HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Environmental Advisory Committee_Tab 05_3/9/2022Agenda Item #5.
Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC)
STAFF MEMO
Meeting: Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) - Mar 09 2022
Staff Contact: Thomas Bradford, EAC Chair Department: Environmental Advisory
Committee
Draft Recommendations to the EAC on the Conservation Element, v4 of the VOT Comprehensive Plan
for Consideration of the Village Council and Staff
SUMMARY: '04
This document and any attachments may be reproduced upon request in an alternative format by completing
our Accessibility Feedback Form, sending an e-mail to the Village Clerk or calling 561-768-0443.
BUDGETED AMOUNT: n/a AVAILABLE AMOUNT: n/a EXPENDITURE AMOUNT: n/a
Additional Budgetary Information: Funding Source(s):
n/a n/a
Backup Memo Conservation Ele Sub Ele v4 030922
Page 24 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
Village of Tequesta
Environmental Advisory
Committee
Memo
To: Environmental Advisory Committee Members
From: Thomas G. Bradford, Chair, EAC
cc: NA
Date: March 2, 2022
Re: Draft Recommendations to the EAC on the Conservation Element, v4 of the VOT
Comprehensive Plan for Consideration of the Village Council and Staff
VOT Resolution No. 24-19, which created the EAC, requires the EAC "...to within the bounds of
the Village's Comprehensive Development Plan, develop recommendations for goals, objectives
and policies relative to sustaining and improving the environment of the Village of Tequesta." To
this end, the EAC is now reviewing the Conservation Element of the VOT Comprehensive Plan in
five phases, vl, v2, v3, v4, v5 and possibly more. In order to keep the review process manageable
only one of the phases will be reviewed at each EAC meeting. This memo addresses v4.
Items usually highlighted in yellow are noted places where an environmental matter is stated in
the Element. However, in this case, every Goal. Objective, and Policy in the Conservation Element
is an environmental matter making highlighting unnecessary. There III combined Goals,
Objectives and Policies to be commented on in this Conservation Element. I will try to break this
down into 5 separate parts over 5 months or more of EAC meetings to keep it manageable. This
equates to approximately 22 items to comment on per month. TGB comments are my thoughts on
the item. EAC proposed Options are my suggestions of what we should tell the Village about the
item.
You are encouraged to review the Element or sub -element and propose where you see
environmental issues requiring EAC review potentially overlooked in this memorandum or make
suggestions on how to modify or add to the comments and options provided herein to consider for
Page 25 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
recommendation to the Village Council and staff. The link to the VOT Comprehensive Plan is as
follows:
http://tequesta.org/84/Community-Development
Pertinent sections pertaining to environmental issues within the Conservation Element, v4, of the
VOT Comprehensive Plan and my comments are as follows:
CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Objective: 2.7.0- The Village shall establish and maintain land use controls that will encourage
recreational -oriented development and allow for future expansion of recreation facilities in desired
areas of the jurisdiction.
TGB Comment to EAC: Then why did the Village consider eliminating almost all of its previously
adopted level of service standards for recreation facilities at the Village Council meeting on
February 10, 2022, that would have ensured, over time, additional recreational facilities within
Tequesta? Vice -Mayor Kyle Stone at least temporarily derailed the ill-advised move.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o This Objective is fine as written.
Policy: 2.71- The Village should consider lease arrangements of public areas to private entities to
develop recreational facilities, when appropriate
TGB Comment to EAC: Fine, so long as this does not entail privatizing Tequesta's recreational
lands, facilities or programs. Lease -purchase is a form of financing that has been used successfully
in the public sector for capital expenditures over time.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o This Policy is fine as written, so long as this does not entail privatizing Tequesta's
recreational lands, facilities or programs.
Objective: 2.8.0 - The Village shall encourage air monitoring programs to continue throughout the
area by local pollution control agencies.
TGB Comment to EAC: Not a bad Objective, but I would prefer this read "The Village shall
support air monitoring programs..."
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
E
Page 26 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
are:
o The Village shall actively support air monitoring programs to continue throughout the area
by local pollution control agencies
Policy: 2.8.1- The Village should continue to support efforts of local pollution control agencies to
monitor air quality in the Village.
