y~1nl: of
c:.ut'V~t~-rotl to .. curve thAt 1. conC2&". to tho }:Qor:h~st.;. (3) t~e:'tc. .311".... tho .a.rc::.
ot ~314 cut"'.. h~y1n.3 .. l'.ad1u.:a of &500.00' r~e't ,,).n:S ... c.ent;".cl .an~le: of )"23.'30"
. tor 394.23 feat to ~ point of tanlenc::y; (l.) tb~~l:..o: H3".C.s.'J.)"'! !:>l" 1919..10 feet;
t.'h-=nc4 ~;S9"'16'39"e .310n& the lrot"th line of 5a1~ S!"~':.!an 11 to: 1=::5"'_51 feet:;
thenc. SO-Oz.'lt"e alonz th. E:<J:lt I1nfl of t.h.. t."~s.t ~ of t.~e: S:'!.. ':: o~ s.J.Ld
SectIon 17 [or 2625.18 teet; thcnt.e :13.9"05'49"1: ,,!o~~ t~e ~::)r:.::t litoe o! the
Sou:heOill$'C. \; of s:.!:! Seetion 11 fot' 36B..?S, feet to.a ?:>t:l: 0:\ t.1-.e }:~nh r1r.ht. of
way line pf ~~ 220d Ave"~. ~5 r~eor~ed in Offiel.1 ~~C~~~$ !~~< 11J~ ~t Pa&a
16SS or th.. t'ublJ.(:. Record:s of Y.l:tro te.i:l.cn COt.lllt;f.. 1"1 od.~~; t;..e:.",e 519-21' 31"r::
tor 5.9.00 !c.t to l\ point on th~ c:cntel:"llne o! said :i.l 2::':-:d. }...n:rll~~" $~!ti potnt.
'be-ln. on ~ Cutvb conc~vtlll to tho Soutl'<".1:"t .and. bl'::&:l:"l.!; 'S~'3"':n t 3 t";': fr04 the
f'3C:UU.s putnt ot ~1)1d curva; 'thence. alo!"J': !>.!l.td e.e:'\~c:'rl1.:.e rot" :!le. fo11:wL:13. two
(2) cout'3I1!'a; (t) thence NortllclJ=t~rlt .1]Cr.g thf: Ol:"c. o! t~~ ]""st G~s!:':":'bed
(;:urvtJI. h3.vtn3 .. t'3diu9 of 16)]."02 teet and .a. Ct::-l':=-~'!. ~:-.~:e o!: 21"t1"5,," for
6.05..66 fe.t. to a poInt or t~n&enel: (2) th~:'\ce. $::;;-l:\')r.::: {i:i:: ):':J~ca feet; .
thto:nt:. SO-3S'OO"1! .JI:long the Ea.=Jt.J.!.nlll of solid Sl!c:!o.n 11 for 50.04 {ee~; thcnco
~SS..13.J2'" Cor "'.04 (e~t; \hen<:~ :.lo:'lt th. \:c,o;:erly r~~~: o! v~'J H:-.c or HIe'"
Rld&l:I ~oad for th. (0110),1110,)' tvo (2) c:.ourses. $!~& 1!.::~ ly!n,;; (.5..00 fe:!c t:':3~
And fl'~\'al1~1 to the- [.ut. ltnen of sldd Scc.tta:n 11 ~;"l~ 23; C) ::he:-:c~ $O.)8'OO.'z
for 2591.3S fc.Z:; (2) thenc:. SO"4l)'21":: for 13n..S5 f~e:'; t!-;o:=:;ce ::~~r:g thO'
I{orth right of ~~:t litlO of th~ bO)'i'lIto~ C.J."al C-15 ;u, S~.F:1 C>'l ~ Cel'l::"Jll and
Soutb.:-o Florid::, Floo.d Control. J)1:stt'lc~ ;ttf,h-:. of ;.;'O\y }~7 !o-: th= Co-llc....1n3 ftv<<
(.5) c:olJr.se!J; (1) t.hll!nee l:aa-5o'oro"U Co:: ssa.9.4 (~.!::: {2} t":l:n::c- $1-03'5&"".1 for
25..00 fe4tt; (J) t'h~ne.. NSS-'s'O'Or,"W for 23.$3..5:' f~E;:; (1,) ~~e;":ce ~a"':'9'56'1:: for-
20.00 feet; (5) th~nl:ft N5n-50'04"~ Cor 2"76.11 fee:; t~cr.ce' $33-';0'15'''".1 fot'
17j.Ot. feCIt; t.'henc4I SS8.)'.'~3'~U .lof\J a H.n~ th:::. 1:1: llC..r;.~ ~eet. ~'P:-t'!oi an.d
parJlll"l tQ thlil S~uth linG of tl..., 11;" ~! tra :\~ n! S,J,!~ $e::~t'On 20 for 1!.eS..1S
.feet; th~neu lj().12'5~"'" .lon~ tha :nl1d [....H~rlr rIg"!): o~ Y:a:- l!n. er.f COl"l;;rt!:,a-
Avenu_. t.h.t 111 50..00 teGt ta-e.t ~nd p~r~llel tt' the. ~e..: l~r:e o! 5~1.d $c.I:;.'c10,",
20. for 12tO..6~ fe.: to thtl 'olnt ot ~~elnn1:;f. s.td. T':'.act con:~1.n. ~a4.2.
CTO'~ "'ct'e~J" ~01:it or lc.s= .and fD .ubJe<:t to C'.H.::::-~~r,:$ .a.nd ledic.J,t~J. of
r~cord_ .
I
I
I
'..-
:
" ..
.
.
.
.
-
I
.
.
S~VEYO~.S C~~ilfI=A!~
.
1: HEllEa't CI:Rllr'C, Th~t th<< 3bo,",1I' d~,c-rt'::le:d h:;~l l!:'5~'::'~;rt~~:'\ 1:1. true O\nd
t:orrect 1:r"~1::d C:ln ':5ut'vey by )-1ock" ):0031 .and Se.:rr.n::f. t:,:::.~ c.....I~3.'..1'!.!.!n~ 'Et'.g.tnec,,::;;: .:1.
a'ho'-'n on th.!'t" dl"'~.....ln.; }lo.. 45~)-11-2~, l;]st n:.,.1~c:! ~A:e 4-2)-1):...
.'
,
,7!o-!~ J <4r;;'?-//
r.t:r~:-::-~ $. $~iu"'C': .
r:;o!'~s'! :::~:11 bn~ SIl\"ve,1oc :>0. 210l
S;3t~ ot. F1cr!da
.-
~
~
I
!
J
:
i
Exhibit. 'A9
fAC Ii- ITYJ~J:'.n~,UIG;I2.
Since t:1~ i'latorol~ t'lanufacturing Development dnd Admini"trative Facility is
pri'''3riij an inctustricll complex, the applicant hilS been required to address
a seri05 of questions regarding the operation of the phnt.
Th3 P"'Q;JJsed r,10torola project I'lill involve the 1t311ufacture of portable communi-
cation.:; e'.luipm2:1t. Activities to be undertaken at the facility rest in ene of
two :"~j("r categories: dil'ectfactory operations and indirect (support) opera-
tic:~s, The fanner \'Iill be involved primari'ly \,:i th the prou:Jction and distribu-
tion of 1land-held radios; while the latter will includ~ thuS0 activities that
supf,ljrt production effOl'ts, e.g" engineerinq, financial m~nage",ent, 'll'arketing,
sales.
Due to the rrolative pl-oxir.~ity to bath its supol iers dnd the: existing f:otorola
plant 'f: PlilDtation, the Coynta:! fdci,iity \~ill not n~quii-'" supporting industrial
or (;()i1'",,,r'cial supplie,'s to be situ3ted near it, lhe prodll'::t:; neceSS'lry to
assemb1e {~nd dist,'ibute th= hand-hr;)d radios iJr'~ brlsic~'ny the same as those
requil-ecl by the Plant,ltion complex.
The product will be shipped via air freight. Although Palm Beach International
Airport is neal'by, its present ail' freight volume of 8,841,000 pounds is rapidly
approi!ching cilpacit/, Th21'efore, 'in ord8r to satiSfy th"ir projected air freight
r.e~:ds, r';otOt~old \,Jill L~}f]tinU2 to utilize i'1i':::~ri Jrrtc'rnatianal Airport. Beside-s
Palm fl23r:h's limited ail' fl'eight cepacity, Nier.,; is prefel'able, at this time,
due to the ilva i 1 abil ity of nUlTI2rOllS in terna t i ana 1 f1 ignts needed for the Company I s
over's'-:\?1S tr'ade.
TABLE 31,1, AIR FREiGHT P~OJECTIONS
Pha se I
Phase II
Phase I II
17,203,000
33,241,00')
38,2f\I,000
pounds/year
roour,dc/".oar
~"' . ~..; J ~ .
pounds/year
SOURCE: r":OTOfWLA /liH, OCTOBER 1979.
The proposed project will be run on three shifts.
TABLE 37,2, NU~13ER OF Et1PLOYEES
First Second Third
S h i f t ____ _,sh i _fl_ .______...2h i f t
Total
End of Philse I
End 0 f Phase II
End of Phase III
1,365
3,757
4,757
161
442
442
80
221
221
1,605
4,420
5,420
SOURCE: MOTOROLA ADA, OCTOBER 1979,
The il!)P~ cant hilS stilted that the starting and ending times \'/i11 be staggered
to mini;]. ze the impact of a major shift change on locill traffic. Starting
37-1
times for the day shift will be staggered at 15-minute intervals over a one
and one-half hour period between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. Oay shift ending
times will be similarly staggered between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Second
shift employees will report for work between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., and
they will leave between 12:00 a.m. and 12:30 a,m. Third shift employees
will report to work between 12:00 a.m. and 12:30 a.m" with ending times
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. (The third shift will be a shorter shift.)
These shift ratios and times will remain approximately the same through the
life of the project.
37-2
APPENDIX
';';Oliii
D,^ "
cL c}
\919
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
J
I
I
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
~,
"
DEVELOR"'ENT OF PEG IONAl PE4Cf
ASSESSf'fl!T PEPORT
FOR THE
~1 0 TOR 0 l A
rtANUFACllJRING) DEVELOR'1ENT AND .L\IT1INISTMTIVE F/\CILI1Y
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
PAU1 BEACH COUNTY
FLOR IDA
DECEMBER) 1979
PREPARED BY
TPfL\SlIRF. CO~ST PEGION.AL PL,\!\ININ'J COUfIL
50 KItIDRED STREET) STUART) FLORIDA (305) 286-3313
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
HEMBERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Honorable W. W. Siebert, Jr.
