HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-92-0061J-92-56
1/14/92
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING, IN PRINCIPLE, THE
MIAMI RIVER MASTER PLAN DATED JANUARY, 1992;
FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING
BACK ALL PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDED IN SAID
PLAN FOR CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION.
WHEREAS, the Miami River Coordinating Committee, composed of
City of Miami, Metro Dade County and State of Florida officials
and private citizens, has requested the preparation of a master
plan for the Miami River; and
WHEREAS, the Miami River Master Plan is a plan including all
property abutting the Miami River for its entire length; and
including adjacent upland property and water uses and should
serve as a guide for public improvements and costs, and private
land development and changes in zoning; and
WHEREAS, the Miami River Master Plan does not constitute an
amendment of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000;
and
WHEREAS, the Miami River Master Plan has been the subject of
workshops and drafts have been widely circulated for public
comment; and
cr y com ssiox
MEETING of
JAN 23 1992
92-- 6
wsa wfox
WHEREAS, the Miami Waterfront Advisory Board on December 10,
1991, by a 9 to 0 vote, endorsed the Miami River Master Plan as
submitted by the Planning Division with emphasis on the
historical and architectural aspects of the plan with the
provision that the property uses be water dependent; and
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board at its meeting on
January 8, 1992, following an advertised public hearing, adopted
Resolution No. PAB 3-92, by a vote of 9 to 0, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL of the Miami River Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Miami River Coordinating Committee on
January 15, 1992 by a vote of 9 to 0, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of
the plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in the
best interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami to
encourage orderly development of the Miami River and its
environs;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recital and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Section.
Section 2. The Manager is hereby directed to bring back all
proposed changes included in the Miami River Master Plan for City
Commission approval prior to implementation.
Section 3. The Miami River Master Plan dated January, 1992
is hereby approved, in principle.
-2-4 2 -- 61
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January" , 1992.
ATT YVIER L. SUA EZ, MA'
MATTY 141iAI—
City Clerk
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
LINDA KELLY EARS N
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
City A rney
LKK/pb/M2730
PZU10
PLANNING FACT SHEET
APPLICANT City of Miami Planning, Building and Zoning
Department: December 9, 1991
PETITION
1. Consideration of recommending approval, in
principle, of the Miami River Master Plan
(January, 1992), a plan including all property
abutting the Miami River for its entire length,
and including adjacent upland; containing
proposals for land and water uses, public
improvements and costs, private land development
and changes in zoning; but not being an
amendment to the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000.
REQUEST
To approve the Miami River Master Plan In
principle.
PLANNING
Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND
The Planning Division undertook this 18-month
long planning study at the request of the Miami
River Coordinating Committee (MRCC).
The purposes of the plan are to:
1. Consolidate in one summary document the
existing and proposed projects, programs and
ideas of many public agencies and private
sector organizations that are working to
improve the Miami River and its environs;
2. Relate all these in a comprehensive manner,
fill in the missing pieces, resolve
conflicts, and suggest priorities; and
3. Provide a long-range vision and a
short-range action agenda.
ANALYSIS (See Executive Summary attached)
�) �9 PAB 1/8/92
Item #1
Page 1 of 6
MIAMI RIVER MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
Maritime Industry
The function of the Miami River as a "working waterfront" should be
preserved. Scarce waterfront land should be reserved, wherever possible, for
use by businesses that are dependent on a waterfront location or are
essentially related to the maritime economy of the area.
The river should grow as a shallow draft seaport - a lifeline to the Caribbean
Basin - providing good -paying jobs for city residents. New shipping terminals
should be located where they will not be detrimental to .residential
neighborhoods.
The river's role in the regional market for repair, sales and service of boats
and marine equipment should be maintained and strengthened.
The marine character embodied by the fishing industry on the river should be
preserved.
Management
The river's diversity, vitality and exotic character should be preserved.
Improvement efforts should strive to manage it without totally taming it.
_ Crime and the perception of crime along the river must be reduced. Law
enforcement efforts should be enhanced with increased manpower and new laws
tailored to curtail the import/export of contraband and stolen merchandise.
Safety should be improved in the navigation and operation of vessels and
marine facilities along the river. Problems such as improper loading of
cargo, lack of safety equipment, inadequate training of crew members, and
substandard maintenance practices need to be addressed with new regulations
applicable to foreign flag vessels.
Owners of vessels should be made financially responsible for costs and
penalties associated with abandoned or derelict vessels, navigational
accidents, mechanical failure, fuel or pollutant spills, and code violations.
Management and enforcement efforts need ongoing funding and coordination among
numerous public agencies at the city, county, state and federal levels. An
official port organization would be one way to accomplish this, as well as
other benefits such as carrying out port -related capital improvement projects,
marketing and promotion.
.. Iteml#1
,." Page 3 of 6
PZ=10
PLANNING FACT SHEET
APPLICANT City of Miami Planning, Building and Zoning
Department: December 9, 1991
PETITION 1. Consideration of recommending approval, in
principle, of the Miami River Master Plan
(January, 1992), a plan including all property
abutting the Miami River for its entire length,
and including adjacent upland; containing
proposals for land and water uses, public
improvements and costs, private land development
and changes in zoning; but not being an
amendment to the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000.
REQUEST To approve the Miami River Master Plan In
principle.
PLANNING
Approval.
RECOMMENDATION
BACKGROUND The Planning Division undertook this 18-month
long planning study at the request of the Miami
River Coordinating Committee (MRCC).
The purposes of the plan are to:
ANALYSIS
1. Consolidate in one summary document the
existing and proposed projects, programs and
ideas of many public agencies and private
sector organizations that are working to
improve the Miami River and its environs;
2. Relate all these in a comprehensive manner,
fill in the missing pieces, resolve
conflicts, and suggest priorities; and
3. Provide a long-range vision and a
short-range action agenda.
(See Executive Summary attached)
�3 PAB 1/8/92
Item #1
Page 1 of 6
A
RECOMMENDATIONS
MIAMI WATERFRONT ADVISORY
BOARD
Endorsement on December 10, 1991, by a 9 - 0
vote with emphasis on the historical and
architectural aspects of the plan, with the
provision that property uses be water dependent.
MIAMI RIVER COORDINATING The recommendations of the Miami River Coordinat-
COMMITT.EE ing committee Will be presected at the City
Commission meeting.
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD At its meeting of January 8, 1992, the Planning
Advisory Board adopted Resolution PAS 3-92 by a-
9-0 vote recomaending approval of the above.
One reply AGAINST was received by mail.
92
. CJ,
Z PAS 1/6/92
Item #1
Page 2 of 6
MIAMI RIVER MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
Maritime Industry
The function of the Miami River as a "working waterfront" should be
preserved. Scarce waterfront land should be reserved, wherever possible, for
use by businesses that are dependent on a waterfront location or are
essentially related to the maritime economy of the area.
The river should grow as a shallow draft seaport - a lifeline to the Caribbean
Basin - providing good -paying jobs for city residents. New shipping terminals
should be located where they will not be detrimental to .residential
neighborhoods.
The river's role in the regional market for repair, sales and service of boats
and marine equipment should be maintained and strengthened.
The marine character embodied by the fishing industry on the river should be
preserved.
Management
The river's diversity, vitality and exotic character should be preserved.
Improvement efforts should strive to manage it without totaily taming it.
Crime and the perception of crime along the river must be reduced. Law
enforcement efforts should be enhanced with increased manpower and new laws
tailored to curtail the import/export of contraband and stolen merchandise.
Safety should be improved in the navigation and operation of vessels and
marine facilities along the river. Problems such as improper loading of
cargo, lack of safety equipment, inadequate training of crew members, and
substandard maintenance practices need to be addressed with new regulations
applicable to foreign flag vessels. .
Owners of vessels should be made financially responsible for costs and
penalties associated with abandoned or derelict vessels, navigational
accidents, mechanical failure, fuel or pollutant spills, and code violations.
Management and enforcement efforts need ongoing funding and coordination among
numerous public agencies at the city, county, state and federal levels. An
official port organization would be one way to accomplish this, as well as
other benefits such as carrying out port -related capital improvement projects,
marketing and promotion.
9 9 PAB 1/8/92
Item #1
Page 3 of 6
Environmental Quality
The river should have clean water. It should meet all state water quality
standards suitable for a Tajor tributary to Biscayne Bay. The river should
support a variety of marine plant and animal life, but is not intended to
support swimming and other human recreational activity.
Ongoing sources of water pollution must be eliminated with major capital
investments in replacement of outmoded sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage
systems-. Other sources of pollution should be reduced through improved
regulations and enforcement.
Contaminated sediments on the river bottom must be removed by environmentally
safe dredging. Future sedimentation should be reduced by eliminating direct
stormwater runoff and stabilizing the shoreline with riprap and/or bulkhead
structures.
The river should be acknowledged as a place suitable for continued use and
development of recreational and commercial marine facilities, subject to
environmentally sensitive design standards and concentrated code enforcement.
Land Use and Design
The river should continue to accommodate a wide variety of land uses,
including water -dependent marine businesses, private residences, public parks,
institutions, offices, and hotels. All future development should maximize its
orientation to and beneficial use of the riverfront.
The river's potential as a recreational attraction for residents and visitors
should be exploited. Recreational boating, sight-seeing tours, water taxis,
charter fishing boats, waterfront restaurants and markets, and parks should
draw people and activity to the river. Access and views should be enhanced
from bridges and adjacent streets.
A continuous, lively, urban river -walk should be developed in the downtown area
with apartments and hotel rooms rising above ground level restaurants, shops
and outdoor cafes.
The amenity of the river should be used as a catalyst for revitalization of
the Lummus Park and East Little Havana neighborhoods; blending the existing
working waterfront with restaurants, outdoor cafes, seafood and vegetable
markets, etc. In contrast to the high -intensity, sophisticated downtown
riverwalk, these riverfront districts should achieve a more earthy,
neighborhood -scale character.
PAB 1/8/92'
Item N1
P 4 f 6
- - --- •� age o
D
STUDY AREA
The study area for this plan, shown on Map 1.1, includes navigable portions of
the Miami River and its major tributaries (Seybold Canal, South Fork/Comfort
Canal, North Fork, Tamiami Canal, and Palmer Lake). The main channel
stretches a length of 5.5 miles from the mouth of the river to the salinity
dam near NW 36th Street and NW 40th Avenue.
Abutting properties, streets and bridges are included in the study area. The
relationship between the study area and adjacent neighborhoods and
transportation systems have been carefully considered.
The plan includes portions of the river located in unincorporated Dade County.
Activities in these areas are so integrally related to the economic,
environmental and regulatory issues in the City of Miami portion of the river,
that it would be impossible to separate the two areas. City staff has
coordinated this planning study with Metropolitan Dade County through the
Miami River Coordinating Committee and direct contact with staff from numerous
county agencies, most notably from DERM.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Miami River Coordinating Committee (MRCC) has served as the client and
provided the principal forum for public involvement in this planning study.
Presentations have also been made to the Miami River Marine Group, the Miami
River Business Association, and the City of Miami Waterfront Advisory Board.
Telephone interviews were conducted with fifty-four marine related businesses
located in the study area, in addition to survey information concerning
shipping terminals provided by the Miami River Marine Group. Information and
guidance have been provided by staff from numerous city, county, state and
federal agencies.
In February, 1991, a series of four public workshops were held in the PB&Z
conference room. Each of these well -attended lunchtime sessions covered one
of the four subsequent chapters of this plan: Working Waterfront, River
Management, Environment, and Urban Design. The staff's preliminary analysis
and proposed goals, objectives and policies were discussed in detail,
resulting in numerous additions and modifications.
The current version of this plan, entitled, "Miami River Master Plan - Draft
Report, October, 1991", is intended to be distributed to the MRCC and other
interested public agencies and citizens for review and comment. Comments will
be received until December 1, 1991. The report will then be revised, as
appropriate, and scheduled for public hearings before the Miami Planning
Advisory Board and the City Commission.
-, 1PAB 1/8/92
Item #1
Page 5 of 6
APPROVAL AND IMPLEMENTATION
I
It is anticipated that the Miami River Master Plan will be adopted by the City
Commission in principle (litre all other special area studies). It will remain
then for the plan to be implemented incrementally. This will include actions
by the City of Miami such as amendments to the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, zoning ordinance and city code. However, many of the
recommendations in this plan will require actions by other governmental
entities, especially Metro -Dade County. The MRCC will need to spearhead those
changes.
PAS 1/S/92
Item #1
Page 6 of 6
E
MIAMI
RIVER
MASTER PLAN
ATTACHMENT TO ITE1"I PZ-10
COMMISSION MEETING OF
JANUARY 23, 1992
FINAL REPORT - JANUARY, 1992
CITY OF MIAMI DEPARTMENT OF
PLANNING, BUILDING & ZONING
MIAMI RIVER MASTER PLAN
FINAL REPORT
JANUARY, 1992
Prepared by the City of Miami
Department of Planning, Building and Zoning
Xavier L. Suarez, Mayor
Dr. Miriam Alonso, Vice -Mayor
Victor DeYurre, Commissioner
Miller J. Dawkins, Commissioner
J. L. Plummer, Jr., Commissioner
Cesar H. Odio, City Manager
Department of Planning, Building and Zoning:
Sergio Rodriguez, Director
Guillermo Olmedillo, Deputy Director
Joseph W. McManus, Assistant Director
Elbert L. Waters, Assistant Director
Joyce A. Meyers, Urban Planning Coordinator
Robert Schwartzreich, Economic Planner
Ana Gelabert, Urban Designer
Jose R. Casanova, Neighborhood Planner
Olga Garcia, Computer Graphics
Richard Butler, Planning Illustrator
George Detrio, Photographer
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
0.1
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENT
Introduction and Goal
3.1
Overview
0.2
Storm Drainage
3.2
Planning Process
0.4
Sanitary Sewers
3.4
Study Area
0.5
Dredging
3.6
Implementation Actions
0.6
Shoreline Stabilization
3.8
Manatee Protection
3.10
Marina Siting
3.12
CHAPTER 1: THE WORKING WATERFRONT
Introduction and Goal
1.1
Overview of the Marine Industry
1.2
Marine Industries on the Miami River
Shipping Industry
1.4
1.6
CHAPTER 4: URBAN DESIGN
Introduction and Goal
4.1
Marinas and Boatyards
1.8
Public Access and Visual Identity
4.2
Fisheries
1.10
Connections
4.4
Waterfront Industrial Zoning
1.12
Historic Preservation
4.6
Neighborhood Strategies
4.8
CHAPTER 2: RIVER MANAGEMENT
River Bend
4.9
Introduction and Goal
2.1
Mid -River
4.16
Security
2.2
Up -River
4.22
Derelict Vessels
2.4
Transportation
2.6
Bridges and Tunnels
2.8
Navigational Safety and
APPENDIXES
Code Enforcement
2.10
History
A.1
Port of Miami River
2.12
Police Assessment
B.2
n
LJ
� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Miami River reflects the diversity of the multi -ethnic,
international city that it traverses. It is a microcosm of con-
trast that includes a picturesque setting for private residen-
ces and public parks, an unfulfilled opportunity for lively
urban waterfront attractions in the downtown area, and a
working river - the fifth busiest seaport in the state and the
largest concentration of marine industries in the
metropolitan area.
A myriad of issues and opportunities have
Y pp s a e focused com-
munity attention on the river. Among the most important of
these are the dynamic growth of shipping activity, persist-
ent water pollution, crime, lack of authority to regulate
foreign flag vessels, and revitalization efforts in adjoining
f
neighborhoods.
This planningstud of the Miami River was undertaken Yby
the City of Miami Department of Planning, Building and
Zoning in order to:
1. Consolidate in one summary document the existing
and proposed projects, programs and ideas of many
public agencies and private sector organizations that
are working to improve the Miami River and its en-
virons;
2. Relate all these in a comprehensive manner, fill in the
missing pieces, resolve conflicts, and suggest
priorities; and
3. Provide a long-range vision and a short-range action
agenda.
Miami River Master Plan 0.1
OVERVIEW
Maritime Industry
The function of the Miami River as a "working waterfront"
should be preserved. Scarce waterfront land should be
reserved, wherever possible, for use by businesses that are
dependent on a waterfront location or are essentially re-
lated to the maritime economy of the area.
The river should grow as a shallow draft seaport - a lifeline
to the Caribbean Basin - providing good -paying jobs for
city residents. New shipping terminals should be located
where they will not be detrimental to residential neighbor-
hoods.
The river's role in the regional market for repair, sales and
service of boats and marine equipment should be main-
tained and strengthened.
The marine character embodied by the fishing industry on
the river should be preserved.
Management
The river's diversity, vitality and exotic character should
be preserved. Improvement efforts should strive to manage
it without totally taming it.
Crime and the perception of crime along the river must be
reduced. Law enforcement efforts should be enhanced with
increased manpower and new laws tailored to curtail the im-
port/export of contraband and stolen merchandise.
Safety should be improved in the navigation and operation
of vessels and marine facilities along the river. Problems
such as improper loading of cargo, lack of safety equip-
ment, inadequate training of crew members, and substan-
dard maintenance practices need to be addressed with new
regulations applicable to foreign flag vessels.
Owners of vessels should be made financially responsible
for costs and penalties associated with abandoned or
derelict vessels, navigational accidents, mechanical failure,
fuel or pollutant spills, and code violations.
Management and enforcement efforts need ongoing funding
and coordination among numerous public agencies at the
city, county, state and federal levels. An official port or-
ganization would be one way to accomplish this, as well as
other benefits such as carrying out port -related capital im-
provement projects, marketing and promotion.
P,
s
i
I
1
P
0.2 Executive Summary i
r
r
I
I
E
11
1
i
Environmental Quality
The river should have clean water. It should meet all state
water quality standards suitable for a major tributary to Bis-
cayne Bay. The river should support a variety of marine
plant and animal life, but is not intended to support swim-
ming and other human recreational activity.
Ongoing sources of water pollution must be eliminated
with major capital investments in replacement of outmoded
sanitary sewer and stormwater drainage systems. Other
sources of pollution should be reduced through improved
regulations and enforcement.
Contaminated sediments on the river bottom must be
removed by environmentally safe dredging. Future sedimen-
tation should be reduced by eliminating direct stormwater
runoff and stabilizing the shoreline with riprap and/or
bulkhead structures.
The river should be acknowledged as a place suitable for
continued use and development of recreational and commer-
cial marine facilities, subject to environmentally sensitive
design standards and concentrated code enforcement.
Land Use and Design
The river should continue to accommodate a wide variety
of land uses, including water -dependent marine businesses,
private residences, public parks, institutions, offices, and
hotels. All future development should maximize its orienta-
tion to and beneficial use of the riverfront.
The river's potential as a recreational attraction for resi-
dents and visitors should be exploited. Recreational boat-
ing, sight-seeing tours, water taxis, charter fishing boats,
waterfront restaurants and markets, and parks should draw
people and activity to the river. Access and views should
be enhanced from bridges and adjacent streets.
A continuous, lively, urban riverwalk should be developed
in the downtown area with apartments and hotel rooms
rising above ground level restaurants, shops and outdoor
cafes.
The amenity of the river should be used as a catalyst for
revitalization of the Lummus Park and East Little Havana
neighborhoods; blending the existing working waterfront
with restaurants, outdoor cafes, seafood and vegetable
markets, etc. In contrast to the high -intensity, sophisticated
downtown riverwalk, these riverfront districts should
achieve a more earthy, neighborhood -scale character.
IMiami River Master Plan 0.3
PLANNING PROCESS
Background
The decision to undertake a planning study for the Miami
River dates back to 1985, when the City Commission con-
curred with recommendations from the Planning Department
and the Miami River Management Committee, concerning
the need for a comprehensive inventory, analysis and growth
management plan.
The first phase of this effort was a detailed inventory and
analysis of existing physical and economic conditions, and
projections for future growth. The final report from phase
one, entitled "Miami River Economic Study," was prepared
in 1986 by consultants, Zuchelli, Hunter and Associates, Inc.
and Bermello, Kurki and Vera, Inc., with grants from the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (federal
Coastal Zone Management funds), the City of Miami and
Metro -Dade County.
Related Plans
Funding for completion of a Miami River growth manage-
ment plan was unavailable for the next several years. How-
ever, during the period from 1986 to 1989, the City of Miami
Planning Department completed two related plans that have
important implications for the Miami River. The Downtown
Master Plan contains detailed policies for land use, urban
design, transportation and public improvements for areas ad-
jacent to the Miami River (north bank from the mouth to NW
5th Street bridge; south bank from the mouth to I-95). The
Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000 legal-
ly establishes the land use pattern and includes numerous
goals, objectives and policies relevant to the Miami River,
i.e. to encourage water -dependent uses along the shoreline,
to reduce water pollution caused by stormwater drainage, to
promote dredging of the river, and to protect shipping ac-
tivity on the river. During the same period, Metro -Dade
County completed the draft Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve
Management Plan (1986), and the current version of the com-
prehensive plan, which regulates development in the unincor-
porated area (north of NW 20th Street) and establishes coun-
tywide policies for water quality, transportation, etc.
Elements-oPthe Miami River Master Plan
In the spring of 1990, the City of Miami Department of Plan-
ning, Building and Zoning (renamed after merger with Build-
ing and Zoning) decided to fulfill the City's promise to com-
plete a special plan for the Miami River using in-house staff,
equipment and materials, without help from outside grants
and consultants. Using the 1986 Economic Study as a data
base and the aforementioned adopted plans as a policy
framework, this efed on a reexamination of important issues
and needs, refinement of objectives and policies, and
analysis of potential solutions to problems and opportunities.
The purposes of this study are further defined on page one of
this report.
Public Involvement
The Miami River Coordinating Committee (MRCC) has
served as the client and provided the principal forum for
public involvement in this planning study. Presentations
have also been made to the Miami River Marine Group, the
Miami River Business Association, and the City of Miami
Waterfront Advisory Board. Telephone interviews were con-
ducted with fifty-four marine related businesses located in
the study area, in addition to survey information concerning
shipping terminals provided by the Miami River Marine
Group. Information and guidance have been provided by
staff from numerous city, county, state and federal agencies.
In February, 1991, a series of four public workshops were
held in the PB&Z conference room. Each of these well -at-
tended lunchtime sessions covered one of the four sub-
sequent chapters of this plan: Working Waterfront, River
Management, Environment, and Urban Design. The staff's
preliminary analysis and proposed goals, objectives and
policies were discussed in detail, resulting in numerous addi-
tions and modifications.
A draft version of this plan, entitled "Miami River Master
Plan - Draft Report, October, 1991 ", was distributed to the
MRCC and other interested public agencies and citizens for
review and comment. Comments were received until Decem-
ber 15, 1991. The report was then revised to incorporate as
much of the public comment as possible. The "Miami River
Master Plan - Final Report, January, 1992" is scheduled for
public hearings before the Miami Planning Advisory Board
and the City Commission.
Approval and Implementation
It is anticipated that the Miami River Master Plan will be
adopted by the City Commission in principle (like all other
special area studies). It will remain then for the plan to be
implemented incrementally. This will include actions by the
City of Miami such as amendments to the Miami Comprehen-
sive Neighborhood Plan, zoning ordinance and city code.
However, many of the recommendations in this plan will re-
quire actions by other governmental entities, especially
Metro -Dade County. The MRCC will need to spearhead
those changes.
P
U
f]
L
U
I
I
0.4 Executive Summary
11
1
1
1
r
Ll
1
STUDY AREA
The study area for this plan, shown on Map 1.1, includes
navigable portions of the Miami River and its major
tributaries (Seybold Canal, South Fork/Comfort Canal,
North Fork, Tamiami Canal, and Palmer Lake.). The main
channel stretches a length of 5.5 miles from the mouth of
the river to the salinity dam near NW 36th Street and NW
40th Avenue.
Abutting properties, streets and bridges are included in the
study area. The relationship between the study area and ad-
jacent neighborhoods and transportation systems have been
carefully considered.