TGB Comment to EAC: "The Village shall,...", not "should."
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o The Village shall actively support air monitoring programs to continue throughout the area
by local pollution control agencies.
Policy: 2.8.2 - The Village should coordinate and cooperate with local pollution control agencies
to assure appropriate local input.
TGB Comment to EAC: As written, this Objective and related Policies make it obvious to even a
casual reader that the Village has little interest in the impacts of air pollution on its people. As for
Policy: 2.8.2, the Village shall coordinate and cooperate with local pollution control agencies to
assure appropriate local input and more as suggested below.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o The Village shall coordinate and cooperate with local pollution control agencies to assure
appropriate local input. Should data from the local pollution control agencies indicate
decreased air quality for Tequesta and the region or reduced water quality of Tequesta
controlled discharges into water bodies the Village will accelerate efforts to reduce GHG
emanating in the Village and seek to decrease vehicular trips per day occurring in the
Village or facilitate EV vehicle use and further convert Tequesta fleet EVs to reduce local
air pollution and will implement additional water quality control processes and
mechanisms to mitigate the problem to acceptable levels pursuant to local water quality
standards adopted by local pollution control agencies for the applicable water bodies.
Objective: 2.9.0 - The Village shall maintain water conservation measures to provide for
emergency conservation of water services.
K,
Page 27 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
TGB Comment to EAC: This makes no sense as written because if SFWMD says we have drought
and steps shall be taken, there is no choice in the matter. The correct position is to effect
conservation measures during normal non -emergency times. Tequesta is permitted to withdraw
2.73 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Surficial Aquifer and 3.60 mgd from the Floridan
Aquifer. The Level of Service Standard (LOS) adopted by the Village for potable water for
residential is 180 gallons per capita per day or 5,400 gallons per month, which equates to 21,600
gallons per month for a family of four. For non-residential the LOS is 3,030 gallons per day or
90,900 gallons per month. Based on current rates, the adopted LOS for a family of four would cost
approximately $125.69 per month, if they each used only the adopted LOS. However, Tequesta's
adopted LOS is not in keeping with the actual water use of its customers. The 2018 SFWMD
Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update, Chapter 8, Appendix E, indicates that the Tequesta
Water Utility per capita potable, or Finished Water (2012-2016), was 309 gallons per day, much
higher than the LOS of 180 used for infrastructure planning and adopted in 2017. Steps need to be
taken to reduce water consumption in the Tequesta water service area, without raising water rates.
Tequesta has some of the highest water rates in this region.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o Implementation of options to effect meaningful water conservation results, without using
higher water rates as a means of conservation, should include any combination of the
following from SFWMD:
Education, Outreach, and Marketing
Examples:
o School educational programs
o Media campaigns
o Informative billing
o Training staff and associates at facilities and operations that provide irrigation and
landscaping materials, services, and supplies
o Florida -Friendly Landscaping demonstration gardens
o Workshops and exhibits
o Landscape design and irrigation education for residents and industry professionals
o Irrigation water audits for residential, commercial, and agricultural users
o Indoor water use audits for residential and commercial users
o Retrofit and rebate programs for replacing inefficient water -using devices with efficient
ones
Cost -Share Funding Programs
Examples
4
Page 28 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
o SFWMD administers a cost -sharing program named Cooperative Funding Program (CFP)
which has funded 39 water conservation projects in the LEC Planning Area (Chapter 8).
The CFP is accessible to local governments and utilities, homeowners' associations,
commercial entities, and agricultural operations for technology and hardware -based
conservation programs. Examples of PWS water conservation projects include toilet and
bathroom fixture retrofit programs, irrigation system retrofits, automatic line flushing
devices, and analytical data software to increase customer conservation awareness.
