HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-83-1153J-E13-10R5
1 Z,/S/rr
rr'D-5
RFS111,111 1 (1N Nn . 'Ja. 71-15 3
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT I MUST
ADVANT.AGLUH5 MI IH0() T(1 1)1_VEI 1)P CI RTAIN
IM1)Rt1VEMEN 15 ON C I T Y-0WN,FD I AND MAY RE A
UNIFI1-1) DEVELOPMENT PRUJF 1-1, AUTH1)RIIING
THE Cl TY MANAGER TO DEVELOP A REQUI-SI F-nR
PRONII'L _iA1_ i (RP), AND SLl T ING A Pllnl_ I(-
HEARING UN JANUARY 5, 119H4, AT 10:011
A.A., TU CONSIDER SAI1) REP FUR Ctll_TURAL,
RECREATION AND ENTERTAINMENT FACI1_II I E5
TO BE LOCATED (IN AN APPROXIMATELY 40-ACRF
PARCFL OF CITY -OWNED 1_AN1) I_UCAIE1) UN
WATSON ISLAND.
WHEREAS, City of Miami Charter Section 53(c), providing
comprehensive procurement procedures, allows for "unified
development projects" where an interest in real property is
owned or is to be acquired by the City and is to be used for
the development of improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission determines that, for the
development of cultural, recreation and en LerLainmenL
facilities on an approximately 40-acre parcel of City -owned
land located on Watson Island, it (nay he advantageous For the
City to procure from a private entity one or more of the
following integrated packages comprisinq a unified
development project:
- Planning and
design,
construction and
leasing;
or
- Planning and
design,
leasing and management;
or
- Planning and
design,
construction
and
management; or
- P I a n n i n q and
design,
construction, leasing and
management; and
WHEREAS, said facilities may include performing and
visual arts facilities, restaurants and food services, retail
shops, marinas and recreational facilities, entertainment
facilities, public purpose facilities, access and service
facilities; and CITY COMMISSION
MEET1NG OF
DEC 8 t983
RESOLUIW"
REMARKS. �__
WHEREAS, Charter Sect inn 53ic` rr,quirr,s that the City
Co m m i ss inn hold a p u h I is hr"arinrl to ronsider thr- cont cnt s of
the Request Foy Proposals !RV11 anri
WHEREAS, Charter 5 P c t ion 53!r) furthor rr,quires that, at.
t he cone I us i on o f t he puh E i r he,3 r i nrl, t he C i t y Comm i ss i on, i f
disposed to proceed, nut hnrize thn issuance nF a RFP, sr - lest
a certified public_ accounting firm and appoint the members of
a review committee from persons rer.ommenrled by the City
Manager;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 13Y THE COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The City Commission hereby declares that. the
development of the aforementioned improvements set forth in
the preamble to this resolution may be best accomplished by
the use of the unified development project procedures.
Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to
develop a Request For Proposals (RFP) for cultural,
recreation and entertainment facilities to be located on an
approximately 40-acre parcel of City -owned land located on
Watson Island.
Section 3. A public hearing is hereby set for
January 5, 1984, 10:00 A.M., to consider said RFP for
cultural, recreation and entertainment facilities to be
located on an approximately 40-acre parcel of City -owned land
located on Watson Island.
Section 4. The City Commission may, at the conclusion
of the public hearing, authorize the issuance of a RFP,
select a certified public accounting firm and appoint members
of a review committee to evaluate proposals and make
recommendations to the City Manager.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8tli day of December , 1983.