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
The Honorable Patrick B. Lyons
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
The Honorable Edward J. Nolan
Hayor, Town of Indian River Shores
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
The Honorable George D. Price
St. Lucie County Board of Commissioners
The Honorable W. R. McCain
st. Lucie County Board of Commissioners
The Honorable Buell L. Brown
Hayor, City of Port Pierce
MARTIN COUNTY
The Honorable Thomas J. Higgins
Martin County Board of Commissioners
The Honorable Lavon Bagwell
Hartin County Board of Commissioners
The Honorable Edward H. Gluckler
Mayor, Town of Sewall's Point
PALM BEACH COUNTY
The Honorable Dennis P. Koehler
Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners
The Honorable Norman Gregory
Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners
,The Honorable Peggy B. Evatt
Palm Beach County Board of Commissioners
The Honorable Charles W. Potter
Councilman, Town of Lantana
The Honorable Anita Yount
Mayor, Town of Glen Ridge
The Honorable William Konrad
Councilman, City of Boca Raton
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PROJECT ANALYSIS
1-1
II-1
III-1
13-1
Air
Fiscal Impact
13-1
15-1
17-1
20-1
20-6
21-1
22-1
23-1
24-1
25-1
27-1
28-1
29-1
Water
~
~
I
'.
~
~
~
-
I
I
I
I
Floodplains
Employment and Economics
Wastewater
Drainage
Water Supply
Solid Waste
Energy
Recreation and Open Space
Health Care
Police Protection
Fire Protection
30-1
31-1
37-1
Transportation
Facility Operations
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REPORT
Appendix
IV-1
REFERENCES
12.1
13.1
20.1
20.2
20.3
u
20.4
20.5
20.6
24.1
30.1
31.1
31.2
31.3
37.1
37.2
LIST OF TABLES
Motorola Phasing
Average Daily Emissions (Pounds/Day)
Palm Beach Employment Statistics 1970-August 1979
Estimated Employment in Nonagricultural Establishments,
West Palm Beach/Boca Raton SMSA (Palm Beach County)
Estimated Geographic Distribution of Construction
Expenditures (1979 Dollars)
Estimated Employment and Payroll
Nonc)nstruction Employment by Income Range (1979 Dollars)
Ad valorem Tax Revenues
Projected Solid/Chemical Wastes by Phase
Fire Protection Services Which Would Serve Motorola Site
Trip Generation Rates
Levels of Service
Average Daily Trips and Employment by Phase
Air Freight Projections
Number of Employees
B-2
13-1
20-2
20-3
20-4
20-4
20-4
20-7
24-1
30-1
31-1
31-3
31-3
37-1
37-1
-,~_..-
12.1
12.2
31.1
31.2
31.3
31.4
31. 5
LIST OF EXHIBITS
t'lotorola Location flap
~Iotorola Conceptual Site Plan and Phasing
Existing Conditions
Phase I Conditions (1981)
Phase II Conditions (1990)
Phase III Conditions (2000)
Summary of Traffic Conditions
II-2
II-3
31-5
31-6
31-7
31-9
31-10
~,_,~~_~',"-""""~.'~r _1'.~'.CT:-:~,~",~.~_, 1"~':"~",,~,_"":'''~'':f:0'.oIJ' __'e__-'W' "_4.~~~~;'.OWlI!~.!:w~l}~,~~~~;o:,tfA::S~~;~"~lrr~j&';;:~j~~~~.'.
INTRODUCTION
This report of the proposed Motorola Development of Regional Impact has been
prepared by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, as required by
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. It is intended that this impact assessment
report will provide the City of Boynton Beach with an overview of the positive
and negative impacts likely to result from approval of the proposal. The
recommendations of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council are developed
to assist local government in reaching a Development Order for the proposed
development. They do not foreclose or abridge the legal responsibility of
local government to act pursuant to applicable local laws or ordinances.
The Motorola ADA, submitted on or about October 1, 1979, was supplemented by
the material forwarded by the applicant under cover letters dated October 11,
1979 and November 21, 1979. The applicant was not required to respond to the
following questions in the ADA for the reasons listed:
14. Land
Soils information was pertinent to drainage and would be
adequately addressed in answering Question 22, Drainage.
16. Hetl ands
The site contains no wetland areas.
18. Vegetation and Hildlife
The site has been previously altered and contains little
or no significant vegetation or wildlife habitat.
19. Historical and Archaeological Sites
The site has been previously altered and offers no evidence
of sites.
26. Educa ti on
The proposed project contains no residences and, therefore,
the question is not applicable,
32. Housing
The proposed project contains no residences and, therefore,
the question is not applicable,
39. Office Parks
The proposed office space is for Motorola's sole use and,
therefor'e, the question is not appl icable.
1-1
_._----_._-------~--_._-----
,
I
I
I
I
Ii
II
II
i'
It
II
!i
II
'il
H'
I:
, I
II
j!
I'
1,1
[ii'
Ii:
ii"
II)
1'1
,I'
",
ii,
II
J
; Ii)
i "I
Iii
, "
il
i,l
il
:1
Ii
ill
Iii'
,f.
"
ill
Iii
:,11
lllj.:
'i!i
1111'
ill
III
~III
f
,
1/28/85
MLL
STATUS REPORT ON MOTOROLA
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
ADMINISTRATION
1. No action required.
2. No action required.
3. Copies of the master plan are enclosed.
ENVIRONMENT-AIR
1. Complex source permit #AC-50-2576-2 was issued to
Motorola on January 14, 1980. Complex source rules
have since been removed from the Florida Administrative
Code, and are no longer in effect. See attached letter
from the Florida Department of Environmenal Regulation
(Attachment I).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
1. No archaeological artifacts were found during project
construction.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
1. No on-site systems for treatment or disposal of
wastewater are being used. However, a cafeteria grease
trap,which is pumped out every other month by a
commercial service,has been installed to ensure that
cafeteria wastes are not put into the public wastewater
system.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-DRAINAGE
1. All drainage facilities were reviewed and approved by
the South Florida Water Management District, Lake Worth
Drainage District, Army Corps of Engineers and Florida
Department of Environmenal Regulation. Plans and
actual facilities meet all specified requirements.
2. All drainage facilities are operated and maintained by
Motorola.
.
"
Page-2-
3. Motorola contracts with sweep-a-lot for monthly
sweeping of loading docks and quarterly sweeping of all
parking lots. In addition, Motorola staff monitors the
condition of all paved surfaces daily, and eliminates
any buildup of dirt or debris.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-WATER SUPPLY
1. A water well was installed and is operated by Motorola
pursuant to South Florida Water Management District
Water Use Permit Number 50-01194-W.
2. a)Backup fire water system pumps have been installed as
set forth in the ADA and are checked and inspected
regularly.
b)Further analysis subsequent to the ADA submission
concluded that the combination of public water and the
retention lake have provided adequate water supply, and
a storage tank was not installed.
clOne on-site retention lake has been constructed and
is available as a source of fire protection water. The
second lake will be added in conjunction with Phase III
ot the project, as specified in the ADA and Master
Plan.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-SOLID WASTE
1. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has
reviewed the information on Motorola's chemical wastes
and handling procedures, as set forth in the Hazardous
Waste Activity Form, submitted August 1983, and has
approved them. Motorola operates under identification
number FLD 980799100.
Motorola utilizes the services of Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. (EPA ID # FLD 000776708), Chern Conn
Corp. (EPA ID # FLD 980559728) and Seaboard Chemicals
(EPA ID # NCD 071574164) for the shipment and
disposition of hazardous waste.
2. See response to I} above.
3. Approval received September 1983, prior to commencement
of operations involving hazardous waste.
PUBLIC FACILITIES-ENERGY
1. A study of a solar domestic hot water system was
,
.
Page-3-
conducted in June 1980, and was not found to be
economically feasible. Motorola believes that the
results of this study were communicated to the TCRPC
and the city, but, since files contain no transmittal
letter, a copy of the study is being included with this
report (Attachment II).
2. Motorola has been advised that this provision is no
longer being monitored by the TCRPC. However, for your
records, these generators have been installed.
3. Motorola has been advised that this provision is no
longer being monitored by the TCRPC. However, for your
records, a feasibility study of a roof spray cooling
system was conducted in September 1980, and it was
determined that it was not feasible.
TRANSPORTATION
1. Easement provided and bikeway constructed.
2. Motorola and the Boynton Beach Police Department
reviewed the proposed operations and jointly agreed
that no security fencing is required at present.
3. No action required on the part of Motorola. In fact,
many of thse improvements have been completed, or are
currently under construction with funding from State
Economic Development Trust Funds obtained specifically
for Motorola.
4. The ADA provided notice of Phase I construction.
Notice of all future phases will be provided as
specified.
5. All rights-of-way dedicated as specified.
6. A report on Motorola's car pooling program was
submitted to all specified agencies in November 1984.
7. An analysis of van pooling concluded that such a
program was not feasible at the present time. Reports
were submitted to all specified agencies in November
1984.
8. In October 1983, representatives of Motorola and the
City of Boynton Beach reached an agreement that this
condition would be more appropriately met by a report
at the time that Phase I occupancy is complete and
.
Page-4-
.
employee/relocation patterns are stabilized, rather
than at the commencement of phase I actiities, as
specified in the Developement Order.Reports were
submitted to all specified agencies in November 1984.
9. Staggered shifts are in effect as set forth in the ADA.
.
ATTACHMENT II
1
1
1
,
1
~
1
1
J
i
I
I
I
1
J
J
J
J
MOTOROLA, I NC .
BOYNTON BEACH FACILITY
A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A
SOLAR DOMESTIC HOT WATER SYSTEM
HEERY ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC.
880 West Peachtree St., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
June 6, 1980
I
1
1
1
"
1
~
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
J
J
J
J
MOTOROLA, INC.
BOYNTON BEACH FACILITY
A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF
A SOLAR DOMESTIC HOT WATER SYSTEM
by
HEERY ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC.
880 West Peachtree St., N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
June 6, 1980
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
When compared to a conventional electric system, a flat plate liquid
solar domestic hot water system (DHW), using 2,000 Sq. Ft. of collectors,
will have a discounted pay-back period of 6.1 years. The life-cycle
savings (over 30 years) will be about $100,300.00.
This assumes a first cost of $30 per Sq. Ft. of collector minus a
15% direct U. S. tax credit. This gives a total net first cost of
$51,000.00. It should be noted that if any hot water can also be used for
any type of industrial process, an additional 10% direct tax credit can
be taken.
This study analyzes the hot water system needs for the facility's
cafeteria. It is estimated that it will serve approximately 1,600 people
per day a lunch meal, and will also provide snacks between 6:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. The total hot water demand per day is estimated at 3,500
gallons. We have not included the facility's restrooms, because of the long
distance between them and the cafeteria, and the implied cost for piping
to serve these restrooms.
This report includes preliminary cost differences based on average
local installation costs of solar system components. A more detailed
cost analysis can be developed only after the selection and design of
the most cost efficient integration of mechanical and solar systems.