The plan includes portions of the river located in unincor-
porated Dade County. Activities in these areas are so in-
tegrally related to the economic, environmental and
regulatory issues in the City of Miami portion of the river,
that it would be impossible to separate the two areas. City
staff has coordinated this planning study with Metropolitan
Dade County through the Miami River Coordinating Com-
mittee and direct contact with staff from numerous county
agencies, most notably from DERM.
1
Miami River Master Plan 0.5
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PART 1: CODE AMENDMENTS
Level of Government Cross-reference
Brief Identification of Code Amendment City County State FedPolicy # Page #
Create a waterfront industrial zoning district 0 1.1.2 1.5
Subdivide existing waterfront industrial zoning district (SD-4) into commercial and industrial
Simplify permit procedures & requirements for maintenance, repair and minor improvements to waterfront
structures
Require owners of commercial vessels to post a bond or other form of financial responsibility for penalties
resulting from illegal cargo
Streamline the existing DNR grant program for removing derelict vessels
Require owners of commercial vessels to post a bond or other form of financial responsibility for the cost
of cleanup and/or fines for violations of environmental and safety codes or for removal of derelict vessels
Require a pawn brokers licence for the owner or agent of foreign vessels
Require registration of bicycles
Authorize local officials to dispose of abandoned vessels in accordance with Section 705, Florida Statutes,
concerning "Lost or Abandoned Property"
Authorize enforcement of abandoned or derelict vessel violations under the Chapter 8CC ticketing system
Require all vessels to be registered, including barges and houseboats
Make the registered owner of a boat legally responsible for the vessel until DNR receives a bill of sale and
application for transfer of title and registration to a new owner
Participate in the U.S. Coast Guard process of adopting rules governing safety for commercial vessels
0 0
0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
1.2.3
1.7
1.3.1
1.9
1.12
0 0
1.3.4
1.9
0
2.1.3
2.3
0
2.2.5
2.5
0
2.2.6
2.5
2.4.5
2.11
2.1.4
2.3
2.1.5
2.3
2.2.1
2.5
2.2.2
2.5
0
2.2.3
2.5
0
2.2.4
2.6
0 2.4.1 2.11
0.6 Executive Summary
PART 1: CODE AMENDMENTS (continued)
Brief Identification of Code Amendment
Level
City
of Government
County State Fed
Cross-reference
Policy # Page #
Strengthen the qualifications and responsibilities of licensed stevedores
0
2.4.2
2.11
Require all waterfront properties to have the street address posted in a location clearly visible from
0
0
2.4.7
2.11
the water
Create for
a ticketing system code enforcement
0
2.4.8
2.11
Establish by ordinance a "Port of Miami River" with appropriate staff- and self-supporting funding
0
2.2.9
2.13
Require all liveaboard vessels to be connected with onshore waste disposal systems or holding tanks
0
0
-3.1.8
3.5
Authorize DERM officials to inspect vessels for on -board sanitation devices, holding tanks, and contaminated
0 0
3.1.9
3.5
bilgewater, and to require pumpout of holding tanks and bilges at authorized facilities
Require shoreline stabilization for new development, redevelopment and major renovations
0
0
3.2.3
3.8
Restrict development and coastal construction permits in manatee habitat and resting areas, including
0
3.3.6
3.11
Palmer Lake
Require waterfront facilities to be constructed using methods which prevent or minimize injury, entrapment
0
0
3.3.8
3.11
or crushing of manatees
Adopt marina siting criteria that permit continued improvement and construction of marine facilities along
0
0
3.3.10
3.11
the Miami River
3.4.1
3.13
Modify the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Rules to permit use of state-owned submerged lands
0 0
3.4.1
3.13
in the Miami River, subject to environmentally sensitive design standards
F
u
Miami River Master Plan 0.7
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PART 2: PROGRAMS
Leading Estimated Potential Plan Reference
Activities and Programs that Require Funding Agency Annual Cost Funding Sources Policy # Page #
Market and promote Miami River shipping terminals within the Beacon Council Beacon Council 1.2.2 1.7
Caribbean Basin marketplace and MRMG User fees
Provide assistance to small businesses for filing applications for
financial assistance and coastal construction permits
Increase police patrol City of Miami
Police
Establish an official inspection station to check all Metro -Dade
incoming and outgoing commercial vessels; or a County
monitoring/communications station at the Brickell Ave.
bridge where the arrival/departure of each cargo vessel would
be recorded and the appropriate enforcement agencies notified
Develop and promote a program whereby owners of unwanted or DERM
derelict vessels consider the donation of suitable vessels
to the Dade County Artificial Reef Program
Reduce unnecessary bridge openings by educating boaters and Marinas and
marketing products (outriggers, antennae and other appurtenances) boatyards
that are easily removed or lowered
Continue environmental code enforcement DERM/DER
Train and equip marine patrol officers to spot all types of code City of Miami
violations and to intervene or notify the appropriate Police
enforcement agency
Establish an official "Port of Miami River" with appropriate staff Metro -Dade
County
1.3.5 1.9
$ 416,100 Fines and seizures 2.1.1 2.3
Special taxing district
User fees
User fees 2.1.6 2.3
private 2.2.7 2.5
FIND grant
private 2.3.5 2.9
$330,000 Permit fees 2.4.4 2.11
SWIM grants.
Storm Water Utility
Included in 2.4.6 2.11
Policy 2.1.1
User fees . 2.4.9 2.13
Special taxing district
0.8 Executive Summary
1
1
t
1
PART 2: PROGRAMS (continued)
Leading
Estimated
Potential
Plan Reference
Activities and Programs
that Require Funding
Agency
Annual -Cost
Funding Sources
Policy # Page #
Increase maintenance of
storm drains to remove obstructions
Public Works
$1,750.000
Storm Water Utility
3.1.3 3.3
caused by litter, grease,
sediments and other debris
(City & County)
Continue monitoring and
investigation aimed at detecting leakage and
DERM
$240,000
Storm Water Utility
3.1.7 3.5
illegal/improper connections in the sanitary sewer and storm drainage
WASAD
systems
SWIM grant
Conduct a public awareness
campaign to discourage discharge
DERM/DER
$10,000
SWIM grant
3.1.10 3.5
of untreated waste from
vessels
Boat registration fees
DER
Improve enforcement of vessel speed limits
Sponsor public education programs, improve informational signage
and provide educational brochures for distribution to boaters
concerning manatee protection
Create a "manatee watch" program to host guided tours and manatee
sightings for school children and the general public
Continue studies of manatee behavior and migration patterns
Investigate the effectiveness of ducted propellors or propellor
guards on appropriate vessels for protecting manatees
Florida Marine Fines 3.3.3 3.11
Patrol
DERM/DER $10,000 DER, FIND 3.3.4 3.11
SFWMD
Private foundations
DERM $10,000 DNR grant 3.3.5 3.11
Private foundations
DERM $50,000 Boat registration fees 3.3.7 3.11
Manatee tag revenues
DERM $10,000 Boat registration fees 3.3.9 3.11
Manatee tag revenues
Miami River Master Plan 0.9
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS
PART 3: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Leading Estimated Potential Plan Reference
Project Description Agency Cost Funding Sources Policy # Page #
Dredging: a) Navigational Corps of $8-10,000,000 Federal 3.2.1 3.7
Engineers
b) Environmental $18-20,000,000 Federal
State grant
User fees
Unfunded roadway improvements from Tables 2-A and 2-B
Local street improvements - North and South River Drive
Complete retrofit of stormwater drainage basins
Replace all
aging, deteriorated
sanitary sewer
pipes
New force
main to the Virginia
Key Sewage
Treatment Plant
Stabilize all publicly -owned shoreline
Structural and operational improvements to salinity dams
to prevent manatees from being injured or drowned
Bridge enhancements
MPO (Metro -Dade)
Federal, FDOT
2.3.1
2.6
Miami Airport
2.3.2
Fla. Seaport Trust
City of Miami
$2,500,000
New highway bond
2.3.1
2.6
City of Miami
$50,000,000
SWIM
3.1.1
3.3
Metro -Dade
Storm Water Utility
3.1.2
3.3
FDOT
WASAD
State, Federal
3.1.5
3.5
WASAD
$50,000,000
State, Federal
3.1.6
3.5
User fees
DERM
$437,500
State FIND grant
3.2.2
3.9
SFWMD
county, city
SFWMD
$30,000 per
SFWMD
3.3.1
3.11
structure
FDOT
1.5% of
Federal/state
4.1.1
4.3
construction
bridge replacement
4.2.1
4.3
0.10 Executive Summary
PART 3: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS (continued)
Leading Estimated Potential Plan Reference
Project Description Agency Cost Funding Sources Policy # Page #
NEIGHBORHOOD - RIVER BEND
Riverbank Plaza (public sector portion) City of Miami $480,000 Impact Fees 4.6.1 4.14
Lummus Park redevelopment, including riverfront
"Riverside Market" sidewalk improvements
SE 6th Street improvements between Brickell and South
Miami Avenue
NEIGHBORHOOD - MID -RIVER
Sewell Park riverwalk, lighting, picnic shelters and
observation tower
Curtis Park riverwalk
Civic Center riverwalk
NEIGHBORHOOD - UP -RIVER
South River Drive riverwalk
City of Miami $600,000
City of Miami $500,000
City of Miami $60,000
City of Miami $400,000
City
of
Miami
$150,000
City
of
Miami
$260,000
City of Miami $100,000
Grants
4.6.4
CD Block Grant
4.7.4
4.14
DNR grant
CD Block Grant
4.7.2
4.14
New highway bonds
4.2.4
4.3
Highway Beautification
4.3.2
4.5
grant
DNR grant 4.8.1 4.20
UPARR grant
DNR grant 4.8.2 4.20
DNR grant 4.8.3 4.20
DNR grant 4.1.2 4.2
4.10.4 4.22
Miami River Master Plan 0.11
CHAPTER 1: THE WORKING WATERFRONT
' GOAL: Preserve the working waterfront.
INTRODUCTION
More than one-third of the Miami River corridor is a "work-
ing waterfront" of over 100 marine businesses. Location is
its most important asset, offering high accessibility to
major markets, both domestic and international. Within
South Florida, the Miami River has relatively little competi-
tion as a center for highly varied maritime activities. In-
dividual sectors such as shipping, marinas, and yacht repair
may have competition within the region, but no place
boasts the variety and concentration of marine services that
is found on the Miami River.
1
IMiami River Master Plan 1.1
OVERVIEW OF THE MARINE INDUSTRY i
Structure of the Marine Industry
In the marine industry, the primary functional classifica-
tions of marine activity are water -dependent and water -re-
lated. Water -dependent refers to operations that are ab-
solutely linked to the water as a generator of business ac-
tivity, while water -related activities, which do not depend
on the water to bring customers or products to their busi-
ness, often serve establishments that are water -dependent.
Examples:
water -dependent
water- related
commercial shipping
marine sales
marinas
boat manufacturing
fisheries
seafood restaurants
ship and boat yards
maritime services
some boat -sales
Within these classifications certain activities primarily
serve the needs of commerce and industry, while others
serve the recreational public.
industrial/commercial recreational
commercial shipping seafood restaurants
marine wholesale boatyards
shipyards retail marine sales
boat manufacturing
fisheries
Facts and Figures
The following highlights the importance of recreational
and industrial/commercial marine activity in Dade County.
It provides We background for placing the economic 'impor=
tance of the Miami River into appropriate perspective.
Recreational Marine Activity - Dade County has the
highest number of pleasure craft registered of any county
in the state of Florida. These 49,360 vessels represent over
7 percent of the state total (Figure 1.1). Figure 1.2 reveals
that for larger craft (26 feet and above) Dade County cap-
tured a significantly higher share, 12.6 percent of the state
total. Despite a substantially slower growth rate for
registrations during the period 1984/85 to 1989/90, Dade
County was able to achieve an annual rate of growth of
12.5 percent in retail marine sales, slightly above that for
the state. Figure 1.3 shows that retail marine sales in Dade
accounted for a healthy 14.2 percent of the state total.
Fig. 1.1 All Registered Pleasure Craft 1989/90
Rest of Florida
637,772
Dade
49.WO
Fig. 1.2 Registered Pleasure Craft over 26 ft. 1989/90 1
Rest d Florida
39,999
Dads
6,756
Fig. 1.3 Retail Marine Sales 1989/90 1
1.2 The Working Waterfront I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
Industrial and Commercial Marine Activity - Miami's
shipping industry (including the Port of Miami and the
Miami River) was ranked eighth in the nation and second
in the state in terms of the value of general cargo in 1990.
Commercial shipping in Dade County provides a dispropor-
tionately large number of jobs relative to state totals. In
1987, employment in marine cargo handling was 2,063, rep-
resenting 47 percent of the state total.
Another important sector is ship and boat building and
repair. With 2,698 employees, Dade County accounts for
16 percent of statewide employment in this sector. During
the period from 1980 to 1987, the county registered a 33
percent increase in such employment, three times that for
the state. Much of the county's growth was due to the in-
creased production of racing boats in northeast Dade.
Factors Affecting Demand
The level of marine activity is driven by demand which is
.three -tiered in nature: local, national, and international.
In general, marine businesses in the commercial and in-
dustrial sectors respond primarily to national and interna-
tional economic factors, while the recreational boating sec-
tor is more strongly affected by local economic conditions.
Nationwide demand for larger recreational craft has been
and will be adversely affected by the imposition in 1991 of
a 10 percent luxury tax on the sale of new pleasure craft
that cost $100,000 or more. Compounding the negative ef-
fects of this luxury tax, the nation officially entered a reces-
sion that began in August 1990. There is general agree-
ment that the subsequent upturn will be weak. Together,
these factors have resulted in a significant decrease in local
demand in the recreational boating market, and consequent-
ly to lower sales figures and job layoffs, particularly in
boat manufacturing. In fact, first quarter boat sales were
down 88 percent from the previous year in South Florida.
At the international level, the recent extension of the Carib-
bean Basin Initiative along with Title 807 has significantly
encouraged twin plant operations (particularly in the ap-
parel industry, in which cutting operations are done locally
and more labor intensive work - sewing - is done overseas)
and boosted trade prospects for South Florida. In addition,
President Bush's Enterprise for the Americas Initiative,
which seeks to establish a hemispheric free trade zone,
augurs well for a substantial increase in South Florida
trade with Latin America throughout the 1990's. Finally,
the opening of trade relations with Cuba, consequent to a
change in government, remains a possibility that would
have very significant ramifications on the South Florida
economy. All of these factors that lead to possibilities of
increased trade will positively impact commercial shipping
and allied industries.
Miami River Master Plan 1.3
MARINE INDUSTRIES ON THE MIAMI RIVER I
Marine Employment on the Miami River
A conservative estimate of private sector marine employ-
ment during the second half of 1990 in the Miami River
area is 2,300. While this represents about 25 percent of all
marine industry employment in Dade County, the impor-
tance of the Miami River to the local economy is far
greater than these numbers indicate as:
1. This number does not include the indirect employment
effects of the Miami River marine economy on, for ex-
ample, trucking. If one counted both direct and in-
direct employment attributable to the Miami River
marine economy, the total would be approximately
double the 2,300 figure.
2. Certain sectors of the industry, for example, commer-
cial shipping, provide a significant number of jobs for
unskilled workers, who are an increasing component
of the City of Miami labor force. Further, these jobs
in commercial shipping provide wages that are sub-
stantially above the minimum wage rate.
Fig.1.4 Miami River Marine Employment
Boat BuildinaAaoa&
Boat Sales
om31
Commercial Shi'ki$;:::::;::��. 4.0X
23.5%
Marine Industrial
5.5%
Fsh«ies
Equipment Salew'Sen. 7.0%
14.0%
Ship and boat building and repair is the largest source of
employment providing just under 1,000 jobs (about half of
which are provided by the Bertram yacht manufacturing
facility). However, it is commercial shipping with 545
jobs that is the driving force on the river. This is due to
the very rapid growth of the industry and the greater de-
gree of linkage with other aspects of the marine economy.
For example, an increase in the level of employment in
commercial shipping leads to increased business activity
and employment in ship repair, sales and service of marine
equipment, and other ship's services.
Significant Trends
In order to accurately gauge the economic significance of
marine activities in the Miami River area, a survey of 54
marine business firms (exclusive of commercial shippers)
in the Miami River corridor was undertaken. Map 1.1 indi-
cates the location of these firms. The following observa-
tions should be noted:
1. Four establishments that were in business in 1985 are
no longer operating along the Miami River due to
relocation, merger, or closing.
2. A downturn in business activity since the spring of
1990 was reported by about 70 percent of marine busi-
nesses.
3. Beyond this short-term trend, two distinct long term
trends have emerged for Miami River businesses.
a. Those businesses that tend toward exclusively serv-
ing the recreational boating public (not including the
large yacht segment) are generally small (under six
employees), and many have experienced a contraction
in business activity since 1985. In particular, the
marinas and small boat yards have, with rare excep-
tion, done poorly. Exceptions to this negative tenden-
cy are found in those businesses that service a special-
ized segment of this market and have an established
reputation for quality service.
b. Those establishments that have a significant com-
mercial customer base have done substantially" better.
In general, these businesses tend to be larger. Fifty
percent of the businesses with 6 to 49 employees, that
gave an indication of long term trends, stated that the
their business has expanded since 1985. The picture
for firms with over 50 employees was even brighter.
Although expansion referred to sales volume, in many
cases employment increased as well, at least through
the spring of 1990. An additional factor associated
with expansion was significant export activity. Many
of the larger firms have the twin advantages of an es-
tablished reputation and few competitors in the area.
4. In addition to the waterfront location, some estab-
lishments cited the transportation advantages of the
Miami River area - easy access to the freeways and
proximity to the air and sea ports - as a reason for
remaining in their current location.
5. In regard to expansion, it should be noted that three
businesses (each with at least 25 employees, one of
which serves the recreational boating public) have
either recently or are in the process of renovating/ex-
panding their facilities. Shipyards, industrial estab-
lishments, and businesses involved in the sales and ser-
vice of marine equipment have generally expanded.
These results are not surprising given the rapid expansion
of commercial shipping activity along the Miami River and
the greater difficulties that smaller businesses often face in
coping with problems such as crime. It would be
reasonable to expect that these trends will continue, boding
poorly for the existing marinas and small boat yards.
Beyond the current recessionary climate, which is likely to
continue through much of 1992, the recreational marine
business will display weakness as a result of the luxury tax.
Unique Resource
Within Dade County, there is estimated to be only 13.7
acres of undeveloped land with suitable water access and
zoning to permit expansion of water -dependent marine busi-
nesses. Of that total, 8 acres are located on the Miami
River. Given the economic significance of the marine in-
[1
n
I
I
0
rl
i
1.4 The Working Waterfront
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
L,
J
1
dustry, particularly in terms of the type and number of jobs
created, it is important to prevent encroachment upon the
limited amount of land available for growth of marine ac-
tivities in the Miami River area.
Within unincorporated Dade County, there is competition
for land by airport -related growth and other non -water -de-
pendent businesses. The existing water -dependent uses
along the Miami Canal and the Tamiami Canal should be
protected by a waterfront industrial zoning district. Within
the City of Miami, the existing "SD-4 Waterfront In-
dustrial" zoning district reserves roughly 32 percent of the
linear shoreline of the river for use by marine industries
(see pages 1.12 - 1.13).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
1.1 Reserve the limited amount of waterfront land avail-
able for expansion of marine industries.
Policies:
1.1.1 Retain and enforce the requirement for water -depend-
ent and water -related uses within areas currently
designated SD-4 in the City of Miami.
1.1.2 Preserve riverfront land located west of NW 27th
Avenue for expansion of shipping terminals and
other marine industries by encouraging Metro -Dade
County to expeditiously adopt a water -dependent use
zoning district along the Miami Canal and Tamiami
Canal, consistent with the Metropolitan Dade Coun-
ty Comprehensive Plan.
1.1.3 Encourage use of publicly owned lands along the
Miami River for activities that require a waterfront
location.
Map 1.1 Location of Marine Industries
Miami River Master Plan 1.5
COMMERCIAL SHIPPING
Commercial activities on the Miami River essentially
revolve around the transportation of cargo, in particular to
the shallow draft ports of the Caribbean and northern South
America. The Miami River is ideal for these ports as ships
they require are typically small and have shallow draft, just
the type of vessel that can navigate the Miami River. The
Miami River accommodates both containerized and break
bulk cargo, and serves as a transshipment point for con-
tainerized cargo going into the Port of Miami (Dodge Is-
land) but ultimately destined for one of the shallow draft
ports in the Caribbean Basin. The location of shipping ter-
minals is indicated on Map 1.1 (page 1.5).
A 1990 survey conducted by the Beacon Council found that
the Miami River shipping terminals that responded to the
survey employed 403 workers. It is estimated that if all es-
tablished terminals were included, the employment number
would increase to 545. In addition to the freighters operat-
ing from these terminals, the Miami River is used by an es-
timated 25 to 35 smaller wooden vessels which primarily
serve ports in Haiti. These vessels are operated in a more
informal manner, tying up at various sites along the river
and generally using crew members, rather than local
employees, to load the vessels.
Miami River cargo tonnage for 1989 was 733,089 tons,
which in value terms equates to about $1.7 billion. As a
point of reference, if the Miami River was considered as a
separate port, it would have ranked fifth in the state. The
estimated total cargo volume on the Miami River in 1990 is
in excess of one million tons, with a value of about $2.3 bil-
lion.
Dynamic Growth During the 1980's
While the above -mentioned numbers are quite impressive,
it is important to put them into perspective vis-a-vis other
industries. A Dade County report, which analyzed employ-
ment trends in over 370 sectors of the metropolitan
economy during the 1980-1986 period, concluded that
marine cargo handling ranked third in the number of new
jobs created after adjusting for the national rate of growth
and industrial mix. Interestingly enough, a related sector -
trucking - ranked first, while another related sector - bulk
petroleum terminals - ranked 39th. While this data pertains
to the Dade County economy, it is important to point out
that cargo tonnage at the Port of Miami (Dodge Island
only) expanded by 13 percent, while tonnage through the
Miami River grew by 22 percent. Thus, it appears that the
Miami River shippers played a very important role in the
dynamic growth of marine cargo handling and related sec-
tors.
Provision of Low Skill Employment
One very important economic aspect of the shipping in-
dustry is the provision of low skill employment oppor-
tunities with per hour wage rates, in some cases, as high as
four times the minimum wage rate. Based on discussion
with industry leaders, the occupational structure of com-
mercial shipping on the Miami River is depicted below.
Fig.1.5 Occupational Structure of Commercial Shipping
LM Skip
50.0%
Modere
30.(
Approximately 270 low skill jobs (stevedores) are provided
by the Miami River shippers. This takes on added impor-
tance as the number of workers in the Miami area with
limited job skills is increasing (due to such factors as
immigration from the Caribbean and Central America) and
employment in many other industrial sectors is declining.
L,
1
1
1.6 The Working Waterfront
1
a
r
1
a
r
1
1
L,
1
Data on the geographic distribution of these jobs by
residence of workers, indicate that over 37 percent of the
workers resided in the City of Miami from Little Havana to
as far north.as Liberty City. These workers received on
average over $18,500 in annual wages. This equates in
hourly wages to more than twice the current minimum
wage scale and is almost 25 percent higher than the
average hourly earnings of manufacturing workers coun-
tywide.
Since shipping on the Miami River is poised for rapid
growth during the 1990's, more relatively good paying
employment opportunities will be available to the low skill
component of the workforce. Also, there is currently a
need for trained stevedores to load some of the smaller is-
land freighters (see page 2.10). This presents an oppor-
tunity to provide job recruitment and training within City
neighborhoods for additional stevedores. Good public
transportation service is needed to the terminals west of
NW 27th Avenue.
Future Growth Prospects and Constraints
Given the previously mentioned prospects for increased
trade with the Caribbean Basin, and that during the 1980's
cargo tonnage on the Miami River was doubling every four
years, one should expect continued robust performance.
However, the Miami River faces certain constraints in
regard to expansion of commercial shipping.
