Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-82-0463RESOLUTION NO. 8-6VI A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTER, A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT, LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 201-299 a SOUTHEAST 1ST AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR SAID PROJECT, APPROVING SAID PROJECT WITH MODIFICATIONS, AFTER CONSI- DERING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI ORDINANCE 8290, AND AFTER CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 380.06 FLORIDA STATUTES, SAID APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE: FURTHER DIREC- TING THE CITY CLERK TO SEND THE HEREIN RESOLUTION AND SAID DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO AFFECTED AGENCIES AND TO THE DEVELOPER. WHEREAS, Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association has submitted a complete Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact to the South Florida Regional Planning Council pursuant to Section 380.06 Florida Statutes, and did receive a favorable recommendation for a proposed development order, as set forth in the Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Coun- cil designated Exhibit "B" , on file with the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting held on May 19, 1982, Item 41, following an adver- tised hearing adopted Resolution No. PAB 35-82 by a 6 - 0 vote, recommending approval of the Development Order for the Miami World Trade Center, a Development of Regional Impact; and WHEREAS, a recommendation from the Miami Planning Advi- sory Board has been forwarded as required by Ordinance 8290; and WHEREAS, the City Commission has conducted a public CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY2 7 1982 NWAM *......«...............,,,,. AN hearing, considered the Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council, each element required to be considered by Section 380.06(13) Florida Sta- tutes and considered the recommendation of the Planning Ad- visory Board, and WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined that all legal requirements of publication at the public hearing for the issuance of the proposed Development Order have been complied with, and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it advisable and in the best interests of the general welfare of the City of Miami to issue a Development Order for the Development of Regional Impact, as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. A Development Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated hereto, approving with modif i- cations, the Miami World Trade Center, a Development of Regional Impact, proposed by the Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association for Tract "A" WORLD TRADE CENTER (115-41), approximately 201-299 Southeast 1st Avenue, be and the same is hereby granted and issued. Section 2. The Application for Development Approval is incorporated herein by reference and relied upon by the parties in discharging their statutory duties under Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. Substantial compliance with the representations contained in the Application for Development Approval is a condition for approval unless waived or modi- fied by agreement among the parties. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and • directed to send certified copies of this Resolution imme- diately to the Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs, division of Local Resource Management, 2571 Execu- Wm-463_ tive Center Circle East, Tallahassee, Florida 32301; to the South Florida Regional Planning Council, 1515 Nortnwest 167th Street, Suite 429, Miami, Florida and to Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association, 101 East Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33131. Section 4. The recitals of fact referred to in the herein "Whereas" clauses are true and correct and made a part hereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27 day of May , 1982. MAURICE A. FERRE MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor ATTEST: Q RALPtWG. ONGIE City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: to. / • s .", I '� O L E. MA ELL \Ldsistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: 6<•'1 /—, ff";oc GEORGE F. KNOX, JR. City Attorney 82- 463. `1 DEVELOPMENT ORDER Exhibit "A" ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION Let it be known that pursuant to Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida has considered in public hearing commenced on May 27, 1982, the issuance of a Development Order for a Development of Regional Impact, to be located in the City of Miami, at approximately 201-299 Southeast 1st Avenue, being Tract "A" WORLD TRADE CENTER (115-41) and after due consideration of the consistency of this proposed devel- opment with pertinent regulations and the Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council takes the following action: Approval of Application for Development Approval, with the following modifications: FINDINGS OF FACT WITH MODIFICATIONS Development 1. The development is limited to 598,865 square feet of gross building area, comprise of the following elements as speci- fied by the Applicant in the Application for Development Approval. Element Office Tower (35 stories) Offices Restaurant Gross Building Area (sq.