1988 RESPONSE TO SUFFICIENCY REVIEW COMMENTS
~
.
AMENDED DEVELOPMENT of REGIONAL IMPACT
APPLICATION for DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
for CHANGES to a PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
DEVELOPMENT of REGIONAL IMPACT
,
..
'.
..
...
".
".
II.
".
II.
M A
L
L
".
,,,
City of Boynton Beach, Florida
.
..
RESPONSE TO REQUEST
FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
-
..
-
..
-
Prepared For:
Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation
..
-
..
-
.,.
Prepared By:
-
Greiner, Inc.
..
~
..
-
November 1988
...
.
-
-'
Greiner
Greiner, Inc..
P,O, Box 31646
5601 Mariner Street
Tampa. Florida 33630-3416
IB13) 286-1711
FAX: 18131 287-8591
C1519.00
November 22, 1988
Ms. L. Christine Beditz, DRI Coordinator
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Post Office Box 1529
3228 S.W. Martin Downs Blvd., Suite 205
Palm City, Florida 34990
Reference: Response to Sufficiency Review Comments - Boynton Beach Mall
Development of Regional Impact - Substantial Deviation
Dear Ms. Beditz:
In accordance with the requirements of Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, we are
transmitting herewith our response to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's
Sufficiency Review Comments attached to Mr. Carey's letter of September 14, 1988.
For the convenience of the reviewer, we have separated the response by review
agency. A copy of each agency's comments is included and is immediately followed
by answers to that agency's questions.
I
In accordance with Regional Planning Council policy, this response also includes
revised pages where it was necessary to revise the Application text, tables or exhibits
in response to agency review questions. The revised pages, exhibits and tables have
been assembled in sets and punched for insertion in your ADA binders. Revised pages
include: pages 18-4 and 18-7; the revised exhibits include Map G and Map J-I; the
revised tables include Tables 31.1 through 31.21. A revised Exhibit B, which is an
attachment to the City of Boynton Beach Annexation Agreement in the Appendix of
the original Application, is also included.
In addition to the above information, this submittal also includes revised or added
transportation reference material which supports the information presented in the
revised tables. This includes intersection capacity analyses for Old Boynton
Road/Lawrence Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard/I-95.
If you have any questions regarding any of the information included herewith, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
GREINER, INC.
'-_ .I)/~ r -.....
~<<-- ~Vl..-~
Thomas A. Marsicano
Associate Vice President
T AM:sw
Enclosures
BOYNTON BEACH MALL
TRANSMITT AL LIST
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
Ms. L. Christine Beditz
DRI Coordinator
Post Office Box 1529
3228 S.W. Martin Downs Boulevard
Suite 205
Palm City, Florida 34990
(305) 286-3313
Ms. Lisa Smith
DRI Coordinator
Resource Control Department
South Florida Water Management District
Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Department of Community Affairs
Mr. Alto Thomas
.. Bureau of State Planning
2740 Centerview Drive
The Rhyne Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(904) 488-4925
Deparfment of Environmental Regulations
Ms. Marion Y. Hedgepeth, MS.
Environmental Specialist
AND
Mr. Bruce Offord, Air Permitting
South Florida District
Department of Environmental Regulation
1900 South Congress A venue - Suite A
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
(305) 964-9668
Department of Transportation
Mr. Bruce Seiler, Planning Engineer
Florida Department of Transportation
District IV
780 S.W. 24th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315
(305) 522-4244
10 Copies
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
5 Copies
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
I Copy
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
2 Copies
Certified mail
Return Receipt Requested
I Copy
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
BOYNTON BEACH MALL
TRANSMITTAL LIST
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
(continued)
Department of Commerce
(For non-residential DRI's only) ,
Ms. Wynelle Wilson
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Department of Commerce
107 W. Gaines Street
Tallahassee, Florida 3230 I
(904) 487-2568
Department of Natural Resources:
Mr. William Howell
Bureau of Biological and Interpretive Services
Department of Natural Resources
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Room 302
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
(904) 488-4892
Palm Beach County
Health Department
Dr. James P. Howell, Director
Post Office Box 29
826 Evernia Street
West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
(407) 820-3000
Palm Beach County Planning
Ms. Roxanne Manning
Palm Beach County
800 13th Street
Palm Beach International Airport
West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
Palm Beach County
Ms. Teresa Cantrell
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Post Office Box 2429
160 Austrailian Avenue
Building #2 (33406) Room 30 I
Mr. Carmen Annunziato, City Planner
City of Boy ton Beach
120 N.E. 2nd Avenue
Post Office Box 310
Boy ton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
I Copy
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
I Copy
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
I Copy
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
2 Copies
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
I Copy
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
20 Copies
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
, ,
DETERMINATION OF INFORMATIONAL SUFFICIENCY
FOR
BOYNTON BEACH MALL
DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Prepared by
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Staff
September 14, 1988
I. Boynton Beach Mall Development of Regional Impact
Substantial Deviation Application for Development Approval
(ADA) contains insufficient information for the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning council to discharge its
responsibilities under Subsection 380.06(12), Florida
Statutes.
II. The information listed below is requested.
ouestion 12. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. The original Development Order for the Boynton Beach
Mall issued by Palm Beach County (Resolution R-74-343)
required the developer to "preserve the pine area
located on the subject property." This pine area is on
"parcel #7," which is the subject on the Annexation
Agreement executed between the city of Boynton Beach
and the developer on April 7-8, 1988. The preserve
area is recognized by the Annexation Agreement.
Exhibit A of the Agreement identifies the parcel as
being 5.83 acres in size, and this is the figure used
throughout the ADA. However, Exhibit B of the
Agreement shows an area identified as Parcel 7 as being
6.92 acres in size. There is another notation
indicating Canal Right-of-way as 2.36 acres. Is the
specific acreage of Parcel 7 approximately 6.92 acres,
of which 2.36 acres is Canal Right-of-way, leaving 4.56
acres of pine? Or is 6.92 acres of Parcel 7 the pine
area, and 2.36 acres is Right-of-way, making the total
acreage of Parcel 7 to be 9.28 acres? Please explain
what the figures 5.83 acres, 6.92 acres, and 2.36 acres
represent for Parcel 7.
ouestion 13. AIR
1. Please respond to Question 13 (AIR) as provided in the
ADA at the preapplication meeting (copy attached). If
the modeling information is not included within the ADA
and review process, it has previously been recommended
for inclusion as a condition of the Development Order
in order to address air quality concerns in Palm Beach
county, which is designated as a nonattainment zone for
ozone.