EST: C
-2-
Maurice A. Ferre
M A Y 0
83-1153
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
.h"'AAAAw
0441A
G. MIRIAM MAE
ASSISTANT CITY
ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
jtl6erA
JjrjE GARCIA-PEDROSA
fY ATTORNEY
-3-
01
83-1153
J-$3- 1080
RESOLUTION NO.b3-115�4
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH SAN
FRANCISCO PUFFS AND STUFF, INC., A FLORIDA
CORPORATION, AND PETER CHRONIS, AN INDIVIDUAL,
PnR THP. rx(`T (TCTt?V nTr,r.m
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Howard V, Gary
City Manager
Watson Island Development
City Commission Meeting
December 8, 1983
It is recommended that the City
Commission approve the attached
resolution which authorizes the City
Manager to prepare a draft request for
unified development project proposals for
cultural, recreation and entertainment
facilities to be located on City -owned
Watson Island and further to set a public
hearing December 19, 1983, to take
testimony regarding the request for
proposals and at the conclusion of the
public hearing, authorize the issuance of
the request for proposals, select a
public accounting firm and appoint a
review committee to evaluate proposals
and make recommendations to the City
Manager.
The City of Miami Charter, Section 53(c) providing comprehensive
procurement procedures, allows for "unified development
projects." A Unified Development Project is defined by the
Charter as a project where real property owned by the City is to
be used for developing improvements and the City Commission
determines that it is most advantageous to the City to procure
from a private entity an integrated development package including
planning and design, construction, leasing and management
(paraphrased).
The Charter Amendment further requires that a request for
proposal for a unified development project will:
-- generally define the uses the City is seeking for the
project
-- specify the land parcel to be made available
Page 1 of 3
83-1153
83-1153
W
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Howard V, Gary
City Manager
W
Watson Island Development
City Commission Meeting
December 8, 1983
It is recommended that the City
Commission approve the attached
resolution which authorizes the City
Manager to prepare a draft request for
unified development project proposals for
cultural, recreation and entertainment
facilities to be located on City -owned
Watson Island and further to set a public
hearing December 19, 1983, to take
testimony regarding the request for
proposals and at the conclusion of the
public hearing, authorize the issuance of
the request for proposals, select a
public accounting firm and appoint a
review committee to evaluate proposals
and make recommendations to the City
Manager.
The City of Miami Charter, Section 53(c) providing comprehensive
procurement procedures, allows for "unified development
project,s." A Unified Development Project is defined by the
Charter as a project where real property owned by the City is to
be used for developing improvements and the City Commission
determines that it is most advantageous to the City to procure
from a private entity an integrated development package including
planning and design, construction, leasing and management
(paraphrased).
The Charter Amendment further requires that a request for
proposal for a unified development project will:
-- generally define the uses the City is seeking for the
project
-- specify the land parcel to be made available
Page 1 of 3
83-1153
ON 10)
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
-- specify the extent of the City's proposed commitment of
funds, property and services
-- specify evaluation criteria for a review committee and an
independent certified public accounting firm
-- define terms that would cause termination of the
development agreement.
The Watson Island Development proposals will be expected to rely
on definition of use and facilities as detailed in the City's
Application for Development Approval for Watson Island as a
Development of Regional Impact. Alternative project proposals
could be considered that fit within the environmental, social and
economic envelope approved in the impact review and resultant
development order. Stated as a limitation, alternatives should
not be allowed that represent substantial deviation from the
City's July 1980 Development Order.
The available land parcel will be defined as the proposed lease
area, an approximately 40 acre portion of Watson Island upon
which a cultural entertainment and recreation project is to be
constructed and operated.
The R.F.P. will propose the City make available up to $35,000,000
from tax exempt bonds or other available funds such as government
grants for preparation of the Watson Island site by providing all
aspects of the infrastructure and public facilities including but
not limited to vehicular and pedestrian bridges, access and
service roads, parking facilities, marina and marina ancillary
facilities, sanitary sewer connection to the mainland and site
utilities. Services such as police and fire protection should be
defined as services equal to those provided any private
development within the City of Miami. However, it is envisioned
that the proposers will fund part or all of these site
improvements and public facilities. The extent of private
funding for these public improvements will be a factor in the
evaluation of proposals.