£t.) 593,365 S, 500 598,865 This project utilizes air rights on a plan approximately 138 feet above grade above the subject parcels (above). The project is further limited by applicable provisions and procedures of the City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance 6871 as amended, as follows: The Miami Zoning Board on May 17, 1982 approved a variance to the 300 foot height limit in the C-3 of 562.00 feet above grade. The Miami Zoning Board had previously approved conditional use for a parking garage and variances for a reduction in truck loading bay spaces and sizes by Resolution ZB 148-80; July 21, 1980 and Resolution ZB 138-81 and 139-81; July 20, 1981; which parking garage is not a part of this Development of Regional Impact and for which the State Department of Veteran and Community Affairs has issued a Binding Letter dated October 21, 1981. THE APPLICANT SHALL: Energy Conservation 2. Obtain any permits from the South Florida Water Management District required pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021 F.A.C. Incorporate into the project all energy conservation mea- sures proposed in the ADA, specifically: 82w. 4 3 0 is Sizing power company transformers closer to demand rather than connected load; Using fluorescent lighting control within buildings controlled by local switches; Investigating various lighting alternatives, including task lighting, energy saving fluorescent lighting, and combined return air -lighting to determine which is more energy efficient; Investigating the use of the capability to control on a programmed schedule; a central control system with the air conditioning systems Adding power factor capacitor correction devices for improved power factor on large motors and determining most feasible installation location, i.e., at the motor or motor control switchboard; Using energy efficient electric driven centrifugal water chilling units with an approximate 0.70-0.75 kw/ton energy rate; Using a variable volume chilled water pumping system to reduce pumping horsepower; Using two air handling units per floor to reduce fan horsepower and selecting units that have low face coil velocity to further reduce motor horsepower. Providing building wall insulation, duct insulation, and piping insulation which meets or exceeds the energy code requirements; Using reflective glass or the equivalent in the tower exterior facade; Designing the parking garage to facilitate natural ventilation; Making the building a cool light color to reflect the sun's rays. Safety and Security 3. Construct the building to allow for emergency helicopter evaluation by hovering over the roof of the office tower. Further, the applicant shall, at any time that a feasible solution is found, provide roof space for aerials and appur- tenant minor structures for the City's communication system; such aerials and appurtenances shall be at City of Miami expense. The Applicant retains the right of architectural review and approval. 4. Provide the development plans to the Fire Department for review and comment and incorporate any other measures which the Fire Department deems advisable to insure that the tower can be evacuated safely in an emergency. 5. Collaborate with the City to incorporate security systems into the design and operation of all portions of the project under control of the Applicant to assist in protecting em- ployees and patrons from crime. Security systems and con- struction documents shall be reviewed by the Miami Police Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. i Minority Participation 6. Work with the City to prepare a minority employment plan indicating how the maximum feasible number of construction and permanent jobs resulting from the project can be acces- sible and available to minority applicants, especially Blacks. 7. Vigorously seek minority contractors, especially Blacks, to carry out construction work as feasible, during the develop- ment phase of the project. Access and Circulation The Applicant and the City of Miami (in cooperation with County and State Agencies) recognize certain mutual responsibilities in resolving and mitigating access and circulation problems within, and in the immediate vicinity, of the project. To resolve these problems: THE APPLICANT SHALL: THE CITY SHALL: 8a Fund, bond or provide a letter of credit to the City and/or the State for any incremental costs to I-95 ramp construction and S.E. 3rd Street, S.E. 1st Court and S.E. 4th Street construction necessitated by truck access to the project truck loading bays on S.E. 3rd Street. 9a Fund, bond or provide a letter of credit to the City, County and/or State for up to $416,000, in 1982 dollars, for construction of City and/or County identified surface street improvements in the Miami CBD prior to obtaining any buil- ding permits for the proposed development. The applicant's costs for sidewalk improvements on the project perimeter in the public right-of-way and City costs in 9b shall constitute an off -setting credit. 10a Front-end, which may include arranging loans to or bond pur- chases from appropriate govern- ment agencies, $2.0 million in 1982 dollars, for the oonst x-- tion costs of the I-95 bifurcated ramps based on an equitable reim- bursement agreement among appro- priate parties which shall spe- cify interest rates and maturity dates if a public sector finan- cing package has not been cam- mitted by March 15, 1983. 8b Ensure that access to the S.E. 3rd/4th Street entrance of the garage, which cuts through the Convention Center Building will not be closed during normal work- ing hours of the World Trade Center except for reconstruction of the I-95 Downtown Distributor and critical repair of the Con- vention Center or other emergen- cies. 9b Reconstruct S.E. 2nd, 3rd and 4th Streets at the project peri- meter and S.E. 1st Avenue to the center line of the right-of-way, at the project perimeter. Insure that the required funds, bond or letter of credit required in condition 9a has been provided prior to issuing a building per- mit for development. 10b Withhold certificates of occupancy for the World Trade Center until a public sector financing package for the I-95 is committed or the $ 2 . 