Competition from the Port of Dania, the Port of Palm
Beach, and Port Manatee (Tampa) has affected the Miami
River shippers. In particular, Port Manatee which can ac-
commodate ships with over a 20 foot draft, increasingly
poses strong competition for trade with ports west of Cuba,
where Miami does not enjoy a locational advantage. A
strong marketing and promotion program may help the
Miami River terminals increase their share of trade among
shallow draft ports.
A binding constraint on the expansion of trade on the
Miami River is the sediments which have accumulated in
the main shipping channel, making it narrower and shal-
lower. Large.vessels can_pass.only at_high tide, limiting
the number of trips per day and the amount of cargo that
may be loaded to about 80 percent of capacity. More alarm-
ing is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers calculation that
vessel maneuvering width will continue to decrease an
average of one foot per year throughout the length of the
Miami River. Without dredging, larger cargo vessels will
be forced to cease operation on the river within the next
five to ten years, jeopardizing_ the economic feasibility of
the river's shipping industry.
Although much of the anticipated growth in the shipping in-
dustry can be accommodated by more efficient use of exist-
ing terminals and cargo vessels, there will inevitably be
new entrepreneurs seeking to open additional shipping ter-
minals along the Miami River. There are approximately 8
acres of vacant or undeveloped land along the river that
could be converted to terminal use without a change of
zoning. Roughly 38 additional acres could be obtained by
displacement of existing marginal businesses. However,
some of this land is not appropriate for shipping terminals
and other industrial uses because it is adjacent to residen-
tial neighborhoods. As discussed on pages 1.12 - 1.13, the
"SD-4, Waterfront Industrial" zoning district should be sub-
divided into two categories, allowing expansion of ship-
ping terminals wherever they can operate safely and con-
veniently without disruption to residential neighborhoods.
Other noteworthy issues affecting future growth of ship-
ping on the river are navigational constraints posed by
bridges and highway access for trucks carrying cargo to
and from the terminals (see pages 2.6 - 2.9).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
1.2 Support growth in the shipping industry on the
Miami River in terms of increasing employment and
value of cargo.
Policies:
1.2.1 Support environmentally safe dredging of the Miami
River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by 1994
to remove sediments which impair navigation by
cargo vessels.
1.2.2 Establish a unified program to market and promote
shipping terminals along the Miami River within the
Caribbean Basin marketplace.
1.2.3 Encourage expansion of shipping terminals in loca-
tions where they can operate safely and convenient-
ly, without negative impacts on adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
1.2.4 Provide improved bus or jitney service in the
vicinity of shipping terminals to provide acces-
sibility to jobs for City residents.
1.2.5 Provide job recruitment and training opportunities
for the additional stevedores that will be needed by
Miami River shippers.
Miami River Master Plan 1.7
MARINAS AND BOATYARDS I
In terms of formal marina activity, the Miami River is
home to approximately 650 wet slips, of which over 500
are commercial in nature. The remainder are at two con-
dominium complexes. The commercial wet slips are
divided almost equally between facilities which provide
boat repair services and those which serve exclusively as
marinas. On the river there are essentially two types of
boat repair establishments. First, there are the larger in-
tegrated facilities like Richard Bertram and Allied Marine
which provide sales, repair and storage services for yachts.
These larger facilities provide about 160 jobs. Secondly,
there are the smaller and intermediate -sized boatyards
which provide about 140 jobs.
Problems Facing Small Boatyards and Marinas
While there are a number of boat repair facilities that have
a growing business, many of the marinas and small
boatyards (under 10 employees) on the Miami River have
experienced a contraction in business activity since 1985.
In fact, four of the 26 small boatyards and marinas iden-
tified in 1985 by the draft Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve
Management Plan, are no longer in business nor have they
been replaced by a marine business.
One factor affecting this decline has been the rapid expan-
sion of competing facilities in Broward County. A com-
parison of boat registration data shows that ownership of
larger pleasure craft (26 feet and above) increased much
more rapidly in Broward County than in Dade County
during the 1980's (Figure 1.6). The 1989/90 retail marine
sales in Broward were almost twice that of Dade County.
The data are indicative of the trends which began during
the 1970's, wherein Ft. Lauderdale developed into a major
yachting center with modern boatyards and marinas, as
well as marine retail facilities. The widespread opinion
among persons in the marine industry is that much of
Broward's growth in business came from customers in
Dade County.
The owners of establishments that were surveyed for this
planning study suggested additional reasons for the decline
in marina and smaller boatyard business. Crime and per-
ception of crime are believed to be a major problem. Also,
difficulties in the permitting process for repair and small
expansions, in particular with DERM; and high cost factors
including taxes, insurance and high workman's compensa-
tion rates were frequently cited problems. Further, it was
mentioned that marinas on the river face competition from
more modern facilities which offer greater amenities and
do not suffer from a "bad image." The problems for
marinas and small boatyards have been deepened by the
recessionary climate which has hit the boating industry
rather hard. Further, the reputation of the river as a hur-
ricane sanctuary was undermined as a result of statements
by the South Florida Water Management District (later
retracted) regarding the potential of a wall of flood water
being released into the Miami River from the Everglades
drainage structures. This resulted in an estimated loss of
$46,000 in marina revenue during the 1990 hurricane
season. In fact, the Miami River is one of the safer harbors
in Dade County for vessels properly moored to withstand
storm conditions.
Fig.1.6 Growth in Pleasure Craft Registration (over 26 ft.)
Thm"We
...........................................
1980 1085 1990
B—rd ® 4.130 4.325 1 6.716
Dade 4.175 4.751 5.756
u
1
1
1
1
1.8 The Working Waterfront 1
ILand Values
1
1
1
i�
I
One issue which directly affects the continued viability of
marinas and small boatyards, as well as other businesses
along the Miami River, is that of increasing land values
and the concomitant increase in property taxes. Clearly
this has been the case in the Downtown portion of the river
and has resulted in the displacement of marine businesses
with office buildings. From this experience some have sug-
gested that "blue -belting", which involves restricting the as-
sessed value of waterfront property to its value in its
present use, would be an appropriate remedy.
In order to accurately assess the potential benefits of blue -
belting, an analysis was performed of assessed property
values for all riverfront parcels (excluding the Downtown
section). Average assessed land valuations per square foot
for riverfront parcels increased by 109 percent during the
period from 1980 to 1990. While this increase is substan-
tial, it is much less than the 182 percent average increase
experienced by all properties in the City of Miami (exclud-
ing downtown) for the period 1979 to 1989. This suggests
that assessments on riverfront businesses were not artificial-
ly inflated by speculation on changes to "higher" uses;
therefore, blue -belting would not have been helpful. Fur-
thermore, the existing "SD-4 Waterfront Industrial" zoning
district prohibits property from being used for anything
other than water -dependent and water -related marine uses.
Since state law requires the tax assessor to consider zoning
restrictions in determining the value of property, in effect,
this acts like blue -belting.
One factor that may lead to disproportionate increases in
riverfront land value is the anticipated growth in commer-
cial shipping. If trade with Cuba should open up, the
demand for riverfront property could dramatically increase.
In order to mitigate the impact of such a situation upon as-
sessed valuations for other businesses, the separation of
marine industrial from marine commercial uses is sug-
gested on pages 1.12 - 1.13.
Growth Prospects and Constraints
Demand for marina slips in Dade County is projected to in-
crease by about 700 by the year 2005 (updates from 1984
DNR projection). The location of new slips will be limited
by countywide environmental regulations (see pages 3.12 -
3.13), and it is not yet known whether the Miami River will
be a place where permits for new slips can be obtained.
Since many of the existing commercial slips on the Miami
River are in poor condition, a primary issue is under what
circumstances would it be economically viable to upgrade
these facilities. One possible inducement, as is indicated
in Policy 1.3.2, is to permit a limited amount of mixed -use
development to supplement the marina income. Another
remedy is to overcome the shortage of land available to
meet minimum parking requirements by permitting off -site
parking.
The available sites for expansion in boatyard services in
Dade County are even more limited than marina sites due
to zoning restrictions on this type of heavy commercial/in-
dustrial use. Thus, it is important to encourage and
facilitate the continued operation and expansion of these
businesses on the Miami River. The location of new
marina slips within easy access to Miami River boatyards
is one way to reinforce this industry.
Virtually all of the land along the Miami River is located in
a state Enterprise Zone. However, few businesses take ad-
vantage of the tax incentives available in the Zone, either
because they are not aware of them or because they fear
the difficulty of qualifying for tax incentives may outweigh
the benefits. Technical assistance should be provided
through the Beacon Council or another appropriate agency.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
1.3 Preserve the marine repair, service, equipment and
related industries along the Miami River that are
vital to the shipping industry or the recreational boat-
ing industry.
Policies:
1.3.1 Protect boatyards and related marine businesses from
displacement by higher land value uses by adopting
separate "marine industrial" and "marine commer-
cial" zoning district classifications.
1.3.2 Expand the income producing potential of marine
commercial properties by modifying the zoning dis-
trict regulations to permit limited non -water -depend-
ent uses such as restaurants or apartments, while
retaining requirements for water -dependent use as a
principal use. Permit off -site parking within 600
feet of these business establishments.
1.3.3 Expand the local market for recreational boating ser-
vices provided by Miami River establishments by
supporting plans for a megayacht marina and general
marina expansion on Watson Island.
1.3.4 Encourage existing businesses to improve their
facilities by simplifying the permit procedures and
requirements for maintenance, repair and minor im-
provements.
1.3.5 Provide assistance to small businesses for filing ap-
plications for financial assistance and waterfront con-
struction permits.
Miami River Master Plan 1.9
FISHERIES
Changes in the Industry
There have been significant changes in the character of the
fishing industry during the last several decades resulting
from the level of catch available domestically, competitive-
ness of U.S. fishing vessels, and the economics of the
processing and distribution end of the business. For the
local industry, perhaps the factor most responsible for the
change in character of the industry was the decision to
declare the Bahamas off-limits to local fishermen in 1976.
This drastically decreased the amount of fresh catch landed
on the Miami River and negatively impacted the sub-
sequent processing operations. These changes are readily
apparent from employment numbers for firms primarily
engaged in fish and seafood processing. Countywide
employment at fish and seafood processing plants stood at
390 in 1980, and dropped to only 96 in 1987.
On the other hand, wholesale activity in the fishing in-
dustry registered significant gains during the same time
period increasing by 70 percent to 674 in 1987. Unfor-
tunately, since wholesale activity does not require a
waterfront location, the expansion of wholesale activity
has taken place away from the Miami River in other areas
of the county. The result has been a relative decline in the
Miami. River's role in the fishing industry.
The current level of direct employment in both processing
and wholesale activity by Miami River fisheries is 150. In
the survey of businesses on the river, comments from the
owners of these fish establishments indicated that much of
the seafood arrived by truck, and that the Keys and the air-
port were important sources. Although for many, location
on the waterfront is no longer critical to their operation,
the Miami River area does provide good access to major
arterials and proximity to the air and sea ports. This
provides an economic rationale for these establishments to
remain in their current locations. In general, business for
these establishments has been steady over the past five
years and, for some, exports are an important sales com-
ponent.
Local Seafood Catch
Although the functions of fisheries along the Miami River
are now primarily storage and distribution, the Miami
River continues to be the principal focal point in Dade
County for landing the catch of the local fishing fleet.
Employment in the local fishing fleet associated with the
Miami River is between 40 and 50. According to the
Southeast Fisheries Center, the value of seafood catch
landed at fish houses along the Miami River in 1989 was
about $2.7 million. This represented 59 percent of the
county total. The major catch landed are spiny lobsters
and sponge. In fact, over 25 percent of the sponge catch
for the entire state was landed on the Miami River in 1989.
There are processing operations for both sponge and
lobster on the river.
Growth Prospects and Constraints
While the industry is no longer a major source of employ-
ment on the river, it still maintains a significant presence
particularly at the wholesale level. As long as land values
and accessibility remain favorable, these wholesale opera-
tions are likely to remain. Their location along the
riverfront in East Little Havana and Lummus Park offers
the potential of contributing to the "fishermen's wharf"
character envisioned in neighborhood revitalization plans.
A concentration of seafood restaurants, retail seafood
markets, outdoor cafes and night time entertainment in a
small district along both sides of the river from SW 2nd
Street to NW 4th Street would create a lively attraction for
local residents, downtown employees and tourists. This
proposed district has been named "Riverside Market".
Lack of space for on -site parking is a constraint that needs
to be removed by permitting off -site parking.
The lobster traps and fishing boats which represent an im-
portant aspect of the maritime character associated with the
Miami River have dwindled in number. It is likely that
local fishermen will continue to be under pressure in future
years. The recent decision to prohibit sponge fishing in
d
1-1
PJ
I!
1
1.10 The Working Waterfront
1
1
1
1
1
1
I .
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
1.4 Preserve the fishing industry along the Miami River.
Policies:
1.4.1 Encourage existing fish houses to adapt to urban
revitalization efforts in surrounding neighborhoods
by opening retail outlets and/or restaurants and out-
door cafes. Permit reduced parking or off -site park-
ing within 600 feet of these business establishments.
1.4.2 Encourage public and private property owners to pro-
vide mooring space for fishing vessels. Designate
locations where fishermen would be encouraged to
sell seafood to the public.
1
tMiami River Master Plan 1.11
WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL ZONING
In the City of Miami, marine industries along the Miami
River and its tributaries are protected by a special zoning
designation from intrusion by other uses that are not de-
pendent on a waterfront location. This special zoning is
called "SD-4, Waterfront Industrial Special District". It is
intended for application in areas appropriately located for
marine activities, to limit principal and accessory uses to
those reasonably requiring waterfront location, and to ex-
clude residential, general commercial, service, office or
manufacturing uses not primarily related to waterfront ac-
tivities. The shaded areas on Maps 1.2 - 1.5 indicate those
areas along the Miami River that are currently zoned SD4.
History
The City has officially recognized the importance of con-
serving limited riverfront land since 1961, when it first
adopted the waterfront industrial zoning district. The name
of the district has evolved over time to the present-day
"SD-4", but its intent and effect have remained essentially
intact. The properties that were zoned waterfront in-
dustrial in 1961 were already used by marine businesses, or
were vacant sites adjacent to marine businesses. Except
for the loss of waterfront industrial zoning in the
downtown area and the recent addition of the Paradise
Point subdivision, the boundaries of the district have
remained stable. This explains the irregular location of
SD-4 districts today.
Commercial and Industrial Classifications
As discussed previously under the headings of "Commer-
cial Shipping" and "Marinas and Boatyards", the SD-4
zoning district should be subdivided into the following two -
categories, categories, differentiated by the types of land uses per-
mitted in each:
marinas
shipping terminals
boatyards
marine contractors
fisheries
commercial shipyards
boat sales and service
towing and salvage
mixed use
all SD-4.1 uses except
(limited restaurant or
residential
residential with water
dependent use)
The reasons for this recommendation are as follows:
1. The existing SD-4 district permits a broad range of
water -dependent uses, some of which are commercial in na-
ture and some are more industrial in nature. The more in-
dustrial -type uses are not compatible with adjacent residen-
tial neighborhoods. Some examples of the incompatible
characteristics are heavy truck traffic from shipping ter-
minals and unsightly outdoor storage of cargo or construc-
tion materials and equipment. The shipping industry, in
particular, is expected to expand in the future. There needs
to be ample land area available for development of new ter-
minal space, but not in locations that would negatively im-
pact residential neighborhoods.
2. Marinas, small boatyards, fish houses, and related sales
and service establishments are threatened by a host of
economic and social conditions. While the City cannot in-
fluence many of these factors, one thing that it can do to
help preserve such uses is to maintain strict land use con-
trols that prevent displacement by higher income producing
uses. Ironically, it is.aother. marine ;industry - .the -ship-. _
ping terminals - that are most likely during the next 5 years
to displace the marinas, boatyards, etc.
3. In certain situations, there needs to be flexibility to in-
corporate non -water -dependent uses with marine commer-
cial uses to create an economically viable mixed -use
waterfront development. For example, the addition of
some residential units or a restaurant could help a dis-
tressed marina. However, if this mixed -use concept is ex-
tended too far, it will result in displacement of the working
waterfront. It is necessary to ensure that each site is
primarily used for a water -dependent marine business and
only secondarily used for other purposes. In East Little
Havana and Lummus Park (the proposed "Riverside
Market" district), the City's neighborhood revitalization
plans call for attracting people to the waterfront with res-
taurants, outdoor cafes, seafood markets, fishing charters,
etc. In this limited area, non -water -dependent uses should
be considered by Special Exception if they contribute to
the marketplace theme of the district.
Zoning Map Implications
The maps on the following pages indicate the proposed
geographic distribution of SD4.1 Waterfront Commercial
and SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial. In most cases, this only
affects properties that are currently zoned SD-4. The only
exceptions are: (1) in the vicinity of the Flagler Street and
SW Ist Street bridges, where properties that are now in the
C-1 (Commercial) and O (Office) categories are recom-
mended for rezoning to SD4.1 Waterfront Commercial, (2)
along the north bank of the river from NW 4th Street to the
NW 5th Street bridge, where properties in the existing C-2
(General Commercial) district are recommended for rezon-
ing to SD-4.1 and SD-4.2, and (3) on the northwest side of
the NW 27th Avenue bridge, where property in the existing
C-2 (General Commercial) district is recommended for
rezoning to SD-4.2. The criteria listed below were used to
determine whether specific areas should be commercial
(SD-4.1) or industrial (SD4.2). The more liberal in-
dustrial category is recommended wherever possible ,
without conflicting with adjoining neighborhood needs.
a. Street access is a major consideration. If a
riverfront property is accessible from an arterial street
and/or a street containing predominantly commercial
uses, it is considered eligible for the waterfront in-
dustrial classification.
n
n
E
J
1
1
L'
1.12 The Working Waterfront
1
n
I
r�
u
I
u
b. Existing shipping terminals, marine contractors,
commercial shipyards, towing and salvage companies
and other industrial -type businesses are recommended
for the SD4.2 classification, except where there is a
conflict with other criteria. In the few cases where an
existing business would become a nonconforming use,
that business would be "grandfathered", i.e. it would
be allowed to remain in its location but could not ex-
pand.
c. Existing marinas, boatyards, fish houses and
marine sales and service businesses oriented to fishing
and recreational boating are usually recommended to
be placed in the commercial category due to the
economic considerations discussed in #2 above.
d. The segments of riverfront in East Little Havana
and Lummus Park that are priorities for public/private
redevelopment are recommended for the commercial
classification in order to permit mixed -use develop-
ment.
In addition to the SD-4.1 and SD-4.2 zoning designations
recommended on Maps 1.2 - 1.5, there are a few other
areas of the riverfront that could be suitable for shipping
terminals or other water -dependent uses, as temporary or
"interim" uses until the real estate market can support the
intended long-term use. These areas are not shown on the
maps because it is not intended for the City to initiate their
rezoning. However, if the owner should wish to apply for
rezoning, the City should evaluate the potential impacts,
especially related to criteria "a" above. One such example
is the area between the Miami Avenue bridge and the SW
2nd Avenue bridge. This area is currently industrial in
character and is conveniently close to the mouth of the
river.
RECOMMENDATIONS
See policies 1.1.1, 1.2.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, and 1.4.1.
LEGEND
ElExisting SD-4 zoning
®Proposed SD-4
Waterfront Commercial
►•PO �dProposed SD-4.1
..ee�
Miami River Master Plan 1.13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
R-1
PR1
=1 J PR
M
�o
IN
C-2
11
Gil
C]V �C-2
ill_„`> }
- 1
BISWNE
BAY
0
LEGEND
Existing SD-4 zoning
Proposed SD-4
Waterfront Commercial
Proposed SD-4.1
Waterfront Industrial
Miami River Master Plan 1.15
1
G
1
1
F-1
L
1
CHAPTER 2: RIVER MANAGEMENT
GOAL: Upgrade the image, safety and security of the
river.
INTRODUCTION
The Miami River has been called "lawless", "lusty",
"chaotic" and "unruly". To a certain extent, this image has
been an asset - allowing the growth of marine industries,
discouraging the kind of development that would price
marine industries out of the market, and providing an in-
triguing character to the river that is endearing to those
who know it. However, with the growth and maturity of
the urban area during the past decade, the need has grown
to better manage certain aspects of the river.
Over thirty different agencies of federal, state, county, city
and special district government have some element of juris-
diction on the Miami River. Efforts to coordinate these
agencies have been successful, but there is room for im-
provement. Enforcement is the key. An agency with
umbrella authority over river enforcement may be the ul-
timate solution.
11
Miami River Master Plan 2.1
SECURITY
Crime - both the perception and the reality - is a high
priority concern on the Miami River. There are multiple
aspects to the crime problem.
The International Border
Vessels of all types are free to enter and leave the Miami
River at will. Law enforcement agencies generally con-
cede that some vessels are able to unload contraband cargo
(especially drugs) and illegal aliens without detection, espe-
cially during night time hours.
Since 1987, the U.S. Customs Service has increased its
Miami River Enforcement Team from 3 to 12 persons;
thereby enabling it to check approximately 70% of all in-
bound vessels and 98% of all targeted inbound vessels for
contraband cargo. This has greatly reduced the amount of
illegal cargo unloaded on the Miami River.
The export of stolen goods by vessels on the Miami River
is a more difficult problem to solve. Bicycles and
household goods, which seem to represent the greatest
volume of stolen merchandise, cannot be easily docu-
mented. Investigating and successfully prosecuting this ac-
tivity requires a disproportionate amount of manpower
from local law enforcement agencies that are already over-
burdened with more serious crimes. U.S. Customs agents
may assist local police to search vessels for stolen merchan-
dise, but cannot enforce state and local laws. An efficient
means of identifying stolen bicycles is needed, as well as
more effective penalties for dealing in stolen merchandise.
These enforcement efforts should be enhanced by estab-
lishing an official inspection station, where all incoming
and outgoing cargo vessels would be required to dock tem-
porarily for clearance on cargo (as well as navigational
safety and environmental compliance checks). A less effec-
tive alternative would be to establish a monitoring station
at the mouth of the river, where the movement of vessels
into and out of the river would be communicated to all ap-
propriate law enforcement agencies. This responsibility
could be assigned to the bridge tender at the Brickell
Bridge (with proper training and management) at minimal
added cost to the public.
Domestic Crime
Crime along the river is perceived by some businesses to
be a major problem and a deterrent to successful business
operations. Businesses that are oriented to the recreational
boating public are more sensitive to this problem than
others. Small businesses are more negatively affected than
large businesses which typically employ private security
guards.
The type and frequency of crime along the Miami River is
largely related to the situation in adjacent neighborhoods,
with some neighborhoods (e.g. East Little Havana) having
a higher crime rate than others. Typical crimes are
burglary, auto theft, drug sales and larceny (includes theft
from a vehicle, shop lifting, purse -snatching, etc.). There
are some types of crime, however, that are uniquely related
to the waterfront, such as theft using a boat as a means of
transportation, and theft of bicycles, household goods and
motor vehicles from adjacent neighborhoods to supply
foreign vessels with goods for export to the Caribbean.
Law Enforcement
The general increase in crime throughout the urban area
has forced local government to reallocate police manpower,
The frequency of marine patrol service on the Miami River
has dropped to less than 2 hours per day by the City of
Miami and none by Metro -Dade County. Police service is
principally provided by land -side patrol cars that cover en-
tire neighborhoods. The special aspects of crime on the
river have been addressed by multi -agency task forces that
concentrate on the river for a period of several months,
then move on to other duties.