Ouest ion 18. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
1. The application states that the pine flatwoods on site
contain blue stem palmetto (Sabal minor), a species
listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer services as threatened. However, the habitat
description provided in the ADA suggests that this
plant may have been misidentified. Is this plant
really the silver morph of the saw palmetto (Serenoa
reDens)?
ouestion 22. DRAINAGE
1. council requires a surface water management system that
provides a level of treatment at least equivalent to
that provided by retention or detention with filtration
of the runoff from the three-year, one-hour storm event
or of the first inch of runoff, whichever is greater.
using these terms, what level of storm water treatment
is currently being provided by the surface water
management system on the mall site, and what level of
treatment is proposed after the project is completed?
2. council policy requires that post-development runoff
volumes not exceed predevelopment runoff volumes for a
storm event of three days duration and 25-year return
frequency. In these terms, please indicate' what are
the pre- and post-development runoff volumes for the
entire project site.
3. The Drainage Map (Map G) does not show any outfall
water control structures on the two southernmost
retention ponds on the east side of the project site.
Are there any water control structures on these ponds?
If not, please describe where the water flows when
these ponds overflow.
III. Please respond to all items on the attached Information
Adequacy statement from the South Florida Water Management
District.
Please respond to all items in the attached letters from:
1. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
2. Palm Beach County Metropolitan Planning organization
3. Palm Beach County Office of the County Engineer
4. Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources
Management
IV. Please provide all information requested in II and III above
on revised or new pages for the ADA. All revised or new
pages should show the revision date. Provide a cover letter
indicating where responses to each question within the text
are provided and indicating the nature of the response.
Attachments
13. Environment and Natural Resources: Air
A. Complete Table 13-A. Please utilize methodology supplied by the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in their Draft
Interim Guidance for Evaluatin the Air Qualit 1m acts of Indirect
ources 0 ar on onox e m1SS10n 0 es 1ma e y p ase an In
parts per m1ll10n the one-hour and eight-hour carbon monoxide
concentrations expected through buildout. Provide a map
illustrating the carbon monoxide dispersion modeling study area and
locate receptor stations. Modeling assumptions should consider
State, federal and local government programmed link and
intersection improvements with respect to project phasing. Please
provide verification of any assumptions used in modeling which
consider such programmed improvements.
B. What steps will be taken to reduce emissions and to minimize
adverse ai r quali ty impacts? Please specify structural or
operational measures that will be implemented by development to
minimize adverse air quality impacts.
c. What steps will be taken to contain fugitive dust and asbestos
particulates in the event demolition of existing on-site structures
is proposed?
o. Please specify what additional action will be taken, and by whom,
if an exceedance(s) of air quality standards occurs as a result of
development.
_,'2 -
'-
'"
o
'"
z
o
-
~
co:
~
z
UJ
u
z
o
u
UJ
<:>
-
x
o
z
i
z
o
'"'
co:
<
u
~
u
UJ
6
a:
~
'"
..
u
'-
'"
o
'"
-.:l
c:
...
'"
..
'"
...
~
c.
<
I
M
...
..
~
.0
...
~
'"
....
...
-.:l
o
E
E
0""....
u 0 '"
u.... 0
... c.-.:l
..~
o u.-
......'"
'-.0
i:'.c ~
...u...
'" ...
'" ..
..
u ""
"0
c:.....
.-
:3
""
c:
0
~ -.:l
.... ""
... c: ...
.... ..0 .. "e
Vl u~ u"e c:
"".... '-c ...
"" ",u5'" ....
0 0" 0 Vl
.... .. V')vtV')~
U "" ~ ..
.. "" cu<Uta.:.d: ... ....
U '" c....QlU .... ...
.. 0 _C"-lG 0 ....
a: -J-<CCO ~ Vl - I" -
>,
u
c:
...
c.
'"
u
u
o
'" ..
...~
.0
.....
-....~
.0 ~
... ... '"
.... .....
..
-.:l"e<ll
c: ~ e
...>'"
c.o",
)(""'"
UJ~<
it
TREASURE COAST REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL
Resoonse to Ouest ion 12: Proiect Descriotion (Treasure Coast Rel!ional Planninl!
Council)
The original Development Order for the Boynton Beach Mall issued by Palm Beach
County (Resolution R-74-343) required as Condition 9, that the pine area located on
the subject property be preserved. The original Development Order, however, did not
designate acreage of the pine area.
The developer proposed to retain 3.41 acres of the original pine area and create .14
acres of additional pine area habit when the L-23 canal is culverted. The total pine
area, upon completion of the project, will be 3.55 acres.
Parcel 7, which is the subject of the annexation agreement, contains the pine area.
Parcel 7, as described in "New Exhibit 'A'" of the agreement, is 5.83 acres. Exhibit "B"
should show Parcel 7 as 5.83 acres as opposed to 6.92 acres. The reduction in acreage
size from 6.92 to 5.83 acres is a result of R.O.W. dedication of Javert Street. The
right-of-way dedication was also a condition of the original development order. The
canal R.O.W. is designated in Exhibit "B" as 2.36 acres. The correct acreage for the
maintained L-23 canal R.O.W. is 2.79 acres. A corrected Exhibit B (attached) is
provided showing Parcel 7 as 5.83 acres and the L-23 canal R.O.W. as 2.79 acres.
Resoonse to Ouestion 13: Environment and Natural Resources - Air (Treasure Coast
Rel!ional Planninl! Council)
At the pre-application meeting held at the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
on March 8, 1988, it was discussed that the air quality question and associated
modeling be included as a condition of the Development Order. The applicant
subsequently requested that the air quality analysis be submitted for review as a part
of the DR! process, once the transportation analysis was determined to be acceptable,
i.e. no major revisions required. Based upon the sufficiency comments received to
date, the air quality analysis will be provided subsequent the transportation analysis
being determined sufficient or during the second sufficiency round, if required.
The response to Question 13 will employ methodology in accordance with the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation's Draft Air Oualitv Imoact Guidelines.
(January 1988). The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER)
representative indicated at the pre-application meeting that only roadway links and
intersections projected to operate at Level of Service E or F by buildout where
improvement to restore their operation to LOS D or better have not been committed to
will require modeling and assessment. However, it must be noted that the applicant
does not necessarily agree that the results of this analysis are germane to this process
since these rules have not properly been implemented (gone through rule making) by
FDER, nor have they been properly adopted as a substitute for the air analysis
currently required under DR! law, rules, and procedures.
Resoonse to Ouestion 18: Vegetation and Wildlife (Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council
It is our opinion, based on additional field reviews, literature search and consultation
with the University of South Florida, that specimens identified as blue stem palmettos
(Sabal minor) occurring on the project site are actually immature cabbage palms
(Saba I oalmetto). This is based on field samples which indicate that the petioles are
smooth (not armed with spines), the leaf blades have a midrib in the basal portion,
and leaf segments are filamentose. Attached are revised pages 18-4 and 18-7, for
inclusion in the Amended ADA for the Boynton Beach Mall DR!.