0 million in 1982 dollars, frrontended funds are provided to the City by the Applicant pursuant to consditi.on 10a. WaP463, Z 12a. Pranote energy conservation and the use of public transit by participating in Transportation System Management, coordinated with the Dade County Transporta- tion Administration through such measures as employer subsidized ride -sharing programs and van pools; variable work hours, flex- time, and a 4-day work week and employer subsidized ransit use. The applicant shall prepare a report for review within 60 days. Further City Obligations 11. Cbligate itself to ensuring that funds to permit right-of-way acquisition and construction bid - letting are available in a timely mariner for I-95 ramp construc- tion. Such obligation must specifically provide that, if state monies are not provided or an agreement for State reimburse- ment of City funds is not exe- cuted by March 15, 1983, the City shall, in collaboration with the Metropolitan Dade County, provide funds to front-end construction costs fo the I-95 ramp system. 12b Shall work closely with the Down- town Development Authority, the Dade County Transportation Administration and the applicant to promote transit use; shall encourage a downtown parking pricing policy to discourage 8- hour use and shall continue enforcement efforts to restrict or prohibit on -street parking, ail of which are intended to maximize the use of the available roadway capacity. 13. The City shall ensure that grease interceptors (baffle - boxes) are installed in the drainage system in the garage to remove pollutants from washdown water. 14. The City shall collaborate with the Applicant to incorporate security systems into the operation of all portions of the project under control of the City to assist in protecting patrons against crime. Security systems shall be reviewed by the Miami Police Department and a report issued within 60 days of the date of issuance of this Development Order. 15. The City shall, in cooperation with the Downtown Develop- ment Authority, evaluate preparation of an Urban Design Plan, and/or a Master Development Plan for the Downtown area pursuant to Chapter 380.06 (21) F.S. to promote integrated development of the Downtown area. General 16. The Applicant shall submit a report, twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of this Development Order and each twelve (12) months thereafter until a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued; to the South Florida Regional Planning Council; the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Local Resource Management; all affected permitting agencies and the Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department. This report shall contain, for the preceding twelve months: A general description of construction progress in terms of construction dollars and employment compared to the 84963 schedule in the applicant's application for Development Approval. A cumulative list of all permits or approvals applied for, approved or denied. A statement as to whether any proposed project con- struction changes in the ensuing twelve (12) months are expected to deviate substantially from the appro- vals included in this Development Order. Any additional responses required by rules adopted by the State of Florida Department of Veteran and Commu- nity Affairs. The Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department, or a project director to be named later, is hereby designated to receive this report, and to monitor and assure compliance with this Development Order. 17. The Development Order shall be null and void if substantial development has not begun in two (2) years of the recorded date of this Development Order. Substantial development is defined herein as the achievement of the following items: construction of the first ten stories of the project tower above the parking garage; obtaining all required permits, variances and appro- vals; the deposit of all monies, bonds, or letters of credit for City or County identified surface street improve- ments in the Miami CBD; Commitment of a public sector financing package and/or Applicant provision of front -ended funds for construc- tion of the I-95 bifurcated ramps; 18. The Applicant shall give notice to Richard P. Brinker, Clerk Dade County Circuit Court, 73 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida, 33130 for recording in the Official Records of Dade County, Florida, as follows: a) That the City Commission of the City of Miami, Florida has issued a Development Order for the Miami World Trade Center, a Development of Regional Impact located at approximately 201-299 Southeast 1st Avenue Tract "A" WORLD TRADE CENTER (115-41) b) That Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association, 101 E. Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33131 is the developer. c) That the Development Order with any modifications may be examined in the City Clerk's Offices, 3500 Pan American Drive, Dinner Key, Miami, Florida, 33133. d) That the Development Order constitutes a land develop- ment regulation applicable to the property; that the conditions contained in this Development Order shall run with the land and bind all successors in interest; it being understood that recording of this notice shall not constitute a lien, cloud or encumbrance on real property, nor actual nor constructive notice of any of the same. S_-W W I _''1 CN 1 19, The Applicant will incorporate all original and supplemental information into the originally submitted Application for Development Approval into one complete document and will provide copies within 90 days of the date of issuance of this Development Order, to the City of Miami, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the State Department of Veteran and Community Affairs, the Downtown Development Authority and Dade County Public Works Department. 20. The Application for Development Approval is incorporated herein by reference and is relied upon by the parties in discharging their statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Substantial compliance with the represen- tations contained in the Application for Development Approval is a condition for approval unless waived or modi- fied by agreement among the parties. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Miami World Trade Center proposed by Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association complies with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, is consistent with the orderly development and goals of the City of Miami, and complies with local land development regulations being Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance No. 6871; and The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the City of Miami; and The proposed development is generally consistent with the Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council and does not unreasonably interfere with any of the considerations and objectives set forth in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. sk Ilk zb s•.w .:wry• •o. ,o � � � � . • .� } 1. t ' I i,\N I • POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH 3 JERNIGAN, INC. COnfUllin Engineers 3 Planners r=AnAUGUST 1981 t~ GROUND FLOOR MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTER MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS SOURCE: I.M. PEI d PARTNERS - FEREN DINO/ GRAFTON /SPILLIS/ CANDELA - CBM ENGINEERS - I.A. NAMAN 3 ASSOCIATES MAP: H-2 C • I i -- II • � Il♦ i� I I r , r _ 117 —+�• i � � i•' I � RJ � �, w�,� ��Y AA jj't��' f� .. ♦�' aft fl T. PODIUM/TOWER LOBBY A CONCEPTIONAL LANDSCAPING PLAN POST, BUCKLEY, SCHUH 3 JERNIGAN, INC. Consulting Engineers 3 Planners DATE: AUGUST 1981 MIAMI WORLDTRADE CENTER MAP: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS H-3 SOURCE: I.M. PEI 3 PARTNERS - FERENDINO/GRAFTON/SPILLIS/ CANDELA - CBM ENGINEERS - I.A. NAMAN 6 ASSOCIATES • AS C E KEY, NIGAN, INC. Engineers & Planners DATE: AUGUST 1901 HIGH-RISE TIER MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTER MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS SOURCE- I.M. PEI & PARTNERS - FERENDINO/GRAFTON/SPILLIS/ CANDELA - CBM ENGINEERS - I.A. NAMAN A ASSOCIATES 82-463 cr ..... - -. F TTJ .T -' �I r SECTION EST, BUCKLEY, j SCHUH:& JERNIGAN, INC. MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTERMAP: Engineers 6 Planners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS �_� SOURCE: I.M. PEI 3 PARTNERS - FERENDINO/GRAFTON/SPILLIS/ DATE: AUGUST 1991 CANDELA - CBM ENGINEERS - I.A. NAMAN & ASSOCIATES i 0 (--.- ;4:AMI, AM iPJT�ii•CJ_'.—?�..:�: :viE' ic�:'�>i•iI�U::4 To: Howard V. Gary oAr:. May 20, 1982 FILE: City Manager "�'``- MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTER � DEVELOP14ENT ORDER 'iO'Lelio ugo'n "`'"`'"`'`' COMMISSION AGENDA - May 27, 1982 PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA Planning and Zoning Boards Admi ni sirati.on._D.epar.tment The Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting of May 19, 1982, Item #1 by a vote of 6 to 0, adopted Resolution No. PAB 35-82, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of a Development Order for the Miami World Trade Center, a Development of Regional Impact, being Tract "A", World Trade Center Sub (115-41), which is approximately 100 SE 2nd Street. The applicant for this request is Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association. The Planning Department recommends approval, with modifications, of a Development Order. A RESOLUTION to provide for this Development Order has been prepared by the City Attorney's office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. AEPL:mc cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommendation: APPROVAL. �• IC I APPLICANT: �59 PLANNING FACT SHEET s Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association: March 31, 1982 PETITION: 1. APPROXIMATELY 201-299 SE 1ST AVENUE Tract "A" WORLD TRADE CENTER (115-41) Consideration of recommending a Development Order for the World Trade Center, a Develop- ment of Regional Impact to be located in downtown Miami, per Chapter 380.06 F.S. REQUEST: To grant a Development Order for a Development of Regional Impact so that construction docu- ments can be processed by City Departments. BACKGROUND: Dade Federal Savings and Loan Association have proposed the Miami World Trade Center, which qualifies as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) under Florida administrative rules. Per Chapter 380, the developer has submitted an Application for Development Approval (ADA) to the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) for their review and recommendation. Before granting a Development Order, which is a pre -condition to a building permit, the City must consider the extent to which: a) The development unreasonably interferes with the objectives of an adopted state land development plan applicable to the area; b) The development is consistent with local land development regulations; and c) The development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency. The sequence of events to this point are as follows: February 9, 1982 - South Florida Regional Planning Council notified the City that the ADA was complete and that a local public hearing could be scheduled. 82-463 ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPART14ENT : February 25, 1982- By Resolution 82-168, the City Commission established May 13, 1982 as the DRI public hearing date. April 5, 1982 - South Florida Regional Planning Council defers recommendation on DRI. May 3, 1982 - South Florida Regional ' Planning Council was to consider a recommendation for approval, with condi- tions (see enclosed report - Exhibit "B"). May 17, 1982 - In a related action, the Miami Zoning Board was to consider a zoning variance to the height limit in C-3 zone. May 5, 1982 - Miami Planning Advisory Board was to consider a recommendations for approval, with conditions. May 11, 1982 - The City Commission was to consider continuing the scheduled DRI hearing date from May 13 to May 27, 1982. (see Analysis attached) Approval, with modifications U-463 I DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTER Located in City of Miami 62.05 SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL May, 1982 / TXIITBIT "B" On File with the City Clerk with Resolution ; ,1982 82-463 south''fforida Clonal planning council 1515 n.w 167th street, su a 429, miami, florida 33169 305/621-5871 May 5, 1982 The Honorable