The need for increased police patrol, especially during
night time hours, has been identified as a major priority by
u
1
F
�1
L'
2.2 River Management
11
1
1
!J
1
a number of businessmen and citizens along the Miami
River. The City of Miami Police Department prepared an
analysis of the cost and benefits of alternative levels of
staffing for a special Miami River police patrol service,
over and above the existing level of service provided by
the Department. The alternatives were evaluated on
criteria of efficiency, visibility, cost, implementation time,
ability to enforce environmental laws, and ability to en-
force navigation laws. (The complete analysis is contained
in Appendix B of this report.) The recommended alterna-
tive would provide the following:
- Seven days a week coverage from 9 PM to 7 AM
- 2 Two -officer shore patrol units (north and south river
banks)
- 1 Two -officer marine patrol unit
- Annual cost (personnel and equipment): $416,100
The cost of this or any other extra police service would re-
quire special funding. Some alternatives include a special
taxing district, user fees, and contributions from other
governmental entities that would be assisted with man-
power (e.g. U.S. Coast Guard). An alternative approach to
funding would be to allocate a portion of additional
revenue that would likely be generated for the City as a
direct result of this increased law enforcement effort, e.g.
civil fines and seizures of boats, cargo and other valuable
property related to illicit activity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
2.1 Reduce crime and the perception of crime along the
Miami River.
I
Policies:
I�
2.1.1 Increase police patrol (marine and shore), especially
during night time hours, with a dedicated source of
funding.
2.1.2 Increase the frequency of inspections of cargo on out-
bound vessels by local police units, if available (see
Policy 2.1.1 above), with assistance from U.S. Cus-
toms agents.
2.1.3 Deter the import/export of contraband and stolen
merchandise by requiring the agent or owner of com-
mercial vessels to post a bond (suggested $50,000)
that would be forfeited if illegal goods are found on
the vessel.
2.1.4 Restrict the sale/purchase of stolen property for ex-
port on foreign vessels by requiring such businesses
to be licensed as pawn brokers.
2.1.5 Assist law enforcement officials to identify and
prosecute stolen bicycle cases by requiring coun-
tywide registration of bicycles.
2.1.6 Discourage the importation of drugs, illegal aliens
and other contraband and the exportation of stolen
merchandise by establishing an inspection station or
a monitoring/communications station near the mouth
of the river.
1 Miami River Master Plan 2.3
DERELICT VESSELS
Vessels of all types and size are sometimes abandoned by
their owners in public waterways because the cost of main-
tenance and storage of an aging vessel frequently exceeds
its value. Whether or not these vessels are seaworthy at the
time of abandonment, they quickly deteriorate into
"derelict" condition, causing a variety of problems includ-
ing safety and navigation hazards, environmental damage
from leaking fuel and other pollutants, infestation of rats,
breeding of mosquitoes, and unsightly conditions that
degrade scenic resources and property values.
In a 1985 survey of the Miami River and its tributaries, a
total of 30 derelict vessels were inventoried. As a result of
coordinated efforts of federal, state and local agencies, the
number of cases has been dramatically reduced. Both the
City and the County adopted vessel mooring codes which
added to the already existing state and federal laws. The
state initiated a grant program through the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) to assist local governments with
the cost of removal of derelict vessels.
However, there is still a need for improvement in the
regulations concerning derelict vessels, in order to reduce
the time required for public agencies to remove derelict
vessels and to shift the financial burden more to the vessel
owners than to the taxpayers. To expedite derelict vessel
removal, state funds should be increased to $500,000 per
year and a trust fund should be established using bonds,
penalties or user fees. The existing DNR grant program
should be streamlined by providing each participating
local government a lump sum grant allocation and blanket
authorization to process all derelict vessel cases until the
funds are exhausted, rather than requiring individual grant
applications for each individual vessel.
Vessel owners occasionally avoid financial liability or
criminal charges by removing all identification from a ves-
sel or by arranging a bogus sale to an unidentifiable third
party. Foreign flag vessels present special legal hurdles
when they are abandoned; and there is no practical way to
recover the disposition costs incurred by the public sector.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
2.2 Expedite the removal of derelict vessels.
Policies:
2.2.1 Amend the county code to authorize local officials to
dispose of abandoned vessels in accordance with Sec-
tion 705, Florida Statutes, entitled "Lost or Aban-
doned Property".
2.2.2 Amend the county code to permit enforcement of
abandoned and derelict vessel violations under the
Chapter 8CC Code Enforcement procedures.
2.2.3 Amend state law to require all vessels and barges to
be registered, including houseboats.
2.2.4 Amend state law to make the registered owner of a
boat legally responsible for the vessel until DNR
receives a bill of sale and application for transfer of
title and registration to a new owner.
2.2.5 Increase funding and streamline the existing DNR
grant program for removing derelict vessels.
2.2.6 Require all foreign flag commercial vessels to post a
bond or other form of financial responsibility to
cover the cost of removal of the vessel if it becomes
derelict or abandoned.
2.2.7 Encourage private owners to donate suitable vessels
to the artificial reef program, rather than to abandon
vessels at inappropriate locations.
2.2.8 Require mooring facility operators to notify DERM
when a vessel is abandoned or becomes derelict at
their facility, and authorize operators to remove ves-
sels after proper notice to the owner of record.
Il
d
1
F
2.4 River Management
1
1
1
1
1
1
r-I
1
1
Miami River Master Plan 2.5
TRANSPORTATION
As the metropolitan area grows and matures, there are ever
changing demands on roads and bridges. Access to proper-
ties along Miami River is vital to the economic survival of
many businesses, especially shipping terminals and
fisheries which need convenient access to the regional ex-
pressway system, the airport and the seaport to transport
products by truck.
Approved Projects
The official Dade County Transportation Improvement Plan
includes street improvement projects that will affect access
to the Miami River, both short-range and long-range (see
Tables 2-A and 2-B and Map 2.1). Projects with construc-
tion scheduled through 1994 have funding committed.
Other future projects may be subject to delay or cancella-
tion if funding is not available.
Within the City of Miami, North and South River Drives
(#23) are local streets, not subject to the transportation
planning and funding programs of the county and state. In
many areas, these streets are in need of reconstruction, but
funds are not currently available. The City relies on
general obligation bonds for highway improvements, ex-
cept where Community Development Block Grant funds or
redevelopment district funds can be obtained.
Airport Access Plans
A significant group of transportation projects have been
conceived for the purpose of improving access to the
Miami International Airport (#17 - 22). Without these im-
provements, projected growth in airport traffic will severe-
ly congest expressways and arterial streets used by trucks
that carry cargo to the concentration of shipping terminals
located west of NW 27th Avenue. The shipping industry
should actively support funding and implementation of
these projects. If the Miami River shipping terminals are
organized into an official seaport (see pages 2.12 - 2.13),
funding to assist with these highway access improvements
could be obtained from bonding authority or a special state
grant program entitled, "Florida Seaport Transportation and
Economic Development Trust Fund".
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective :
2.3 Improve roads and bridges in the vicinity of the
Miami River to facilitate development and minimize
conflict between vehicular and vessel traffic.
TABLE 2-A: SHORT-RANGP. TRANSPORTATION RnPROVEMENTS
Funding programmed In TYunsporteticn lrn re emont Program (l,ouaty/iitste)
bleP
Funding
Key
Project Title
DesoNption
Fanding Type
Year
1
N.W. 27th Avenue
Add 2 lanes to misting
construction
1990-91
4 lanes (N.W. 11th St.
to N.W. 42ad St.)
2
N.W. 27th Ave. Bridge
Bridge replacement
construction
1990-91
2
ylaglar St. Bridge
Minor repair
cooatructltm
1990-91
4
N.W. 6tb St. Bridge
Replace structural raembern;
construction
two-91
hydraulic and electrical
ry Ming: painting
6
I-96 Bridge
Minor repair
oOOOWOrion
1900-01
6
S.R. 11.2/Altgort E=wy
Corridor study item 1-96 to
PS
IOW-92
Okeechobee Rd.
7
N.W. 86th Street
R/W acWhritfon (add 1 ehro
PS and R/W
1990-92
lumr from N.W. 17th Ave.
to B.R. 112 off -ramp)
8
S.W. Zed Ave. Bridge
Preliminary engine~,
PE and R/W
1990-92
uisition
9
S.W. let St. Bridge
Vender work; replace
construction
1991-92
structural rsernburr;
hydraulic and electrical
systemN lighting: painting
10
N.W. 12th Ave. Bridge
Feader work
construction
1991-92
Al
S.R. 836 Bridge
Painting
construction
1991-92
12
Lawrence Canal Bridge
Preliminary engineering for
PE
1991-92
(N.W. 11th St.)
bridge replaooreent
Policies:
2.3.1 Improve expressway and arterial roadway access to
the riverfront to facilitate movement of cargo by
truck.
2.3.2 Obtain funding for road and bridge improvements
that benefit shipping terminals through seaport bond-
ing authority and the Florida Seaport Transportation
and Economic Development Trust Fund.
TABLE 2-B: MID -RANGE AND WNG-BANGS 7RAMPORTATION PROJECTS
Proposed in Ttanaportation Improvement Program for funding
In FY 2992-98 thru
FY 1994-95
or no funding identified
Magi
Fuming
Rev
prujat:t T)lis
Description
Funding Type
Year
is
1-95 Bridge
Painting
construction
IM-98
14
Bridrell Ave. Bridge
Replace bridge
construction
1998-94
16
S.W. and Ave. Bridge
Replace bridge
co struotlon
1998-94
16
Lawrence Canal Bridge
Replace bridge
construction
1994-96
(N.W. Pith St.)
17
N.W. 32od/37th Avenue
Corridor study
Pus
1998-94
New 4-lase arterial
road and Miami River
ba construction-
unfunded
unfunded
is
S.R. an connector
R/W acquisition
R/W
1994-96
ramps to Airport
Construction
unfunded
unfunded
19
S.R. 696/Airport
New direct rases connection
PE
1992-94
Connector
Construction
unfunded
unfunded
20
Lejeune Rd. ramp to
New direct ramp connection
PS
1993-94
N.W_ 21 8t
Construction
unfunded
unfunded
21
S.R_ 112/N.W. Sand Ave
New eastbound on-remp
unfunded
unfunded
Ramps
and now westbound off -ramp
SS
S.R. 112/N.W. 87th Ave
New eastbound on-raunp
unfunded
unfunded
Ramps
and new westbound off -tamp
28
Nortb River Drive/
Reconstructio0. repaving and
City of Miami
1991-95
South River Drive
intersection improvements
highway bonds
1
1
1
C
Ll
2.6 River Management
Short, Mid and Long Range
Transportation Improvements
Right-of-way acquisition
®
Street widening
O
Bridge replacement or
repair
City of Miami street
Improvement
■
Short Range
•
Mid and Long Range
Miami River Master Plan 2.7
BRIDGES AND TUNNELS 0
Ten drawbridges along the Miami River are an ongoing
source of controversy over delays caused to motorists when
the bridges open for passing vessels and delays caused to
vessels when bridges remain closed. Managing this conflict
requires both operational and physical facility improve-
ments.
Existing Restrictions
Federal law places navigation in an indisputable priority
position, making it illegal to deny access to vessels by
keeping drawbridges closed for extended periods of time.
The present schedule of no bridge openings from 7:30-9:00
AM and 4:30-6:00 PM weekdays was authorized by the
U.S. Coast Guard as the best compromise that can be made
to benefit vehicular traffic without violating federal naviga-
tion laws. Some people have argued to extend the hours in
which bridges are not opened, especially to relieve traffic
congestion in the Brickell Avenue/Dupont Plaza area of
downtown. However, the Coast Guard continues to main-
tain its position that such action would unreasonably
hamper navigation, and that the little -used Miami Avenue
bridge provides an alternative to bridge -related traffic con-
gestion in downtown.
A better solution to this problem is to minimize the number
of times that bridges need to open daily by building higher
bridges and by reducing the number of "nonessential"
bridge openings.
Bridge Improvements
Aging, obsolete bridges along the Miami River are undergo-
ing replacement or major repair. The first such replace-
ment was the Miami Avenue bridge, completed in 1987.
Forthcoming bridge replacements include Brickell Avenue,
SW 2nd Avenue, and NW 27th Avenue. The new bascule
bridges provide several advantages, including higher
clearance over the river (average 27 feet) to reduce the fre-
quency of openings, more traffic lanes to carry greater
volumes of traffic, and improved design of bridge piers and
fender systems to reduce navigational hazards. The new
Miami Avenue bridge opens an average of only 23 times
per day, compared to 36 openings per day by the lower -
level Brickell Avenue bridge.
Major repairs are programmed for the NW 5th Street, NW
12th Avenue, SW 1st Street and Flagler Street bridges,
which will reduce the inconvenience caused by mechanical
breakdowns. However, these repairs will not correct the
navigational constraint associated with the NW 5th Street
bridge, where the spans cannot open to the full 90 degree
angle necessary to provide the standard 75 feet of horizon-
tal clearance for vessels. Replacement of this bridge should
be programmed to occur as quickly as possible.
"Nonessential" Bridge Openings
The frequency of bridge openings could be reduced by
eliminating "nonessential" openings. Bridge tenders are re-
quired by law to open the drawbridge for any vessel that
signals a request for opening, regardless of whether the ves-
sel is small enough to pass under the closed span. Some
operators do not know the vertical height of their vessel or
are not aware that the vertical clearance at the center of the
closed bridge span is several feet higher than the posted
clearance, which is measured at the fenders. Marinas,
boatyards and other businesses that attract this size of ves-
sel to the river should help by educating their customers
about their vertical clearance requirements. Signs on the
bridges should indicate the additional vertical clearance at
the center of the span.
Bridge openings can also be reduced by more aggressive en-
forcement of an existing federal law that requires vessel
operators to remove or to lower "appurtenances not essen-
tial to navigation" if such appurtenances are the only por-
tion of the vessel that would prevent it from passing under
a drawbridge in the closed position. The maximum penalty
is a $1,000 fine. Radio antennae and outriggers are the
most common appurtenances that violate this law. The U.S.
Coast Guard enforces this law by mailing warnings and
1
n
F_
L
1
1
1
2.8 River Management I
J
I
1
1
citations to vessel owners, based upon reports filed by
bridge tenders. The effectiveness of enforcement efforts
could be greatly enhanced by installing video cameras at
one or more bridges to accurately record violations.
Another method, used by Ft. Lauderdale, is to authorize
local marine patrol officers to issue citations on the spot.
Enforcement of nonessential bridge opening laws may have
negative consequences for marinas and boatyards on the
Miami River if the inconvenience of removing or lowering
nonessential appurtenances causes their customers to move
elsewhere. Therefore, tougher enforcement measures are
not recommended as a policy at this time. Voluntary com-
pliance should be stressed through education and market-
ing of products that are easily removed or lowered. In the
future, if economic conditions improve for the industry, the
enforcement option should be reconsidered.
High -Level Bridges and Tunnels
To eliminate drawbridges would be the ultimate solution to
the conflict between vehicles and vessels. Two alterntives
to drawbridges are: a) fixed span bridges that are high
enough to permit vessels to pass underneath and b) tunnels.
High-level fixed span bridges must provide a minimum of
75 feet of vertical clearance over the river to meet federal
navigation standards. To achieve such height, the ap-
proaches to the bridge must begin at least 1,700 feet from
the river, thereby cutting off access to three to six blocks
of land along both sides of the river. Such impacts are un-
acceptable in a densely developed city along arterial streets
that cross the river. However, two limited access ex-
pressways, I-95 and S.R. 836, do provide high-level fixed
span bridges, as do Metrorail and the future Metromover
Stage II.
Tunnels require somewhat shorter approaches than fixed
span bridges, but still can cause significant disruption to
land use and street circulation patterns around the open
cuts needed for their entrances/exits. However, it is the
substantially greater cost of constructing and operating a
tunnel (typically 4 to 5 times the cost of a drawbridge) that
has prevented them from being built along the Miami
River.. Numerous tunnelfeasibility studies were conducted
throughout the decades of the '60s, '70s and '80s. Several
feasible tunnel routes were identified, but in each case the
tunnel alternative failed because a) the community benefits
could not be equated with the additional cost, b) lack of ad-
ditional funding and c) lack of community support to seek
additional federal/state funding or to provide local funding.
Currently, the desirability of tunnels is again being con-
sidered in the community. The Metropolitan Planning Or-
ganization (MPO) has endorsed a proposal to seek state
funding for a tunnel feasibility study for the replacement of
the SW 2nd Avenue bridge. Interest in the SW 2nd Avenue
location is primarily related to the fact that it is the next
available opportunity to build a tunnel, being the next
drawbridge on the Miami River scheduled to be replaced.
Plans for construction of new drawbridges at NW 27th
Avenue and Brickell Avenue have advanced too far to
reconsider.
A tunnel at SW 2nd Avenue should only be considered in
the context of a long term commitment to build several tun-
nels at strategic locations along the Miami River. If only
one tunnel can be justified, SW 2nd Avenue would be a
relatively low priority location. A tunnel is not necessary
to handle the existing or the projected future traffic over
the river on SW 2nd Avenue, if the planned new 4-lane
drawbridge is constructed. The new drawbridge will be
higher than the existing bridge, thereby reducing the num-
ber of openings; and it has been designed to substantially
reduce the risk of damage from vessel collisions. Further-
more, the adjacent high-level fixed -span bridge on I-95
provides an alternative means of avoiding a potential
drawridge opening for most vehicles traveling in a north -
south direction on the western side of downtown. How-
ever, if the community decides that a series of tunnels is
preferred, and that the overall cost is justified, then a tun-
nel at SW 2nd Avenue could be considered as a first step.
The most significant advantage of a tunnel at SW 2nd
Avenue would be to improve the development potential of
adjacent riverfront property. This could be transformed
into a community -wide benefit on the north side of the
river if it would encourage the Florida Power and Light
Company to develop its waterfront with restaurants, retail,
entertainment or similar activity -generating uses that
would create a continuous, lively urban riverwalk. The
south side of the river is proposed to remain as a
waterfront industrial area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
2.3 Improve roads and bridges in the vicinity of the
Miami River to facilitate development and minimize
conflict between vehicular and vessel traffic.
Policies:
2.3.3 Complete approved projects involving replacement
or major repair of bridges in order to increase traffic
capacity, reduce frequency of bridge openings and
reduce navigational hazards.
2.3.4 Maintain the existing hours of no bridge openings
from 7:30-9:00 AM and 4:30-6:00 PM.
2.3.5 Reduce unnecessary bridge openings by informing
boaters about vertical clearances and marketing
products (outriggers, antennae and other appurtenan-
ces) that are easily removed or lowered.
2.3.6 Reduce navigational constraints caused by the NW
5th Street bridge by replacing it with a new bridge
as quickly as possible.
Miami River Master Plan 2.9
NAVIGATIONAL SAFETY AND CODE ENFORCEMENT
Navigational safety and code enforcement cover a diversity
of issues that all relate to the needs for: 1) ongoing coor-
dination between numerous governmental agencies, 2) ade-
quate funding and manpower for enforcement and 3) im-
proved laws to cover the gaps and bottlenecks in existing
enforcement efforts.
Navigation
The Miami River presents a rather unique combination of
circumstances that make navigational safety a challenge:
a. numerous federal, state and local agencies with dis-
crete areas of jurisdiction, but no one agency having
overall authority;
b. a relatively narrow, shallow channel with 12
bridges;
c. an unusual number of cargo vessels under the 79
feet or 150 ton size threshold that federal and interna-
tional safety rules govern; and
d. not governed by a port agency, so none of the typi-
cal regulations and enforcement procedures used in
other commercial harbors.
Concerns over safety on the river have grown in recent
years with increasing incidents of vessel grounding, capsiz-
ing, sinking, mechanical failure, and collisions. Some of
the causes are overloading or improper loading of cargo,
lack of safety equipment, inadequate training of crew mem-
bers, substandard maintenance practices, and general under -
capitalization of the enterprise. Potential impacts include
danger to the lives of the crew, release of fuel or other pol-
lutants into the water, cargo loss, damage to bridges and
other property, negative publicity, and costs incurred by the
public sector for such things as search and rescue, towing,
storage, and environmental cleanup.
The U.S. Coast Guard is generally responsible for naviga-
tional and operational safety on the river, which is a
federal navigable waterway. It has the authority under ex-
isting federal law to adopt and enforce administrative
regulations designed to eliminate or reduce the above
described problems. Local Coast Guard officials have
recently initiated federal rule -making procedures, which in-
clude extensive public involvement, and require up to two
years to complete. This Coast Guard effort should be sup-
ported, and all affected parties should participate in
developing a fair and effective set of regulations.
However, it is important to note that there are alternatives
to federal Coast Guard regulations that should be con-
sidered. Both state and local governments have the
authority to adopt and enforce regulations that would ac-
complish much the same purposes. If adopted, some local
regulations could obviate the need for federal involvement;
others would enhance and supplement potential Coast
Guard regulations.
Local Options
The most commonly used mechanism for local control of
navigational and operational safety is a seaport agency (dis-
cussed on pages 2.12 - 2.13).
The county should consider strengthening its requirements
for and enforcement of stevedoring licenses. Existing laws
prohibit all cargo vessels, regardless of size or registration,
from being loaded by anyone other than a licensed stevedor-
ing company. However, some vessels on the river, par-
ticularly the smaller Haitian vessels, are often loaded by
crew members who have little or no training. The stevedor-
ing company should be held responsible for safe loading
practices by being subject to losing its license. A job
recruitment and training program should be initiated, with
the help of the Dade County School System's job training
program, to ensure that there is an adequately trained work
force.
In cases where vessels are disabled by mechanical failure a
county ordinance should authorize local officials to take ac-
tion to prevent environmental damage.
Financial Responsibility
The owner of every vessel should be held financially
responsible for any cleanup, towing, storage, or other costs
incurred by government from accidents or code violations,.
or for any civil penalties attributable to the vessel. Exist-
ing laws are usually adequate for recovering costs from ves-
sels registered in the United States, but the time and effort
required can be excessive. Existing laws are not effective
in dealing with foreign flag vessels.
The system typically used to ensure that commercial ves-
sels comply with federal, state and/or local seaport regula-
tions is to require each vessel to have a registered agent,
who must post a bond or other form of surety with the ap-
propriate agency to cover any costs, fees, or civil fines and
penalties incurred by the vessel while doing business
within the jurisdiction of that agency. Examples of exist-
ing laws that require agents to guarantee financial respon-
sibility include U.S. Customs laws, the Florida Pollutant
1
E
1
� I
1
2.10 River Management
J
1
Discharge Prevention and Removal law (Ch. 376, F.S.), and
the Port of Miami Rates, Rules and Regulations (Tariff No.
10). The responsibilities of vessel agents should be ex-
panded by state or county law to include such things as
violations of environmental laws.
The landowner or business where foreign flag vessels dock
can be made responsible for some of the actions/problems
created by the vessels through the county's mooring code
or the marina operating permit program. Additional rules
and regulations could be adopted and enforced for such
things as sanitation facilities on vessels and discharge of
pollutants from vessels.
ICode Enforcement
Effective code enforcement is the solution to a wide
' variety of issues and needs of the Miami River, from
derelict vessels to unnecessary bridge openings; from il-
legal dumping of waste to illegal land uses.
Overall, enforcement efforts have dramatically improved
on the Miami River during the past decade. This has been
achieved, in part, through increased manpower from cer-
tain key agencies, notably DERM and U.S. Customs. It is
critical to continue funding for enforcement officers. The
state should continue to assist local enforcement efforts
through the SWIM program and the Florida Marine Patrol,
Coordination among enforcement agencies is another im-
portant strategy to increase effectiveness and reduce over-
all costs. Several agencies have formed the "Miami River
Enforcement Group" to provide a framework for such coor-
dination. This group holds monthly meetings to discuss en-
forcement problems and conducts enforcement team
sweeps at individual sites known to have multiple viola-
tions. Some of the benefits from this interaction are iden-
tification of needed changes in existing codes and sharing
access to boats.
One of the principal advantages of inter -agency coordina-
tion is cross-fertilization of knowledge about the types of
violations that other agencies are looking for. This in-
creases the number of eyes and ears available for enforce-
ment by encouraging agencies to notify each other when
they spot a violation or observe that a violation is not
being properly corrected. This practice could be expanded
to provide better coverage during nighttime and weekend
hours with the help of the additional marine patrol service
discussed on pages 2.2 - 2.3.