2
ResDonse to Ouestions 22: Public Facilities Drainal!e (Treasure Coast Rel!ional
Planninl! Council)
1. In accordance with South Florida Water Management District water quality
treatment criteria, the existing surface water management system at the Boynton
Beach Mall is designed to detain the runoff from a three-year one hour storm
event. This level of treatment is equivalent to that provided by a retention or
detention system with filtration.
Based on unpublished data obtained by the South Florida Water Management
District as part of an ongoing water quality study at the mall, the following
treatment efficiencies were measured for storm events which occurred in 1986.
Also listed are the average pollutant removal efficiencies for retention systems as
presented in Table 5-1 of the draft final Report "An Assessment of Stormwater
Management Programs" prepared by Camp Dresser and McKee in 1985. As noted
below, the existing stormwater system is providing a level of treatment which is
equivalent to what would be expected from a retention or detention with filtration
system.
Average
Pollutant Measured Pollutant Removal Err.
Pollutant Removal. 9/6/86 10115/86 1216/86
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) 90% 98% 94% 97%
Total Phosphorus 90% 95% 56% 76%
Total Dissolved
Phosphorus 90% NA NA NA
Total Nitrogen 90% NA NA NA
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen NA 84% 18% 43%
Nitrite NA 97% 17% 83%
NA - Not Available
.
CDM Report
3
The same level of water quality treatment will be provided after the project is
completed.
2. As stated in the ADA, the post development peak discharge for the expansion area
will be limited to 62.6 CSM which is the current allowable discharge rate for areas
within the C-16 canal basin. Pre versus post development runoff volumes for the
entire project site for a 25-year, 72-hour storm event area as follows:
Pre-Development Runoff Volume = 107 Acre-feet
Post-Development Runoff Volume = 104 Acre-feet
3. The two southernmost retention ponds on the east side of the project are connected
with existing culverts. Both ponds are within the east drainage basin and outfall is
through the existing east basin control structure to the C-16 canal (see attached
revised Map G).
4
Jonn R. Wodralka. Executive Director
Tilford C. Cr.... Deputy Executive Director
~.- .----.-.--. r:'f;'
? ~
IN REPLY REFER TO:
]i
....
SEP 15 1988
-
Via Purolator Courier
September 14, 1988
T;::,._ 1 ~~ -".~; ~:~:::!:Al
rl,;........J ~C:;~.JfL
L. Christine 8editz, DRI Coordinator
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
3228 SW Martin Downs Boulevard, Suite 205
Palm City, FL 33490
Dear Ms. Bejitz: au..
Subject: Boynton Beach Mall SFWMD DRI No. 88-289
First Sufficiency Review
District staff have reviewed the Application for Development Approval
the Boynton Beach Mall Development of Regional Impact, and determined
following areas require additional information and/or clarification:
Question 22: Public Facilities: Drainage
1. Commercial projects are required by the District to provide dry pretreatment.
How will dry pretreatment be provided for the Sears retail store and automotive
repair facilities additions to the Boynton Beach Mall?
to amend
that the
If dry pretreatment cannot be provided, what provisions can be made in order to
ensure that runoff from areas where hazardous materials are used and stored will
not enter the surface water management system?
2. The applicant has proposed 1500 linear feet of 60" diameter culvert to
replace the relocated section of the Lake Worth Drainage District's L-23 canal.
How was the size of the culvert derived? How were potential off-site and
upstream impacts considered? Were impacts to unpermitted drainage systems
evaluated?
3. Please provide documentation from the Lake Worth Drainage District that
demonstrates their knowledge and acceptance of the relocation of a section of L-
23 and the replacement of same with 1500 linear feet of culvert, as described in
the Application for Development Approval.
Nancy H. Aoen
Chairman. Plantation
J.D. York
Vice Chairman - Palm City
Nathaniel P Reed
Hobe Souna
Oscar M. Corbin, Jr
Fl. Myers
Arsenio Mihan
MiamI
Fritz Stein
Belle Glade
James F Gamer
Ft Myers
Mike Stout
Windermere
Doran A. Jason
Key Biscayne
L. Christine Beditz
September 14, 1988
Page 2
If you have any Questions regarding the
review of the Boynton Beach Mall DR!,
Program Manager.
South Florida Water Management District's
please contact Lisa Smith, DR! Review
Sincerely,
>f~L~~
Supervising Professional
Land Development Review
Resource Control Department
SJL/lsc
cc: Thomas A. Marsicano
.
.
~~
,,-~....~
+~~\
!~,..\
: ,- ,I~\
~ 1'/., <<'(51
Q "11,.~ '--' ..' 9,:1,.: ~/
~)i;W
. ~ 41
'....<4rr 01 ~o..~
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Southeast Districtel900 S. Congress Ave.. Suite AeWest Palm Beach. Flond2 33..06e..0"'.960+-9608
Bob M2rtinc::z, Governor
Dale lWachtmann. Secretary
John She:arer. AsSISClnt Sccrcary
Scon Benvon. Deputv :\sslSlam SC'crearr
September 6,l988
Ms. L. Christine Beditz
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
3228 S.W. Martin Downs Blvd., Suite 205
P.O. Box l529
Palm City, Florida 33490
Subject: Boynton Beach Mall-Amended ADA
_:--ttt":t',
. 'y
,
,
... ..-'"
,
. ~.... "" I
..j
,
..-
Dear Christine:
I have reviewed the Amended Appliication for Development
Approval (dated August l5, 1988) referenced above and have the
following comments:
l. Public Facilities: Drainage. The relocation and culverting
of Lake Worth Drainage District Canal L-23 will require a DER
Dredge and Fill Permit. In the review of your Dredge and Fill
Permit Application, the Department will examine the loss of
habitat and possible water quality degradation. I would
suggest that you apply for the application concurrently with
your proposed amendment changes.
If you have any further questions regarding the Department's
comments, please feel free to call me at (407)964-9668 or
SUNCOM #22l-5005.
Sincerely,
....--.....
Marion Y. Hedgepeth I
DRI Coordinator
MYH:mh:88
cc: South Florida Water Management District, Lisa Smith
Thomas A. Marsicano, Greiner, Inc.
Rob Robbins, Palm Beach County, DERM
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT & FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AL REGULATION
Resoonse to Ouestion 22: Public Facilities: Drainage (South Florida Water
Management District)
1. Dry pre-treatment is not included as a part of the storm water management system
serving the Boynton Beach Mall. In accordance with the District's Basis of Review,
assurances will be provided to ensure that hazardous materials do not enter ,the
surface water management system. As stated in the ADA, the Sears automotive
facility will incorporate above ground storage facilities to temporarily store waste
oils, and surface impoundment area to store batteries. Waste oils and spent
batteries will be removed periodically by a licensed private contractor for
recycling.