The systems were evaluated by the F-chart hand-held computer analysis
technique. The first costs were reduced by 15% to account for the avail-
able federal solar tax credit. All economic criteria are based on DOE
fuel cost projections, local solar systems costs, and typical business
parameters (see page 6).,
-1-
I
1
1
,
1
~
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
J
j
j
J
J
SYSTEM ANALYSIS
The solar system used in this analysis is a flat-plate, liquid, two-
tank, drain-down system as described in Figure I. The solar heated water
will be stored in the solar tank which will serve as a preheat tank for
the conventional DHW tank. The collector pumps will be controlled by a
standard differential controller which reads the relative temperatures
of the solar tank and the solar collectors. The system is estimated to
have a load of 3500 gallons per day. A solar system with 2000 ft2 of
collectors will cost about $51,000, and will deliver 63% of the annual
DHW load.
Electric vs. Solar
Increase in Investment Costs -
Net Present Value of Savings -
15% tax credits
5 years
8 years
30 years
= $ 51,000.00
= - 1,442.00
= + 3,694.00
= + 100,295.00
$ 5,312.00
6.1 years
First year fuel cost savings
Discounted payback period
DOMESTIC HOT WATER SYSTEM ASSUMPTIONS
1. A solar heat storage tank of 1.8 gallons per ft2 of collectors
2. An average daily usage of 3500 gallons
3. F'r('C'cC)n = .762
4. FrU1 = 1.2
5. Set temperature of 1400 F
6. Mains termperature average of 740 F
7. A salvage value of 0
8. A mortgage period of thirty years
9. Economic analysis periods of 5, 8, 30 years
10. Depreciation period of 30 years
11. Income tax bracket = .46
12. Property tax rate = 0.0 (solar systems are exempt)
13. Insurance and maintenance cost at first year = .01 x investment cost
14. Down payment = .10 x investment cost
15. Discount rate = .10
16. Mortgage interest rate = .12
17. Inflation rate - .10
18. Fuel inflation rate = .14 (elec.)
19. Collector area dependent costs = $15/ft2 - 15% Federal tax credit = $12.75
20. Fixed solar system costs = $30,000.00 - 15% Federal tax credit = $25,500.00
21. Annual load = 702.64 MMBtu
22. Electricity = $12.00/MMBtu
-2-
\
\
\
\
""
...'"
......
4>'"
.s:.4>
s-O'
",'"
.-S-
0;\
"'",
\
S-
;\
<)
4>
.-
.-
o
u
S-
'"
.-
o
'"
\
\
\
1
\
\
-3-
\
'"
4>
"5
...
.....
""
;\
.,..,
S-'-
4>C>o
...C>o
",::>
>'"
-::
~
u.l
r-
(/)
>-
(/)
ex:
w
r-
<1
~
:>'
<->
-
... r-
0"" (/)
.s:.", \u
u'" --
....... ,,;
"'S- 0
'" 4> D
~...
0'" ex:
-<:>>
0
u..
(9
z
-
r-
<1
W
:t:
0:
<1
..J
o
(/)
W
0:
t:
\
..' -----------
I
l
1
1
,
l'
~
1
1
1
1
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
F-CHART WEATHER DATA
MOTOROLA MFG. FACILITY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Er)T:;L = :'14
1.
-,,-, .,= ,-,
'::'1_: .:... _'s ::
:'
c-.
::'.:i 1 ':! ::
........... -'
"_'a
':: !:~...-::' '-I
....."- "- ..... ~ .
::;25'::. 1
c
-'.
3475.2
t.
,-, ~ .~,~ ,-,
..:' _!"'t '"7. .:'
-
, ,
::;:'::"?? 4
.-, -, -, -. -,
...:,...:'.::.,. ..:'
-.".
2'?';~. ?
lC.
2~4..:. :::
..i. .i.
21 ::1. ::
1 '?:::: r 1
i.
1.
1. 42
6.1,
O. '?4
:::6.
1647.
C-,
1. :. 7"'
6t.
'?o.
O. '?4
1761.
-
-'.
70.
1. 11
,
...
1:: ;2:::.
C. '?t
4.
";
I_i, ':,
( ':"
o.
t'l
.i. -;-'.13.
Cr, e:::
~
'-'I'
-
, .
-:0,-,
1 :'.
c. :: 5
o.
-.
: t 2. '?
o. ?::
b.
.,",
;:: : .
1.04
u.
1 C.
1 :Ct.
1. 1 '3
11.
! .
.... -'-'
,:..:. .
o.
1':'
.i.,;....
1 co .~ ~
... _I"'t !"
1. .:.t t.
'-' .
,-,.-,
':'.:. "'
c.
1594.
::: 1.
o.
1~'-'J::"
"-' .:. -.
10..
i ,
O.
155 ).
.i. .i..
! ..:..
16~.:::"
12.
t t.
! i",
15t,7.
,
.
I
'1
1
1
~
1
~
1
1
1
1
J
J
)
J
J
J
J
J
F-CHART THERMAL ANALYSIS
MOTOROLA MFG, FACILITY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
i
" .
0:75
.:'
~.
o.eo
.~~ .
o. : ::
C!. :' 1
~
-.
C. -'3
t.
O. 7'5
, .
c. -,-,
,;.
l-j -,:;
0. -:::
1 !-,
... '~ .
O.~5
11.
1-\ ~':'
'-'. '-'
1 :.
....;...
0. (.~:
1 '::::.
~ CiCiO.
~c.=.. t.4 tit,
O. ""7:::
1
..
C.tO
,-
~.
O.t5
'':'.
O. t '?
,1
"t.
':1. t 7'
~
O.E4
E.
c. :!?-
, -
Ci.E2
':'
'-'"
r!. ~: 4.
Ci. t ';:
1 (1.
0.60
1 i
O.E4
1':'
.l.~.
o. 5:::
1 :::.
:::~CC1Cl.
702. 64 Ot-
Ci.t3
-5-
-- -.-........--.-..--.- ...----,--------- .....~._,-_.__. .-- --
1
,.
o. ::::7
.....
o. ~O
'':'.
I-! .1:'
'-'. :-_,
.i
0.41
~
c. .;:?
t.
O. :: t,
~
, .
U. .:;
'-.
o. '; :::
.,'.
U. .:;:;
; I-I
.l '_'.
O. .36
11.
o. :'~
1 :::..
'-I :~~
1 :'
... '-'.
100Ci.
7C'::".64 nf
C.3::::
I
"1
1
1
,
1
~
1
1
1
I
I
J
I
J
J
J
J
J
F-CHART ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
MOTOROLA MFG. FACILITY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
:,0.
C'.
c.;::::
1000.
7066. 2~-;-t";'~:
...... -, . ,- ,- -. -, -,,-
I _...... .I. .:": ...-. ::'
1-- ':.:;
.;.CiCii_i.
1 ::: 0 :>:: ~ ': . i.! ? ?
:3~,~::~. ~t7~t7
O. --;:
:'ni-';":
"- "- -' '- .
- - .-. -, - ..... - - .....
.::..::.U J.::., _ _ .
.:+ ~;'~;~r ;: 4.~ 1 :;:
t' . .-,
'I ; r"
E '!'F.
FFRC
Hr. ::.t"i
F: :,F, .
C ':.R'.'
FF'fiC
AFER
F:': !-11'
C ':,ff'
F;'F11~
Hr'Efi
F'::H',.'
C ': A\/
:::0"
t.
u. .3d
1 CiCIO.
':>::;:'7. E _ ?:::~ 1
-24:::4. 74?744
0.6::::
;;:uuu.
~'?5-;-'. (1 ?C171 ~::
42. .3;;::::~ ;:70;::
C1.~e
20t,;:'. 51 i 1
- 51. 1::?~37
-n-
n 'iF:
E \'F'
F~.t1C
AFEA
P :,R'.,1
C :;ff:
FF,RC
APEfi
F': H"
C :'n\'
FF,RC
FiF.ER
F:':.A'....
C':,Ft'.,.'
'- '- .
':'1-,
D.
!:i. 46
c.
1- 1-\ 1
O. 1
r, 1
'_'a .!.
O. 12
o. 1
D. 14
12.7"5
::::: 00.
702.64
. -,
l'::' .
~ i-: c! 1-:.
- - - - -
1 ~ t:',,;!, ') (i j-;:,:':
. . ... '.',.
- - - - - - - - --
t:"=;ni-i? :'! : r :.
- -.. - -- - - - --
c= t ~'
_ ;!1;
'- - '-' '-':
- - - - . - ...-
;;: _':. : U':. :!_ '_ :.
1 i-li-l..~' =:a~. i :-,~~
- - - -. - - - - - -
r- : 7~::
'-'. ; -
2'?Oi~ --f. ~~?
151-:O::~. ~t::;
.::u.
5.
1-1 .: ':'
'-'. '- '-'
: CCjO.
J;J41. C'~l~::C?
-.~'1,:j J. ': ~C ?:::::
'_. t,.::
~C10C!.
~,~ ("!,
.~:......:: ::'~.:
-1'::;4~. ::t47'?:
I-I .....,:'
~ CCCi.
7~,:;C!. 1 CJC t
-1 ?~,'? ;: :: 22~,,:;
i'l ',,'P
E ''iF:
II ','F'
':;AL\,I
I T::<
F' T::
I t'1
IimH1
Ii I ::,C
ItH
G I t-~F
FItW
DL,"A
IiLF:':
LOAD
FUEL
FF'AC
AFER
P:W,.'
r ':,~!,.'
FF'RC-
AFEA
1= :'Q',,'
C:~,AI t .
FPPC
AF-:EA
F:':.A'.,.'
C':;AI",I
t'1 "'F:
E 'iF:
FF:AC
APEA
F"::A','
C':,AI",'
FF'AC
AFEA
F: :,fi\-t
C.':,A','
FPAC
Hr?EA
F ,:'R'/
C::;AI,;'
"
I
1
1
1
,
1
~
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
J
J
J
j
J
MOT 012 o '-A. I~c..
K \TC-4 tz:N 1401 \V",n;:.-t2.. PeMANP
- ,P\l.fiA-.1 M _ A 141 0 lJ H-r
1$ Y T€. L-ft.
Ft20M -To ~ CAlM AC--f+O
1;""- \.3- B..::>
.
/_ t EQ V I ~t:1 ,'-( 0 TfC..I41;'.
"'to
bO
~~O
1-0
z,,(
-z...,
55 Z.
0'-'-'
4Al..~I-4S/HIe.../f) A'f
'0
c:E:. I 00 ~FF.
f(U)8AC'-E. LJ5fL "......"'" - $ f'~.
~Z- ~k~1'" o:r llo$ 1- ., lw- -" 'f4 qe, ~j jJ""1-.:r
o Icr>jo
~ ~Sr: - Cy~./~'f P1Z-M~D - 't-/1.7/eo)
~. ~Pll "" Ibo 0 ~ ;-wo ~f- /d"',
<?~\J~D ~ "$-.fZ:D ~..w./~
tlltt-i? tt t Ull tit l vIIi.