Metropolitan Dade County uses a ticketing process for en-
forcement of county code violations that seems to be effi-
cient and effective in causing violations to be expeditiously
remedied. The City should consider replacing its existing
Code Enforcement Board system with a similar ticketing
system for appropriate types of violations.
Caution
Effective enforcement is desirable for everyone, to im-
prove safety, water quality and the overall image of the
Miami River. However, over -regulation and/or over-
zealous enforcement could be counterproductive to the
goal of preserving the working waterfront. It is essential
for any new regulations to be sensitive to the needs of the
business community. Also, enforcement officers should be
well -trained in all aspects of the river so that they can fair-
ly and wisely exercise the judgement required to do their
jobs. Like the traditional neighborhood cop, enforcement
officers should be assigned to the river on a consistent,
long-term basis so that they can get to know the people and
the activities along the river.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
2.4 Improve navigational safety and code enforcement.
Policies:
2.4.1 Support the U.S. Coast Guard proposal to impose
rules governing safety for towing, loading and moor-
ing of all commercial vessels on the Miami River.
2.4.2 Reduce unsafe loading practices on cargo vessels by
strenghtening the requirements for and enforcement
of occupational licenses for stevedoring companies.
2.4.3 Continue the Miami River Enforcement Group with
federal, state and local agency coordination meet-
ings, code enforcement team site visits and cross -
training of enforcement officers.
2.4.4 Secure ongoing sources of funding for code enforce-
ment.
2.4.5 Require all commercial vessels to have a registered
agent with financial responsibility (a bond or other
form of surety) to cover the cost of cleanup and/or
fines for violation of environmental and safety codes.
2.4.6 Utilize increased police patrol (see Policy 2.1.1) to
spot code violations and to intervene and/or notify
other appropriate agencies for enforcement actions.
2.4.7 Facilitate code enforcement by requiring all
waterfront properties to have the street address
posted in a location clearly visible from the water.
2.4.8 Consider the use of ticketing for enforcement of ap-
propriate City of Miami codes, similar to the proce-
dures in Section 8CC of the Metropolitan Dade Coun-
ty Code.
2.4.9 Encourage each enforcement agency to assign their
officers to the river area on a consistent, long-term
basis.
Miami River Master Plan 2.11
PORT OF 011 IAMI RIVER
The Miami River is a rare example in the United States of
a navigable waterway, used extensively for commercial
shipping, that is not officially regulated as a port by state
or local government. Although the name "Port of Miami
River" was coined in 1986 to satisfy a U.S. Coast Guard
regulation governing bilge pumpouts, it has none of the
structure, authority or advantages normally associated with
ports.
Seaports in General
Under Florida law, a port can be established either by a spe-
cial charter enacted by the state legislature or by an or-
dinance adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
The organizational structure of a port may take many forms
ranging from an autonomous port authority governed by
elected commissioners to a staff function of county govern-
ment. Port organizations typically provide such services'
as:. planning; land acquisition; development of bridges, tun-
nels, highways, rail systems, industrial parks and foreign
trade zones; obtaining financing for capital projects by
bonding or applying for federal grants; acting as the local
public assurer for federal navigation projects; and provid-
ing security and enforcement of port -enacted rules and
regulations.
Applicability to the Miami River
The major difference between the Miami River and other
existing seaports is that the commercial shipping opera-
tions on the Miami River are 100% owned and operated by
private enterprise. Other ports generally have some degree
of public ownership. Where the public sector owns the
land and/or structures and equipment used for shipping ac-
tivities, there is an unavoidable need for a formal organiza-
tion to manage the use of those facilities. Some ports, such
as New York City, Tampa and Fort Pierce, include privately
and publicly -owned terminals.
Shipping companies have operated on the Miami River
since the early history of the City, but until recent years,
there has been little cause for public attention. Several fac-
tors, including increases in the volume of shipping activity,
size of vessels, safety hazards, illegal cargo and environ-
mental violations, are reasons why :some type of umbrella
management entity should be considered to oversee the es-
timated 25 to 30 independent shipping companies operating
on the Miami River.
In addition to the regulatory benefits that a port manage-
ment entity would bring to the general community, there
are several potential benefits that would accrue primarily
to the shipping industry:
1. Plan and promote port -related projects, especially
such vital needs as the dredging project.
2. Obtain funding for port -related projects (e.g. dredg-
ing, roads, bridges) from sources such as bonding or
the newly established Florida Seaport Transportation
and Economic Development Trust Fund.
3. Provide marketing and promotion to expand business
opportunities in the Caribbean Basin.
4. Improve local public awareness of the economic im-
portance of the Miami River shipping industry.
The Miami River does not require a large, elaborate, or ex-
pensive organization to carry out the most important
management functions. A manager, which may be called a
"river coordinator", with support from a small clerical
staff, bridge tenders, local law enforcement agencies, and
officially adopted rules and regulations for use of the water-
way would be the minimum required.
Private Sector Response
A "private port cooperative" was formed by private ship-
ping -related businesses in January 1991 in an attempt to ad-
dress many of the needs described above. This coopera-
tive, entitled the "Miami River Marine Group" (MRMG), is
L
f
.1
u
0
r,
2.12 River Management
I
L
I
rl
I
a voluntary organization which currently represents seven
shipping terminals, as well as stevedoring companies, tug-
boat operators and ship repair businesses. It has hired a
"river. coordinator" to act as,.a liaison with government
agencies and to help devise plans for best management
practices and pollution control. The MRMG also intends
to create an oil spill containment cooperative; and to work
with the Coast Guard and Dade County to design a "Private
Port Manual" of voluntary rules and regulations dealing
with such issues as cargo loading, river traffic, towing pro-
cedures, etc.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
2.4 Improve navigational safety and code enforcement.
Policy:
2.4.9 Create an official "port" organization with respon-
sibility to assist with enforcement of rules and
regulations applicable to commercial shipping ac-
tivity.
(a) Support the private sector efforts to fulfill the role
of a port through a cooperative organization.
(b) If the private port cooperative fails to effectively
manage shipping activity, establish a public port agen-
cy with legal authority to enforce regulations.
IMiami River Master Plan 2.13
� CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENT
i
GOAL: Improve the environmental quality of the river.
INTRODUCTION:
The urbanization of Miami has changed the river from
clear, drinkable waters, as late as 1909, to conditions that
consistently violate Dade County water quality standards.
Problems are caused by pollutants carried in stormwater
runoff, leakage and overflow of raw sewage, discharge of
bilge and wastewater from vessels, eroding shorelines,
deteriorating vessels and shoreline structures, dumping of
fish wastes, and suspended sediments that prevent light
from penetrating to the river bottom.
As the largest tributary in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve, the Miami River has been a major focus of study
and public expenditure. Much has been accomplished, but
even more remains to be done, requiring cooperation and
funding from city, county, state and federal agencies.
71
Ll
I
I
IMiami River Master Plan 3.1
STORM DRAINAGE I
Stormwater runoff has been identified as a major source of
pollution in the Miami River by the draft Biscayne Bay
Aquatic Preserve Management Plan and the Surface Water
Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for Biscayne
Bay. Major pollutants in urban stormwater are suspended
solids, nutrients, oil and grease. Trace metals and syn-
thetic organic chemicals, such as pesticides, herbicides and
plasticizers, can also be conveyed in stormwater runoff.
Redirecting the Flow
Prior to 1974, stormwater drainage practices emphasized
quick removal of runoff and protection from flooding.
This was achieved by "positive drainage" systems, where
runoff was collected and discharged through a system of un-
derground pipes into the nearest surface water body.
Most of the stormwater drainage systems in the vicinity of
the Miami River were constructed prior to 1974, and now
require "retrofitting". This involves modification of the ex-
isting positive drainage system with exfiltration systems
that direct stormwater to infiltrate into the groundwater.
The new drainage structures meet standards of the Metro -
Dade Department of Environmental Resources Managenent
(DERM) and the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD), which call for retaining or treating the runoff
from the first one -inch of rainfall. Approximately 90% of
the total pollutant load in stormwater is carried in this por-
tion of the runoff. The underground outfall pipe remains in
place to discharge overflow from heavier rains.
DERM constructed one of the first stormwater outfall
retrofitting projects in 1988. Using state and local funds
from the Biscayne Bay Restoration and Enhancement Pro-
gram, a series of deep wells and a settling chamber were in-
stalled to provide retention and treatment for the 97-acre
Riverview area (basin 53). Subsequently, the City of
Miami has undertaken an extensive retrofitting program
using funds from two local sources: 1) Storm Sewer
General Obligation Bonds and 2) Stormwater Utility Trust
Funds (user fees), which are generally matched on a 50-50
basis with SWIM funds. Projects that are completed, under-
way or proposed using SWIM funds are listed in Table 3-A.
The status of DERM's list of top priority drainage basins is
shown on Table 3-B.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
3.1 Eliminate sources of water pollution.
TABLE 3-A: CITY OF MAW STORMWATER DRAINAGE
RETROFIT FRQIECIS - NNE 1991
Basin
Project Name
Acres
Cost
status
44i
East Little Havens
45
$
380,000
complete
26
Civic Center
45
$
650,000
complete
50
Riverside - Ph I
09
$
800,000
complete
51
Riverside - Ph 11
22
li
220,000
complete
24a
Wegner Greek
160
$
1/0131600
construction
54
Lawrence Waterway
100
$
500,000
construction
44
Lawrence Pump Station
75
S
fim,000
construction
31
Overtown
150
S
2,200,000
In design
44
Lawrence - Ph U
335
S
2,400,000
proposed
53
Riverside - Ph m
107
$
1,800,000
proposed
24b
Morris Park
216
$
2,200,000
proposed
Policies:
3.1.1 Continue the City of Miami program of retrofitting
stormwater drainage basins to provide retention of
runoff from the first one -inch of rainfall, using local
funds matched by Florida Surface Water Improve-
ment and Management (SWIM) funds.
3.1.2 Encourage Metro -Dade County and the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) to retrofit
drainage basins located within roadways under their
jurisdiction.
3.1.3 Conduct routine maintenance on storm drains to
remove obstructions caused by litter, grease, sedi-
ments and other debris.
TABLE 3-& D6RM 1988 PR.LORJTY L13T FOR DRAINAGE BASIN
RETROFIT
Basin Nameftacation Acres
Status
23 NW 22nd Ave. (north)
165
Motto -Dade responsibility
44 East lithe Havana
336
Partially .complete, ("I);
Remainder proposed neat
funding cycle
63 Riverview/Riverside Ph M
97
Initial retrofit completed
by DERM; Additlonal work
proposed by City for
!future funding
36 Central Business Dist.
176
City streets mostly done;
Primarily Metro -Dade &
FDOT responsibility
to S.R. 112/NW 86th St.
106
FDOT responsibility
35 COD North/Lurnmus Park
64
Proposed futurefunding
21 NW 22nd Ave. (south)
55
Metro -Dade responsibility
24 Wagner Creek/Morris Pk.
395
24a in process;
24b proposed next funding
Cycle
1
P,
I
1
I
3.2 Environment
f
I
I
I
I
P Li
I
a
u
t
Ll-
I
r
MtV
0
1\1
. .. ................
ix I
�IXIN
1 11 ANAL
...............
MW 14 ST
No
IN
110-110
. BEENI
...... ....
Stormwater Drainage
Retrofit Projects
Proposed projects
Completed or
underway projects
\EI Other prior
ity
basins
f
Miami River Master Plan 3.3
SANITARY SEWERS
.....:..:::
A major source of water quality degradation in the Miami
River is leakage and overflow from the sanitary sewer sys-
tem. There are two major categories of sewage contamina-
tion in the river, acute and chronic.
1. Acute short-term incidents generally occur with heavy
rains when large volumes of stormwater and groundwater
enter the sanitary sewer system causing it to overflow, dis-
charging raw sewage into the river. The sudden high
volume of sewage discharge creates pollutant concentra-
tions hundreds to thousands of times higher than water
quality standards. Such episodes generally spread sewage
contamination into adjacent portions of Biscayne Bay,
rendering them unfit for recreational use for a period of
days to weeks. Occasionally, acute sewage contamination
is also caused by failure of pumps or rupture of pipes
within the sanitary sewer system.
2. Chronic sewage contamination of the river is at much
lower concentrations than the acute episodes, but still is
tens of times higher than water quality standards. The prin-
cipal cause is ongoing contamination of the stormwater
drainage system with raw sewage that comes from leaking
sewer pipes and from illegal or improper connections to the
stormwater drainage system.
Acute Contamination
The Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority Department
(WASAD) states that intense rain storms typically increase
sewage flow by 50 to 70 percent. One of the causes of this
increase is rain water entering the sanitary sewer system
through stormwater catch basins along public streets: In
the past, catch basins were intentionally designed to dis-
charge into the sanitary sewer in areas where low elevation
made it impossible to provide positive (gravity) stormwater
drainage to the river or the bay. Another significant source
of stormwater comes from illegal drain connections from
private property to the sanitary sewers. The sanitary
sewers are also overloaded after heavy rainstorms from
elevated groundwater levels that permit groundwater to in-
filtrate aging sewer pipes through joints and cracks.
The surcharge of stormwater in the sanitary sewers some-
times exceeds the capacity of the 4th Street pump station to
transmit the sewage to the Virginia Key treatment plant,
causing backups and overflow. This excess sewage flow is
normally directed through emergency overflow chambers
into outfalls that drain directly into the river. Moveable
weirs inside the emergency overflow chambers control the
level at which excess sewage will be discharged into the
river. On occasions when the emergency discharge of
sewage has been obstructed, overflows have occurred
through manholes along North and South River Drive.
This creates even worse conditions because the raw sewage
eventually drains into the river via sheet flow and
stormwater catch basins, as well as creating a health hazard
to people exposed to the flooded conditions in their neigh-
borhoods
Incidents of acute sewage contamination can be minimized
with improvements that are underway or planned.
a. Stormwater catch basins along City of Miami
streets will be disconnected from the sanitary sewers
by 1992, primarily with funds from the City of Miami
Storm Water Utility. Metro -Dade County and the
Florida Department of Transportation have made
similar commitments.
b. WASAD has recently completed construction of
sanitary sewer interceptor lines interconnecting the
three regional sewage treatment plants. This system
allows diversion of some excess sewage in emergency
conditions.
c. WASAD has executed construction contracts for
upgrading the capacity of the 4th Street pumping sta-
tion and is conducting engineering studies for a new
force main from the 4th Street pumping station to the
Virginia Key Treatment Plant. The latter project,
P
HI
F1
Ll
1
F
I
I
P
3.4 Environment 1
f
which involves sensitive issues of crossing Biscayne
Bay with an underground pipeline, is critical. The
deteriorated condition of the existing force main poses
a.serious .threat of direct sewage discharge into the .
bay. This project is tentatively scheduled for comple-
tion in 1996.
d. WASAD has recently completed installation of rein-
forced fiberglass liners inside many of the larger
sewage transmission lines. This will reduce
groundwater infiltration through joints and cracks,
however, additional work remains to install liners in
smaller pipes (8" or less).
Chronic Contamination
Although not nearly as severe as the acute, short-term inci-
dents described above, the Miami River is continuously
contaminated by raw sewage that enters the stormwater
drainage system. Sixteen out of seventeen locations in un-
derground stormwater pipes tested by DERM in 1989
showed elevated coliform bacterial levels indicative of
sewage contamination.
The sources of the sewage contamination are varied and
widespread, including: illegal or improper connections of
toilets, sinks, floor drains, etc. to the stormwater drainage
system; leaking, deteriorated or broken sewer pipes; and
direct disposal of untreated waste from vessels or shore
facilities.
The underground space available to construct sanitary
sewer and stormwater drainage pipes is limited due to the
high water table. Thus, there are many locations with a
dense network of manholes and pipes crisscrossed through
one another. The areas near the Miami River were the first
to have sanitary sewers installed in the early 1950's. These
older sewers are now deteriorating and allowing sewage to
escape through joints, cracks or ruptures.
Wherever improper connection or leakage from sanitary
sewer pipes is detected, the problem is promptly corrected
by WASAD or through enforcement action against private
propgrty.owners,. Hgwever,,.the problemare.-so
widespread that it is difficult and costly to detect and cor-
rect all points of contamination. Both DERM and WASAD
have programs to inspect the underground pipes using TV
cameras, dye and smoke detection techniques. Funding is
needed to continue these programs and to carry out enforce-
ment actions.
Existing City and County ordinances prohibit discharge of
untreated waste from all vessels, but enforcement is ex-
tremely difficult because citations can only be issued based
upon water samples collected at the time of discharge. Ves-
sel operators who are aware of this prohibition can easily
avoid detection by discharging at night. This is a par-
ticularly acute problem in the case of cargo vessels serving
foreign countries, which have a strong possibility of carry-
ing communicable diseases in their waste products. Legis-
lation is needed to give DERM officials authority to in-
spect vessels for on -board treatment devices, holding tanks
and contaminated bilge water, and to require pump -out of
holding tanks and bilges at authorized facilities. Among
recreational boaters, the problem is mostly caused by lack
of awareness of local waste discharge regulations because
they are more restrictive than state and federal regulations.
A public awareness campaign should be directed to
registered boat owners and to visitors at local marine
facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Objective:
3.1 Eliminate sources of water pollution.
Policies:
3.1.4 Reduce incidents of backup and overflow of the
sanitary sewer system by disconnecting all
stormwater catch basins that drain directly into the
sanitary sewer system.
3.1.5 Replace all aging, deteriorated sanitary sewer pipes
or install reinforced fiberglass liners to reduce
leakage.
3.1.6 Reduce leakage, backups and overflow from the
sanitary sewer system by supporting WASAD plans
to construct a new force main to the Virginia Key
Treatment Plant.
3.1.7 Continue programs of monitoring and investigation
aimed at detecting leakage from the sanitary sewer
system or illegal/improper connections from private
waste disposal systems to the storm drainage system.
3.1.8 Require all liveaboard vessels to be connected with
onshore waste disposal systems.
3.1.9 Improve enforcement mechanisms for existing regula-
tions concerning treatment and disposal of waste
water from all vessels, and seek delegation of
authority from the U.S. Coast Guard to DERM to in-
spect sanitation facilities on foreign flag vessels.
3.1.10 Conduct a public awareness campaign to discourage
discharge of untreated waste and contaminated bilge
water from vessels.
1
Miami River Master Plan 3.5
DREDGING
In 1932-33, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredged a
15-foot deep channel out of the porous limerock over
which the shallow Miami River flowed, making the river a
federal navigation project. This channel varies from 150
feet wide near the mouth of the river to 90 feet wide in the
Miami Canal west of NW 27th Avenue.
Environmental Issues
Stormwater runoff, waste disposal and shoreline erosion
have caused sediments to build up in the river since it was
first dredged. In addition to impeding navigation (see page
1.7), these sediments are a serious problem for water
quality in the river and a threat to the integrity of the Bis-
cayne Bay ecosystem due to turbidity and pollutants in the
sediment. Vessel traffic continually resuspends the sedi-
ments, which are then carried downstream into fragile Bis-
cayne Bay habitats, including productive seagrass beds and
areas that are fished commercially and recreationally. An
additional concern is the sudden flushing of river sedi-
ments that would result from a major storm.
Suspended sediments, a component of turbidity, may adver-
sely affect seagrass and other shallow water marine or-
ganisms by reducing water clarity and light penetration or
by contributing to siltation. Furthermore, the Miami River
sediments are contaminated with pollutants from urban
stormwater runoff and domestic and industrial waste. The
pollutants include toxic trace metals, pesticides, and other
harmful organic chemicals. Concentrations of these con-
taminants are generally higher in the Miami River than in
other Florida ports that have been tested.
Maintenance vs...Euv4ron — ptal Dredging_. _..
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has recom-
mended maintenance dredging of the federal channel for
the purpose of improving navigation. Many local experts
believe it is important to dredge the entire width of the
river and its major tributaries in order to remove all pos-
sible toxic sediments. The Corps has not recommended
dredging any areas beyond the federally authorized channel
because it does not recognize water quality or environmen-
tal benefits as justifications for a federal dredging project.
Both the locals and the Corps agree that ongoing sources of
pollution should be stopped.
Method of Dredging and Sediment Disposal
Until recently, the Corps planned to dump the Miami River
sediments at an ocean disposal site located approximately
3.6 miles offshore. However, the most recent test results in-
dicate that the sediments are not suitable for disposal at
any site in the ocean. These findings may delay the project
while acceptable upland disposal sites are identified. The
City should assist with site identification and coordination
with private property owners.
State and local regulatory agencies also believe that the
clam shell method of dredging proposed by the Corps may
create an unacceptable amount of turbidity during the con-
struction process. More costly methods of dredging may
be required to avoid suspension of sediments.
Using the least expensive methods of construction and
ocean disposal, the cost of dredging only the federal chan-
nel was estimated at $8-10 million. Under this scenario,
the Corps was expected to provide full funding for the
project. However, given the recent findings of sediment
contamination, it is likely that the local project sponsor
will be required to provide the additional funds associated
with upland disposal of the sediments.
The U.S. Congress could assist in expediting the Miami
River_dredging project by providing sufficient.funds. for
dredging the entire width of the river and requiring environ-
mentally sound removal and disposal of sediments. This
cost cannot be accurately calculated until the environmen-
tal permitting process is complete, but could be as much as
$20 million.
P,
[1
fl
I
I
I
U
V
1
3.6 Environment
0
Fig.3.1 Sample Cross Sections of Dredging. Private Sector
Typical cross-section: near mouth of River •......+•o.ay
6
2
0
-2
J
a
-10
-12
-1.
-16
as
.20
•i 1
A •
t•rrpk*e .: ' . • •
90 r" M &*V rrr**s ded&V dw to aiwdmoV
Typical cross-sectlon near M*rrlll-Stevens (12th Ave)
6
.a6w s.
0
f•rMW* a4wW for rock
.10 0 ,w,.d, • . . •
12
dOlrmoMwvice . . . .
,6 �ro • . . i. lwrput• . • •.
. a,•. ..
16
1! b d = cd rwrvmd &*V rrvMwo d do de
zs
Typical cross-section: West of 27th Ave (Man-made)
4.
2 wta,•
0
-2 —
• rrplol• 0*410d fw rock
-l0 6•'"' ero
-12 . . . .•
-14
-16
-16 dadpYO ta*Plole
.20
Property owners who undertake dredging on or adjacent to
their property_sf ould be.a_ware.of,the. prpblems,associated
with disposal of dredged material that is unsuitable for
placement as clean fill. In some instances, the dredged
material may have to be transported to a landfill, or even
treated as hazardous waste. The County may decide to re-
quire a bond or other form of financial surety to cover the
costs of cleanup and proper spoil disposal.
Long-term Maintenance
The build-up of sediments in the future should be mini-
mized by: a) continuing to improve the stormwater
drainage and sanitary sewer systems (see pages 3.2 - 3.5),
b) increasing enforcement of existing laws that prohibit
direct runoff from private property and discharge of in-
dustrial waste to sewers and c) shoreline stabilization (see
pages 3.8 - 3.9).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Objective:
3.2 Remove contaminated sediments and reduce future
sedimentation.
Policies:
3.2.1 Encourage the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to un-
dertake dredging of the river and its tributaries as
quickly as possible; to minimize suspension of con-
taminated sediments in the river by utilizing alterna-
tives to the clam shell dredging method; and to dis-
pose of sediments in an environmentally sound man-
ner.
Miami River Master Plan 3.7
SHORELINE STABILIZATION
Erosion of the shoreline is a natural, ongoing process
caused by surface water runoff and the flow of water in the
river channel. Along the Miami River this natural process
is accelerated by waves, which are created by boats and are
often amplified by bouncing off vertical bulkheads.
In addition to the loss of valuable waterfront land and ma-
ture trees along the shoreline, erosion creates a problem by
degrading water quality (turbidity) and adding to the
deposited sediments that impede navigation. An effort to
substantially reduce shoreline erosion would be most time-
ly in concert with completion of the Miami River dredging
project.