The City will expect to derive debt service coverage and
potential profit from the operation of public facilities
constructed with bond revenues such as the parking and marina
facilities and lease payments derived from an unsubordinated
ground lease to the successful proposer. Proposals will include
a return to the City based on a minimum annual guarantee and a
percentage of gross revenues as lease payment.
A review committee established by the City Commission at a public
hearing will make recommendations to the Commission regarding the
proposer's qualifications and experience. The committee will be
expected to weigh the quality of the proposed planners,
Page 2 of 3
83-1153
n
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
architects and engineers, the construction general contractor or
construction manager and specific subcontractors and the
management organization in determining; recommendations regarding
the entire development group.
Additionally, the review committee will evaluate the proposed
project for aesthetic and functional use of the site, its impact
on the community and its effectiveness in attracting tourists.
A certified public accounting firm selected by the City
Commission at a public hearing will be expected to research the
viability of the proposed development teams and their proposed
financing strategies and to evaluate comparatively the short and
long range return to the City. The City would expect at a
minimum that the ground lease would return over time sufficient
revenues to retire debt service on the cost of providing
infrastructure and public facilities.
Proposals must present an adequately definitive development
program, project definition, site plan and design concept,
financial strategy and feasibility that can be realistically
evaluated under the requirements of the request for proposal to
form the basis for selection by the City.
The proposers would be expected to make all disclosures and
declarations as requested and to deliver along with the proposal
a certified check for $50,000 which would be non-refundable to
the successful proposer.
Attached is a memo describing the Watson Island project on which
the City Commission issued a Development Order, July 22, 1980,
along with a status report on the Development Order appeal
currently before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission.
83-1153
Howard V. Gary
City Manager
John Gilchrist
Project Director
Watson Island Development
December 5, 1983
Watson Island
Development Status
The City Commission issued a Development Order on July 22, 1980,
for the development of a Themed Amusement Park on City owned
Watson Island based on an agreement between the City and Diplomat
World Enterprises. The Diplomat proposal includes 50,325 square
feet of food service and 40,000 square feet of shops and crafts.
Entertainment elements include a cultural hall for the
presentation of shows and a high -impact film theater. Rides
include a water flume, railroad train, 250-foot sky tower, loop
coaster, carousel, and a variety of other smaller rides. Several
stages for the presentation of live musical entertainment and
small shows are situated at various points throughout the
extensively landscaped gardens. The project additionally
includes extensive marinas on the west and north sides of the
Island and proposes to maintain the existing private marinas on
the east side. The proposed project also retains Chalks Airline,
the Municipal Heliport and expands the existing Japanese Gardens.
Subsequently, the South Florida Regional Planning Council
appealed the City's Development Order. Administrative hearings
were held and the findings of the Hearing Examiner submitted to
the Governor and Cabinet acting as the Florida Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission.
By order of the Adjudicatory Commission, the City's Development
Order was allowed, however, the City was required to meet five
conditions before proceeding with the project.
Since then four of the conditions have been submitted to the
Adjudicatory Commission and the Commission has approved the
City's compliance. These four included (1) no dredging or
filling in submerged areas or alteration of shorelines except for
installation of sanitary sewer lines and marine pilings;
(2) marinas on the west side of Watson Island shall not interfere
with the proposed expansion of the Port of Miami turning basin;
(3) a traffic analysis by the Florida Department of
Transportation to determine any improvements to be required by
the City; and (4) the City shall prepare plans for public
Pagel of 3 83-1153
Howard V. Gary
01
December 5, 1983
transportation facilities related to the project. The City
amended the Watson Island Development Order on April 22, 1982, in
order to comply with these foul- conditions.
At the time the issue was before the Adjudicatory Commission, a
suit against the City's agreement with Diplomat was before the
State Supreme Court and at that time unresolved. The last
condition set by the Adjudicatory Commission addresses this
issue.