2. The proposed culvert enclosure was sized to pass the design flow for this reach of
the L-23 canal without increasing headwater stages at Javert Street. The
calculations are included with the Surface Water Management Permit modification
which was submitted to the District on September 27, 1988.
3. Lake Worth Drainage District approval of the canal relocation and enclosure will
be obtained prior to construction. L.W.D.D. staff has conceptually reviewed and
concurred with the use of a 60 inch diameter RCP culvert.
Resoonse to Ouestion 22: Public Facilities: Drainage (Florida Deoartment of
Environmental Regulation Letter)
A dredge/fill application for the relocation and filling of the L-23 Canal was
submitted to the Department on August 18, 1988.
5
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY
'60 Australian Avenue. SUIte 301. West Palm Beach, Flonda 33406 Tel (305) 684-41 70
September 12, 1988
~-_.~ ---~-------~.:-.'\
);
-
"EP 1 ',' ""'8
;:; _ J i.::id
Ms. L. Christine Beditz,DRI Coordinator
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
P. O. Box 1529
Palm City, Fl 34990
T' .~ "~~.::.1~1.
h_.
r-...~.l'.""" 101... ...i,,,,,iL
Subject: Boynton Beach Mall Development of Regional Impact
Substantial Deviaiton
Dear Chris:
The staff of the Metropolitan Planning Organization has reviewed
the amended Development of Regional Impact Application for
Development Approval for the Boynton Beach Mall and offers the
following comments for your consideration.
MaDs J-2 and J-3
Map J-2, 1988 Average Annual PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, should
include all links that are significantly impacted by the
development. For instance, Mil itary Trail between Old Boynton
West Road and Hypoluxo Road is significantly impacted by the
Boynton Mall (between 5 and 11 percent) and should therefore be
i ncl uded in the analysi s.
General Comments
Palm Beach County and the MPO accept the Ci rcul ar 212 as the
standard procedure for analyzing intersection capacity. It is
suggested that the Region's recommendations for development
approval include those improvements required to maintain Level of
Service C based on the Circular 212 analysis.
I trust these comments will be helpful to you.
Sincerely Yours,
, I
Teresa P. Cantrell
Senior Planner
cc: S. Shannon
C. Walker
P Q. Boll. 2429, West Palm Beach, Flonda 33402-2429
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY
Map J-2, 1988 Average Annual PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes, should include all
links that are significantly impacted by the development. For instance, Military Trail
between Old Boynton West Road and Hypoluxo Road is significantly impacted by the
Boynton Mall (between 5 and 11 percent) and should therefore be included in the
analysis.
Map J-2 includes existing mall traffic, passer-by traffic, and background traffic, for
the average annual condition, at the Mall Access Points. Map J-I depicts the regional
significant studied roadways, which does include Military Trail between Old Boynton
West Road and Hypoluxo Road. This link is identified as links MI and M2 in all
applicable analysis tables.
Palm Beach County and the MPO accept the Circular 212 as the standard procedure
for analyzing Intersection Capacity. It is suggested that the region's recommendations
for development approval include those improvements required to maintain Level Of
Service C based on the Circular 212 Analysis.
Greiner maintains that the analysis techniques set forth in the 1985 Highway Capacity
Manual are appropriate. These procedures are now the accepted standard for design
and review of improvements for all state and federal projects. They are also reported
to be the basis of roadway capacity criteria published by TCRPC for use in DRI
analysis.
Board of County Commissioners
Carol :\. Roberts, Chair
Carol J. Elmquist, Vice Chairman
Karen T. ~ larcus
Dorothy Wilken
Jim Watt
County Admiaistratol
Jan Winters
Ms. L. Christine Beditz
DRI Coordinator
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
3228 S.W. Martin Downs Blvd.
Suite 205 - P.O. Box 1529
Palm City, Florida 34990
SUBJECT: BOYNTON BEACH MALL DRI SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION
Department of Eugineerin~
and Public Works
H.. F.. Kah1crt
County Engineer
r- '-''-<;-,~'''''~'.j~'
' _..:01'" . I ~,
r., . ..- ,...
r. S;p ~. 3. 1~8~ ",;~\
Tr-' ..... ....-~...T ""~""...,,,
r.l.~...,:.....::' ,,-, ... ...__~J..u...
"L '. I'""...;>H
i ....i'.~.-4.. v".........,
Dear Ms. Beditz:
The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has reviewed the substantial deviation
application for development approval (ADA) for Boynton Beach Mall and would like
to submit the following comments for your consideration:
Table 31.1 & 31.2
1. The source for the "Total ADT" volumes shown in these tables is
cited as "Palm Beach County.. These volumes do not, however,
correspond to any published by the County for either the 1987 or the
1987-88 year. No 1988 year ADTs have yet been published.
2. The diamond interchange critical movement analysis program should
be used to analyze the I-95/Boynton Beach Blvd. intersection.
3. How was "mall peak hour volume" derived for each existing roadway
1 ink?
4. "Daily capacity. should be shown at LOS 'C., not LOS 'E' and .peak
hour capacity" at LOS 'D', not LOS 'E'. This will allow for direct
comparison with accepted Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(TCRPC) standards.
5. Lawrence Road (Boynton Beach Bl vd. to Lantana Rd.) is on the
County's Thoroughfare Plan and should be considered in the analysis.
Also, the section of Old Boynton Road between Congress Ave. and
Boynton Beach Blvd. should be considered since it acts as a
collector road and provides a short cut to the Mall from 1-95.
6. Some of the existing peak hour link volumes which were factored from
turning movements appear low when compared with adjacent road
segments and with County data on file. For example, the following
links all show peak hour volumes that are only about 6% or less of
daily vol umes (rather than something closer to the 9% average
experienced throughout Palm Beach County):
"An Equal Opportunity. Affirmative Action Employer"
BOX 2429 WEST PALM BEACH, flORIDA 33402-2429 (407) 684-4000
page 2
Congress Ave. (south of Golf Rd.)
Military Trail (south of Boynton Beach Blvd.)
Boynton Beach Blvd. (west of Military Trail)
Boynton Beach Blvd. (Military Trail to Winchester Park Blvd.)
Boynton Beach Blvd. (Old Boynton Rd. to 1-95)
Woolbright Rd. (Congress Ave. to 1-95)
Table 31.7
7. What turn lane improvement is recommended by the Circular 212 Method
for the "eastbound" movement at the Congress and Old Boynton
intersection?
Table 31.9
8. The roadway annual growth rates in this table are incorrectly
calculated because the historical AOTs shown do not represent a one-
year growth period. What is shown as the "1988 AOT" in the table
is, in fact, the 1987-88 AOT and represents only 6 months growth
from the "1987 AOT". The consultant therefore needs to double all
of the growth rate percentages shown in order to derive growth for
a 12-month period.