Existing Needs
Approximately 30% of the Miami River shoreline is in
need of some degree of stabilization to prevent additional
erosion. Deteriorated existing bulkhead structures and
natural shoreline area with no erosion control comprise
most of this need.
Currently, there are no laws requiring property owners to
stabilize their shoreline. Stabilization should be made man-
datory in cases where vacant property is being developed,
where existing improvements are redeveloped for a new
use, or where major renovations are undertaken. However,
such requirements should not place an undue financial bur-
den on property owners, especially small water -dependent
businesses.
In cases where a property owner chooses to construct (or
repair) a bulkhead, rip -rap or other shoreline stabilization
device, there is a relatively complex and costly permit
process involving five agencies of city, county, state and
federal government. This tends to discourage private sec-
tor improvements, except where necessary to conduct busi-
ness. Maintenance and repair of existing bulkhead struc-
tures should be encouraged by streamlining the permit
process for repairs (see Policy 1.3.4).
New bulkhead structures should be permitted wherever ves-
sel dockage is desired. If possible, limerock boulder riprap
should be placed under an overhanging dock (see Figure
3.2);.otherwise, riprap should continue to be allowed to be
placed as mitigation at another location approved by
DERM.
Publicly owned property represents a large portion of
Miami River shoreline that is in need of stabilization. Ap-
proximately 3,500 linear feet of shoreline in parks, street
and bridge rights -of -way, public housing sites and other
miscellaneous facilities should be stabilized with rip -rap.
At an average cost of $125 per linear foot, the total cost
would be $437,500.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
3.2 Remove contaminated sediments and reduce future
sedimentation.
Policy:
3.2.2 Seek funding for stabilization of all segments of un-
consolidated shoreline.
s
rt
FJ
s
f
U
P
L
1
i
3.8 Environment
1
REST 5
Q5
.6
gn m.
~ 1 1.
\. � p,
IRS: � \ -
nz.
...
MANATEE PROTECTION
Fig.3.3 Manatee Deaths in Dade County, 1974-1990
Boat/Barge
22
Unknown
22
Gates/Locks
37
Natural
2
'alves
7
uman
12
The Florida manatee is a sub -species of West Indian
manatee or "sea cow" that is found only in waters of the
southeastern United States. Although the manatee has been
protected by state law since 1893, a high mortality rate,
low reproductive rate and loss of habitat combine to
threaten the sub -species' future. Currently, only about
1,500 animals are believed to exist in Florida, and the
population is decreasing annually. Statewide, about half of
all recorded manatee deaths are human -related.
In an effort to reverse the manatee decline, Florida's gover-
nor and cabinet issued a policy in 1989 requiring 13 coas-
tal counties to prepare stringent manatee protection plans.
Dade County DERM has conducted a detailed manatee
study and is currently developing recommendations for the
protection plan.
Manatee sighting data, gathered through numerous aerial
surveys and tagging studies, document the Miami River as
an important year -around manatee habitat area. It is one of
several rivers and canals in Dade County (including Bis-
cayne Canal, Little River and the Coral Gables Waterway)
where manatees migrate each winter. Typically the animals
swim back and forth each day between resting in the river
and feeding on the shallow grass beds in the nearby open
waters of Biscayne Bay.
Records of manatee deaths in Dade County, dating back to
1974, indicate that the largest known cause of death is in-
jury or drowning resulting from entrapment in the gates of
salinity control structures. The second most common cause
of death is collision with vessels.
Protection Measures
The South Florida Water Management District is currently
studying alternative ways to prevent manatee deaths re-
lated to the salinity control structures. Other potential
manatee protection measures involve public education and
various forms of restrictions on boating activities.
Some of the possible boating restrictions could have far-
reaching effects on the future of the Miami River. The
challenge is to forge a balanced plan that will substantially
reduce the human -related threats to the manatee, without
thwarting.the public objective to encourage redevelopment
along the Miami River for economic and social benefits.
Most of the manatee injuries and deaths caused by boats
can be prevented by lowering speed limits and driver aware-
ness. Some additional accidents may be prevented by use
of bumpers along docking facilities to prevent large vessels
from trapping manatees against seawalls or the river bot-
tom, and by installing protective devices on the propellors
of large deep -draft vessels, tugboats and other erratically -
moving vessels. Such countywide protection measures
should be supported because they would be effective and
would have little negative impact on the Miami River.
The one potential manatee protection measure that would
be most detrimental to other goals and objectives for the
Miami River involves restrictions on permits for boat dock-
ing and storage facilities. State guidelines advocate strict
marina siting criteria as a manatee protection measure.
When new regulations are developed for Dade County, they
should be guided by the marina siting discussion on pages
3.12 - 3.13.
Although attempts to limit growth of boating activity in
habitat areas through permit restrictions may have some
benefit to the manatee, the mere presence of boats operat-
ing at idle speed has not been proven to cause injury or
death. Manatees have demonstrated their adaptability by
continuing to inhabit the Miami River in spite; of existing
boat traffic. Strict enforcement of existing no -wake speed
limits would have a more direct effect on manatee safety.
Enforcement of speed limits could be improved with in-
creased marine patrol surveilence (either City of Miami or
Florida Marine Patrol) and/or by mailing citations to
registered boat owners based upon evidence from video
cameras and bridge tender records.
U
1
1
3.10 Environment
1
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
3.3 Protect the endangered manatee.
Policies:
3.3.1 Urge the South Florida Water Management District
to implement structural or operational improvements
to salinity dams to prevent manatees from being in-
jured or drowned by flood control gates.
3.3.2 Support the adoption of boat speed limits in manatee
habitat areas throughout Biscayne Bay.
3.3.3 Improve enforcement of the vessel speed limits on
the Miami River and Biscayne Bay.
3.3.4 Sponsor public education programs, improve infor-
mational and regulatory signage along the river and
provide educational brochures to owners of marinas,
boat ramps and boat repair facilities for distribution
to boaters.
3.3.5 Create a "manatee watch" program to host guided
tours and manatee sightings for school children and
the general public.
3.3.6 Preserve manatee habitat and resting areas, including
.Palmer Lake.
3.3.7 Seek funding for continued study of manatee be-
havior and migration patterns along the Miami River
and surrounding bay waters.
3.3.8 Require waterfront facilities to be designed and con-
structed using methods which prevent or minimize in-
jury, entrapment or crushing of manatees by moored
vessels.
3.3.9 Investigate the effectiveness of ducted propellors or
propellor guards for tugboats and other appropriate
vessels.
3.3.10 Consider limitations on expansion of existing boat
docking facilities and siting of new docking and dry
storage facilities only as a last resort for protection
of manatees, recognizing that important public objec-
tives of encouraging redevelopment and enhancing
public use and enjoyment of the river could be
severely impeded by such limitations.
I
Miami River Master Plan 3.11
MARINA SITING
"Marina Siting" is a term used in the context of environ-
mental and growth management regulations to apply to any
type of vessel docking (or dry storage) facility other than
private docks for single family residences. Therefore, this
topic affects virtually every business, multifamily residen-
tial complex, and public or institutional property where al-
teration, replacement or expansion of existing boat docking
facilities is planned or where development of new dockage
is proposed.
Two critical issues will have major impacts on future
"marina" permits along the Miami River: 1) manatee
protection and 2) use of state-owned submerged lands
within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve.
Manatee Protection Measures
One of the methods suggested by existing state regulations
to help protect the endangered West Indian Manatee is to
limit approval of permits required to expand motor vessel
dockage facilities in manatee habitat areas. The objective
is to minimize vessel traffic in those areas and to shift
growth in boating activity to areas not frequented by
manatees.
Although criteria for approving or denying permits have
not yet been written and adopted, one approach under con-
sideration is to discourage any increase in recreational boat-
ing in manatee habitat areas, including the Miami River, by
limiting expansion of boat ramps, wet or dry storage slips,
and temporary docking facilities at restaurants or other
waterfront destinations. Other types of marine facilities
could be directly or indirectly included in permitting
restrictions that will be developed within the coming
months by Metro -Dade County and ultimately approved by
the Governor and Cabinet.
State -Owned Submerged Lands
Most of the existing docks and potential sites for future
docks along the Miami River are situated over state-owned
submerged lands. State ownership generally includes all of
the river bottom below the mean high water line, as it ex-
isted in the mid -nineteenth century, and all of the Miami
Canal, Tamiami Canal and Seybold Canal.
Prior to the enactment of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve Act, there was a lenient policy on use of the
state's submerged lands for boating -related facilities. How-
ever, the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve management rules
prohibit the use, sale, lease or transfer of interest in state-
owned submerged lands unless an applicant demonstrates
an extreme hardship and that the project is in the public in-
terest. Only private docks for single family homes are.ex-
empted. Since the rule was adopted (1980), only one
private property owner (Fisher Island) has been able to suc-
cessfully demonstrate extreme hardship in order to obtain a
lease for construction of new facilities.
Repair, alteration, expansion or dredging of existing
facilities is also affected. Permits cannot be approved for
such work unless a lease is first executed through the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Existing
facilities can potentially be denied permits for alterations if
the owner cannot prove that it was lawfully constructed
prior to the enactment of the rules regarding leasing. In an
effort to increase revenue, DNR is initiating a program to
require leases from all existing facilities and to collect
lease payments retroactively to the time of initial construc-
tion.
Conflict With Development Policies
Permit restrictions resulting from either of the above
described programs would severely undermine economic
development and land use policies established by the City.
The Miami River is not a likely location for large new com-
mercial marinas. The potential for conflict more likely in-
volves the ability to improve existing marinas, boatyards,
shipping terminals, and fish houses and to use the un-
developed portions of the shoreline for linear dockage.
It is essential to allow repair and/or replacement of exist-
ing marine facilities. Expansion of existing marine
facilities should be encouraged.. It is also important to
allow development of new water -dependent business and
(in designated areas such as the downtown) to encourage
redevelopment with housing, hotels, shops, restaurants and
attractions that will encourage people to use the waterfront.
Marinas and temporary boat tie-up facilities are a key ele-
ment of the ambiance and economic vitality of successful
urban waterfronts. Conversely, urban waterfronts lacking
direct interaction with maritime activities are often sterile.
The following specific regulatory measures are needed to
provide an appropriate balance between environmental and
developmental interests.
r
f
ri
IJ
Li
II
1
I
11
it
3.12 Environment
I
i
1
I
F-1
1
I
1
I
1
1. The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve management rules
(Chapter 18-18, Rules of the Board of Trustees of the
Internal Improvement Trust Fund) -should be amended
to eliminate the "extreme hardship" criteria for use of
state-owned submerged lands. This could be limited
to an exception for the Miami River; however, an
amendment applicable to the entire aquatic preserve
should also be considered. An excellent model for
such an amendment is the "Florida Aquatic Preserves"
management rule that governs most of the other
aquatic preserves through the state (Chapter 18-20,
Rules of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improve-
ment Trust Fund). This rule requires the use of
"public interest assessment criteria" as a balancing
test to determine whether the social, economic and/or
environmental benefits clearly exceed the impacts of a
proposed project.
2. The City of Miami should be an active partner in the
process of developing marina siting criteria for the
Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The marina siting
criteria should recognize the following principles:
a. The Miami River is in the center of the most dense-
ly developed portion of the metropolitan area. It is in
the public interest to concentrate growth in a central-
ized'area, rather than to disperse growth throughout
the region.
b. The Miami River has already been highly
developed and dramatically altered from its natural
condition. It is in the public interest to direct future
development to an area such as this, rather than to dis-
turb more natural, undeveloped areas of the aquatic
preserve.
c. The Miami River is a relatively small geographic
area that lends itself well to concentrated environmen-
tal cleanup and enforcement efforts. It is in the public
interest to direct future development to an area such
as this, rather than to disperse growth throughout the
aquatic preserve.
d. The Miami River is within easy access of many
neighborhoods that are experiencing deterioration,
blight, unemployment, and poverty. There are impor-
tant social and economic benefits in directing future
waterfront development to such an area to provide
public access, jobs and general economic prosperity.
The Miami River should not be designated as a
manatee "sanctuary," which would preclude further
use of state-owned submerged lands. The manatee
protection plan should emphasize improved enforce-
ment of existing no -wake speed laws in the river and
nearby bay waters, as well as other measures dis-
cussed on pages 3.10 - 3.11.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
3.4 Balance environmental protection interests with
development goals.
Policies:
3.4.1 Promote the continued concentration of marine
facilities along the Miami River by permitting con-
struction of new facilities and alteration of existing
facilities with environmentally sensitive design
standards.
3.4.2 Utilize marina operating permits and concentrated
code enforcement to ensure that marine facilities are
operated and maintained in an environmentally
sound manner.
A
Miami River Master Plan 3.13
CHAPTER 4: URBAN DESIGN
i
11
GOAL: Increase public use of the river.
1
IINTRODUCTION
The Miami River is one of the greatest natural features of
the region as well as one of the most underutilized oppor-
tunities in the City of Miami.
This plan seeks to open the river to the people, by creating
diverse urban waterfront spaces and strong linkages to the
city's neighborhoods. By encouraging a mixture of uses to
assure the availability of services and amenities, the role
and identity of the river will be reinforced for each neigh-
borhood.
The relationship between the river and the surrounding
area changes as the river traverses the city, demanding dif-
ferent types of urban design recommendations for each
geographic area. However, there are certain issues and op-
portunities that are common to the entire river area. This
chapter begins with these elements of continuity
throughout the river; i.e. opportunities for public access,
design of bridges, use of public lands, awareness of his-
tory, neighborhood connections and travel by water. The
second portion of the chapter describes general concepts
and specific recommendations for each of three major
geographic areas: River Bend, Mid -River and Up -River.
IMiami River Master Plan 4.1
PUBLIC ACCESS AND VISUAL IDENTITY
To achieve greater public use of the river, its image must
be transformed to a resource that is easily accessible, inter-
esting and fun for recreation and leisure activities and a
source of pride for the community. The following elements
of continuity throughout the length of the river are in-
tended to enhance public access and awareness.
Bridges
Bridges provide varied opportunities for access, connec-
tions and visual identity. They can function as linear open
space for pedestrians by providing an inviting platform to
view the river from above, as well as providing access to
public shoreline below the bridge. To do this, bridges
should be designed with pedestrian convenience and safety
in mind, with ample sidewalks (minimum 6 feet width) on
both sides of the roadway and stairway or ramp access to
the shoreline wherever appropriate.
Bridges are powerful visual symbols. For many motorists,
they are the only indication that the river exists. For
boaters, they are the single most significant repetitive ele-
ment throughout the length of the river. This presents an op-
portunity for bridges to be designed to be more than a
mechanism for the functional passage of road and river traf-
fic. With architectural enhancements, bridges can become
gateways and landmarks for the community, and unifying
elements for the river that are creative, fun and unique in
identity. Some examples of enhancements are banners and
flags, sculpture and other forms of public art, decorative
ironwork railings, fenestration on piers and bridge tender
houses, paint color, signs and decorative nighttime lighting.
Public Lands and Facilities
Public access to the river should not be limited to the tradi-
tional setting of public parks. There are numerous small
bits of public land along the river that could be improved
for public enjoyment. The leftover rights -of -way adjacent
to bridges and streets that dead-end into the river are one
type of opportunity. These areas generally should be
limited to passive use with grass, shade trees or palms, and
riprap boulders to stabilize the shoreline. In some cases,
riverfront land is occupied by government facilities, institu-
tions or utilities. Wherever feasible such uses should be
moved to an inland location to make scarce waterfront
space available for water -dependent activities. Where
moving the use is not feasible, development of the water's
edge for public use should be considered.
Proposed
Perception of crime is one reason why public parks and
other riverfront spaces are underutilized. Programming of
activities in city parks is one way. to improve public safety.
The recommendations for increased police patrol on pages
2.2 and 2.3 would be the best way to, combat this problem
throughout the length of the river.
i
a
0
I
I
7
4.2 Urban Design
1
E
J
f]
I
L-1
I
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
4.1. Improve public access to and facilities for enjoyment
of publicly -owned waterfronts aces such as bridges,
P 8 ,
street rights -of -way and property occupied by
government or institutional uses.
Policies:
4.1.1 Modify existing bridges where necessary to ensure
that all bridges serve as linear open space for
pedestrians, providing an inviting platform to view
the river, as well as providing easy access to public
spaces along the shoreline.
4.1.2 Provide landscaping, seating, boat moorings and
other appropriate facilities for active and passive
recreation along all publicly -owned shoreline.
4.1.3 Increase the visibility of police and/or public service -
aides to promote use of the riverwalk and parks.
Objective:
4.2 Improve the visual identity and public awareness of
the river.
Policies:
4.2.1 'Create design guidelines for all new and
rehabilitated bridges that require architectural enhan-
cements, including decorative nighttime lighting.
4.2.2 Utilize Art in Public Places to dramatize gateways
and other special features along the waterfront.
4.2.3 Define North and South River Drive as a scenic cor-
ridor with special sidewalk and landscape treatment.
.::
IMiami River Master Plan 4.3
IMiami River Master Plan 4.3
CONNECTIONS
Existine
Pedestrian Routes
Along with providing public access points at the river's
edge, is a need to enhance the major access routes that
people would use to get to the river from within neighbor-
hoods and business districts. Such routes are generally
along arterial streets, North and South River Drive, and/or
through public parks. However, some routes are unattrac-
tive or hazardous for pedestrians, and some do not provide
any visual cues that waterfront access lies ahead. Each
neighborhood or concentration of employees, shoppers and
visitors should have a highly visible access route to the
river, highlighted with signs, banners or symbols. These
connections should be improved with ample sidewalks,
crosswalks, shade trees, lighting, public art and other
amenities. The "Art In Public Places" program is an excel-
lent way to highlight connections and gateways to the
river. The maps on pages 4.15 and 4.21 indicate locations
where pedestrian connections and public art are suggested.
Proposed
'Navel by Water
Plans for diverse waterfront attractions and private develop-
ments will significantly expand public activity along the
downtown bayfront and riverfront. To be added to the exist-
ing attractions of Bayside, Bayfront Park, the Port of
Miami, Knight Center, Fort Dallas Park, and several res-
taurants, are the proposed development of Bicentennial
Park/FEC Tract; riverfront hotels, restaurants and shops;
and the parks and attractions described on pages 4.9 - 4.11.
All these activity centers should include boat docking
facilities that invite access from the water.
When a critical mass of waterside destinations is
developed, it would be appropriate to encourage privately -
owned water taxi services to interconnect them. A water
taxi system would provide entertaining rides and spec-
tacular views of the city's waterfront. Vessels should be
small, unique and festive. Their operation should be struc-
tured like a land taxi system, taking passengers to their in-
dividual destinations on demand. The maps on pages 4.15
and 4.21 suggest locations for water taxi stops.
Another means of viewing the river should be provided by
regularly scheduled tour boats and dinner cruises. With a
good publicity program and colorful narration by
knowledgeable tour guides, such a venture should be suc-
cessful in attracting local residents, as well as tourists and
convention guests.
1
4
1
U
i
P
4.4 Urban Design
I
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
4.3 Improve connections between the river and adjacent
neighborhoods.
Policies:
4.3.1 Enhance the visibility of public access routes to the
waterfront by providing signs, banners or other
visual symbols to direct pedestrians to the river.
4.3.2 Enhance the amenity of public access routes to the
river with ample sidewalks, street crosswalks,
landscaping, lighting, public art and other amenities.
Objective:
4.4 Provide opportunities for the public to view the
river's diversity and vitality from the water.
Policies:
4.4.1 Develop a water taxi system to interconnect
waterfront activity centers along the river and Bis-
cayne Bay.
4.4.2 Encourage the private sector to operate regularly
scheduled passenger tours and dinner cruises on the
river.
1
Existing
Existing
Proposed
If-,
Proposed
0
Miami River Master Plan 4.5
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The Miami River's historic and archeological sites reflect
the development and evolution of the City from prehistoric
times, through the pioneer era of the mid -to -late nineteenth
century, and through the Boom of the 1920's. It is impor-
tant to preserve and protect the heritage of the City of
Miami through the identification, evaluation, rehabilita-
tion, adaptive reuse, restoration, and public awareness of
the river's historic, architectural and archeological resour-
ces.
Significant Resources
Many of the historic buildings and archeological sites are
on public property. These include the Granada archeologi-
cal site at the City of Miami/James L. Knight Convention
Center, the Royal Palm Cottage in Fort Dallas Park, the ar-
cheological site in Jose Marti Park, the Fort Dallas Bar-
racks and Wagner House in Lummus Park, the Ferguson
Mill and Miami River Rapids archeological site in the
Miami River Rapids Mini Park. The majority of these
properties are operated and/or maintained by private
groups.
Some of the notable privately -owned historic sites include:
archeological sites under the present-day Dupont Plaza
parking lots and the Sheraton Brickell Point Hotel; the
Miami River Inn, 118 SW South River Drive; East Coast
Fisheries, 40 SW North River Drive; Scottish Rite Temple,
471 NW 3rd Street; Atlantic Gas Station, 668 NW 5th
Street; Hindu Temple, 870 NW IIth Street; the former
Coppinger's Indian Village, 1901 NW South River Drive;
and the former Musa Isle fruit grove and Indian village,
2501 NW 16th Street Road.
Several of Miami's oldest residential neighborhoods are lo-
cated along the river, including Lummus Park, Riverside,
Spring Garden and Grove Park. Many homes and apartment
buildings in these neighborhoods are significant because of
their age, architectural style and/or representation of an era
in local history. The owners of these structures should be
encouraged to preserve them. Historic districts can be
designated if neighborhood associations provide active sup-
port and assistance with research.
Local Designation
The City of Miami adopted an historic preservation or-
dinance in 1982 to recognize and preserve its heritage. The
ordinance seeks to encourage the preservation of historic
and archeological sites by preventing inappropriate altera-
tion or unnecessary destruction of these resources when-
ever an economically acceptable alternative can be found.
Many historically important buildings along the Miami
River have already received historic designation under this
ordinance, as has one archeological site (see map).
The Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan has iden-
tified other historic buildings worthy of preservation, as
well as an archeological conservation area stretching along
both sides of the river and its natural tributaries. Construc-
tion activity in this archeological conservation area must
be monitored by a qualified archeologist.
The marine industrial and commercial buildings and sites
along the Miami River should be further researched to
determine whether any portion of the maritime heritage of
the river has been overlooked. State and federal historic
preservation grant programs may be applicable to help
repair some of the aging waterfront structures and thereby
help to preserve the "working waterfront."
Public Awareness
Ten of the significant sites along the river have been
provided with historic markers by the Miami River Coor-
dinating Committee. Public awareness of the history of the
river should be furthered by adding more of the privately
owned historic sites to the marker program and by includ-
ing narrative history and interesting anecdotes in guided
boat tours of the river (see "Travel by Water," p. 4.4).
Another important component of this public awareness ef-
fort should be an educational center in Lummus Park, dedi-
cated to teaching Miami River history (see page 4.13).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
4.5 Preserve and display the rich heritage of the Miami
River.
Policies:
4.5.1 Encourage preservation, restoration and, where ap-
propriate, adaptive reuse of historic buildings and
neighborhoods.
4.5.2 Continue to enforce the City of Miami's Historic
Preservation Ordinance and consider designation of
additional historic buildings, sites and districts.
4.5.3 Promote public awareness and use of historic sites
with historic markers, narrated tours and interpretive
exhibits and programs.
U
I
1
E
1
L'
4.6 Urban Design
I
I
1W
FLAGLER ST)
Sw I Sr
ul >
W
N
N
f�A
Sl
EI
HISTORIC RESOURCES
0 Historic building or site
Historic neighborhood
Archeological conservation area
Key to Sites:
1, Dupont Plaza archeological site
2. Brickell Point archeological site
3. Granada archeological site
* 4, Royal Palm Cottage
5. Jose Marti Park archeological site
6, East Coast Fisheries
* 7. Miami River Inn
* 8. Wagner House
* 9. Fort Dallas Barracks
10. Scottish Rite Temple
11. Atlantic Gas Station
* 12. Hindu Temple
13. Coppenger's Indian Village
14. Musa Isle
* 15. Miami River Rapids archeological site
* Denotes sites designated under the City
of Miami Historic Preservation Ordinance
Miami River Master Plan 4.7
NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGIES
M
e
UP -RIVER
A Working River
Marine industries in the Up -River area create a busy,
economically vital district that is important to preserve.