Maurice Ferre Mayor, City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mayor Ferre: The South Florida Regional Planning Council has officially adopted the enclosed Regional Impact report for the Miami World Trade Center and forwarded copies to the Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs, and the South Florida Water Management District. This report is provided for your use in reviewing the Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes. ' While the staff of the Council is available to assist in the resolution t of any matter regarding the report, the Council has no legal mechanism to through which it can act on this report again, except through appeal procedures. Chapter 380.06, amended, requires that the City render a Development Order (an order granting, denying, or granting with conditions) on the subject Application for Development Approval within 30 days of the local DRI public hearing date. I The Development Order must Include Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding the extent to which: Na) The development unreasonably interferes with the achievement of the objectives of an adopted state land development plan applicable to the area; (b) The development Is consistent with the local land development regulations; and (c) The development is consistent with the report and recommendations of the regional planning agency." 's Moreoever, as required by recent amendments to Chapter 380.06, the Development Order: 11 The Honorable Maurice Ferre Page 2 May 5, 1982 111. Shall specify the monitoring procedures and the local official respontible for assuring the development's compliance with the development order. 2. May establish expiration dates for the development order, Including a deadline for commencing physical development, for compliance with conditions of approval or phasing requirements, and for termination of the order. 3. Shall specify the requirements for the annual report designated under subsection (16) (Chapter 380.06 Florida Statutes amended), including the date of submission, parties to whom the report is submitted, and contents of the report, based upon the rules adopted by the state land planning agency... 4. May specify the types of changes to the development which shall require submission for a substantial deviation determination under subsection (17)(a) (Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes amended). 5. Shall include a legal description of the property.` Copies of any development order issued with regard to this project must be transmitted to the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs for their review. The statutory 45 day appeal period is triggered by receipt of your development order. During this period, the Council will determine whether the City's development order is consistent with the Council's report and recommendations. If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff call Martin Singer. Sincerely, IN- M. Barr Peterson, AICP Executive Director MBP/rnh Enclosure cc: Mr. Gary Kresei Ms. Jeanne Hall Mr. Joe McManus Mr. Roy Kenzie Mr. David Kasten Mr. Marshall Harris Mr. Dave Rhinard Mr. Chester Czebrinskl SZ-w463 t, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LISTOF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PART I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. APPLICANT INFORMATION 5 B. PROJECT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 PART II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C. PUBLIC FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 D. TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 PART 111. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 A. DVCA ADMINISTRATION OF THE BINDING LETTER OF INTERPRETATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 B. TRANSPORTATION DATA, INFORMATION, AND ANALYSIS INADEQUACIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 C. EQUITABLE FUNDING PARTICIPATION IN CBD CORE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . 63 D. TIMING OF ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . 67 E. INTEGRATION OF DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 72 PART IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 s2.w4f 3 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LISTOF F 1 GURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LISTOF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PART 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. APPLICANT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 B. PROJECT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 PART II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 B. ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C. PUBLIC FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 D. TRANSPORTATION . . . . . . 27 PART III. DEVELOPMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 A. DVCA ADMINISTRATION OF THE BINDING LETTER OF INTERPRETATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 B. TRANSPORTATION DATA, INFORMATION, AND ANALYSIS INADEQUACIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 C. EQUITABLE FUNDING PARTICIPATION IN CBD CORE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 D. TIMING OF ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . 67 E. INTEGRATION OF DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . 72 PART IV. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 82~"463 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title page 1 Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Development Section . . . . . 0. . 7 3 Ground F I oor Plan . . . . . .0 8 4 Traffic Impact Areas . . . . . 0 28 5 1980 Traffic Conditions . . . 0 30 6 1984 Background Traffic Conditions 33 7 1984 Background Plus Committed Development Traffic Conditions (Without Project) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8 Future Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9 1984 Access Routes . . . . . . 41 10 1984 Egress Routes . . o . . . . 