-7-
~0~\
--'t ·
t
~ ~.u,~, ~ s
:;:<fl :;: r])- or "'"" ;,:'" 0'" n "
"l o"l 1-''' ro 0> ",,0> .... .... .....
I-' %~ 0>0 0> ( ....,Ill r1" r1"
m7" 0> ro 0>1-' I-' r1"
0 ;j C ;j I- ",,;;1 <: ><: ><:
" ro " 0> <" 0> r1" <"ro ;j 0> 1-';;1
, ..... ;j ..... 10;$ 10;$ " o;)m r1" M 0 0
III I>' 0
t 0. <,,0. ro ro .....$ .....C ;$0: 0;) ro "" '"" ""
;;I "l ;;I '"'l Cl 0 0;) M ro \\
, 0> III 0> Ul 0>
-' I-' rol-' rol-' r1"" IOro cO> Ol I>' I>'
ro Cl 'OCl
0 0 0;) 0 0;) 0 r1" 0;$ 0 0 0
::oro ::O(\) r1"M r1"M ;$ nn '0;$ ><: ><: ><:
ro'O (\)'tl .... .... 00 III M 0;) 0;)
1Or1" 10<" co. 00. 0 C III "n <"n 0;)
0> 0 '0 r1" r1"
C . C . ....0> .....Ill M 0;) Ul <,,0 0 0
I-' I-' m m 0> Cl<" ;;I C <"C 0;) ;j 0;)
III 0 III 0 <,,$ r1"$ .... .... ro;j .....0;)
r1""" <,,"" M 0> ,,0> 0;) 1-'::0 0;)<" o r1" I>' ~
....<" ....<" ~ ro r1"><: 0;)><: I>'
.... ..... 10 ro ro
ot'! ot'! Cl ro Cl (\) 0 III 0> 0>
<,," ro ....
0;)0;) 0;)0;) r1"" (\) Cl Cl Cl
<: < 0 'tl ;$ ?" ;$
.... .... 0;) r1"
" " 0>
\ \ I-' .
<,,'" III \ n $ o-o><fl<fl nO 0 $ n '" Ol ~
C I-' C
....0 ,,00 III - -'< ~ OM ~ 0> "" "6
" 0> .... ..
01-' (\)<;;~ <" n)'UlM ;j 0> <" 0- r1" I-' 0 ...:
0;)1-' ro o'tl <" "" 0;) .... \ (\) '" 0;) '" ""
0;) '0 ro 0> roo;) b M
C ';jur-- " n ~ .... ..... t'! 0
'tl<" o "" ro Ul,,;;ICl Cl 0> \ :5 :5 ~
ro .... ";1')< C <,,0 (\) r1"1O )' Ul C '0 0
M< ....ro ro r1"
" 0 I-'ro m rl --.... "l r
;;I 0;) om<fl ro C 0> $ 0 ~ t'. '" 0 '0 0 )'
..... 0;) ro 0 Cll-' III 0;)0 ro < (\) ro 'CI
r1"m 10 C '" r1" r1" C Cl M ro < ;3 I>'C<fl
" III M
0 ro"" ro ...-0 (\) 'CI<" ~ ;;I I-' ;;I (\) o~C
~C "roCl M 0"" M ro"" 0> I-' :;: ...: :;:
'0 .... .....
'tl" IOro ;;I 0;) " 0> '0 <" r1" 0 ..... zt'!:;:
Ocl ....C .... --....'CI :;:: ;;II-' (\) m ~ "" ",,1:"')'
....ro ;j......'CI <" 01-' 0> .....1-' 0;) M --.... 00::0
0;) III ro '00> 0;) <" <" 0 ro ~ Z'CI"':
r1"Cl ro<"" roo;) 0> 0> < 0;) :;:
0 "" .... ;;I " 10 <" 0> r1" '" 0lt'!0
Ul =' ",,0 .... 0> (\) ..... I-' ~ t'lz"l
0 Ul (\);j<" <" ;;I 0 0 )'""
C <" cl m .... ro =' " -<: n '"
" M rt 0 0;) 0. r. ;,:Ot'l
cl C ;j rt (\) ~ "l::O
roO M :;:
~ \ "l::O.....
rt'!""
OGl<fl
:;0.....
.....O"l
OzO
:l")'::O
r
.....
:;:
0-0> 'CI$ OOCl$ 0",'CI ......... 0 'CI
)' ~ '" :l"'CI ",,=,co> ",,01-' CJJCJJCJJ M '" :l"
n 0 ~~ I III ",...,..., 0. t'! n
""rfl rt .....
\ IJl I 1-'''' "nUl< ",,,,rt \ \ \ ... ~ ""
'" 0 0 00 n'" o 0 ro o>C 000 -1
0 \ I-' ",\ o>o;)t'.o. ......0-0- ",,,,,,, oJ;> .....
\ '" I-' ",0 <fl'" I ""
0.10 ro ;;II-' 0 oJ;> v;> v;>
..., IJl oJ;> 1-'0 '" ",,,,... w
",\ "Mo- ....0
cP -1 ... IV;> oCJJ ....ro (\) ro I>'cl7" '" Z
tV '" I .....w II-' ;;I Ul cl ro c
'" \ $ I-' '0 Ul '" 0> 0>:;0-1 :;:
'" '" I ... I>'
oJ;> " ro C cl (\) ~
<fl -1 olllmm ";1'0 t'l
... < =' ....ro O'CI ::0
'" ro 0.10 n"lO
e 0;) III o 0.'
(\)",rol-' . Ul
=,"'0.1-'
<"
)'Illo;)
'O<o;)ro
"roo.O
0:1 (l>
.......C cl Ul
(l> (l> 0 Ul ......
'" ...... o mo;)O> I-' ...
... I-' cP ...... rt Ul" 0 I I jc
I \ I tv \ '" 0> r1"><: I I-' -1
...... v;> \ tv I . rfl)'
'" mM cP '" \
W ... I ...... ... ...... CO ...... I cP C""
I I CJJ 0 \ 0 'tlOC CJJ 0 t'lt'!
CJJ cP ... \ CJJ I tv 0
0 0 cP ..., -1 0> r1""
.... ." ,,(\)o-
rt'"
111 u,aH1\::lVllV
. .__."_..-----------~~...----
'0'0
ro '"
'110
'Oc:: t'lC:: - 0 :l "l 0 "l '3 ro
'1 . :l . "ro ..... :l ..... .....1
o (fl 1O(fl 00 0 '3 0 rt'"
rt . ...... :I: 00 '1 ro '1 00 I
ro :l 0 ..... :l .....
() t'l ro:l>' rt:<lo' rto'
rt:l ro'1 ro ro '" '" '"
.....<: '1 '3 .....10 ..... :l>'
0..... 00'<: 00 C 0 0 G)
:l '1 .....ro :<lro t'l
0 () ..."''0 ro'O Z
:l>':l 0 rtrt IOrt ()
10 '3 '1 ~ ...... C . ><
ro ro '0 ro 0 .....
:l :l 00 00 :l 0 '" 0
() rt rt',"" rt'""
'<: '" 0 '" 0 .....
..... '"" c: ...."tIl 0 t'l
'1 <: C :l :l
Ql ,..."(1) <:
=' en 1-". .....
rt..... I '1
00 0 1
:l
z 0 "'J 0, ZO
0 '1 0 '1 o '1
ro 0 '" rtro
0 0, 0, ..... ro 0,
..... 10 ::sulO >-l
00 ro (fl '" <1l ><
() <1l 1O"l '0
:J" '" '1 roo", t'l
'" :l <: t'l:l
'1 0, ..... ,",,:<lo' 0
10 () '" "l
<1l '"" <1l () :l '""
..... .....0 ..... '0
() ..... () ..... ..... t'l
<1l ..... 0 1-'01--' I--' :<l
'1 :l rtO ~
rt '0 rt ""o::S to H
..... <1l '1 <1l 10 <1l >-l
'"" '1 0 00 ro '1 ,
..... '3 ..... '1 '3 :l>'
() ..... ..... '0
'" rt Z '0 rt '0
rt 0 <1l 13
..... '1
0 '3 <:
:l ..... :l>'
rt t"'
00
-.J '" 0
'" 0 "l '0
t"' 1 U1 t'l
1 0 0 :<l
..... '" 1 ~
\.oJ .. '" H
\.oJ 0 U1 >-l
'" \.oJ ex>
:<l -.J Z
U1 c::
I ~
'" ttl
t'l t'l
:<l
..... '" .....t'l \.oJ
..... 1 "'X I H
I U1 1'0 '" (flO
'" 1 .......... .. (fl:l>'
'" ex> I '1 1 C::>-l
1 0 ex><1l ex> t'lt'l .
-.J U100 0 0
'"
J
-~~_.._-
I~
ADMINISTRATION
1. a, b, c, d - no response necessary.
2. No response necessary.
3. Plans were submitted and Phase I of the project is completed.
ENVIRONMENT
AIR
1. Permit issued Number AC-50-2576-2
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
1. No archeological sites or artifacts were found on site.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
1. The City of Boynton Beach provides sewage treatment for the
Motorola development through the SCRWTD Board.
DRAINAGE
1.
All olans were approved by the South Florida Water Management
Disti:ict.
2.
On-site drainage facilities are maintained by Motorola.
3.
Motorola is under contract with a private vacuum sweeping
company and regular maintenance is conducted.
WATER SUPPLY
1. A water well was constructed and permitted by the South Florida
Water Management District permit number 50-01194-W.
2. a. Backup pumps have been installed.
b. The combination of public water supply and surface water
has replaced the function to be served by the water storage
tank.
c. One lake has been constructed and one is planned for
Phase II.
Page Two.
SOLID WASTE
1. Florida Department of Environmental Reaulations has approved
Motorola's activities regarding hazard6us waste.
2. Motorola utilizes the services of Chemical Waste Management,
Chem Conn Corporation and Seaboard Chemicals, all of which
are licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
3. See 1 and 2 above.
ENERGY
1. The use of solar energy to generate hot water was studied and
found not to be feasible.
2. The generators have been installed.
3. A roof-spray system was analyzed and found not to be
feasible.
TRANSPORTATION
1. The easement has been provided and the bikeway constructed.
2. The study was conducted and it was mutually agreed that
security fencing is currently not required.
3. a. Improvements completed, but traffic signals are not
yet warranted.
b. Improvements completed.
c. 1. Section III - Improvement superseded - see
Boynton Beach Park of Commerce Development Order
2. section IV - improvements under construction
3. Section V- improvement completed
4. Section VI - improvement completed
d. Congress Avenue is constructed as a four-lane roadway
expandable to six lanes from south of Boynton Beach
Boulevard to north of N.W. 22nd Avenue and Congress
Avenue is under construction from north of N.W. 22nd
Avenue to Lantana Road as a four-lane roadway expandable
to six lanes.