The challenge is to protect these industries from displace-
ment by non -water -dependent uses and to nurture growth in
marine industries without negatively impacting nearby
residential neighborhoods.
MID -RIVER
Bring the Neighborhoods Back to the River
Diverse residential neighborhoods interspersed with com-
mercial districts make the Mid -River unusual. The strategy
is to develop centers of activities at strategic locations that
will become gateways to the river and give identity to the
neighborhoods.
�•,
RIVER REND
Open the City to the River
The river in the downtown area provides the opportunity
for continuous sequence of urban waterfront spaces that
connect to the existing development, offering the setting
[ for a great.city.
4.8 Urban Design
L-1
I
0
I
1
1
1
IJ
Cities throughout the world have been rediscovering and
revitalizing their urban waterfronts over the past two
decades. Miami has joined in this movement by developing
Bayside, rebuilding Bayfront Park, providing space in Fort
Dallas Park for an outdoor restaurant, and constructing seg-
ments of what will someday be a continuous public
walkway along the downtown bayfront and riverfront. But
much remains to be accomplished. The following plans and
proposals are intended to make the downtown riverfront a
major destination for local residents and tourists.
RIVER BEND
Gateway to the River
The entrance to the Miami River should be a strong visual
and functional gateway to the city. This gateway should be
framed by major public open spaces/plazas filled with
people and activity, and by dramatic works of art or other
monumental visual symbols. The principal components of
this proposed gateway are as follows:
Dupont Plaza - Redevelopment plans for the Dupont Plaza
area include a "Permanent International Trade and Exposi-
tion Center" or an exhibition hall to supplement the ad-
jacent convention center, a large convention headquarters
hotel, offices, and ground level retail shops and res-
taurants. If this occurs, it may include demolition of the ex-
isting Dupont Plaza Hotel and Apartments. This would pro-
vide the opportunity to create a major pedestrian corridor
along SE 3rd Avenue, terminating in a public plaza on the
river's edge. Alternatively, a gateway feature could be
developed at the southern terminus of Biscayne Boulevard.
Riverpoint/Brickell Park - The property on the south
shore of the mouth of the Miami River contains more than
600 feet of shoreline and enjoys exceptional views of
downtown. This property is very difficult to redevelop for
commercial use because vehicular access is constrained by
the Brickell Avenue bridge. Public access to the site could
be provided easily through pedestrian connections directly
from the bridge. The existing Brickell Park, approximately
the same area in size, by contrast has virtually no view of
the bay (behind Claughton Island and its bridge), less than
200 feet of shoreline and good vehicular access. The City
should sell the existing Brickell Park and acquire the river -
point parcel to develop a new park. The new park should
contain activity generating uses, including an outdoor cafe.
Brickell Avenue Bridge - This bridge is scheduled for re-
placement in 1993. Strong community interest resulted in a
design competition to make the bridge an aesthetic
landmark as well as a functional gateway. The winning
design features vivid symbolism of the history of the river.
1
Miami River Master Plan 4.9
RIVER BEN®
CBD and Brickell Area Riverfront
The riverfront in the Central Business District (CBD) and
Brickell areas should be highly urbanized, sophisticated
and active. A variety of uses, public and private, should
border the river, providing a critical mass of people and ac-
tivity to keep the waterfront busy and safe during
workdays, evenings and weekends. A sequence of plazas
and open spaces should be provided, linked by a con-
tinuous riverwalk (see description on the opposite page).
Within the Brickell area, commercial activity should be en-
couraged and pedestrian access improved along SE 5th
Street to link Brickell Avenue employees/residents to the
new Metromover station and a proposed activity center, the
"Riverbank Plaza" described on page 4.12. Miami Shipyard
and other marine commercial uses located to the west of
Metrorail should be protected from encroachment by non -
water -dependent uses.
Existing
The north side of the river is somewhat isolated from the
heart of the Central Business District (CBD) by the I-95
distributor ramps. This problem will be helped by the new
Metromover station near SE 1st Avenue. Private develop-
ment of the vacant land west of Miami Avenue should pro-
vide a pedestrian corridor linking SW 1st Avenue to the
river's edge and a large accessible open space and plaza
opening to the river near the Metrorail crossing.
Lummus Park and East Little Havana
The Lummus Park and East Little Havana residential neigh-
borhoods, located to the west of I-95, are each experienc-
ing a decline in average income of the population and an in-
crease in overcrowding and physical deterioration and of
the housing units. Concentrated public sector involvement
and assistance will be needed to reverse these trends, as
well as substantial private sector investment. The river is
suggested as a focus around which to begin redevelopment
efforts. The name "Riverside Market" has been chosen to
provide a theme and an identity.
Proposed
Stretching along both sides of the river from NW 4th Street
on the northwest to I-95 on the southeast, the Riverside
Market district should contain a series of riverfront cafes,
seafood restaurants, seafood distributors, marinas, docks
for tour boats and fishing boats, and a major public market
for the sale of fresh produce, meat, specialty foods and
seafood. These attractions should be connected by a river -
walk and by the North River Drive sidewalk improvements
constructed by the City of Miami in 1987-88. (A similar
street/sidewalk improvement should be planned along
South River Drive.) New uses should be developed on
vacant and underutilized property without displacing estab-
lished seafood distributors and boat yards that contribute to
the economy and character of the working river. This area
could develop a character similar to San Francisco's
Fisherman's Wharf (prior to the 1970's) that is authentic,
historic and fun for residents, visitors and downtown
employees alike.
In addition to Riverside Market, revitalization of the Lum-
mus Park neighborhood should include rehabilitation of his-
toric homes and apartment buildings, construction of new
housing, and completion of the Lummus Park plans
described on page 4.13.
In East Little Havana, increased use of Jose Marti, Park
should be encouraged by organizing special activities and
events and by leasing the existing pavilion for restaurant
and/or waterfront -related recreational activities. Public
spaces under the We FI 1 1 West a er and SW st Street bridges
P g
b des
g
should be improved for public use. Views of Jose Marti
Park, the Miami River and the CBD provide the necessary
amenities for residential redevelopment to be encouraged
west of Jose Marti Park and north of West. Flagler Street.
To the north of the park along the inland side of South
River Drive, mixed -uses should be permitted, including
residential, hotel and ground floor commercial. Parking ad-
jacent to the waterfront should be discouraged, but off -site
parking should be permitted west of South River brive.
4.10 Urban Design
1
I
Riverwalk
A continuous system of public waterfront walkways along
Biscayne Bay and the Miami River is being constructed in-
crementally as individual public and private waterfront
lands are developed or redeveloped. Existing zoning and
City Charter requirements assure that privately -owned
properties provide waterfront setbacks and improvements.
However, if there is to be any continuity in the system, it
is important to ensure that individual pieces are built to
conform to a uniform design standard. In 1983, the City
Commission adopted the "Baywalk/Riverwalk Design
Standards," which include general design principles and
apecific standards for the layout, landscaping, lighting and
signage of a 20-foot-wide public access corridor along the
waterfront. The following connections are needed to com-
plete the riverwalk:
CBD/Brickell Area - A riverwalk should follow both
shorelines of the Miami River from I-95 (north shore) and
Metrorail (south shore) east to the bay. Riverwalk improve-
ments with special lighting should be provided under all
bridges; and stairways and ramps should connect the river -
walk to pedestrian walkways on each bridge. A crucial
missing link in the riverwalk system must be filled in ad-
jacent to'the U.S. Customs Building and Rivergate Center.
If U.S. Customs' security needs make it impossible to per-
mit public access at dockside level, an elevated walkway
should be constructed to connect with the plaza level at the
adjacent Rivergate Center building.
North River Drive - A riverwalk system should be in-
tegrated with North River Drive from I-95 to NW 5th
Street. A water's edge walkway should follow publicly
owned property, but connect to the nearby River Drive
sidewalk where privated commercial and industrial marine
activities make a waterfront walkway impossible. The City
of Miami completed special sidewak paving and landscap-
ing along this segment of North River Drive in 1988.
IMiami River Master Plan 4.11
RIVER BEN® I
Development Opportunities - Riverbank Plaza
Riverbank Plaza is a key element in a strategy to create a
more inviting pedestrian environment for the Brickell
waterfront area. Located on the south bank of the river be-
tween the Miami Avenue bridge and Metrorail, it involves
developing the narrow strip of riverfront land into a linear
plaza/riverwalk, with water -oriented commercial activities
and inland development of higher density residential or of-
fice uses. This area is also envisioned to include a con-
centration of nighttime entertainment establishments.
This public waterfront space could be created through a
joint development agreement between the City and the ad-
jacent landowner(s). SW 1st Street and SW 6th Street could
be redesigned to consolidate the public street right-of-way.
This would provide land in a more usable configuration for
commercial/residential development, which would provide
the trade-off for public use of the riverfront land. This
redevelopment project could be initiated with public ac-
quisition of vacant riverfront properties, followed by joint
development with the private sector. Alternatively, a
private developer could assemble the land and carry out the
entire project, with public sector involvement limited to
the street closures.
One of many possible designs, illustrated at left and below,
calls for an urban park space, restaurant, marine supplies
store, public use pavilion, temporary boat dockage, and a
water taxi station. Existing riverfront businesses (i.e. the
Big Fish Restaurant and Dawsons Marine) should be
retained, although perhaps housed in new facilities.
I]
PI
�1
a
1
[1
1
fl
1
4.12
Urban Design
1
IDevelopment Opportunities - Lummus Park
1
G
1
C�
I
I
1
1
1
Lummus Park, a seven acre public park and the center of
the Lummus Park neighborhood, is one of the oldest neigh-
borhood parks of the city. The presence of pioneer era struc-
tures, the Fort Dallas Barracks and the Wagner House,
gives Lummus Park a unique importance as the "historic
park" for all of Miami. The historical nature of this park
should be highlighted through the creation of an activity
center that would teach the history
of the Miami River. Local histori-
cal societies could organize public
festivals, crafts programs and
educational activities in the park.
The city has a multi -phased plan
for reconstructing Lummus Park,
which includes moving the Pioneer
Club from the riverfront into the in-
terior of the park and developing
the river's edge with a new marina
and restaurant/boating services. An
entrance plaza adjacent to North
River Drive has already been com-
pleted. A new plaza adjacent to
NW 3rd Avenue is planned to
define an entrance to the park for
the nearly 60,000 downtown
employees that work in the ad-
jacent Central Business District.
Lummus Park is a focal point in
the concept for redevelopment of a
larger area called "Riverside
Market", which is illustrated on the
left and described on page 4.10.
M
IMiami River Master Plan 4.13
RIVER BEN®
Waterfront Development Standards
Blank walls and parking garages should not be permitted to
abut the public shoreline walkway. To ensure that past mis-
takes are not repeated, the City adopted design standards in
1990 dealing with the ground level of buildings fronting on
the riverwalk and other "Primary Pedestrian Pathways".
Although the objective is to achieve a waterfront edge
lined with activity, the lack of continuity in the present
riverwalk system and the lack of a critical mass of attrac-
tions makes it impractical to require all new development
to provide activity generating uses such as restaurants and
shops. However, all buildings should be designed and con-
structed to facilitate a transition to such uses when the
market develops.
The design standards for "Primary Pedestrian Pathways" re-
quire a minimum of 65 percent of the linear frontage of the
lot to contain ground floor space designed to accommodate
retail, restaurants and other uses that promote pedestrian
traffic. Such space must have windows and doorways
oriented to the public walkway. The remaining 35 percent
of the lot frontage may be developed for other uses, but
parking, loading and service areas must be within buildings
or screened from public view.
The upper floors of buildings are permitted to contain a
wide variety of uses, however, the most desirable uses for
creating an active riverwalk are residential and hotel. Of-
fice uses can generate activity along the waterfront during
business hours, but a concentration of apartments, condos
and hotel rooms are the only way to ensure that the
waterfront will be utilized during evenings and weekends.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
4.5 Achieve a continuous, lively, urban riverwalk in the
Central Business District/Brickell area that will at-
tract tourists, residents and employees.
Policies:
4.5.1 Provide a continuous network of parks and public at-
tractions along the waterfront.
4.5.2 Continue to require all new development and
redevelopment to provide publicly accessible
shoreline walkways, designed in conformance with
the adopted "Baywalk/Riverwalk Design Standards"
in the area from I-95 (north shore) and Metrorail
(south shore) to the mouth of the river.
4.5.3 Enforce design standards for "Primary Pedestrian
Pathways" along the downtown riverwalk, requiring
the ground floor of buildings to be designed with
windows and doorways oriented to the water in order
to accommodate retail, restaurants and other uses
that promote pedestrian activity.
4.5.4 Encourage high density residential and hotel develop-
ment along the waterfront.
Objective:
4.6 Use the amenity of the river as a focus for revitaliza-
tion of the adjacent East Little Havana and Lummus
Park neighborhoods.
Policies:
4.6.1 Promote development of a "Riverside Market" dis-
trict including riverfront cafes, seafood restaurants,
seafood distributors, marinas, tour boats, fishing
boats and a public market.
4.6.2 Create an identity for the "Riverside Market" district
with an historic riverfront motif for sidewalk pave-
ment, lighting, benches, litter receptacles, signage
and landscaping.
4.6.3 Promote rehabilitation and new construction of multi-
family housing on the inland side of North and South
River Drive.
4.6.4 Redevelop Lummus Park and adjacent waterfront
property to provide an interpretive history center and
riverfront activities.
4.6.5 Increase usage of Jose Marti Park by programming
special events and festivals and by leasing the exist-
ing pavilion for restaurant and/or waterfront -related
recreational activities.
r�
1
1
P
I
Cl
.1
L�
4.14 Urban Design
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
69 r] I"
.. .,
LEGEND
0000000
Riverwalk/baywalk
•••■••••■■■
River Drive scenic corridor
Major pedestrian access route
Access to water
•
Public art or landmark
OLandscaped
gateway
Water taxi route and stop
^'r
Public park
Residential or hotel
Waterfront commercial
Waterfront industrial
Miami River Master Plan 4.15
MID -RIVER I
The Mid -River is bordered by marinas, boatyards, shipping
terminals, water -related commercial businesses and residen-
tial areas. Some of Miami's oldest neighborhoods are found
along the river in this area. Allapattah, Grove Park and
Spring Garden are examples.
The Civic Center, which includes numerous medical
facilities and the criminal justice center, is close to the
river near NW 12th Avenue. It is noteworthy because over
25,000 people are employed in these facilities. Additional
services and amenities are needed in this employment cen-
ter, particularly parking, open space and restaurants.
Because of the diversity in land use and the high percent-
age of residential use, a different character has evolved in
the Mid -River area. Contrary to conditions in the
downtown area, where a continuous public riverwalk is pos-
sible, the urban design plan for the Mid -River area sug-
gests a nodal development approach. This strategy involves
concentrating public access and recreation opportunities at
widespread locations or "nodes".
Existing
Publicly -owned land is a key element in this strategy to in-
vite neighborhood residents and employees to use the
riverfront:
Curtis Park - The City has prepared plans for major im-
provements to Curtis Park, including new ball fields and a
community center building. Another significant feature of
that plan is to close North River Drive to eliminate
vehicular traffic through the park. In addition to improve-
ments that have already been planned and funded, the
river's edge should be improved with riprap, a landscaped
walkway, benches, picnic tables and lighting.
Sewell Park - This is a passive park and conservation area
that should be preserved as such. The shoreline was recent-
ly stabilized with riprap. In the future, security lighting
should be provided at the park entrance and along the
water's edge to increase nighttime security and encourage
activity in the park. Picnic shelters should be added, as
well as a concession for canoes, row boats and paddle
Proposed
boats. The City should also consider constructing an obser-
vation tower that would provide panoramic views of the
surrounding neighborhoods and recreate a popular attrac-
tion from the Musa Isle Indian Village during the earlier
part of this century. Lawrence Canal, which borders the
east side of the park, should be cleaned up to invite public
use.
H.U.D. Housing - The large riverfront green space that is
part of a complex of Metro -Dade County elderly and hand-
icapped housing developments should be improved for the
use and enjoyment of residents and neighbors. The
shoreline needs to be stabilized with riprap. The county
should consider adding a handicapped -accessible shoreline
walkway, picnic shelters and a variety of other facilities
that would bring people to the waterfront. Programming of
activities, such as outdoor concerts, should also be en-
couraged along the river.
Civic Center - There are several places where public street
rights -of -way touch the river, providing opportunities for
public access. The most significant of these spaces is a 400
feet long stretch of riverfront right-of-way along North
River Drive in the vicinity of S.R. 836 in the Civic Center.
This unused strip of land is ideally located to provide a
small linear park for Civic Center employees to enjoy the
river. The shoreline should be stabilized with riprap and a
landscaped walkway, seating and lighting should be con-
structed. An existing air vent in the sanitary sewer system
at this location needs to be retrofitted with special equip-
ment to reduce unpleasant odors.
The Mid -River nodal development concept also deals with
strategically located parcels of privately -owned land that
could be developed to serve as a catalyst for activity within
each neighborhood. Two of these potential development
sites are described on the following pages: (1) the
"Cornerstone" at Seybold Canal is a multifamily residential
illustrative plan, and (2) "Miami River Center" adjacent to
the Civic Center area is a mixed -use illustrative plan which
includes residential, office and commercial uses.
I
n
r-
i_
I
P
4.16 Urban Design
I
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
�I
1
IMiami River Master Plan 4.17
MID -RIVER
Development Opportunities - The Cornerstone
Spring Garden is one of the highest quality neighborhoods
along the river. Its fine older homes, tree -lined streets and
proximity to the Civic Center make it a desirable location
for new residential development. , .... \• ;
The illustrative plan shown on this page involves some of
the only remaining vacant lots along the river. It includes U ��; &....,...a.
townhomes and apartments, consistent in scale and charac-
ter with nearby developments such as Snug Harbor. Forms
and colors, such as tiled roofs, rustic wood trim and or-
namental metal, and a series of open spaces unified by
focal points could enhance the quality of the site.
The waterfront should be developed as common open space
with a pedestrian promenade. Boat moorings should be - �, .....
provided for residents along the entire length of the `air,: �" _
shoreline. � � �..•. /�. � ._... �= ' � 1
BR,CK PAVERS
STONE BORDEI
CONC. SLAB -
BENC
ALUTAII. FLAG POLE
PRE CAST COIIC. COLLARD
W/LIGIIT AT 4W-0" S OC
CONC. DULMIEAD
ALYMM PIPE RAIL
DECK
TERRACE TERRACE
RIVER 100'-0"±
SECTIOIJ 'rNRll VIEWING DECK AND WATER TAXI STOP
Contributed by Florida International University, Landscape Architecture Program.
4.18 Urban Design
1
Opportunities Miami River Center
Development -
Miami River Center is an illustrative concept for a mixed-
,
use, high-rise complex that includes offices, apartments, . .
retail/service establishments, parking garages and a marina
to serve the Civic Center area.
In this plan, commercial use would be confined to the
ground and second level and should include restaurants,
specialty shops, neighborhood convenience goods and ser-
vices, and a movie theater. A marina would service resi-
dents and visitors traveling by boat and water taxi. These
commercial areas would create an inviting environment
that would connect the riverfront with surrounding neigh-
borhoods. This type of commercial development is not per-
mitted in the existing office and residential zoning designa-
tions; therefore, a zoning change to Restricted Commercial
would be needed.
The high-rise apartment and office towers would be sur-
rounded by ample open space. Landscape planting, site fur-
nishings and pavement patterns would complement and
unify the project.
Public access to the river should be encouraged with
shaded plazas and sidewalks that would direct pedestrian
movement toward a riverwalk. Activity should be
generated along the riverwalk by outdoor cafes, shops, the
marina and water taxi station, and an outdoor amphitheater.
I
J
Contributed by Florida International University, Landscape Architecture Program.
tMiami River Master Plan 4.19
MID -RIVER
Residential Development
The Mid -River area contains most of the existing housing
located along the Miami River. The wide variety of dwell-
ing types, ranging from single family homes to highrise
apartment/condominium buildings, are mostly occupied by
middle -income households. This is an important segment
of the population for the city to retain in order to support
the local economy and tax base.
Preservation of existing residential areas requires good
crime prevention and code enforcement services. This in-
cludes requiring adjacent industrial and commercial busi-
nesses to screen unsightly outdoor service areas with
landscaping or walls.
A number of opportunities remain for development of new
housing by building on vacant lots or by increasing the den-
sity of existing developed lots. New housing construction
should be encouraged, except on lands reserved for water -
dependent uses. In the proposed SD-4.1 Waterfront Com-
mercial zoning district (see page 1.14) residential develop-
ment could be permitted as an accessory use to a marina.
Existing
All multifamily development should include boat moorings
for private pleasure craft and common open space for resi-
dents along the waterfront. Although housebarges and
liveaboard vessels are prohibited in residential districts (ex-
cept for 49 grandfathered vessels) liveaboard vessels may
be moved, with permission, in other areas.
The city should help to improve the quality of waterfront
residential and mixed -use development by creating design
guidelines. These guidelines should include alternatives to
maximize the amenity of the waterfront and encourage
developers to provide general public access by illustrating
design configurations that respect the security and privacy
needs of the residents.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
4.7 Enhance access points to the river at strategic loca-
tions for each neighborhood in the Mid -River area.
rrupusru
Policies:
4.7.1 Increase usage at Sewell Park with programmed ac-
tivities, picnic shelters and canoe rentals. Add
security lighting and an observation tower which
would offer a panoramic view of the city..
4.7.2 Stabilize the shoreline at Curtis Park and construct a
landscaped riverwalk connected to the proposed new
community center and ball fields.
4.7.3 Improve the public right-of-way along North River
Drive in the Civic Center as a linear riverfront park.
4.7.4 Promote development of riverfront restaurants, com-
mercial services and housing between S.R. 836 and
NW 17th Avenue in the Civic Center area.
Objective:
4.8 Encourage residential development on appropriately
zoned lands in the Mid -River area.
Policies: .
4.8.1 Preserve existing residential neighborhoods and
promote infill of vacant residential lots with new
housing and recreational boat slips.
4.8.2 Create "Riverwalk Design Guidelines for the Mid -
River" to encourage new development and redevelop-
ment to provide public access to the waterfront.
4.8.3 .Require businesses to screen outdoor storage, park- ... .
ing and loading areas from view of adjacent residen-
tial neighborhoods.
1
I
E
I
�I
1
1
7
1
1
H
4.20 Urban Design 1
''� c=,;%;• • LEGEND
...:.:.::..
iverw
0000000
................... 'fir
..:r.:..................
z; z River Drive scenic corridor
:;,;,, ,:���:,;.��:.�••'? • -Major pedestrian access route
i9s
ti
;;; •::�� _' •.• � Access to water
::::: ies a iieaill �`:a.>:�:s;:;:: ••••
3i :::::...... e ' •. m Public art or landmark
...:...;� w■..■
li lia'M'••
L andscaped gateway
J:
•�.,,•'�:;l.::: civic NTER Water taxi route and stop
J+ , Pu
blic
c park
0
••a
� 4 1. O
..:
ewe Residential 's n
e
ry
Waterfront commercial
one
a ,� :::::r. ...........
F---1 n F---1 n a_4O!o+o :`<::' ,•-„,-;,---„:s-;-,~ Waterfront industrial
H..U.D. Hou l
e rq _ U
:
•
FF
Ell
a Q
Miami River Master Plan 4.21
UP -RIVER I
The character of the river changes dramatically west of the
NW 27th Avenue bridge. In fact, it is not really the river
there; it is the man-made Miami Canal (and the Tamiami
Canal branching off to the west). In contrast to the gently
curving path and irregular edges of the natural river, the
canal banks are rigidly straight and significantly closer
together at 90 feet.