"The City shall contract with an independent firm,
acceptable to the Commission and the Department of Veteran
and Community Affairs, to prepare a new economic
feasibility report for the Watson Island Project which
(1) assesses the effects of any possible changes to the
management contract; (2) analyzes the City's revenue base
and its expenditures plan and (3) specifically identifies
revenue sources or proposed expenditures that must be
altered to insure the economic viability of the City in
the event that the Watson Island Project is an
unsuccessful venture.
The City shall submit this document to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council which shall review the
report and provide comments to the Department of Veteran
and Community Affairs within 60 days. The Department of
Veteran and Community Affairs shall consider the report
together with the comments of the South Florida Regional
Planning Council and in keeping with the provision of
Chapter 218, Florida Statutes, review the report and be
assured of the overall fiscal solvency of the City."
The Supreme Court decided not to hear the case regarding the
City/Diplomat agreement and by their action the agreement was
nullified.
In April 1983, the City appeared before the Land and Water
Adjudicatory Commission and was granted a one year extension to
comply with the final condition set by the Commission.
The final condition will require the City to have determined a
development plan and to acquire private participation for the
development of a Watson Island project which would fall within
the guidelines of the existing development order, and further, to
prepare an economic analysis of the proposed project. The
Application for a Development of Regional Impact and the
resulting Development Order establishes development of the site,
for example, the project includes 2000 parking spaces for
visitors and 1000 spaces for employees and users of the marinas,
etc. This in turn establishes the traffic impact on MacArthur
Causeway. The City can now issue a Request for Proposals as a
"Unified Development Project" under the recently enacted Charter
Page 2 of 3
83-1153
Howard V. Gary
I
December 5, 1983
Amendment on procurement procedures. The R.F.P. will set the
maximum conditions as established in the ,tiatson Island D'RI for
all issues having an environmental impact such as the parking -
traffic limitations in this example.
The deadline for submission of this analysis as required by
condition five is April of 1984. Assuming the Public Hearing on
the R.P.P.. for Watson Island will be held in January and allowing
for a reasonable time for proposers to prepare proposals, it will
not be possible to meet this April deadline. One hundred twenty
(120) days from January means proposals would not be received
until i-tay.
Several time extensions have been granted by the Adjudicatory
Commission and any further request for extension will probably be
difficult to sustain approval.
JG/vb
Page 3 of 3
83-1153
honorable Bob Graham
Governor
The Capitol..
Tallahassee,
Honorable George Firestone
Secretary: of State
Honorable Jim Smith
Attorney General
Honorable Bill Gunter
State Treasurer
Gentlemen:
On July 22, 1980, the City of
taining to the Development of
land, a themed amusement park.
Honorable Gerald A.
State Comptroller
Honorable Doyle Conner
Commissioner of Agriculture
Honorable Ralph D. Turlington
Commissioner of Education
Miami issued a Development Order per -
Regional Impact known as Watson Is -
Subsequently the South Florida Regional Planning Council appealed
the Development Order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission.
After public hearings conducted by the Division of Administrative
Hearings, the issues and findings were brought before the Adjudi-
catory Commission on September 1, 1981.
The Adjudicatory Commission issued a Final Order on September 29, 1981,
granting permission to the City of Miami to develop the property
as provided in its application and subject to five conditions to be
complied with by March 1, 1982. Failure by the City of Miami to
meet that deadline was to terminate the City's right to proceed
with the project, however, the order further provided that the City
%cas granted leave to petition the Adjudicatory Commission for an
extension of the march 1, 1982 deadline upon a showing of good cause.
As a result of the City's petition for an extension the Commission
did grant the extension by Order dated March 15, 1982 setting a dead-
line of no later than May 18, 1982 for the City to present evidence
.. - 83-1153
Page 2 May 11, 1982
of satisfactory compliance with conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of
the original order, and no later than 1.20 days after the date
of the next regularly scheduled election in the City to present
evidence of satisfactory compliance with condition 4 of the
original order.