42 11 Proposed Project Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 I $2"463 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page 1 Proposed Development Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 Construction Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3 Permanent Employment Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4 Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 5 Existing Traffic Conditions - 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6 Background Traffic Conditions Without Project - 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 7 Background Plus Committed Development (Without Project) - 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 8 Background Plus Committed Development Traffic (With Project) - 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9 Transportation Project Completion Oates . . . . . . . . . . 47 10 Peak -hour Levels of Service - Downtown Miami . . . . . . . 47 82a-463 0 0 INTRODUCTION This report identifies and assesses the potential Impacts of the Miami World Trade Center office building, a 35 story, 598,865 square foot building located in the air rights above an eleven story garage in the Miami Central Business District. Despite a November, 1980 Binding Letter determination by the State Department of Veteran and Community Affairs that the parking garage was "presumed to be an integral part" of the World Trade Center development and, thus, also subject to DRI review, the Division Director, by letter dated October 21, 1981, informed the Applicant that the parking garage upon which the Trade Center sits was exempt from Council review of the Miami World Trade Center Application for Development Approval (ADA). The garage also serves the James L. Knight Convention Center which Is located between the Miami River and the 1-95 Downtown Connector, opposite the Trade Center site. The Convention Center, also exempted from the DRI process by the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs, has a 600 room hotel built 1n its air space. This assessment has been prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning Council, as required by the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act (Chapter 380, Florida Statutes) for all Developments of Regional impact. The assessment of the Impacts associated with the Miami World Trade Center Office Building was complicated by the exclusion of information on the parking garage; the current development of the garage, Convention Center, and hotel on the same site as the Trade Center, all of which are to be served by the same parking facilities, local roads, and 1 82"-463 • ? mass transit services; and the failure of the Applicant to provide adequate, competent traffic impact data and analyses In the ADA or In response to Council information adequacy statements. i' ! The significance of the inadequate transportation data is heightened by j the Trade Centers location Just one-half block away from two office DRis, Southeast Bank Financial Center and Miami Center II, reviewed by the Council to December, 1980, and in the immediate vicinity of Miami Center I (Ball Point), a mixed use development of regional Impact reviewed by the Council In May, 1979. The principal concern of the Councii's joint assessment of the Miami i ± Center it and Southeast Bank Financial Center DRis, as well as its review of Miami Center 1, was the timely provision of and availability of financing for adequate transportation facilities to serve the Dupont Plaza area. Lying at the nexus of U.S. 1, Brlckeil Avenue Bridge, and the 1-95 Downtown Connector, Dupont Plaza requires extraordinary measures to overcome projected traffic congestion and, thus, ensure the economic viability of the Miami Central Business District. The transportation issues raised in three prior DRI Assessments have still not been resolved. While technical solutions are being designed, financing strategies have yet to be devised and Implemented. The effect of this delay has been to postpone both the needed public improvements and the development of the private projects dependent on those Improvements. 2 89m-463 Miami World Trade Center, due to Its magnitude, character and location, interacts in many ways with the formerly approved DRIs. By adding competitive office space, creating excess demand for parking space, and exacerbating an overcrowded roadway system, the Miami World Trade Center will influence, and be Influenced by, the other large scale developments in Dupont Plaza, including the massive public facility improvements required to support these projects. Given the inadequacy of the Applicant's transportation and traffic data and analyses, the assessment is based not only on information supplied by the Applicant, but also relies heavily on information provided by City of Miami and Dade County staff, consultants to local governments and the Florida Department of Transportation, official plans, field inspections, and additional research and analyses conducted by Council staff. in accordance with Chapter 380, this assessment and report are Intended to provide an overview of the positive and negative impacts likely to result from approval of the Miami World Trade Center development plan, as well as the regional issues associated with such approval. The recommendations are Intended to assist the City of Miami Commission in reaching a decision on the proposed development which responds to City, County, and regional Interests. There is no intention to foreclose or abridge the legal responsibility of local government to act pursuant to applicable local laws or ordinances. Copies of any development order (an order granting, denying, or granting with conditions an application for a development permit) Issued with 3 B2-w4f 3 regard to the proposed project should be transmitted to the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department of Veteran and Community Affairs (Divi-sion of Local Resource Management). 