The most striking difference in the Up -River area is the
change in land use. The Miami Canal is almost entirely in-
dustrial in character, with commercial shipping being the
predominant use. Most of the larger cargo vessels on the
Miami River are loaded and unloaded in this area, resulting
in an incredibly busy, narrow river channel.
Due to the industrial nature of the Up -River corridor, many
of the urban design recommendations made for the Mid -
River and Downtown areas are not applicable. The em-
phasis in this area should be to promote growth in shipping
and related industries and to provide adequate roadways
for the vehicles and trucks associated with these businesses
(see pages 1.4 - 1.7 and 2.6 - 2.7). The identity of the area
could be enhanced with signs or banners announcing "Port
of Miami River" at the principal entrances to the district.
Two residential neighborhoods extend within one block of
the Miami Canal, thereby requiring some consideration of
waterfront access and buffering from industrial uses.
Melrose - This neighborhood is located on the north side
of the Miami Canal in unincorporated Dade County. It is
negatively affected by the industrial area, especially the
numerous scrap metal yards located inland from the river.
Metro -Dade County has designated Melrose as a Com-
munity Development Target Area, and is working with a
neighborhood task force to plan the use of federal funds for
improving conditions in the area. Consideration should be
given to street closures on the perimeter of the industrial
area wherever feasible to reduce crime and traffic.
Grapeland Heights - Located on the south side of the
river, Grapeland Heights is buffered from the industrial
area by the Tamiami Canal. This neighborhood has a win-
dow of access to the river along NW South River Drive be-
tween NW 20th Street and the NW 27th Avenue bridge.
This narrow sliver of land between the roadway and the
Miami Canal is owned by the City of Miami and could be
improved for public use.
The Miami River Rapids Mini Park, will remain partially
open as a public park following completion of the "Miami
Bridge" shelter for runaway youths. This extremely impor-
tant archeological site should have interpretive exhibits ex-
plaining the natural origin of the Miami River in this loca-
tion and the man-made history that followed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Objective:
4.9 Promote growth in water -dependent industries in the
Up -River area and minimize impacts on nearby
residential neighborhoods.
Policies:
4.9.1 Enhance the identity of the waterfront industrial dis-
trict with signs or banners at the principal entrances
to the district.
4.9.2 Provide landscaping and street closures, where
feasible, to buffer residential neighborhoods from in-
dustrial areas.
4.9.3 Provide interpretive exhibits on the history and ar-
cheology of the Miami River Rapids Mini Park.
I
it
1
1
d-
L11
1
4.22 Urban Design
1
1
G
1
1
]� Ml:tl Park
] oRAPIERS
�n�nnn
C
LEGEND
0000006 Riverwalk
■.■:•■■■■■• River Drive scenic corridor
Major pedestrian access route
mmik Access to water
Public art or landmark
OLandscaped
gateway
...::.........:: _..
Water taxi r oute and stop
P
�- �
Public ark
P
Residential
Waterfront commercial
'
Waterfront industrial
1
Miami River Master Plan 4.23
�i
1
Ll
1�
IJ
1
1
1
APPENDIX A: MIAMI RIVER HISTORY
Natural Condition
The headwaters of the Miami River originated in the Atlan-
tic Coastal Ridge, which formed a broad natural dam im-
pounding the waters of the eastern edge of the Everglades.
A small depression in the ridge allowed the freshwater to
escape in a natural falls, known as the "Miami River
Rapids". These rapids formed the beginning of the north
fork of the river, located a few blocks west of the present-
day NW 27th Avenue bridge. The south fork of the river
originated from the ridge in a similar but less conspicuous
manner about one-half mile to the south of the rapids. The
river was also fed by numerous underground freshwater
springs that bubbled up through the porous limerock. From
the ridge, the river meandered in a southeasterly direction
some 4.5 miles to Biscayne Bay.
Early Settlements
As early as 2000 B.C. the Tequesta Indians inhabited the
South Florida peninsula and established their largest settle-
ment on the north side of the mouth of the Miami River
(present site of DuPont Plaza). In the 16th century, a
Spanish mission was established adjacent to the Tequesta
village, which at the time was populated by about 5,000 In-
dians. Abandoned after a few years, this first European set-
tlement was followed by a second effort in 1743 at a time
when the Indian population had declined for reasons of dis-
ease, warfare and emigration to Cuba. During the next
twenty years, the Tequesta Indian population totally disap-
peared from South Florida. However, Bahamians began
using the area to fish, hunt and salvage wrecks from the
emerging coastal shipping traffic.
In the early 1800's both white settlers and Seminole In-
dians built along the river. In 1830, Richard Fitzpatrick
purchased four square -mile land grants at the mouth of the
river and built a plantation growing coconuts, sugar cane,
pumpkins, limes, corn, sweet potatoes and tropical trees.
By 1836 the plantation was abandoned due to threat of
Seminole Indian hostilities. It was used as a military out -
Miami River Master Plan A.1
post, "Fort Dallas," throughout the succeeding Seminole
Wars.
In the mid-1840's, George and Thomas Ferguson built a
comptie starch mill adjacent to the Miami River Rapids.
Comptie starch, made from the root of the native cycad
plant, Zamia, was sold throughout the United States. A
second starch mill was soon opened by Dr. Fletcher on the
South Fork of the river. The comptie starch business was
the first manufacturing industry in South Florida, thus es-
tablishing the river's long impact on area business.
William Brickell built a store and house on the south bank
of the river mouth in 1871. The business flourished and
was a major focus of Seminole trade until the 1890's. In
this period Julia Tuttle arrived from Ohio and purchased
the Fort Dallas tract on the north bank of the river mouth.
At her urging, Henry Flagler extended his railroad to the
river, opening this isolated wilderness to business and
tourists throughout the United States.
The Beginning of a City
The City of Miami was incorporated in the same year,
1896, that the railroad arrived. Henry Flagler's opulent
Royal Palm Hotel became a destination for tourists, who ar-
rived via the railroad as well as on yachts, which could
now cross Biscayne Bay through a channel that Flagler
dredged to his hotel docks. In the early 1900's, tourists
and residents alike enjoyed tour boat cruises up the 4.5
mile natural course of the river to the rapids at the edge of
the Everglades. Musa Isle and Coppinger's Indian Village
were popular attractions.
As the region developed, the river changed from a simple
transportation route to a trade center with business oppor-
tunities created by the Florida East Coast Railroad docks
and warehouses. Winter vegetables brought in from the
local area by boat were loaded on trains for shipment
north. City residents bought seafood, fruits, vegetables
and dry goods along the river banks.
Between 1909 and 1933, the natural structure of the river
was dramatically altered. In 1909, the a channel was
blasted through the ancient coastal ridge for construction
of the Miami Canal portion of the Everglades drainage
project. The Miami River Rapids dried up as the muddy
Everglades water flowed freely through this new canal,
which lies about 100 feet north of the natural river bed. In
1931-33, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers carried out a
congressional mandate to make the Miami River a federal
navigable waterway by dredging the river bottom to a
depth of 15 feet. The navigable portion of the river is
limited by a salinity dam located some 5 1/2 miles
upstream near NW 36th Street.
River Crossings
During the city's first several years the "Southside" of the
river was accessible only by boat and Brickell's ferry ser-
vice. Although an improvised bridge on Avenue G (SW
2nd Ave.) served for a brief period, the first permanent
bridge was constructed in 1902 at Avenue D (Miami Ave.).
During the next few years, the only alternative to the
Avenue D bridge was the private Tatum bridge at 12th
Street (Flagler St.) which could be crossed at a cost of five
cents per pedestrian. In 1916 the first West Flagler Street
bridge opened. The original Avenue D bridge was replaced
in 1919. Six major bridges were completed during the
1920's, including SW 2nd Avenue, NW 5th Street, NW 12th
Avenue, Brickell Avenue, SW 1st Street and NW 17th
Avenue. In 1938 the NW 27th Avenue bridge opened, and
in 1966 the last major drawbridge, NW 22nd Avenue,
began to carry traffic across the river. Since the 1960's
several high level fixed span bridges have been constructed
for expressways and rapid transit, while numerous studies
have been conducted concerning the feasibility and cost of
tunnels in the downtown area.
1
11�
I
1
P_J
A.2 Appendix A I
1
1
1
Land Use Policy
The City of Miami enacted it's first zoning ordinance in
August, 1934. It was based on over two years of commit-
tee study and public hearings to determine the best pattern
of land uses. There was intense debate between factions of
citizens who wanted the river to be reserved for residential
and park usage and those who wanted to promote marine in-
dustries. Local business and civic leaders had successfully
lobbied the federal government to dredge the river, believ-
ing that opening the river to navigation would bring busi-
ness in shipping, yacht storage and boat repair. The ap-
proved zoning plan preserved residential subdivisions that
were already highly improved, but set aside land for
marine businesses wherever possible. This resulted in an ir-
regular pattern of zoning, totalling 42% single family and
multifamily residential, 52% business and industrial, and
6% park and public property. The entire Miami Canal
frontage in unincorporated Dade County was later zoned in-
dustrial.
The river banks continued to develop following the comple-
tion of the dredging project and zoning ordinance, while
the debate intensified over business/industrial use vs.
residential/park use. A May, 1941, poll by the Miami
Herald found an overwhelming 80% of respondents
preferred further zoning of the riverfront for park purposes
rather than for business use. However, the U.S. entry into
World War II soon brought a surge of boat building con-
tracts and industrial growth to the river that gradually, over
the next decade, solidified its acceptance as a working
river intermixed with residential and recreational oppor-
tunities. By 1956, city planners were recommending a spe-
cial "waterfront" zoning classification to protect marine
businesses from encroachment by non -water -dependent
uses. These recommendations were adopted in the 1961
zoning ordinance and generally remain intact in the present
day comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
Cleanup Efforts
Public concern over environmental degradation, water pol-
lution, bridge openings, and the generally unkempt ap-
pearance of the Miami River have been voiced since the
early days of the City.When Flagler laid out the city streets
in 1896, he installed water and sewer lines along Avenue D
(Miami Ave.) and 14th Street (SE/SW 2nd St.). Raw
sewage was discharged into the river from a single outfall
under the Avenue D bridge. By 1909 the sewage discharge
had become unsightly and unhealthy, thus the outfall line
was extended 50 feet farther into the river and lowered to a
depth of 9 feet. As the sewer system grew with the city,
numerous outfalls were added to the river, as well as a
trunk line extending 400 feet into Biscayne Bay. It was not
until 1956, when the Virginia Key Sewage Treatment Plant
was opened, that public sewer systems ceased to flow
directly into the river.
An August 1934 article in the Miami Herald proclaimed
that "Miami's new zoning ordinance will remove these
river shantytown scenes", referring to a proliferation of
derelict houseboats along the river. It reported that the
work of cleaning up and beautifying the river banks was
started the previous year, including construction of dry
rock walls and planting of coconut palms.
Throughout the decades of the 1950's, 60's and 70's, there
were repeated cycles of public outcry over pollution, crime
and unsightly conditions along the river, followed by
cleanup campaigns, beautification committees and/or
revitalization plans. These efforts produced short-term im-
provements, but the basic problems persisted. In 1974, the
river was added to state aquatic preserve system as a part
of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Progress still
lagged behind stated public objectives, in part because of
the need for coordination among numerous city, county,
state and federal agencies that have discrete types of juris-
diction over functions along the river.
The Miami River Management Committee was created by
the governor in 1983 to study the problems of the Miami
River and make recommendations for its cleanup and en-
hancement. Among the many recommendations of the com-
mittee that have been implemented is the establishment of
a permanent organization to oversee planning and manage-
ment of the river. That entity, the Miami River Coordinat-
ing Committee (MRCC), consists of representatives of the
Governor, the County Manager, the City Manager, river
businesses and private citizens. It has been an effective
force in catalyzing public and private actions to improve
the river.
I
Miami River Master Plan A.3
1
�1
I
1
1
1
1
Introduction by Chief Arnold Gibbs
As the Miami Police Department's designated repre-
sentative on the Miami River Coordinating Committee, I
have become increasingly aware of the committee's con-
cern over the issues of crime and the environmental condi-
tion in and around the Miami River. During a recent meet-
ing, I was questioned as to the possibility of using City
Rangers to patrol the river; the purposes of which would be
to serve as a deterrent to criminal activity, to establish a
direct link with the Police Department (police radio) for
reporting suspicious activity and in -progress crimes, and to
enforce environmental regulations. In response to this
proposal, a feasibility study was conducted and it was deter-
mined that the inherent risks associated with the use of un-
armed personnel (representing law enforcement) on the
Miami River make the proposal infeasible. During a sub-
sequent meeting, I was asked about the use of sworn police
personnel for patrol of the river and a new analysis was
conducted relative to that request.
Summary of Key Issues
The Miami River is a viable maritime commercial district
wherein numerous businesses such as import/export, com-
mercial fisheries, restaurants, boat repair and storage
facilities, and marine supply are located. Increasingly over
the years, the number of crimes and environmental abuses
have contributed to the slow deterioration and decline of
commerce in the Miami River district.
The Miami Police Department does not have sufficient man-
power or resources to effectively monitor the river on a
continual ongoing basis. Although there are other
governmental agencies who should provide enforcement
services on the river, their involvement is either negligible
or nonexistent. Occasionally, the Police Department has
marshalled its resources for an attack on the problem.
However, this kind of activity has an adverse impact on our
ability to provide efficient response to calls for police ser-
vice in the area from which the manpower is drawn. Addi-
APPENDIX S: POLICE PATROL OPTIONS
tionally, such operations serve only as stopgap measures
and have no long term effect on the problem.
Advantages and Disadvantages
For the purpose of this study, six key factors were con-
sidered as necessary to the effectiveness of the program; ef-
ficiency, visibility, cost, implementation time, the ability to
enforce environmental laws, and the ability to enforce
navigation laws. The following is a description of the six
factors and the desired state for each. The chart provided
at the end of this section shows the advantages and disad-
vantages of each of the eight options by ranking on these
factors.
1. Efficiency - This factor is measured based upon the
ability of the program option to reduce crime and to en-
force violations. In order to maximize the achievement of
these two major objectives, the following criteria should be
met:
a. The ability to monitor the affected area in a manner
which creates a perception of omnipresence.
b. The ability to maximize objective achievement at
the lowest acceptable cost.
c. The ability to reduce wasted time and effort in the
performance of duties.
2.- Visibility - Although high visibility is viewed as an ef-
fective deterrent factor, it is also an important factor in
reducing the fear of crime. For these reasons, visibility
(police presence) is one of the most important factors to be
considered. Obviously, the degree of visibility provided is
directly related to the number of uniformed officers and
marked police equipment.
3. Cost. - The desired state for the cost factor is simply
stated as maximum benefits at minimum expense. For the
purpose of this report, the costs of the eight different op-
tions were divided into three separate groups: those op-
tions with costs ranging from $100,000 to $225,000 were
grouped within the "low" cost range, those with costs rang-
ing from $226,000 to $425,000 were grouped within the
"moderate" cost range; and those costing between $426,000
and $625,000 were considered "high" cost.
4. Implementation Time - With respect to this factor,
the eight options were grouped within the categories of
short, moderate, and extended for the time associated with
implementation. Those options which recommend the use
of "off -duty" police officers for shore patrol only were con-
sidered as requiring the shortest time period for implemen-
tation, because the necessary personnel and equipment are
already available and no additional training is required.
Those which recommend the use of "off -duty" personnel
for shore patrol plus waterborne river patrol are considered
as requiring a moderate time frame for implementation, as
those officers desiring to conduct waterborne patrol would
require additional training. All of the other options, which
would necessitate the hiring of additional police officers,
are extended time implementation options, as the recruit-
ment and selection process can take from 3 to 6 months,
and the training process (academy and field training) will
last for an additional 9 months.
5. Environmental Enforcement - The enforcement of
environmental laws and regulations would be a cumber-
some and difficult task for officers engaged in land based
shore patrol. Additionally, any attempt to perform such
duties would detract significantly from the time and effec-
tiveness of shore patrol duties. For this reason, those op-
tions which recommend shore patrol only are not con-
sidered as capable of providing environmental enforcement.
6. Navigational Enforcement - Any enforcement of
navigational laws would logically necessitate the use of a
boat. Obviously, those options which recommend shore
patrol only would not offer the capability of navigational
law enforcement.
IMiami River Master Plan B.1
Available Options
In response to the stated problem, the following options are
provided for consideration in the selection of a program for
providing additional police coverage in the area of the
Miami River:
Option #1 - HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
SHORE PATROL ONLY (1 UNIT)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Single bank patrol (one side at a time)
Logistics:
- 1 Two -person shore patrol unit = 2 officers
- 2 Officers X 2.1 (relief factor) = 4.2 = 5 officers
Cost:
Personnel - $42,660 per officer (yearly salary + fringes)
X 5 = $213,300.00
Total anual cost: $213,300.00
Option #2 - USING OFF -DUTY OFFICERS
SHORE PATROL ONLY (1 UNIT) -
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Single bank patrol
Logistics:
- Two -person shore patrol unit = 2 officers
- 1 Patrol car
Cost:
Personnel - 10 Hours per day X 2 officers = 20 hour X
$16.00 per hour (off -duty rate) = $320.00 per
day
- Annual cost for personnel - $116,800.00
Option #4 - USING OFF -DUTY OFFICERS
SHORE PATROL ONLY (2 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Simultaneous shore patrol (north and south river banks)
Vehicles - 1 Patrol car at $15.00 per day (surcharge)
Logistics:
= $15.00 per day - 2 Two -person shore patrol units = 4 officers
- Annual surcharge for vehicle = $5,475.00 - 2 patrol cars
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $116,800.00 Cost:
Vehicles 5,475.00 Personnel - 10 Hours per day X 4 officers = 40 hours X
Total $122,275.00 $16.00 per hour (off -duty rate) = $640.00
daily
- Annual cost for personnel = $233,600.00
Option #3 - HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
SHORE PATROL ONLY (2 UNITS) Vehicles - 2 Patrol cars at $15.00 per day (surcharge)
_ $30.00 daily
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Simultaneous shore patrol (north and south river banks)
Logistics:
- 2 Two -person units = 4 officers
- 4 officers X 2.1 (relief factor) = 8.4 = 9 officers
Cost:
Personnel - $42,660.00 per officer (annual salary + fringe;..,)
X 9 = $383,940.00 per year
Total annual cost`: $383,940.00
- Annual surcharges for vehicles = $10,950.00
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $233,600.00
Vehicles 10,950.00
Total $244,550.00
Option #5 - HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSON-
NEUBOAT PLUS SHORE PATROL (2 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Single bank patrol '(one side at a time)
- Waterborne patrol of waterway
Logistics:
- 1 Two -person shore patrol unit = 2 officers
- 1 Two -person Marine Patrol Unit = 2 officers
- 4 officers X 2.1 (relief factor) = 8.4 = 9 officers
B.2 Appendix B
- 1 Marine Patrol boat
Cost:
' Personnel = $42;660.00 Per officer (annual salary plus
fringes) X 9 = $383,940.00 per year
F
L
Boat - $15.00 Per hour (boat surcharge) X 10 hours
=$150.00aday
- Annual boat surcharge = $54,750.00*
Total Annual Cost:
Personnel $383,940.00
Boat 54,750.00*
Total $438,690.00
See page recommendation (page 14)
Option #6 - USING OFF -DUTY OFFICES
BOAT + SHORE PATROL (2 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Single bank coverage
- Waterborne patrol of waterway
Logistics:
- 1 Two person shore patrol unit
- 1 Two person Marine Patrol unit
'
- 1 Marine Patrol boat
- 1 Patrol car
Cost:
Personnel - 10 Hours per day X 4 officers = 40 hours X
$16.00 per hour (off -duty rate)
= $640.00daily
- Annual cost for personnel
= $233,600.00
Vehicles - Patrol car at $15.00 per day (surcharge)
= $15.00 daily
- Annual surcharge for vehicle = $5,475.00
Boat- $15.00 Per dour (boat surch-Arge)'"X 10 hours
= $150.00 daily
- Annual boat surcharge = $54,750.00*
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $233,600.00
Vehicle 5,475.00
Boat 54,750.00*
Total $293,825.00*
See recommendation (page 14)
Option # 7 - HIRING ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL
BOAT PLUS SHORE PATROL (3 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Simultaneous shore patrol (north and south banks)
- Waterborne patrol of waterway
Logistics
- 2 Two -person shore patrol units = 4 officers
- 1 Two -person Marine Patrol Unit = 2 officers
- 6 officers X 2.1 (relief factor) = 12.6 = 13 officers
- 1 Marine Patrol boat
Cost:
Personnel - $42,660.00 per officer (annual salary + fringes
X 13 = $554,580.00 annuallyBoat
- $15.00 per hour (boat surcharge) X 10 hours
= $150.00 daily
- Annual boat surcharge = $54,750.00*
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $554,580.00
Boat 54,750.00*
Total $609,330.00
Option #8 - USING OFF -DUTY OFFICERS
BOAT PLUS SHORE PATROL (3 UNITS)
Coverage:
- Seven days a week, from 9 PM to 7 AM
- Simultaneous shore patrol (north and south river banks)
- Waterborne patrol of waterway
Logistics:
- 2 Two -person shore patrol units = 4 officers
- 1 Two -person Marine Patrol Unit = 2 officers
- 1 Marine Patrol Boat- 2 Patrol cars
Cost:
Personnel - 10 hours per day X 6 officers = 60 hours X
$16.00 per hour (off -duty rate) = $960.00
daily
- Annual cost for personnel = $350,400.00
Vehicles - 2 Patrol cars at $15.00 per day (surcharge)
= $30.00 daily
- Annual surcharge for vehicles = $10,950.00
Boat - $15.00 Per hour (boat surcharge) X 10 hours
= $150.00 daily
- Annual boat surcharge = $54,750.00*
Total Annual Cost: Personnel $350,400.00
Vehicles 10,950.00
Boat 54,750.00*
Total $416,100.00*
See recommendation (page 14)
Miami River Master Plan B.3
Recommendation
The one opiuiwa which yields the overall most favorable
state for each factor is option eight, which offers high ef-
ficiency, high visibility, moderate cost, moderate implemen-
tation time, and affords the officers the capability to en-
force both environmental and navigational laws.
It is therefore recommended that option eight be pursued as
a means of enhancing the police anti -crime initiative on
and around the Miami River.
* Concerning the surcharge for the use of Miami Police
boats, the fee is applied toward fuel and maintenance of the
engines. However, should the committee members provide
a vessel for waterborne patrol of the river, there would be a
significant reduction in the cost for those options which re-
quire the use of a boat. Perhaps a plan could be devised
for the provision of fuel and maintenance by those busi-
nesses with the capability of so doing. Alternatively, funds
from the special tax can be appropriated to cover the cost
for fuel and maintenance.
The committee's annual expense for fuel would be ap-
proximately $9,000.00. When compared to the annual cost
of $54,750.00 for M.P.D. boat surcharges, the savings to
the committee would be about $45,750.00 annually.
Whether the committee donates a vessel or purchases one
for use by M.P.D. personnel, the maintenance could be per-
formed by volunteers who operate businesses for boat
repair and maintenance, thus eliminating any expenses for
maintenance.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES CHART
R"LEMENTATION ENVIRON. NAVIG. ANNUAL
OPTION EFFICIENCY VISIBILITY COST TAM ENFOR. ENFOR. COST
#1 LOW LOW LOW EXTENDED NO NO
L-1
1
u
1
I
LOW LOW LOW SHORT NO NO $122,275
#3 MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE EXTENDED NO _ _ NO $383,940
#4 MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE SHORT NO _ NO $244,550 1
#5 LOW MODERATE HIGH EXTENDED YES YES _ $438,690 1
#6 LOW MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE YES _ _ YES _ .$293,825
#7 HIGH. HIGH HIGH EXTENDED YES _ _ _YLS _ $609,330
#8 HIGH HIGH MODERATE MODERATE YES YES $416,100
LJ
B.4 Appendix B