The Cite of `.Miami is hereby submitting evidence of compliance
with the following conditions established by the Florida Land
and Water Adjudicators Commission by Final Order dated Septem-
ber 29, 1981:
Conditions
(1) No dredging or filling in submerged areas of al-
teration of shorelines will be undertaken except in
connection with installation of sewage pipes and marine
pilings. Any additional dredging or filling in sub-
merged areas that might be proposed or required will be
considered a substantial deviation from the terms of
the Development Order under the provisions of Section
380.06 (17) (a), Florida Statutes.
(2) The proposed marina on the west side of Watson
Island be eliminated or relocated so that it will not
interfere with the existing turning basin of the Port
of Miami, or with expansion of the turning basin. In-
terference with the existing turning basin or with the
expansion of the turning basin by a proposed marina
associated with this project will be considered a sub-
stantial deviation from the terms of the Development
Order under the provisions of Section 380.06 (17) (a),
Florida Statutes.
Further site specific plans for any marina should be
submitted to the South Florida Regional Planning Coun-
cil, which shall review the plans and provide comments
to the City within 60 days.
The City shall consider the comments of the South Re-
gional Planning Council and make any modifications deemed
appropriate. Plans for any marina shall become an integral
part of the application for development approval.
(3) The Florida Department of Transportation shall conduct
an analysis of the current and prospective capacity of Mac-
Arthur Causeway, I-95, and US 1 and affected arterials and
83-1153-
Page 3 ',lay 11, 1982
make a determination of improvement needs which are likely to
result from the development of the Watson Island project.
A copy of this document shall be forwarded to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council which shall review the
report and provide comments to the Department of Trans-
portation within 60 days. The Department of Transporta-
tion shall consider the comments of the South Florida Re-
gional Planning Council and make modifications to the re-
port deemed appropriate. The City shall pay the cost of
the transportation study.
The City shall improve or agree to pay the cost of the
improvements to MacArthur Causeway, I-95, US 1 and such
other affected arterials as determined necessary by the
State Department of Transportation to adequately accommo-
date vehicular traffic over the projected life of the
project.
(4) The City shall prepare plans for public transpor-
tation facilities to transport visitors to Watson Island
to assure that projections for the number of visitors
who would reach the project through public transportation
facilities can be realized.
The City shall submit the plans for these facilities to
the South Florida Regional Planning Council which shall
review the plans and provide comments to the Department
of Transportation within 60 days. The Department of
Transportation shall consider the plans, together with
the comments by the South Florida Regional Planning Coun-
cil and be assured of the viability of the public trans-
portation component. Plans for these facilities shall
become an integral part of the application for develop-
ment approval.
The City Commission of the City of Miami by Resolution No. S2-339
dated April 22, 1982 Amended the Watson Island Development Or-
der issued by the City Commission by Resolution No. 80-525, dated
July 10, 1980 incorporating issues of compliance with conditions
1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Ad,judicatory Commission Final Order.
As required by the conditions, site specific ?farina Plans,
the Florida Department of Transportation analysis of
83-11.53
f-N
Page 4
'.lay 11 , 1982
currant and Prospective capacities of affected highways
and Mans for public transportation facilities wc.re sub-
mitted to the South Florida Regional Planning Council
alon, with the City's Amended Development Order for re-
viex, and comment by the Council.
The following reviews the City's evidence of compliance as
submitted here along; with the South Florida Regional
Planning Council's comments dated May 6, 1982 as submitted
to the Adjudicatory Commission, the City of liiami and
the Florida Department of Transportation as required under
the conditions of the Final Order:
Condition ul
The Amended Development Order incorporates the following:
Item 20. As mandated by the Florida Land and Water Adjudica-
tory Commission by Final Order dated September 29, 1981, no
dreding or filling; in submerged areas or alteration
of shorelines will be undertaken except in connec-
tion with installation of sewage pipes and marine
pilings.