4 82-463 :7 PART I - PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7A 0 A. APPLICANT INFORMATION Project Name: Miami World Trade Center Applicant: Mr. Marshall Harris Dade Savings and Loan Association 101 East Flagler Street Mlaml, Florida 33131 Date of Acceptance of Application: February 9, 1982 Type of Development: Office Park Location of Development: City of Mlaml, Dade County B. PROJECT INFORMATION The Miami World Trade Center Is a proposed office building located on the western half of the block In the Miami CBD which is bounded by S.E. 2nd Street on the north, 1-95 and S.E. 3rd Street on the south, S.E. 1st Avenue on the west, and S.E. 2nd Avenue on the east (Figure 1). The 35-story office tower would sit atop a City -owned eleven story parking garage, which has been designed to support the structure (Figure 2). The garage contains eight full parking levels, two levels in which only one-half of the space can be used for parking, and a ground floor lobby (Figure 3) that connects the building elevators with separate elevators serving the garage and the Downtown Component of Metrorall (DCM), ground level retail shops, the street, and a ground level covered pedestrian link to the Convention Center under the elevated 1-95 ramps. Retail activities 5 8g--463 0 0 wi LL--v MIAPAI WORLD TRADE CENTER CFIGUMRE PROJECT LOCATION KALE 0 sm um N. SOURCE: ADA OATS AM"T M) (" I rrr T MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTER DEVEt PVff SECTION SOURCE ADA DAZE Auoup ml LJ a" Nor MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTER E: ADA C40M FLOOR PLAN FIGURE SOURC3 DAYT AUGUSI 1981 at ground level are accessible from an open arcade running diagon$ily from'S.E. 1st Avenue to S.E. 2nd Street. Although the Applicant provided no information to DVCA to justify its assertion that the garage is a separate development from the Mlaml World Trade Center, the Department modlfled the Conclusions of if i Law* of the Binding Letter for the World Trade Center In support of the Applicant's claim. The following factors weaken the validity of that claim: 9 The World Trade Center Applicant is providing no parking for the project. Approximately 53 percent of the garage will be available for World Trade Center employees and patrons. 9 The lease of air rights carries an implicit right of access to the property. Thus, by necessity, a ground lobby In the garage, in this case comprising 10,200 square feet, is presumed as a right of the World Trade Center, even though specific assignment of those rights has not been made. • A truck loading bay, adequate to load or unload five trucks simultaneously with two additional holding positions, is provided +� The Department did not, however, amend its findings of fact that the parking garage Is an "Integral part of the World Trade Center development and therefore is Included in this development of regional impact deter- mination." Thus, as it now stands, the conclusions of law do not correspond to, Indeed directly conflict with, the findings of fact in the Binding Letter Determination. 8zw-463 9 i on the south side of the building to serve the office tower. r Access to the tower elevators would be either through the ground level retail area, arcade and lobby, or through a service elevator in the loading area, to the 10th level of the garage, and, through the garage, to the podium tower lobby. Approximately 33 percent of the 10th floor of the garage Is used for building support services; i.e. elevator pits, central A/C chillers and condensors, emergency generators, maintenance and storage facilities, service elevator staging areas, etc. • Util'lty maintenance and service access facilities, covering approximately 500 square feet, have been set aside In the ground floor of the garage for building services. The ground floor lobby and retail areas are served by the Tower air conditioning system. Thus, over Z0 percent of the ground floor of the garage directly serves the Trade Center Tower. Furthermore, each garage floor is penetrated by elevator, emergency stairs, and utility shafts suitable for providing service to the Trade Center, reducing available parking area to the garage. In total, approximately 10 82�463 i 1 100,000 square feet of the 566,000 square foot garage, or 18 percent of the total floor area of the garage, is devoted to Trade Center use. _ Finally, the uncommitted parking spaces in the garage, as explained i later in this assessment report, are expected to primarily serve I `! World Trade Center traffic. Hence, functionally and structurally, I the Trade Center and the garage form one project. Table 1 identifies proposed project components by square footage. TABLE 1: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS Phase Component Gross Square Fee+ 1 Garage (Including DCM Station) 534,800 Retail 20,982 Lobby and Arcade 10,200 SUBTOTAL 565,982 2` Office Tower 593,365 Restaurant 5,500 SUBTOTAL 598,865 TOTAL 1,164,847 * Submitted for approval in ADA. SOURCE: SFRPC, from ADA A downtown (People Mover) transit station is incorporated Into the structure of the garage at the fourth and fifth levels of the parking structure. However, access to the Trade Center will be indirect. "People Mover" transit users will first have to take elevators or escalators to the ground floor, walk through the pedestrian arcade to the ground floor lobby, and then take elevators to the Tower Lobby. From there, a transfer to other elevators is necessary to reach the desired floor. Wq-463 �i On -site development will, in effect, occur In two phases (Table 1). Phase I - completion of the garage, DCM station, and ground floor lobby -_is projected for completion by September, 1982. Phase II - construction of the office tower Itself - would begin In the fourth quarter 1982 and be completed in the first quarter of 1984. Of course, any delay in completion of the garage would cause a comparable delay In the start and completion of the office tower. The site is currently zoned C-3, Central Commercial District, which permits high intensity uses of the land. However, a height variance will be required from the City of Miami to permit the 618 feet cumulative height of the garage (138 feet) and the office tower (480 feet). 