4. Notice will be provided.
.age Three.
5. Rights-of-way have been dedicated.
6. Report has not been received by this office.
7. A van-pooling study was conducted and found not to be
feasible.
8. This condition was placed in abeyance until such time as
employee patterns have stabilized.
9. staggered shifts were implemented.
..
i
!
I
!
I
I
I
~
J
i
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
.
I
I
GENERAL PROJECT
DES C RIP T ION
,
~---- --.-----.-----------. ,
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME:
Motorola Manufacturing, Development and Administrative Facility
APPLICANT:
Notorol a. Ine.
1303 Algonquin Road
Schaumberg, Illinois 60196
(312) 397-5000
AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Heery & Heery
Architects & Engineers, Inc.
880 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta. Georgia 30309
(404) 381-9880
SUBMISSION DATE:
October 1. 1979
PROJECT LOCATION:
The f10torola site is located in the City of Boynton Beach at the southeast
corner of Congress Avenue and N. \L 22nd Avenue.
GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTION:
The Motorola site is entirely within the City of Boynton Beach, but is
bordered by unincorporated Palm Beach County on the west.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project is a light industrial development with related office facilities.
The site is approximately gO acres and will contain a 625,000 square feet
facility for manufacturing and associated engineering offices. Four auxiliary
office buildings of 50,000 square feet each are also planned. \'Jhen completed,
the facility will employ an estimated 5,420 people.
The project is anticipated to be developed in six phases. However, for pur-
poses of the ADA analysis, only three phases were analyzed. Table 12.1
describes the six project ohases and three ADA phases. Phases II-a and
III-b each consist of 100,000 square feet of auxiliary office spac~.
II-I
LAKi F~~=~-._......._.- -'(1 171
; i III;
I LANTANA \1 I (~ !
iI (/ i ! I~ If
! I ,/
I! >.1AN LA' AI
.. -.-.-. .....1 I 'I'
,I! ) (. I
I I . . f
olliJxorh! ,
'1 I i()j /
fi ?; Ii ~"
I ! ! :. I
._:-!"* u . /
I ! ~ If
... I''Q I
., !!ii \
:0 'lie )i
,!~ .)11
, ,
~
n '? '0;(
ji ,0-
Ii"' ;
-/ ,
I. I Atlantle
!/ . Ocean
..
ij
ii
If{\]
I i
ii
i;
ii
;1
J)
J
ii
Ii:....
.;
"
/r'- ~'.-:;
!
~
~
m
m:.-
-
,
-
D
EXHIBIT 12.1. r'10TOROLA LOCATION !'lAP
o
n
ATLANTIS
o
u
HYPOLUXO
a'-'-'-'-'-'
i
J-'-'-
.-.-.-. ,.-.-,
I i .,.
i. ,
.1 i
!i .
! r'
J i
J
; I
i !
::-._._. I
I I
J
!
!H
._~ !
"'! I
! -.-.
, !
i.._._._._!
I
i_._._.
u
-.-.-,
i
--,
i
:"-'-''''l'
I
I
I
1
I
I
HW22".VE
I
I
I
.j
I
.._._..1
~
co
Di
0'
w
"
~
co
::l
....
..
CJ
E
o
-'
..
w
u
t:
c:
"
..
~
BOYNTO
BEACH
0:
-'
<:
c:
....
>-
c:
<
....
:J
,.
>-
",
~
U
..
W
'"
Ul
BOYNTON PO. .-
N.W.2 AVE
DI
I
J
i
I
i
i
i
i
....-1
!
I
i
1
n
S.W.15
n
u
OELRA Y BEACH
3 mile$
o
SOURCE: MOTOROLA ADA.
n
OEV:::...O?\~=NT OF REGiONAL IMPACT
IQ'j)
ill Cy;rD,'Fl;~O~LA
_::,,:l" ~ ...,,::::::f
...,-.'.,..-.-....
~S~ 3'..:(:.o(,-S"f 5:;-"1.;" l';:~""jG"'N
....-:.-.......-.......:::..~~.-...
:(,........_...~. 5?::::"':..A:::Y." <,l2!=.~
u
?oyTC~ 9!':).CH "''''LV SE,>,Cr+ C~Uf>lTY "~CQIC'"
."..".k-.......
11-2
i
!
,
I
I
~..~
\.lJ \
...
,~
I
EXHIBIT 12.2, r~OTOROLA CONCEPTUAL SITE PLA~ AND PHASING
'. ir=--'
::/(@
;/ f' f""~ ",
""""-'"
F""""': . ','
....
S ". 131 ;.E!.{~'.,
>
..
.."I .
"
0'
~,;,' I
o
o
LEG:;NO
o
,...,.,.......~u-.
1:...._~~........1I
123 Offices and
Professional Services
131 light Industrial
179 Recreation
190 Open land and
Other . .' \.
D Phase I
~ Phase II
!S51I Phase III
N. w. '2.2 AY~
- - - --- --- - .
-'~=-R?'t:n~~:,,~i...;~::
.-" ---- ------
.- ~..- -- -------
- --.- - ------'.-----
-'-'-- - - -'-
I
...
'.
I'
I
,
!
t P;ylllt~
l@
,
Ooe~li
Y~dJI
.-d:
'--
~
~
Orti-e~F.adity
~
.,,'<;~
~
I
\
...--:0
. R~sctrt~~
Are~
.m
~
LLD.D. aoyn~Of't Canal
SOURCE: !:OTOROLA ADJl,
I @ ff~::~~::~::,~~:~
0'"-
,1\
,q
': ~ \
.:\\
\'
\\
:1\\
,,1-
..
"
\!
.\
.\
"
Ii
tt -.:
'\ ,:.
:. 1
'\ ~
',0
#1
fI ~
.. ~
;, ..:J
.J! ~
.I! t;J
/' ~
~,
J ..j
I
f
"';::0:>'" So -~::::.'...
O=\f=~C?~.'=:--lT CF _~:.:GiCNAL t~...~ =.;..CT
-
.",. -'. .. .-~ -"..
:'::3~ ~_=,,~:;... ;;:-_._ l.:....,j.....
......:.-.......-........-""'.."-'.....
::.c._..~.~." S;>=,:..;.~... .. ...;:.....:;:;0-
.......::........,
u .__1~1_..._'u
TABLE 12.1, MOTOROLA PHASING
Estimated
Phase ADA Phase Square Feet Employment Compl etion Date
I I 240,000 1,606 1981
II-a 380,000 2,668
II-b 505,000 3,553
II-c II 625,000 4,420 1990
I II-a 725,000 4,920
I II-b III 825,000 5,420 2000
SOURCE: ~lotorola ADA.
]]-4
~""^,,,;".".,:,"-
'..,,"
sur.111ARY AND
RECO~lMENDATIONS
IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
~. "'~.
Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, requires that regional planning councils, in
preparing a regional impact assessment report, analyze many factors in the
areas of environment and natural resources, public facilities and services,
and the economy and public finance. For the proposed Motorola project; most
areas will receive only minor impacts. A few, principally those affecting the
economy and government finance, will receive significant beneficial impacts.
Transportation will be the only area with substantial negative impacts.
Development of recommendations with respect to the proposed project required
consideration of the degree to which negative impacts could be overcome, and
the relative weight of the project's benefits and detriments. Reduction or
elimination of negative impacts can be achieved through conditions attached
to the project's approval, Such conditions may specify modifications to the
project iself, controls on the phasing of its development, or requirements for
the applicant to assist the community in providing adequate services or facili-
ties to meet the demands created by the project.
_ The situation may arise wherein the conditions necessary for complete mitigation
of negative impacts might effectively prevent the development of the project.
Such conditions might prove prohibitively expensive for the developer, or might
place such severe restraints on his project as to make it infeasible. In such
a case, consideration must be given to the potential benefits of the proposal.
If the positive impacts of the project are great enough, approval may be war-
ranted even though complete mitigation of negative impacts cannot be achieved.
The benefits of a proposed development to the community may be perceived to
outweigh the adverse consequences. Those adverse consequences are the price
that a community or region may be willing to assume in order to take advantage
of the positive features of the development.
The proposed Motorola facility will have a very positive impact on three aspects
of the area's economy: employment, income, and public finances. When completed,
it is estimated that Motorola will employ more than 5,400 persons and have an
annual payroll in excess of $71,000,000. Since a significant portion of the
labor force will be unskilled or semi-skilled and easily trained, 80% of the
employees are projected to be available from the local labor pool. This could
have a strong positivp effect on the unemployment rate for the County, which
stood at 6.9% in August 1979. That represents 15,000 people out of work.
The fiscal impact on local governments 11i11 also be quite positive. At build
out, the project will generate almost $240,000 annually for the School Board,
while creating little direct demand for school services. Similarly, Boynton
Beach will receive almost $210,000 annually, with only minor additional demands
for services. The impact on Palm Beach County will be considerably less posi~
tive, however, as the demand for new road facilities created by the project
will cost more than the revenues the project will generate for such facilities.
The positive fiscal impact of the project may be partially offset by the demands
of the additional population which the project will draw to the area. The
applicant's estimates mOl'e than 1,000 I.:orkers will be hired from outside the
III-l
,.' ~.I.
region. These workers and their families will create demands for schools,
water and sewer services, police and fire protection, and other government
services. Since the provision of services historically has often lagged
behind the demands created by new growth, the population induced by Motorola-
may offset the positive fiscal impact of the facility itself. In addition,
some of this new population may live in municipalities which will receive no
revenue from Motorola. The result could be a negative fiscal impact on .such
communities.
The environment and natural resources in the vicinity of the project will
receive minimal impact from the project. Since the site has been previously
altered, it contains no wetlands, vegetation, or wildlife habitats of signi-
ficant value. The canals adjacent to the site have typical water quality
which should not be significantly affected by the project if the recommended
conditions and requirements of the South Florida Water Management District
are met. Adequate handling of solid wastes should preclude any serious impacts
from toxic or hazardous waste.
The only significant negative impact of the project will be on roads. Most
roads in the area are currently adequate, but will generally deteriorate through
-the development period of the project. By the end of the project's second phase
in 1990, several roads will be operating at service level F, \1ith volumes upwards
of 50% over capacity.
Although Motorola will not be the primary cause of the overloaded facilities,
it will be a part of the general problem of growth in the area, outpacing the
community's ability to build new roads. The Motorola facility will be a con-
tributing factor to highway cor.gestion by the addition of traffic to roads
which will already be overloaded.
Tne recommended conditions to the Development Order would mitigate Motorola's
impact on the highway system. However, since Motorola will be responsible for
only a part of the hi gh\~ay problem, those conditi ons to the Development Order
cannot be expected to result in roadways operating at satisfactory levels of
service. Substantially more than mitigation of Motorola's impact will be
necessary to accomplish that. It will take a major cow~itment from the com-
munity at large to upgrading highways before the transportation system can
be expected to provide adequate levels of service in future years.