S.F.R.P.C. Comment on Condition #1
The revised development order acted upon by the City on April 22nd
includes the FLtiVAC's prohibition against dredging and filling.
Thus, tale City appears to have complied with this condition.
Condition :`2
The Amended Development Order incorporates the following:
Item 6. The Applicant recognizes the potential conflict between
the proposed expansion of the west side marina to 101
slips and proposals to expand tile, north turning basin.
As mandated by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission by Final Order dated September 29, 1981,
the marina on tale west side of Watson Island as pro-
posed in the Application for Development Order has
been modified so as to not interfere with the existing
or with proposed expansion of the Port of Miami turn-
ing basin. (Scan Exhibit "C" attached hereto).
Exhibit "C" is a plan drawing showing; the proposed
west side, marina in relation to the proposed port
turning; basin expansion.
S.F.R.P.C. Comment on Condition P`2
83-1153
Page 3 'May 1.1. 1.982
Condition =C of the FL`YAC Final Order spoci fically rPaui r n s
that .rest, side marina "'be ol.iminat-4, or rolocated so `:hat
it will not interfere with the existing turning basin of the
Port of Miami , or with expansion of the turnip-- basin. " The
Council specifically notes that the City has modifi{-d the west
side marina in an effort to avoid conflict with the Port's
turning basin. The Council does not therefore believe that
the City; has complied with this requirement.
The FL,VAC should also note that the City material includes a
Januar.; 12, 1952 letter from the Port Director stating that
"your plan, as presented to us, does not conflict with future
dredging projects by the Port of ?Miami." However, the Council
points out that the plan referenced in the Port Director's
letter is the ",+atson Island Marinas 'Master Plan" not the Wat-
son Island Theme Park Plan as being acted on by the FLWAC.
Should the Commission choose to accept modification of the ma-
rina, rather than its elimination or relocation, the FUVAC
should clarify whether the Port Director's letter is equally
applicable to either the "'Marinas Master Plan" or the Theme
Park for Watson Island, prior to FLWAC action on determining
City compliance with this condition.
The Council also notes that the attached letter dated April 6, 1982
from the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association, also apparently in res-
ponse to the "Marinas Master Plan," states that:
Although wel will have concerns with additional small
boat traffic in the port area, we find the preliminary
plan to appropriate and, in concept, is a plan that
the Pilots Association can endorse. (emphasis added).
Again, the FLWAC should clarify the position of the Biscayne Bay
Pilots Association, prior to determining City compliance.
We commend the City's decisions to eliminate the 4,O00 seat Bay -
side Amphitheater and the heliport, proposed in the ADA to be
located on pilings over Biscayne Bay, and to allow Chalk's to
remain in their existing location.
City modification of the previously issued development order for
Watson Island, representing the revised marina design as comply-
ing with the FLWAC's condition, would appear to be premature.
The City of Miami contends that the intention of the Ad.judicator�;
Commission Final Order regarding the vatson Island Development
vest side marinas potential interference with the existing Port
Of Miami turning basin or the proposed expansion of the turning
83-1153
pad c� G MZLI 11 , 1982
basin ,as to eliminate the interference.. The proposed marina as
incorporatecI into the Amended Development Order is modified so
as to oli,7inate interference with the Port of Miami and the Port.
turnin,_ Dasin as it exists or as it it is proposed to be expanded
to.
Th,? City further submitted letters from Carmen J. Lunetta, Direc-
tor of the Port of Miami. and Captain Julian M. Fernandez of the
Bisca%.ne Bay Pilots Association both addressed to the City's
engineers for the Watson Island Marinas. These letters were
written as a result of presentations of marina plans by Ronald
FalkeL of Greenleaf and Telasca. Planners Architect,and En-
gineers and Marilyn Reed, Environmental Consultant both of whom
are contracted to the City* of Miami for the !Marinas portion of
the ,';atson Island Development. Both letters addressed the
marinas issue only. The theme park plan was not included on
drawings presented and submitted to the Port Director.