It would be preferable, however, to consider a longer historical
time period as a more accurate (minimizing the impact of unusual
yearly fluctuations) basis upon which to derive growth rates. The
County requires that a 3 year time period be considered in
significant project traffic studies done pursuant to Ordinance 87-
18 (Traffic Performance Standards).
In any event, the consultant will need to rework Table 31.9 and
change Tables 31.5 and 31.6 accordingly.
MaD J-S
9. It does not seem realistic for a "Regional Mall" of this size to
draw only 17.8" of its traffic from 1-95. In fact, the rapidity
with which traffic disperses on this map appears to be more
characteristic of a neighborhood or community shopping center than
a regional mall. The application of the NCHRP Report #187 gravity
model distribution technique should be adjusted in recognition of
the type of shopping trip attraction that a "regional mall"
represents and in consideration of the market areas of competing
regi ona 1 malls.
Table 31-13
10. The "mall expansion traffic" of LOS 'C'" column should be changed
to "mall expansion traffic" of LOS '0'" for the peak hour because
LOS '0' is the TCRPC peak hour standard.
page 3
Your transmittal of this report for our comments is appreciated. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
OFFICE 0 THE COU~f ENGINEER
~/1 -/;/ L.-
Allan A. Ennis, P.E.
Development Review Engineer
AAE:te
cc: Randy Whitfield, P.E., Director, Palm Beach County MPO
Carmen Annunziato, AICP, Planning Director, City of Boynton Beach
file: SID - DeBartolo Mall
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS
OF
PALM BEACH COUNTY
Table 31.1 & 31.2
1. The source for the "Total ADT" volumes shown ,in these tables is cited as "Palm
Beach County". These volumes do not, however, correspond to any published by
the County for either the 1987 or the 1987-88 year. No 1988 year ADTs have yet
been published.
The reviewer is correct. The counts were provided by the Palm Beach County MPO,
and simply indicated as Palm Beach County Counts. A copy of these counts are
appended. Tables 31.1 and 31.2 have been revised accordingly. The ADT counts were
adjusted upwards where appropriate due to the fact that 1988 counts reportedly
covered only the first half of the year.
2. The diamond interchange critical movement analysis program should be used to
analyze the I-95/Boynton Beach Blvd. intersection.
Tables 31.3, 31.4, 31.7, 31.8, 31.15, and 31.16 have been revised to reflect the
reanalization of the signalized intersection sf Boynton Beach Boulevard and 1-95 as a
diamond interchange.
3. How was "mall peak hour volume" derived for each existing roadway link?
Existing "Mall Peak Hour Volume" was derived based on existing mall driveway
turning movement counts appropriately adjusted for season variation to correspond
with existing roadway counts and the gravity model developed using procedures
outlined in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report
#187 - "Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques."
4. "Daily capacity" should be shown at LOS "C", not LOS "E" and "peak hour
capacity" at LOS "D", not LOS "E". This will allow for direct comparison with
accepted Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) standards.
Tables 31.1, 31.2, 31.5, 31.6, 31.10, 31.13, 31.14, and 31.17 have been changed to reflect
the change in "Daily Capacity", shown at a LOS "C" service volume, for the average
annual condition and at a LOS "D" service volume for the peak season condition, and
the change in "Peak Hour Capacity" to a LOS "D" service volume for both average
annual and peak season conditions.
5. Lawrence Road (Boynton Beach Blvd. to Lantana Rd.) is on the County's
Thoroughfare Plan and should be considered in the analysis. Also, the section of
Old Boynton Road between Congress Ave. and Boynton Beach Blvd. should be
considered since it acts as a collector road and provides a short cut to the Mall
from 1-95.
Map J-I and Tables 31.1, 31.2, 31.3, 31.4, 31.5, 31.6, 31.7, 31.8, 31.10, 31.13, 31.14,31.15,
31.16,31.18 31.19, 31.20, and 31.21 have been revised to include Lawrence Road.
The section of Old Boynton Road between Congress A venue and Boynton Beach
Boulevard, is not a regionally significant roadway (not on the County's thorough fare
plan) therefore, the most conservative distribution of project traffic was through the
intersection of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Congress A venue.
6. Some of the existing peak hour link volumes which were factored from turning
movements appear low when compared with adjacent road segments and with
County data on file. For example, the following links all show peak hour volumes
that are only about 6% or less of daily volumes (rather than something closer to
the 9% average experienced throughout Palm Beach County):
[C-81 - Congress Ave. (south of Golf Rd.)
(M-4) - Military Trail (south of Boynton Beach Blvd.)
[B-II - Boynton Beach Blvd. (west of Military Trail)
[B-2) - Boynton Beach Blvd. (Military Trail to Winchester Park Blvd.)
[B-51 - Boynton Beach Blvd. (Old Boynton Rd. to 1-95)
[W-l) - Woolbright Rd. (Congress Ave. to 1-95)
2
In addressing this comment, the reviewer is first directed to the comment where
roadway link identifiers (C-S, M-4, etc) have been added. It is important to note that,
with the exception of link B5, ill of the roadway links listed fall outside of the study
of this analysis. On a regional level, project traffic on links C-8, M-4, B-1, B-2 and w-
I account for less than 5% of the applicable existing level of service service volumes
for both the daily and peak hour conditions during the average annual and peak
season analysis analysis periods. The same situation exists when the City of Boynton
Beach local criteria is examined, i.e. Palm Beach County 1% threshold. These links
were provided solely on an informational basis to identify the limits of the analysis
area. However, the relationship between the daily traffic volumes reported and the
peak hour traffic volumes counted are provided below. In addition, the a copy of the
daily traffic counts used in this analysis, as supplied by the Palm Beach County MPO,
is appended.
Addressing the links in order, the link C-8 daily volume was obtained from the
nearest count station (5602-2), located immediately north of Lake Ida Road,
approximately 2-1/2 miles south of Golf Road. As a result, directly determining a "K"
based on a illustrative AOT is not appropriate in this case.
The M-4 link daily volume was based on an appropriately located county count station
(5608-2). However counts at this location have varied significantly up and down over
the last five years ('83-11510, '84-12092, '85-17007, '86-14991P and '87-21012). This
variation suggests that the count data obtain over the last few years may not be
reliable. Assuming the data from 1983 to 1986 is valid and projecting 1988 daily
volume based on this growth rate would yield a daily volume of roughly 16,500 and a
"K" of 8.0%.
3
Along New Boynton Beach Boulevard three locations warrant review and comment.
Link B-1 daily volumes were based on county station 5611-1 where the exact location
of the station west of Military Trail is not known and traffic count data has
significantly varied up and down over a three year period from 8,924 to 13,040, with
no growth indicated over the past two years. However, to present a conservative
analysis a growth rate was assumed and an artificially high existing volume was
reported. This process lead to a low "K" when the inflated daily volume is used to
derive the "K", again direct comparison of daily and peak hour traffic is cautioned at
this location.