Despite the projected roadway conditions near the project, approval with the
recommended conditions should be given because of the facility's major positive
impact on the region's economy. Motorola's contribution in jobs, income, and
taxes, along with the mitigation of its negative impacts, were found to be a
reasonable basis for local government approval of the project.
II 1-2
.-.--....-..-
,. ~.#.
The recommendations required under Chapter 380.05 Florida Statutes are those
recommendation~ adapted by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council at
the regularly scheduled December 7, 1979 Council meeting.
It is the recommendation of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council that
the Motorola 1'1anufacturing, Development and Admin'istrative Facility be approved,
with the following conditions to the Development Order:
1. The Motorola ADA, plus the following additional information submitted to
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, shall be made a part of the
Development Order by an express condition of the Development Order:
a. Supplemental information sujmitted/under cover letters dated
October 11,1979 and November 30, 19~9 from John Gesbocker of
Heery & Heery, Architects & Engineers, Inc.;
b. Supplemental information provided under a cover letter dated
November 21,1979 from tlary Lou Lackey of Motorola, Inc.
2. In the event the developer fails to commence significant physical develop-
ment within four years from the date of rendition of the Development Order,
development approval shall terminate and the development shall be subject
to further consideration. Significant physical development shall mean site
clearing and foundations for the facility.
3. In the event of discovery ,of archaeological artifacts during project con-'
struction, the applicant shall avoid damage in that area and notify and
cooperate with the Division of Archives. Proper protection, to the
satisfaction of the Division of Archives, shall be provided by the
appl icant.
4. A program of regular vacuum sweeping of all paved surfaces on the project
site shall be instituted and carried out by Motorola_ A description of
I II-3
this program shall be provided to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,
South Flo,ida Water Management District, Palm Beach County, the Area
--"I"
Planning Board and City of Boynton Beach.
5. Motorola shall request the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(DER) to determine which of their projected chemical wastes would be
classified as toxic or hazardous.
6. Motorola shall develop and institute special handling and disposal procedures
for its toxic or hazardous wastes which are acceptable to DER.
7. Plant operation of the proposed DRI shall not be permitted to begin unless
conditions 5 and 6 above have been met.
3. Motorola shall fully investigate the options for meeting hot water require-
ments, completely or in part, through the' use of solar energy or waste heat
recovery. Results of this investigation shall be presented to Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council and the City of Boynton Beach and, if cost-
effective, Motorola shall implement the most feasible and effective of these
options during construction.
9. The applicant shall provide an easement along Congress Avenue and N.W. ZZnd
Avenue to accommodate a bikeway/pedestrian path, in accordance with the
City's and Palm Beach County's Comprehensive Plans.
10. The following road and traffic improvements will be needed as the proposed
project is developed by the applicant:
a. The intersection of all project driveways with Congress Avenue and
N.W. 22nd Avenue shall be improved 'with left turn lanes, right turn
lanes and traffic signals, as warranted by the Palm Beach County
Traffic Engineer.
b. The intersection of Congress Avenue and N.W. 22nd Avenue shall be
improved with left turn lanes, right turn lanes and traffic signals
II 1-4
.- ","
11.
as warranted by the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineer.
c. The highway improvements described in the following sections of the
agreeffient between Palm Beach County and Riteco Development Corporation,
dated August 1, 1978, relating to traffic impacts of the proposed
Sandhill project:
Section III - Traffic signals;
Section IV - Left turn lanes, N.H. 22nd Avenue and Seacrest
Boulevard;
Section V - Intersection on Congress Avenue and N.W. 22nd Avenue;
Section VI - Four-laning of Congress Avenue.
d. The widening of Congress Avenue between Boynton and Hypoluxo Roads to
an ultimate six lanes, with the design level of service for highway
planning designated by the Metropolitan Planning Organization.
In order to assist Palm Beach County, the State of Florida, and all other
involved and responsible governmental agencies to timely and expeditiously
plan for the engineering and construction required, and to budget for the
acquisition of public or governmental funds for the construction of these
roads and traffic improvements, the applicant shall give written notice to
Palm Beach County of its intent to commence construction on any approved
facility in the p,oposed project, not less than six months (and preferably
one year), prior to the date upon which it proposes to commence such
construction.
Motorola shall dedicate to Palm Beach County the following rights-of-way
along Motorola's entire roadway frontage:
Congress Avenue 60 feet from centerline;
N.W. 22nd Avenue 60 feet from centerline.
I II-5
~ ".,'
12. The applicant shall establish and actively support a car ~ooling program.
At the end of the first year of Phase I operatic,ns, l'iotorola shall provide
a written report to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the
Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineer,
and the City of Boynton Beach on its activities and an evaluation of their
effectiveness.
13. Within one year of the commencement of Phase I O?2rations, or any subsequent
expansion of facilities, the applicant shall undertake a study of the feasi-
bility of establishing or participating in a van pool program and shall
transmit the results of that study to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Palm Beach County
Traffic Engineer, and the City of Boynton, Beach.
14. Upon commencement of Phase I operations, or any subsequent expansion, the
applicant shall provide the Palm Beach County Transportation Authority with
information regarding the general location of its employees' residences and
shall consult Ivith the Authority regarding the feasibility of establishing
or expanding routes to serve the plant. If bus service is provided to the
plant, the applicant shall provide boarding and unloading space on-site or
provide space for turnout bays along Congress and N.W. 22nd Avenue, if
needed.
I 1I-6
-..,..---~- ""'._::--:C:;:'~
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE
There are six Gajor parks (i.e., can be classified as urban-district or regional
',. parks) over leG acres in size within a nine-mile radius of the proposed project,
where over 75% of its employees are expected to reside. Together, they offer
almost 3,500 ceres of recreational areas. Only the Palm Beach Pines State Park
has no recreational facilities, at present, The other five parks are at-least
partially developed and offer a wide range of recreational opportunities, in-
cluding boating, hiking, fishing, equestrian pursuits, tennis, etc. Dreher
Park is a municipal recreational 'facility located in the City of Hest Palm
Beach. Okeeheelee Park, John Prince Park, Lake Ida Park, and the Morikami
County Park all are County recreational facilities. The closest major recrea-
tion areas, John Prince Park and Lake Ida Park, are both 4-5 miles from the
proposed project.
Within nine miles of the project there are also eight public ocean beach facili-
ties in the area, totaling almost 110 acres in size. In all, the recreational
areas offer over 2.5 miles of public ocean beaches. The beach facilities include
Phipps Ocean Park, County land Beach, Lake l~orth Beach, lantana Municipal Beach,
Ocean Ridge Beach, Boynton Public Beach, Delray Public Beach and the Delray South
Beach. The Delray Public Beach includes the largest beachfront area (6,480 feet)
and is only six miles southeast of the project.
Motorola plans to provide a S.8S-acre recreational area for its employees on
the southeast corner of the site. The type of facilities to be constructed on
the site are not yet determined. However, other Motorola plants provide tennis
courts, volleyball courts, softball diamonds, and jogging trails.
Each Notorola plant has recreational activities and programs \'ihich are financially
supported by the firm and has organized a recreation committee to administer them.
Tile company a 1 so contri butes moni es to cover the cost of such recrea ti ana 1 items
as uniforms, equipment, and related expenses. ,
The applicant estimates that approximately one-third of its employees would
participate in the company-sponsored recreational programs. No parks or open
space area would be donated by the company to any of the local governmental
entities.
Applying recreational standards to the nine-mile area surrounding the project
site, a sufficient amount of urban-district parks would appear to exist in the
year 2000 if they are all adequately developed. However, at least two more
miles of ocean beach swimming areas will be needed in the area by the year 2000
(one linear foot of beach per two users per day). In addition, at present there
appears to be a shortage of community parks in the area also (Florida Department
of Natural Resources 1976). '
The above statistics are significant when determining the recreational impacts
of Notorola on the area. The nine-mile area, where 75% of the plant's projected
employees will reside, includes a number of municipalities which are presently
struggling with the problem of meeting recreational demands within their areas.
Notol'ola's employees will create additional demands (recreational services) in
these areas, yet only the City of Boynton Beach will receive direct economic
benefits to offset the additional demands for services.
27 -1
._~"-...--....
....,.
On the other hand,
recreation demands
employees on-site.
to fruition.
the project would be taking positive measures to reduce its
in the'area by providing recreational facilities for its
Such measures are commendable and should be followed through
In summary, the Motorola project can be expected to have mixed impacts on the
area's recreational services, including the positive impacts of providing on-site
recreational facilities for its employees, Negative recreational impacts can be
expected to occur in the form of additional recreational service demands being
placed on the surrounding area's localities as a result of Motorola without
receiving any direct compensation from the firm to meet those increased demands.
RECOMI1ENDATION
The negative impacts of Motorola can be adequately resolved by the following
condition to the Development Order:
1. The applicant shall provide an easement along Congress Avenue and N.W.
22nd Avenue to accommodate a bikeway/pedestrian path, in accordance with
the City's and Palm Beach Count/os Comprehensive Plans.
27-2
EXHIBIT 31.5. SU,\I'll\RY OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
.,.
Exi s ti ng
1979
Congress Avenue
(south of Hypo1uxo)
Q)
fR\
\JJ
o
~
\jJ1
o
Congress Avenue
(north of HYPo1uxo)
Boynton Road
(1-95 to Congress)
Boynton Road
(l'lest of CJngress)
~.w. 22nd Avenue
Hypoluxo Road
(Congress to 1-95)
Hypoluxo Road
(west of Congress)
o
e'~.;"'."~.''';
:'~"l'
.'<,0.......:
Lantana Road
(Congress to 1-95)
Lan tana Road
(west of Congress)
o
o
o
1-95
(lantana to Hypoluxo)
1-95
(Hypol uxo to Boynton)
1-95 --- - I 0
__(BOyn~n_ to S,\'I~~__
SOURCE: TeRPC STAFF
Phase I
1981
Phase II
1990
(J},;,
fr,;
F'
CJD..'..."
to.,
f ~'.
o
@~,.,
, '''':. .<,.~.
';.;,..;h..:"
~.i!;._~-:,.;~..,:,
':":'~:'~~~
~"'~<.
",..-._~~--.
",'.' ..--.--.- .
:":'?.::~~.'~
~">..,
(:;c;~-"~,
.-'..~'
:~........:," .
",'{~I~;
",-:-..-':.,.-Y';ct
-'k,';:
o
G<c,.
.~~:;-:--;
..~~~?_~~
o
o
o
o
~
\l7
o
o
o
Ole)
O I (D--,,,, -J
I :;,ff,<?
~"';~1~~:
- ~~~--~-~_.
~~..
.. ~-I'-<
'":''''''. .~.
~t.t~
, -'~~~.
LEVEL OF SERVICE
() f"T\
31_~A."'B \.J)C&D
Phase I II
2000
.'"'"~.'''