Subsequent to and after reviewing the comments of: the S.F.R.P.C.,
Mr. Lunetta and Captain Fernandez met and reviewed plans showing
both the proposed theme park and the proposed marinas and have
concluded that their letters reflect their positions on the marina
issue only.
Further Mr. Lunetta asked that the City make it clear before the
S.F.R.P.C. and the Ad,judicatory Commission that he only reviewed
the proposed marinas and that by his letter he did not imply
endorsement of the theme park. His letter refers to the proposed
marina as submitted to him on October 22, 1981.
Condition -=3
The ,'Amended Development Order incorporates the following:
Item 21. As mandated by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory
Commission by Final Order dated September 29, 19S1,
the applicant agrees to the findings of the Florida
Department of Transportation regarding current and
prospective capacity of MacArthur Causeway, I-95
and US 1 and affected arterials as a result of the
development of the Watson Island Project that the
applicant improve or pay for the cost of improving
?MacArthur Causeway from an existing 30 to 35 foot
width to a full 3G foot roadway with 4 foot paved
outside shoulders 1,,i.thin the limits of the Watson
Island Development in order to meet current Florida
Department of Transportation standards for a six -lane
83-1153
Pale 7 'lay 11 , 1982
dividod highwa% (See E%hibit "D" aLtachc,d hereto),
Exhibit:"D" is the report submitt(�d by Paul N.
Pappas, Secretary of Transportation to the Adjudicator.;
Commission as requested in the Final Order.
S.F.R.P.C. Comments on Condition =3
The attached FDOT analysis does not comply- with this condition.
The condition was established due to the Finding of Fact =?,
adopted by the FL,;AC as part of their Final Order on Watson
Island, that: the transportation information in the ADA was inad-
equate for competent impact analysis. And yet, the FDOT Febru-
ary 4, 1982 analysis states:
We have accomplished this analysis using, and based
upon. the data in the DIII dated September 1979 pre-
pared for the City of Miami." (emphasis added).
The resulting analysis and recommended improvements are, thus,
useless, and, from and legal and substantive perspective, cannot
represent compliance with this condition.
We also note that the FDOT states that the "only concern that
merits addressing is the impact directly upon MacArthur Causeway';
despite its earlier statement that
I-95 and US 1. arc currently operat i n-- abovo do-
sirable capacit:v and MacArthur Causeway is
approaching tile, limit of desirable capacity.
Thu;, a FI.,,'AC determination that compliance with this condition
has hoen achieved would be a direct contradiction not only to
FL,',AC Findings of Fact but also to the Commission's direction
to FDOT, as part of this condition. A new analysis, based
on appropriate, competent information, must be prepared.
City.• modification of the Watson Island devo:.lopment order, repre-
sonting they FDOT letter and the City commitment to rely oil and
ftind improvements specified in that letter as complying with
the FIIXAC's condition, would appear to be premature.
Thcr i:�suc: raised by the S.F.II.P.C. regarding the Florida
Department of Transportation Analysis has been reviewed by FDOT
and their letter of response iS included here.
The City of Mi ami bel i eves the traf fic analysis prepared by
Wi ihur miLh and As.,;ociates and incorporated into the :Application
83-1153
pain 8 May 11 , 1982
for a Devolopmr_nt Order prepared by Post 13 ucklo , Shuh and
Jernigan, both engineering firms with hi,Thly rrcjarded repu-
tations in traffic engineerinv and consultation, is sufficient
for anal.:sis by professional traffic engineers. a conclusion
shared by Florida Department of Transportation staff and supported
by earlier`revie.%, by Dade County Department of Transportation.