Due to the significantly negative growth identified by county counts at stations
5613-1, the daily volume used for link B-2 was the same as that used for link B-3
(5601-2). It must be recognized that this is more than likely a higher daily volume
than would normally be expect along link B-2 and thus results in the low "K" when
directly applied.
Link B-5 presents perhaps the most interesting contradiction in daily count volumes.
The peak hour volumes taken by Greiner at 1-95 and Old Boynton West Road and the
Congress Avenue count obtained from the county were compared to determine if
significantly different peak hour volumes were indicated. The counts compared
extremely well. However, the county counts at stations 5301-2 (B-6), 5201-2 (B-5) and
5615-1 (B-4) indicate significant higher traffic at location B-5, the middle link, and
rather consistent volumes at B-6 and B-4. If it is assumed that the higher volume
along link B-5 is attributable to the presence of Old Boynton West Road, than the
resulting "K" for this road is four to five percent when the unexplained link B-5 daily
traffic volume increase (10,000 to 13,000) is assigned to Old Boynton West Road.
Given the questionable nature of the B-5 daily traffic volume, caution is again
4
recommended when calculating a "K" and determining it to be low when upstream and
downstream peak hour volumes are comparable and there corresponding "K" are
within an acceptable range.
Finally, the link W-I daily volume was obtained from a count station (5205-2) located
immediately west of 1.95 and at a distance of approximately one mile east of Congress
A venue. It appears unreasonable to evaluate a peak hour volume ("K") based on a
daily traffic count which may not accurately reflect the actual daily traffic volume
where the peak hour traffic count was conducted.
7. Table 31.7 - What turn lane improvement is recommended by the Circular 212
Method for the "eastbound" movement at the Congress and Old Boynton
intersection?
Table 31.7 has been revised to show an eastbound left turn lane improvement at Old
Boynton Road and Congress Avenue, based on the Circular 212 procedure.
8. Table 31.9 - The roadway annual growth rates in this table are incorrectly
calculated because the historical ADTS shown do not represent a one-year growth
period. What is shown as the "1988 ADT" in the table is, in fact, the 1987-8g
ADT and represents only 6 months growth for a I2-month period.
It would be preferable, however, to consider a longer historical time period as a
more accurate (minimizing the impact of unusual yearly fluctuations) basis upon
which to derive growth rates. The County requires that a 3 year time period be
considered In significant project traffic studies done pursuant to Ordinance 87-18
(Traffic Performance Standards).
In any event, the consultant will need to rework Table 31.9 and change Tables
31-5 and 31-6 accordingly.
Table 31.9 shows the roadway growth rate for the background traffic. Where
appropriate 1988 base counts were increased to reflect a full years growth, prior to
projecting future year growth based on these volumes.
These rates were derived
using 1987 and 1988 mid-year counts. Although these growth rates may only represent
5
six months growth, the actual growth rate used on our studied roadways is actual
much high, due to the addition of 'Other Projects' traffic to the background traffic.
The following table provide an example of the actual background growth used on
Congress Avenue and Boynton Beach Boulevard.
ACTUAL GROWTH RATES USED
1988 Background 1989 Background
PM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume Percent Increase
Average Peak Average Peak Average Peak
Link Annual Season Annual Season Annual Season
C3 2,779 2,864 3,599 3,642 29.5 27.2
C4 2,883 2,983 3,665 3,770 27.1 26.4
C5 2,750 2,837 3,582 3,676 30.2 29.6
B3 2,028 2,085 2,243 2,305 10.6 10.6
B4 2,277 2,426 2,743 2,846 20.4 17.4
B5 2,386 2,553 2,747 2,924 15.1 14.5
The following table shows the historic (1985 to 1987) Florida Department of
Transportation AADT counts.
FDOT HISTORICAL AADT COUNTS
FDOT Percent Growth
Count Station LocationI 1985 1986 1987 Per Year
285 Boynton Beach Blvd. N/A 29,077 27,384 Negative
East of Congress Ave.
58 Boynton Beach Blvd. N/A 17,826 16,615 Negative
East of Military Trail
2,196 1-95 North of 80,816 85,975 99,491 11.5
Boynton Beach Blvd.
2,195 1-95 South of 80,529 113,113 107,534 16.8
Boynton Beach Blvd.
I No count locations on Congress Avenue within the study area.
6
As shown in the above table Boynton Beach Boulevard shows no growth, and we used
an actual growth rate of approximately 15 percent.
9. Man J-5 - It does not seem realistic for a "Regional Mall" of this size to draw
only 17.8% of its traffic from 1-95. In fact, the rapidity with which traffic
disperses on this map appears to be more characteristic of a neighborhood or
community shopping center than a regional mall. The application of the NCHRP
Report #187 gravity model distribution technique should be adjusted in recognition
of the type of shopping trip attraction that a "regional mall" represents and in
consideration of the market areas of competing regional malls.
A copy of the gravity model was included in the transportation appendix which
accompanied the ADA. The model accurately represents the Boynton Beach Mall
market area as delineated by the applicant. The market area, or primary trade area as
it is more typically referred to in the retail industry, is influenced by a number of
factors such as population density, average household income, travel time, distance,
and competitive centers. The competitive centers which directly influence the trade
area of this mall include: Palm Beach Mall; Town Center of Boca Raton; and Worth
Avenue. The trade area is also influenced to some extent by the abundance of
community and neighborhood shopping opportunities within the general area.
The gravity model was also ground truthed based on the actual directions of approach
and departure of existing project traffic at each of the mall access points. As a result,
the gravity model accurately reflects the trade area, the presence of competitive and
alternative shopping opportunities in the area and relies on the actual approach and
departure patterns of mall patron at each of the project access points.
10. Table 31-13 - The "mall expansion traffic % of LOS "e" column should be
changed to "mall expansion traffic % of LOS "D" for the peak hour because LOS
"D" is the TCRPC peak hour standard.
Please refer to footnote #6 of Table 31.13 a indicated. The LOS "C" column referred
to in the reviewer's question was provided at the request of the City of Boynton Beach
7
to ensure that the study area included all roadway links applicable under the Palm
Beach County Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance study criteria. The column has
no bearing on the TCRPC criteria or DRI review process. The regional (TCRPC)
study area is based on 5% of the appropriate LOS service volume for the overall
project, while impact fee criteria applies only to the mall expansion and in this case a
differing LOS standard at a 1% threshold.