Certification and Recognition Programs
Examples
o Many cities and utilities support programs that recognize end -user conservation efforts
such as the Florida Green Building Coalition, the Florida Green Lodging Program,
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and Green Globes. Holistic
programs typically include criteria affecting water use, energy efficiency, climate -adaptive
landscaping, sustainable building material, site selection, indoor environmental quality,
and greenhouse gas emissions.
o Florida Water StarSM program. This program certifies buildings and associated outdoor
spaces that have been designed or retrofitted to high water -efficiency standards. The
program offers training for landscape and irrigation professionals to obtain program
accreditation. The Florida Water StarSM program can be implemented at nearly any
property to obtain water savings of approximately 40 percent over traditional construction.
o The Florida -Friendly Landscaping Program. The program promotes low -maintenance and
drought -tolerant plants, environmentally sustainable landscaping, and high -efficiency
irrigation practices through its nine principles, and it recognizes landscapes that have been
designed and managed using environmentally friendly techniques. The program is
functionally linked to the Florida Water StarSM program, making it easier for participants
to qualify for one program after receiving certification in the other.
Policy: 2.9.1- The Village will continue to cooperate with the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) in its efforts to restrict the unnecessary consumption of potable water,
particularly as it relates to irrigation, lawn watering, and car washing during periods of draught,
supply reduction, and other emergencies.
TGB Comment to EAC: Again, there's that inordinate focus on drought and other emergencies.
Conservation is supposed to be a 24/7 effort.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o Re -write Policy: 2.9.1 to read:
The Village will continue to cooperate with the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) in its efforts to restrict the unnecessary consumption of potable
5
Page 29 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
water, including the establishment of non -water rate related Demand Management
strategies used by SFWMD, including Education, Outreach, and Marketing, Cost -
Share Funding Programs and Certification and Recognition Programs as outlined in the
SFWMD 2018 LEC Supply Plan Update, page 49. In addition, the Village will work to
effect within its jurisdiction during special water conservation efforts, both requested
and required, issued by SFMWD for irrigation, lawn watering, and car washing during
periods of drought, supply reduction, and other emergencies.
Objective: 2.10.0 - The Village shall maintain measures regulating the management of hazardous
wastes and materials.
TGB Comment to EAC: This looks good. See this link for VOT regulations:
hqs:HlibraLy.municode.com/fl/tequesta/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=PTITCOOR CH30E
NCONU ARTVTOHAMA
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o Fine as written. However, from time to time the Village, through its various communication
mediums, should remind the public which materials are deemed hazardous and of the
regulations pertaining to them.
Policy: 2.10.1- The Village shall maintain an ordinance regulating the storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes and materials.
TGB Comment to EAC: This is redundant in light of Policy 2.10.0 above. One cannot regulate
without an ordinance or a statute.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o This is redundant in light of the content of Policy 2.10.0.
Policy: 2.10.2 - The Village shall provide for the management of hazardous wastes to protect
natural resources through its local Haz-Mat team.
TGB Comment to EAC: What? "...its local Haz-Mat team?"
VOT FD may have a Haz-Mat unit, meaning persons trained in basic haz-mat to respond more
quickly and make situational assessments, but surely, they are not equipped to deal with things
like a fully loaded gasoline tanker overturning on U.S. 1 leaking gasoline into the stormwater
C
Page 30 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
collection system leading to the Loxahatchee River and having a fireball 100 feet into the sky?
This happened just north of Beach Road in the 1990's. The Palm Beach County Regional
Hazardous Materials Response Ordinance of 1998, set forth in Chapter 11, Article VII, of the Palm
Beach County Code, established a regional hazmat response team to provide response,
investigation and mitigation of releases of hazardous substances. The SWA agreed to provide
funding for regional hazmat response teams to provide emergency response in both the
incorporated and unincorporated areas of Palm Beach County. The County distributes the funding
provided by the Solid Waste Authority equally to the regional hazmat response teams for the
provision of these services. The Countywide Regional Hazardous Materials (Hazmat) emergency
response program consists of four emergency hazmat response teams, one of which is provided by
the City of West Palm Beach. Pursuant to Interlocal Agreement between the County and the Solid
Waste Authority (SWA), the SWA provides annual funding to partially cover the costs of the
response teams, in an amount estimated to be over $2M paid directly to the County. Each of the
four regional teams receive 25% of the annual funds received by the County from the SWA.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o Policy: 2.10.2 should be re -written to properly clarify the roles of the Tequesta Haz-Mat
team, if any, and the role of the Countywide Regional Hazardous Materials (Hazmat)
emergency response program to which all Tequesta property owners are assessed for
funding the SWA for this regional service.