Condition :`5'
The :Amended Development Order incorporates the following:
Item 7. The Applicant shall undertake studies to provide
alternate means of access to Watson Island in-
cluding, but not limited to: increased mass
transit, remote off -site parking with shuttle
service to the Island, flat -rate limousine service
from downtown Miami. and 'Miami Beach, waterborne
transportation, and an information system via radio
and highway enunciator signs to notify in -bound
motorists when Island lots are full. As mandated,
by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicoatory Commission
by Final Order dated September 29, 1981, the City
has prepared plans for public transportation facil-
ities to transport visitors to Watson Island to assure
that projections for the number of visitors who would
reach the project through public transportation facil-
ities can be realized, and further: plans for these
facilities are an integral part of the application
for development approval. The Applicant further
stipulates that within 24 months of the date of is-
suance of this Development Order an implementation
program and schedule will be reported to the South
Florida Regional Planning; Council. (See Exhibit "C"
attached hereto).
Exhibit "C" includes the City of Mi.ami transportation
plans for the Watson Island Development.
S.F.R.P.C. Comment on Condition #5
The City has revised the site plan to indicate accommodations, for
charter bus parking and access, public bus access lanes and drop
off facilities, valet parking; access accommodations and a proposed
water transportation terminal. These revisions should assist
the Cite in designing; an appropriate public transportation plan.
Iirnc��y�r, any reliance on unprogrammed (i.e., unfunded) portions
of Dade County's transit plan is unrealistic given the constraints
83-1153
P:irrr- p 'i,t. 11 , 1982
o[' fodf,1-:11 and state fundin,,T. Thus, nl:innod --mansion:; of the
rapid rail system and the bus systc�m cannot, b- rrliced upon
for public, transportation to tfatsc)n Island.
Tho Cit,: of 'iiami. has det•rloprd transportation plans considering
tho 'Iet:rorai 1. system no%k, under construction will bo operating
as pro,jocted by 1984. Although there arcs some fundi n- issues
raised 1)v cot overruns, the nearly one billion dollars committed
{-ives the Ci tv some comfort that the system will be finished
and opt.,rating within a reasonable closeness to the projected
schedule.
There are G public bus lines currently crossing Watson Island.
One line extends service to Brocard County and all lines connect
to downtown Miami and interface with the future Metrorail system.
The Ci ty of Miami submits these documents as compliance with
conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Ad,judicatory Commission Final
Order dated September 29, 1981 for the development: of Watson
Island.
Respectfully submitted,//f
John E.
Gilch�ist
Project
Director,
VlaLson
Island Development
JEG:mb
Encs.
83-1153
STATE OF FLOIUDA
DI%VISION OF ADVII;IIS1'I io, iv IIEGS
SOUTH FLvi.iPA 1 Z"GIONAL
PLi%IVI?:ING COU::CIL,
- Petitioner, '
VS • CZ�JE NO. DOAII 8 0-184 3
CITY OF i•IIAIMI,
Respondent.
ItsTE'RM CIMER pF S,,TISF11C,'O^Y CCMPLIATNCE W'TTH CO':DI'rIOi:S
This cause came before the Florida Land and Later
;'�6judicatcry Cc:--,ission on IMay 18, 1932, for presentation
of evidence by the Respondent, City of Miarni, regarding
satisfactory compliance with Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of
the Final Order of this Commission dated September 29, 1981.
Eased upon a review of the evidence submitted,
consideration of the record, and the arguments of counsel
and parties, the Ccnx.iission finds that Respondent, City of
Miami, has presented evidence of satisfactory compliance
with Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the Final Order.
Entered at Tallahassee, Florida, by the Florida Land
and Water Adjudicatory Commission through the Secretary to
the Co,r,mission this / R- day of August 19802.
n= ice,... t 1-�-�-�•.�._ c,,._
lil:?2tvl5UN
Secretary to the Florida Land
and 1•.atcr T,djudicatory Commission
CcPics to: I?e";: er`'+ of the Commission
COUizsel of Record
Florida Department of Transportation
Dcpar t,::ent of Veteran and Cor;muni ty Affairs
Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer
83-1153