8
Board, of County Commissioners
County Administrator
Join \\'inters
Carol :\. Roberts, Chair
Carol J. Elmquist, Vice Chairman
Karen T. ~Iarcus
Dorothv \\iilken
Jim Watt
Department of
Environmental Resources
Management
September 12, 1988
[,,'?,''??1~~ ~
:" .' ~~ ~~ -~ \' r .
f\' :~.' '1
'.... SEP 14 1988
Mr. Daniel M. Cary, Executive Director
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
3228 S.W. Martin Downs Boulevard
Suite 205, P.O. Box 1529
Palm City, Florida 34990
Tl"",,,.~-= ~""T "1'~1!l".L
~'"'........ ,....~.oi ft.... All
rj.ri.~~~.J ~~~iima.-
._~
Dear Mr. Cary:
The Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management (ERM)
has reviewed the substantial deviation Application for Development Approval
(ADA) for the Boynton Beach Mall Development of Regional Impact (DRI). We
have no objection to the modification of the mall to allow the construction of
an additional anchor department store. However, we do oppose the proposed
reduction of the pine flatwoods preserve, located in the northwest corner of
the site, to accommodate the additional parking estimated by the applicant to
be needed for the operation of the new store. We believe that a parking
garage could be constructed to provide the necessary number of parking spaces
without the destruction of a significant portion of the pine preserve.
Previous Palm Beach County Actions Related to the Proposed Project
In our previous letter to you on this project, dated April 14, 1988, we stated
our position that the pine flatwoods tract should be preserved, as required in
the original development order issued by the Palm Beach County Board of
County Commissioners (Development Order Resolution No. R-074-343, issued on
Hay 7, 1974). We further noted that previous plans for the mall proposed by
the applicant indicated the potential for construction of a parking garage,
and recommended that this option be investigated as part of the substantial
deviation review process. Residents of the Pine Acres subdivision, which is
located immediately west of the mall and the pine preserve, appeared before
the Board of County Commissioners on May 10, 1988 to express their concerns
regarding the possible loss of the preserve. At that time, members of the
Board expressed their support for continued preservation of the preserve and
stated their intent to support the requirements for the preservation of the
pine tract in the County's review of the ADA. Therefore, we wish to reaffirm
our continued support for the preservation of the entire pine flatwoods tract
in its present location.
Potential for Settinq of a Precedent
Allowing the destruction of a portion of the preserve at the Boynton Beach
Mall site could set a precedent for the loss of portions or all of future
3111 SOUTH DIXIE HWY" SUITE 146
WEST PAL.\! IlE,~CH, HORIDA 33+05
(407) 820.40 II
SUNCO.\t 245.4011
Hr. Daniel H. Cary
Page 2
September 12, 1988
preserves set aside as conditions for the approval of future ORIs, if the
developers or owners decide they need more space for other uses. Unless such
conditions are adhered to in perpetuity, such areas are not truly preserved.
Effects of the Proposed Reduction of the Pine Flatwoods Preserve
According to the information presented in Table 12.2 of the ADA, 42% of the
existing pine flatwoods area would be removed to permit the relocation and
cUlverting of Canal L-23 and the development of additional parking spaces.
The removal of this portion of the existing pine flatwoods ecosystem would
result in the loss of that amount of habitat for the species of wildlife that
presently live, feed, or breed on the site. The disturbance caused by the
removal of the vegetation and the relocation of the canal also could result in
the elimination of some of these species permanently from the site, because
there is no adjacent area from which replacement animals can repopulate the
amount of the preserve remaining. The disturbance of the soil structure and
composition of the area to be cleared could prevent some species of plants or
animals from repopulating the site, because some of the soil- or plant-related
conditions or factors they require as part of their environment might no
longer be present. The value of the remaining habitat for wildlife would be
reduced because of the decrease in the total size of the preserve. It also is
likely that the vegetation remaining would function less efficiently as a
visual screen and buffer to reduce the noise and visual impacts on the Pine
Acres subdivision than the present preserve, due to the reduction in the
width of the buffer area, and thus the density of the vegetative community.
Additionally, the disturbance and subsequent replanting activities could
favor the invasion of the disturbed area by nonnative species. Although 2.42
acres of the present pine flatwood area would be developed, only 0.l4 acres
would be replanted with pine trees. This is approximately 5.8% of the area
lost, or a 0.06-1.0 mitigation ratio -- a very low rate. Projects that
involve mitigation for habitat loss typically provide. at a minimum, one acre
of replacement habitat for every acre of existing habitat destroyed or
degraded. The shrubs, grasses, and herbs, which constitute a significant
portion of the vegetation on the site and provide food and other habitat needs
for wildlife, would not be replaced. Although it is stated in the ADA that
three pine trees would be replanted for everyone lost, the increased number
of trees does not compensate for the lost acreage of habitat, and in fact may
not be desirable because of the density of the planting and the likely even-
age status of the trees to be used.
The species diversity of the site (number of species present and variety of
types of species) and the structural diversity of the plant community would be
reduced. The loss of this diversity would reduce the value of the site for
wildlife. Any additional vegetation to be planted to the east of the
relocated canal probably would function more as landscaping for the parking
area than as habitat or a food source for the animals of the pine preserve or
a visual buffer to the residential subdivision. Landscaping is not
replacement of lost habitat.
Mr. Daniel M. Cary
Page 3
September 12, 1988
The variety of ages of trees also could be reduced. Animals need trees and
plants of different ages at different times of the year for feeding, breeding,
nesting, etc. Dead trees (known as snags) are a natural part of the pine
flatwoods ecosystem; they provide perching, nesting, and denning sites for a
variety of animal species, as well as habitat for insects that are an
important food source for many species. Species that require snags may no
longer be able to use the site.
Use of Nonnative Landscape Plants
The significant deviation application indicates that the right-of-way along
Javert Street, on the western border of the pine preserve, would be planted
with pong am (Ponqamia pinnata) trees, a species not native to Florida. This
landscaping activity is not desirable if a natural preserve area is to be
maintained. It would reduce the residents' view of the native vegetation and
is likely to facilitate the introduction of other nonnative plants and
animals.
If the pine flatwoods area is intended to be a preservation area for native
vegetation and wildlife habitat, nonnative species such as pongam should not
be planted on the site. Also, some authorities state that pongam seeds are
poisonous if consumed; therefore, it would be advisable not to use this
species where the seeds would be accessible to small children. such as
adjacent to a single-family residential subdivision.
Problems Due to Lack of Adequate Site Maintenance
It is noted in the significant deviation that the pine flatwood area has been
used as an illegal dump, apparently for a number of years, and that debris and
waste ranging from trash and tree trimmings to an auto.obile chassis is
present. Regardless of the extent of the pine preserve, this material should
be removed by the owners or operators of the mall, and the area checked
periodically to ensure that it is being maintained in a state conducive to the
preservation of the habitat value of the natural ecosystem. It should not be
degraded in quality through use as a waste disposal site.