Policy: 2.10.3 - The Village shall maintain measures regulating the management of hazardous
wastes and materials.
TGB Comment to EAC: VOT seems to be doing this. See these links:
https://Iibraiy.municode.com/fl/teguesta/codes/code—of ordinances?nodeld=PTIICOOR_CH34F
IPRPR ARTIVHASUHAWA S34-91DE
h!Ms://Iibrary.municode.com/fl/tequesta/codes/code—of ordinances?nodeld=PTIICOOR—CH30E
NCONU ARTVTOHAMA
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o Policy: 2.10.3 is fine as written, although some of the ordinances are over 40 years of age
and might be in need a major upgrade to properly address old and any new hazardous
substances.
7
Page 31 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
Objective: 2.11.0 - The Village shall protect and conserve mangroves, wetlands and seagrasses to
ensure that there will be no net loss of the existing natural resources within the Village.
TGB Comment to EAC: OK, so let's get busy and start protecting. Protecting goes beyond
mangrove trimming regulations and relocation criteria. It also entails providing for clean water to
conserve and preserve the health of mangroves, wetlands and seagrasses.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o Objective: 2.11.0 is fine as written, but actions speak louder than words. The proof of the
pudding will lie in the adequacy of the written and adopted policies that follow and the
actions implemented to effect those policies that are directly related to this admirable
Objective.
Policy: 2.11.1 - Mangrove, wetlands and seagrass areas within the Village shall be deemed
environmentally sensitive, in recognition of their many natural functions and values, and shall be
protected from incompatible land uses. The Village shall afford protection to all these resources
regardless of size.
TGB Comment to EAC: This is fine and interesting. Interesting to me because VOT allows marinas
as a special exception use in its R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts. These zoning districts are on either
side of the Intracoastal Waterway, i.e., that portion of the Indian River Lagoon, Jensen Beach to
Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve located in Tequesta. I think marinas might be a tad bit problematic
for mangroves and seagrasses due to increased boat traffic and marina construction.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o Update the VOT Code of Ordinances, and specifically the Zoning Code, to ensure that you
are in fact going to preserve that which you have deemed as environmentally sensitive. In
this case mangroves and seagrasses.
Policy: 2.11.2 - The definition of mangroves and wetlands to be used for regulatory purposes by
the Village shall be the most comprehensive definitions used by the South Florida Water
Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Representatives of these agencies will be contacted for assistance in
identifying the location of all wetland areas within the Village.
TGB Comment to EAC: Sounds good.
0
Page 32 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
c Policy: 2.11.2 is fine as written. Therefore, if not done already, codify this in the VOT
Code of Ordinances.
Policy: 2.11.3 - The location of mangrove and wetland areas shall be identified by survey at the
time of site development review on a site -by -site basis. The Village shall not issue a development
order or permit for a parcel until all wetland areas on that parcel or immediately adjacent to the
proposed development have been identified and located.
TGB Comment to EAC: This needs a tweak. The introductory sentence of this Policy addresses
both mangrove and wetland areas, but the second sentence only applies to wetland areas.
Additionally, it seems obvious that there is a distinction between mangrove habitat and wetlands
that sometimes is recognized in this Element of the Comp Plan and at other times not. I could be
wrong, but I think mangrove habitat is not the same as an upland wetland. This desire for
identifying mangrove and wetland areas by survey is not in the VOT Code that I recall and why
would it be since the VOT has delegated the subject of mangroves to the FDEP? So, maybe at least
for wetlands this needs to be added to the Code of Ordinances?
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o Rewrite this Policy 2.11.3 so that the first and second sentences address both mangroves
and wetlands. Codify the survey requirement if not currently codified. Clarify the
distinction between mangrove habitat and upland wetlands, if any, throughout this
Element.
Policy: 2.11.4 - No development, including residential development, shall be permitted within
mangrove or other wetland areas unless project alternatives that would avoid mangrove and
wetland impacts arc unavailable and mitigation is provided by the applicant to offset adverse
impacts. For purposes of this policy, sufficient mitigation is as required by Sections 403.9321-
403.9333 the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act. It is intended that all standards in these
citations are to apply to all new development and redevelopment and that any exemptions or
exceptions in these citations, including project size thresholds, are not applicable.