~Jx!,:::;
'''';;l,,''
'-';;-:Z:
€I,'"
. ~~,;.'
,~\-.;-.:;:z....;,
~,... -7,
-:t?-:~~~:;'
"_'-
Q)
o
o
(D:;..2;
4r;kL~ .
.-~. ,- -
'.;"';..,;'.~
E&F
-----------
The proposed Motorola site is a portion of a previously approved development
called Sandhill. Riteco Development Corporation, the developer of Sandhill,
.',. had planned a cormnercial tract and five multifamily parcels for the f1otorola
site. These uses were projected to generate 12,685 trips per day, only 335
trips less than Motorola's projected 13,020. In contrast, the Sandhill plan
was projected to generate 2,682 peak hour trips, over 1,000 more than the
1,634 projected for Motorola. It appears that the Motorola project will
actually have a lesser impact on surrounding roadways than the existing
approved plan.
In order to mitigate the projected traffic impacts of the entire Sandhill project,
Riteco Corporation agreed (See Appendix 3l-B at the end of section) to provide
the following highway improvements (or payment in lieu thereOf): four-laning of
Congress Avenue and N.W. 22nd Avenue along Riteco's entire frontage ($137,000
and $600,000, respectively); dedication of rights-of-way on Congress and N.W.
22nd of 120 and 108 feet, respectively; signalizing the intersections of N.W.
22nd Avenue with Congress, Seacrest and any project roadways, where warranted
($50,000 for Congress and Seacrest); left turn lanes on the east and west
approaches to the intersection of N.W. 22nd Avenue and Seacrest Boulevard
1$12,000); and construction of the intersection of Congress Avenue and N.W_
22nd Avenue for 500 feet north, south, and east of the intersection ($60,000).
The payments total $859,000; however, $600,000 of that total is for four-laning
N.W. 22nd Avenue, which is projected not to be needed by the ~1otorola ADA. Most
of the improvements are timed to occur when a specified number of units are
occupied or an associated number of daily trips are generated (generally 5,600
trips, except for four-laning N.W. 22nd, which would occur at 11,199 trips).
Similar agreements have been made with several other developers in the area.
The result, as shown in Exhibit 31.6, is that a significant length of Congress
Avenue, between Hypo1uxo and Boynton Road, has commitments to four-laning by
developers. In each case, the commitment does not have to be met until the
particular project passes a specified threshold. Further, provision is made
for the developer to reimburse government if it should undertake the widening
of Congress before the project crosses its threshold.
The projection that Congress will be four lanes by 1990 is based primarily on
these commitments. However, these commitments do not provide a reliable
projection of timing. Given the uncertainties of the development pro~ess,
it is impossible to determine when the various improvements will be provided.
A possible additional contribution that might be made to expanding highway
capacity would be Motorola's contribution to the County's fair share road
impact fee. However, that fee was suspended on November 13 and is scheduled
to be reviewed in March 1980. Since t'1otorola hopes to break ground before then,
it would likely not pay the impact fee on Phase I, even if the fee is eventually
reinstated. If the fee is reinstated, Motorola would pay a total fee of $118,650
for Phases II and III, based on the ordinance's current rate of $12.50/trip.
Another potential mitigating factor may result from efforts currently under way
by the Florida Department of Commerce to secure $2,000,000 in State monies for
the purpose of four-laning Congress Avenue from Boynton Road northward to the
31-11
EXHIBIT 31.6 DEVELOPER COii~HTt'1EN S FOR FOUR-LANIt)6 COilGRESS AVEtlUE .
r-------~- -----r
--~---- LA;>-H';';~ 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
4-
t?~. ~
W L-..
-
-
~
TRANSPORTATION
','
l'J
"
0:
z
c::
::>
>-
<
e
c::
o
....
"-
T-~- ----
I
r
I
I
r
J
I
I
I
. I
r
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
~
~
..
~
j
~
~
~
J....---------i'
r
I
r
I
.1-
--'
<:
0:
.>-
>-
c::
<
>-
::>
::>
HY?OLU;(O
Igi
ileadows ",.11
300 -,
Boynton Lakes
. i
I j
,
I
I
r
L__+
I
~
.'
>-
'"
'"
r;::
c
<
'"
'"
I.
I
I
I
I
J
J
I
1
I
I
J
-}-
" nw. 2tit:~:.\ _._~
;->r . ---::~.d::"l'::::'
Sandhill ~ f~{
~l
<.)
:z
'" c
c:: '"
~ DeBartolo 5
.J Na1l0"
BOYNTO:-" P.D.
-t---l-
I
~ J
.
I
I J
, Z"
--------~1 /
I sw. ,23 ' I
~l----l~
1/
_ 0 '~rt:k!;.,...\,..C;;;
___ p;nVA"" ,"';>ACT "FlS'''
1,
..
'.
1
SOURCE: PAL~~ BEACH COUNTY TRAFFIC ENGINEERS OFFICE
~!
)
.
~_._-
,i ,r;:-;\ '\'\
" ; . f, :''''' .-r :"--.""'" :" .;:~. 7 i:
1, 'J /' '. i'" ~'. I {'.
" j.-,::..\ , "jj,O:/ ,Oyq,O_.~,!2J
, '.1 I \ I
'- ./
.S.\". 15.
t'-.:)(h....... t.:::...:-'"l f',>,'_" ~E':"::>ico-.:...,l'.F:"C.::z':H
"
...--- '---'-'---'-
D:V~LO?:/i::-";T 0:: ;::::-S:-:;_'~.;!..... I~.~?;'.CT
....::;;;.:"1....:.:""'
:~:.:.::::--:.::.;:::.-. :'~'.
,.~; ~:.~~::-:: .~-;;-~~~.:.;""i':;-~ -;~ 'l
..~,--._-.-....
31-12
vicinity of N.W. 22nd. The provision of this money would be directly related
to the Motorola project and represents part of the State's efforts to promote
economic development. The County would be required to match the funds, bu't
',' this could be satisfied by the County continuing the four-laning of Congress
northward to Lantana Road from the point reached with the use of State funds.
One high\~ay improvement that could have the potential to improve conditions
markedly in the area is the addition of an interchange with 1-95 on N.W. 22nd
Avenue. For the large number of Motorola tr}ps that use Hypoluxo, Lantana, and
Boynton Roads to get to 1-95, this could eliminate the impact of those trips on
these roads and Congress Avenue. The proposed widening of N.W. 22nd to four lanes
by Riteco would provide considerable excess capacity which might be able to handle
the additional load. Such an interchange ~lOuld also provide an alternative ,-oute
for a large amount of non-Motorola traffic. Although an interchange would be
expensive, the prospect that six lanes on Congress may not be enough by the year
2000 may make the alternative fiscally attractive. The possible addition of the
interchange warrants close study by the Metropolitan Planning Organization and
the Florida Department of Transportation to determine what impact it would have
on traffic conditions in the area and whether it would be cost-effective.
F)SCAL H1PACT
The proposed facility will create costs for new and expanded roadways to meet
the traffic generated by it. It will also generate revenues that will be available
to provide the needed additional road facilities. The purpose of this section is
to estimate the net fiscal impact of Motorola with respect to roads.
The method used to estimate costs and revenues is based on the report, Economic
Aspects of the Proposed Palm Beach County Road Impact Fee Ordinance, produc~
by the FAU/F1U Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems in January,
1979. That study set out a methodology that could be used to calculate the
net financial impact of any proposed development on roads. The approach taken
is to estimate the cost of building the lane miles of road needed to accommodate
the project's daily traffic. The property tax and gasoline tax revenues generated
by the project and available for highway improvements are then credited' against
the cost to determine the net impact.
Cost = number of trips x average trip length x cost/lane mile
capacity/lane
The formula states that the cost is obtained by dividing the total daily miles
of travel created by the project (number of daily trips times the average length
of a trip) by the capacity of a lane of roadway and multiplying the result by
the cost of building one mile of one lane of road (lane mile).
The capacity of a highway lane is 6,000 vehicles daily and the average cost of
buildina a lane mile of road Ivas estimated to be $300,000 by the Palm Beach
-County Engineer's Office. I-!hen built out, Motorola will generate 13,020 trips
daily, with an average length of 7.3 miles (estimated using second table in
Appendix 31-A). Using these values to solve the equation yields:
31-1 3
Cost
= )3,020 trips x 7.3 miles $300 000 1 /.1 =
6 000 h. 1 /1 x" ane m1 e
, ve lC es ane
. .,,'
15.841 lane miles x $300,000/lane mile ~
$4,752,300
The result of the above equation 1S to charge the project for the lane miles
of road needed to accolr.modate every trip which ends or begins at the project_
However, all those trips have an origin or destination at some other location,
such as a home or store. If the same formula were applied to the land uses at
the other end of Motorola's trios, the result would be to count the cost of the
trip twice. Therefore, to eliminate double counting, the impact of a project's
traffic, the figure derived from the cost equation should be divided by two.
Applying this to r~otoro1a, the cost of ;':otorola's share of trips I"lhich begin
or end at the plant is $2,376,150.
Motorola's share of cost = $4,752,300 = $2,376,150
, 2
Once the road cost has been determined, it is necessary to reduce it by the
r.evenues available for roads which are generated by property taxes from the
facility and gasoline taxes from the vehicles going to and from the facility.
The property tax credit for Motorola was calculated using Table 6, Property
Tax Credit for Non-residential Uses, fr~" the FAU/FIU report. This credit is
a lump sum value to account for taxes paid twenty-five years into the future,
as \vell as for taxes paid ten years into the past (for undeveloped land). The
table established a credit of $54,719 for $10,000,000 worth of estimated sales
price. Based on Motorola's assessed value at build out of $35,017,000 from
Table 20.6, Motorola's property tax credit would be $191,610.
Motorola's motor fuel tax credit is based on Table 7 in the FAU/FIU report. Like
the property tax credit, the motor fuel tax credit represents a lump sum value
for a twenty-five year stream of taxes. The calculation of the credit is done
separately for the 200,000 square feet of office space and the 625,000 square
feet main building. Adjustments are then made to compensate for the fact that
Motorola's average trip length and trip generation rates are different from
those used to develop the table.
Motorola's trip length of 7.3 miles is longer than the average of 6 miles used
for transportation planning in Palm Beach County. Since each Motorola trip
will be longer than the County average, it will consume more gasoline and con-
tribute more gas tax revenues. Similarly, Motorola's higher generation rate
per square foot of industrial facil ity vlill generate more travel, more gas
consumption and more revenue. In controst, the revenue from office-related
activities will be reduced as Motorola's generation rate is lower than the
County's standard rate for office space.
The following equation is used to calcul;te the motor fuel tax credit:
31-14
motor fuel tax credit = credit rate from Table 6 x
. -I'
Motorola trip length
square feet of space x standard trip length x
Motorola generation rate
standard generation rate
The equation states that the credit is calculated by multiplying the credit
rate per square foot times the square footage of the facility, and multiplying
that result by the adjustment factor for average trip length and trip generation
rate.