Ecoloqical Value of the Pine Preserve
Although the pine preserve has not been identified as a high-quality native
ecosystem in the Inventory of Native Ecosystems being conducted by consultants
for Palm Beach County, it is one of the last remaining tracts of pine
flatwoods in the central and south-central sections of the county. Therefore,
it provides valuable habitat for wildlife because of the scarcity of this
type of habitat in the county. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory has
ranked this ecosystem as vulnerable to extinction, both statewide and
globally, because of the relatively small amount that remains.
\
Kr. Daniel M. Cary
Page 4
September 12, 1988
Recommendations for Conditioning of the Development Approval
The significant deviation application does not consider alternatives to the
removal of a portion of the pine preserve. such as the provision of the
required parking elsewhere on the mall site. One alternative that should be
considered is the construction of a parking garage, preferably in a portion of
the mall site away from the preserve, so that the noise and other impacts
associated with the garage would not adversely affect the preserve and its
component species. We recommend that the development approval be conditioned
to require the preservation of the existing pine flatwoods preserve in
perpetuity, the maintenance of the preserve to prevent waste-related problems,
and the construction of a parking garage.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ADA.
~athleen Brennan of my staff at (407) 820-4011 if you
regarding our comments.
Please contact me or
have any questions
Sincere~y yours~, 1
(0 II c 6 . . (
/ ~!:i,-t\""(.'-1' C'- v.-~u...~
Richard E. Walesky, Director cr
Environmental Resources Management
cc: Commissioner Karen Marcus
Commissioner Carol Roberts
Commissioner Carol Elmquist
Commissioner Dorothy Wilken
Commissioner James Watt
Jan Winters. County Administrator
Sam Shannon. Assistant County Administrator
Ms. Rebecca Martin. Pine Acres
Dr. Frederick Cichocki, Coalition for Wilderness Islands
RESPONSE TO PALM BEACH COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
LETTER TO TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 12, 1988
Previous Palm Beach Countv Actions Related to the Pro Dosed Proiect
The original D.O. Condition referencing the pine flatwood area states that the
developer "preserve the pine area located on the subject property," not that it be
designated or dedicated as a preserve. This area was zoned CG-General Commercial
along with the balance of the property. The proposed plan retains 3.41:t acres or 58%
of Parcel 7 which includes the "pine area" referred to in the original D.O. The precise
acreage of the pine flatwood area located within the 5,83 acre area (Parcel 7) has not
been determined.
Residents of the Pine Acres subdivision have appeared before the City Council on
April 5, 1988 and at a neighborhood meeting conducted by the Applicant on November
10, 1988, to express their concerns of the subject area and adjacent canal. The
Applicant will attempt to incorporate their concerns and suggestions as much as
possible in a revised native landscape buffer plan. A list of those residents of the
Pine Acres subdivision and other interested City or County residents who attended the
recent neighborhood meeting is included in this response. The Applicant requests that
a list of those Pine Acre residents attending the Board of County Commissioners on
May 10, 1988 be provided for inclusion in the Sufficiency Response.
Potential for Setting of a Precedent
The pine flatwood area was not indicated as a high quality native ecosystem by the
Inventory of Native Ecosystems for Palm Beach County nor has it been designated as
a conservation area or area of significant environmental concern by either the City of
Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan or the Palm Beach County Land Use Map. Parcel
7 has remained as designated in the County Land Use Plan as Medium to Medium
High Residential with a zoning designation of General Commercial. The Applicant is
proposing that the remaining area of Parcel 7 be designated as a recreational area in
accordance with the recommendation of the City of Boynton Beach's Comprehensive
Plan 1986 Technical Report. The removal of a portion of the pine flatwood area does
not set a precedent for the loss of all or future areas which are dedicated preserve
areas by definition of their environmental significance since it was never actually
dedicated as a "preserve" or conservation area. The retention of 58% of Parcel 7,
which includes the pine flatwood area, is in excess of current TCRPC policy requiring
the retention of 25% of native upland habitat.
Effects of the Prooosed Reduction of the Pine Flatwoods Preserve
The replanting of the .14 acres in pine habitat community is a result of the culverting
of the L-23 canal. The Applicant concurs that the reduction of the pine area will
result in a similar reduction in habitat. However, the loss of habitat should not
greatly influence the current existing species' diversity of the site and structural
diversity of the community. There is no reason to speculate that species located in
that portion of the site lost will not migrate to the remaining adjacent habitats.
2
The removal of exotic species which has become established in approximately I acre
of the 5.83 acre parcel is required by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
The subsequent replanting of native upland habitat is anticipated to enhance and
increase that portion of the pine flatwood area lost as a result of the invasive exotic
monoculture community. The re-vegetation of this area and proposed replanting
activities, coupled with an environmentally sensitive maintenance program should
prevent the re-invasion of the disturbed area by exotic species, as well as prevent the
continued invasion of exotic species into the existing pine area. All portions of the
pine area are to be maintained in a natural state including the retention of dead trees
(snags) and brush material.
Use of Non-native Landscaoe Plants
The proposed landscape buffer along the Javert Street right-of-way will be revised to
incorporate native species typical of pine flatwoods. Additional consideration has
been directed towards those species which are attractive to wildlife.
Problems Due to Lack of Adeouate Site Maintenance
The proposed landscape and buffer plan for the pine flatwood area will insure that
the area is not continually used as a convenient and illegal dumping ground. The plan
which will include fencing of the subject site will enable the area to be restored and
maintained in a more natural condition.
3
Ecoloeical Value of the Pine Preserve
The proposed landscape buffer plan and maintenance program, the restoration of the
pine area lost due to exotic species, the prevention of exotic species invasion further
into the pine area, and the cessation of illegal and potentially hazardous dumping
activities will benefit the community in terms of neighborhood enhancement and will
restore a degraded natural system.
4
BOYNTON BEACH MALL PROPOSED EXPANSION
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 1988
Virginia Driscoll
Greiner, Inc.
Tom Marsicano
Greiner, Inc.
Dick Greco
DeBartolo Corp.
Ken and Joan Herndon
3513 Lothair Ave.
Stella Rossi
625 Whisperings Pine Rd., Boynton Bch.
Janet Hofmeister
3593 Kitely Ave., Boynton Bch.
Mike Houbill and
Jim Kerstin
3606 Kitely Ave., Boynton Bch.
Nicky Hartless
3603 Oberon Ave., Boynton Bch.
Jim Houbrick
3600 Kitely Ave., Boynton Bch.
Mary McCullough
3545 Oberon Ave., Boynton Bch.
Robert Pendleton
3546 Oberon Ave., Boynton Bch.
Joanne Davis
Florida Native Plant Society
(Palm Beach Chapter)
4060 Westview Ave.
Lake Worth, FL
Steve Farnsworth
7080 Hypoluxo Farms Rd., Lake Worth