TGB Comment to EAC: The statute says "...local government may grant a variance... if the
hardship is not self-imposed..." Does the Village consider a dock to be development? I hope so.
What about marinas?
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
M
Page 33 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
o Policy 2.11.4 as written understates the power the Village has to deny development
applications negatively impacting mangroves or wetlands. The development applicant
must demonstrate a bona fide hardship that is not self-imposed in order to receive a
variance and regardless of hardship the Village can say "No." Docks and marinas are
located on the submerged lands of the state. Any upland portion is on either private or
public property, with no automatic right to the submerged lands of the state. This Policy
places the importance of development over the continued viability of the mangroves or
wetlands by stating that development shall not be permitted unless project alternatives that
would avoid mangrove and wetland impacts are unavailable. If project alternatives are
unavailable, deny the project and avoid mitigation to offset the adverse impacts. Having
zero project alternatives is not a bona fide hardship based variance application. A hardship
runs with the land is not manmade. Adding insult to injury, Tequesta has delegated all
decisions on mangrove trimming and preservation to FDEP. See Sec. 50-101 of the VOT
Code of Ordinances. That being the case, either just say delegation of all authority has been
given to FDEP and provide a narrative that will never involve the Village. This delegation
occurred in 2013 and the Comp Plan was approved in 2017. Someone must have not read
the Code.
Policy: 2.11.5 - The Village shall permit the following within mangrove, seagrass and wetland
areas: elevated piers, docks, and walkways of no more than five feet in width, unless vehicular
access in the form of a golf cart or similar vehicle is necessary, in conjunction with a permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, pursuant to Sections 403.9321-403.9333 the
Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act.
TGB Comment to EAC: So, I guess state -of -the art floating docks must not be allowed to facilitate
light to access sea grasses below? I cannot wrap my head around this Policy. The VOT delegates
anything to do with mangroves trimming and mitigation to FDEP, which I assume means the
applicant goes straight to FDEP for a permit. But what if FDEP approves a 10-foot-wide dock
gashing though the existing mangroves? Whose dock width will prevail? Will the VOT say "Well,
FDEP approved a 10-foot-wide dock so we will let the applicant have a 10-foot-wide dock
variance?" Or does the applicant get to destroy a 10-foot-wide pathway for mangrove removal and
mitigation, but can only have a 5-foot-wide dock?
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o There may be great potential for problems with what appears to be dual oversight of
mangroves in Tequesta. Upland wetlands really don't exist in Tequesta anymore. Roles
and responsibilities should be spelled out in detail in the Code so a property owner knows
what he or she has to do for each agency, VOT and FDEP and the two separate roles, should
they truly exist must be scrutinized for avoidance of any unanticipated consequences.
10
Page 34 of 35
Agenda Item #5.
Policy: 2.11.6 - Within mangrove, seagrass and wetland areas, all piers, docks and walkways shall
be constructed on pilings.
TGB Comment to EAC: Was this already stated in Policy 2.11.5? Isn't an elevated pier, dock or
walkway constructed on pilings?
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o This policy is redundant. See first sentence in Policy 2.10.5.
Policy: 2.11.7 - No pier, dock or walkway shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated
with seagrasses except as is necessary to reach waters at a depth prescribed by the state Department
of Environmental Protection. The docking terminus shall not be located over a seagrass bed.
TGB Comment to EAC: There's that FDEP reference again. This Policy must mean there are dual
responsibilities for seagrasses; VOT and FDEP, a potential for confusion and other problems.
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o If this is the policy of the VOT, please ensure it gets codified ASAP.
Policy: 2.11.8 - Bulkheads and seawalls shall be permitted only to stabilize disturbed shorelines
or to replace deteriorated existing bulkheads and seawalls. Riprap shall be placed at the toe of all
replaced bulkheads and seawalls.
TGB Comment to EAC: This is good. What happens to mangroves took root within or adjacent
riprap and it is now time to build a new seawall?
EAC Proposed Options: Options to consider for recommendation to the Village Council and staff
are:
o If this is the policy of the VOT, please ensure it gets codified ASAP.
11
Page 35 of 35