The credit for the 625,000 square feet main facility is:
, 7.3 miles
Credit = $201/1,000 square feet x 625,000 square feet x 6.0 miles x
15.6 trip ends!l,OOO square feet = $397 394
6.0 trip ends!l,OOO square feet '
The credit for the 200,000 square feet of office space is:
Cedit = $269!1,000 square feet x
7.3 miles
200,000 square feet x 6.0 miles x
15.6 trip ends!l,OOO square feet = $54,002
20.0 trip ends!l,OOO square feet
Total motor fuel tax credit is:
$397,394 + $54,002 = $451,396
Finally, credit should be given for Motorola's share of improvements agreed to
by Riteco (Appendix 31-B) if that agreement essentially remains in force.
Motorola should receive a credit for its pro rata share, based on traffic genera-
tion, of the dollar value of all improvements except the four-laning of N.W.
22nd Avenue which the ADA does not indicate is warranted before the year 2000.
The value of the improvements specified in Sections III, IV, V and VI of the
Riteco agreement is $259,000. Applying the ratio of Motorola's trips to Riteco's
trips (13,020/22,400) to the value of the improvements results in a credit of
$150,544.
The net fiscal impact of t1otorola's traffic is $1,583,726. This represents
the cost associated with its traffic minus credits for property tax and gas
tax revenues, and highl'Jay improvements provided by r'iotorola:
Cost
Propel'ty Tax
r.1otor Fuel Tax
Improvements
$2,376,130
(191,610)
(451,396)
(150,544)
$1:582,600
31 -15
The $1,582,600 represents the additional cost to government of meeting the
highway impacts created by the Motorola project, over and above the direct
revenues it generates for that purpose.
.. ~.'
ALTERNATE l'lODES
Alternatives to the use of the privately owned automobile could serve to reduce
Motorola's impact on surrounding highways. However, such alternatives are not
currently under serious consideration. The site is not now served by bus. The
nearest routes are along Boynton Road to Lawrence and north and south along
Seacrest. Since some employees are anticipated to live near the Seacrest corridor,
the possibility exists for expansion of that route to the plant. Unfortunately,
this would not provide rel ief \'Ihere it is most needed, i.e., along Congress
Avenue. Although Motorola has made no provision for pUblic transit, such pro-
vision could be easily incorporated into the site's design.
Due to the nature of the proposed facility, a promising alternative might be the
encouragement of ridesharing by employees. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Counci 1 has Jdopted the foll owi ng pol i cy with regard to the use of ri des had ng
and paratransit modes of transportation:
"Encourage public agencies and private businesses to promote car
pooling and van pooling through incentives such as priority
parking areas, exclusive car pool/high occupancy vehicle lanes,
provision of vehicles and support facilities, and insurance
discounts."
The applicant has indicated in the ADA that its Plantation facility has had a
reasonably good rate of participation in car pooling, with an average of 1.3
persons per vehicle. Such programs can greatly reduce the number of trips
gpnerated by a large employer, such as Motorola. Further, since the United
States has become increasingly dependent on foreign oil supplies and, thus,
susceptible to disruption of these sources, there is a need for both the private
and public sectors to prepare not only contingency plans for such disruptions,
but to also initiate ongoing energy conservation programs. Ridesharing offers
great potential to meet that need_
From discussions \~ith the applicant, Motorola has active ridesharing programs,
e.g., car pools, van pools, at some of their other facilities. Sharing rides
is one of the most cost-effective energy conservation measures that can be
implemented by private companies. Benefits to companies have been documented,
to cite a fe\~:
1. saving investment funds in land and parking facilities;
2. reducing employee absenteeism and tardiness;
3. expanding the potential labor market;
4. reducing traffic congestion at rush hours;
31-16
- - - ..- -~.....
--------~---,._._~--_.__.
5. minimiz'ng decreased facility operations during energy
supply isruptions;
','
6.
an image as a positive community citi~en.
Successful prog ms have strong support from their top level management; have
assigned a specific individual the responsibility of coordinating the ride- .
sharing progra;n (many times, someone in the personnel department); are actively
promoted throug' out the compeny; and provide incentives such as providing
vehicles, prefe ential parking places and gifts, adjustments in ~Iork f,ours
(leaving a few ,inutes early to avoid rush), public-recognition.
SUi'!:~ARY AND REC ~:lmmAT10N
The roadway sys
operati n9 at ec
Only Lantilna an
capacity,
Projections of
traffic conditi
be improved. B
due to both the
ties throughout
serv i ce I-Ii 11 ge
experience a le
em currently serving the pmposed Hotorola site is generally
eptable levels, although ,Congress Avenue is right at capacity.
Hypoluxo Roads east of Congress Avenue are operating over
uture traffic levels and roadway improvements indicate that
ns will deteriorate as volumes grO~1 faster than road~lays can
the end of Phase I in 1981, volumes on all roads will increase
addition of Motorola traffic and to the growth of other facili-
the area. Since no improvements are scheduled, levels of
erally decline. Congress Avenue will exceed capacity and
el of service D.
By 1990, the en of Phase II, conditions will worsen considerably. Both Congress
Avenue and Boyn on Road l'lill be seriously overloaded, I-lith volumes upward of 85'~
over capacity. These conditions are projected to occur although Congress is
anticipated to e widened to four lanes and portions of Boynton Road are already
six lanes, Pl'O 'ected volumes indicate Congress would need to be widened to at
least six lanes before 1990.
By the completi
deteriorate fur
Year 2000 Cost
operating at se
closer to 50% 0
Only a few 1 ink
will be operati
n of the project in the year 2000, conditions are projected to
her. Even with the addition of improvements planned for in the
easible Plan, most roads in the vicinity of the project \1i11 be
vice level F, at least 25% over capacity. Many roads will be
er capacity and Congress is projected to be at twice its capacity.
, most notably N.W. 22nd Avenue and Hypoluxo Road east of Congress,
g below capacity with service levels at C or better.
The situation ojected in the vicinity of Motorola is similar to that which is
projected thrau hout Palm Beach County, Based on population and land use pro-
jections for t' e year 2000, two long-range transportation plans were adopted
by the f1etropol itan Planning Organization. The Year 2000 Needs Plan called
for a high lev I of service and was projected to cost $900,000,000 in 1977
dollars. Proj cted revenues during the period to the year 2000 fell $331,000,000
short of the c st of the Needs Plan, A second plan, the Year 2000 Cost Feasible
Plan, called f r more modest improvements that would result in congestion and
conditions sim lar to those of the Miami area today. Assuming no inflation,
31-17
the Cost Feasib
dollars short 0
tribution for R
outstripping th
modate the incr
e Plan approached financial feasibility but still fell 81 million
needs (Re ort on the Pro osed Palm Beach Co_~~~ Fair Share Con-
ad 1m rovements Ordinance, p.4. Clearly, growth in traffic is
County s ability to provide the facilities necessary to accom-
ased demand.
',-
As is true thro ghout the County in general, the Motorola project will create
traffic demands the cost of which will exceed the revenues generateG by the
project that wi 1 be available for transportation improvements. It is estimated
(see FISCAL II1P CT under TRANSPORTATION) tha t ~'otoro 1 a wi 11 create the need for
additional high ay facilities which will cost almost 1.6 ~illion dollars more
than the revenu s generated for roadway improvements.
Although ~lotoro
highways in the
situation. ~lot
mitigated throu
demand created
fl ow of tra ffi c
consumption and
reduction in th
a's traffic, in and of itself, will not be the cause of congested
vicinity of the project, it \.lill contribute to \.;orsening the
rola's contribution to the transportation conditions can be
h the provision of additional highway facilities to serve the
y Motorola. Increasing roadway capacity will promote a freer
which will also mitigate the impacts of the project on energy
air quality by contributing to more efficient fuel use and the
generation of air pollutants.
The impact of M torola traffic on an already overloaded highway system, as well
as on air quali y and energy use, can be mitigated by the following conditions
to the Developm nt Order:
1. The followi g road and traffic improvements will be needed as the proposed
project is eveloped by th2 applicant:
a. rsecti on of all proj ect dri ve\vays wi th Congress Avenue and
d Avenue shall be improved with left turn lanes, right turn
d traffic signals, as warranted by the Palm Beach County
Engineer.
b. rsection of Congress Avenue. and N.W. 22nd Avenue shall be
with left turn lanes, right turn lanes and traffic signals,
nted by the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineer.
c. The highway improvements described in the following sections of the
agreem nt between Palm Beach County and Riteco Development Corporation,
dated ugust 1, 1978, relating to traffic impacts of the proposed
Sandhill project:
III - Traffic signals;
IV - Left turn lanes, N.W. 2Znd Avenue and Seacrest
Boulevard;
Se V - Intersection on Congress Avenue and N.H. Z2nd Avenue;
Se VI - Four-laning of Congress Avenue.
d. The wi ening ~f Congress Avenue between Boynton and Hypoluxo Roads to
an ult mate SlX ldnes, with the design level of service for high,..:ay
planni g designated by the r'1etropolitan Planning Organization_
31-18
.'.,,-
In order to
involved an
plan for th
acquisition
roads and t
Pa 1m Beach
facil ity in
one year),
constructio
assist Palm Beach County, the State of Florida, and all other
responsible governmental agencies to timely and expeditiously
engineering and construction required, and to budget for the
of ?ublic or governmental funds for the construction of these
affic improvements, the applicant shall give written notice to
ounty of its intent to commence construction on any approved
the proposed project, not less than six months (and preferably
rior to the date upon which it proposes to commence ouch
2. Motorola sh 11 dedicate to Palm Beach County the following rights-of-way
along tlotor la's entire roadway frontage:
Congres Avenue 60 feet from centerline;
N.W. 22 d Avenue 60 feet from centerline.
3. The applica t shall establish and actively support a car pooling program.
At the end f the fi'rst year of Phase I operations, Motorola shall provide
a written r port to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the
Metropolita Planning Organization, the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineer,
and the Cit of Boynton Beach on its activities and an evaluation of their
effectiveness.
4. Within one ear of the co~~encement of Phase I operations, or any subsequent
expansion 0 facilities, the applicant shall undertake a study of the feasi-
bility of establishing or participating in a van pool program and shall
transmit the results of that study to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, t e Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Palm Beach County
Traffic Engineer, and the City of Boynton Beach.
5. Upon commencement of Phase I operations, or any subsequent expansion, the
applicant hall provide the Palm Beach County Transportation Authority with
informatio regarding the general location of its employees' residences and
shall cons lt with the Authority regarding the feasibility of establishing
or expandi g routes to serve the plant. If bus service is provided to the
plant, the applicant shall provide boarding and unloading space on-site or
provide ~p ce for turnout bays along Congress and N.W. 22nd Avenue, if needed.
,
,
31-19