12 82"463 PART 11 - SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS A. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 1. Air Complex source air permits are no longer required by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. However, the Applicant projects that the on -site garage will contribute to air quality deterioration, exceeding Sta+e standards for 8-hour carbon monoxide concentrations by up to 24 percent in 1984. Since automobile air pollution emissions have improved, and are projected to continue to improve through the 19801s, compliance with current air quality standards is projected for 1987. This assessment is, however-, based upon the Applicant's assumption of 50*percent transit ridership. Failure to achieve that ridership level would lead to additional delays In achieving acceptable air quality In downtown Miami. Furthermore, the Applicant's air quality analysts assumed that the garage would not be fully used during construction of the World Trade Center. Given the severe shortage of parking in the area during the construction period of the Trade Center, this assumption is unwarranted. in addition, not only does exclusion of the parking garage from World Trade Center DRi review assume the garage's use by hotel and Convention Center patrons and the general public, but the air rights lease agreement between the City and the Applicant also specifically , 3 UmP463 C requires that construction or operation of the Center "Shall be performed so as not in the opinion of the City (reasonably exercised) to endanger or to Interfere _ materially with the Parking Garage operations or to endanger or interfere with the use of the Parking Garage by officers or employees of the City, persons parking in the Parking Garage or any other members of the general public In or using the Parking Garage or of people using or occuping any other part of the Excepted Premises or entering or leaving the Land or any part thereof; and Dade Savings and Loan Association shall arrange and perform any.and all work accordingly." Thus, the garage can be expected to be fully used during construction of the Trade Center, and air quality deterioration may be significantly greater than is projected by the Applicant during building construction and operation. 2. Land, Water, Wetlands, Vegetation and Wildlife The 1.29 acre project site is altered land in urban use. There are no water bodies on -site nor any wetland associations. Groundwater in the vicinity is brackish to saline. The project site has no significant vegetation or wildlife. 3. Historical and Archaeological Sites No historical or archaeological findings were made during the _y construction of the garage and none are expected during construction of the World Trade Center. However, if any evidence of such sites is uncovered during construction, the Applicant should delay further work until the State can survey the site. i S. ECONOMY 1. project Cost As i-ndicated*in Table 2, the project is estimated by the Appllcant to cost a total of $63.5 mllllon (1981 dollars), of which 81 percent is to be spent in the Region. TABLE 2: OONSTRUCTiON EXPENDITURES Expendlture Item Cost (1981 Dollars) Percent Spent In Region Air Rights S 3,000,000 100 Labor 9,200,000 99 Materials 36,600,000 70 Interest (p le%) 7,450,000 100 Preliminary Planning 150,000 100 Administrative 2,200,000 90 Overhead 2,200,000 90 Services 2,200,000 90 Legal 300,000 100 TOTAL $63,500,000 L61 SOURCE: ADA The cost of land for two recent DRis in the Miami CBD (Miami Center 11 and Southeast Bank Financial Center) averaged 5.5 percent of total project cost. The World Trade Center 90-year lease of air rights for $3.O mllilon dollars represents -4.7 percent of total project cost. Thus, the cost for leasing the air rights Is within the range of land costs for other projects reviewed by the Council in the immediate vicinity. The City of Miami paid $6.6 million to acquire the site. While It initially appears that a substantial subsidy ($3.6 million) Is being provided to the Applicant, the Applicant's air rights extend to a maximum of 90 years. Furthermore, an annual "ground rent" payment, equal to approximately ten percent of 5 82-�463 the initial purchase price, renders the financial arrangement between the City and the Applicant significantly different than a conventional land sale. The relatively recent development of air rights sales and the limited number of project cases prohibits further analysis of the reasonableness of this arrangement. 2. Construction Employment The Applicant estimates that roughly 353 temporary full-time equivalent (FTE) construction jobs would be supported by this project, with 115 employees In the first year of construction and 238 in the second. Construction wages are projected to total $9.2 million. 3. Permanent Employment The Applicant estimates 2,380 permanent employees will work In the proposed development, including 25 full-time equivalent restaurant employees, and 800 banking employees. The Applicant Intends to lease approximatey 300,000 square feet to firms engaged in various aspects of international trade including: freight forwarding, deep sea transportation, accounting and auditing, advertising, finance, real estate and insurance, and related banking services. Foreign consulates 4 and trade groups are being encouraged to relocate from existing locations in the Region to the project. The lease agreement 16 UW463 s between the Applicant and the City requires the Applicant to: "use Its best efforts to cause a majority of the Qualified Space (I.e. 300#000 square feet not occupied by the _Applicant) to be used for Trade Purposes, meaning purposes related directly or indirectly to International banking, law, finance, Insurance, transportation, communications, government, technology, trade, tourism, Import and export business and other International business and activity." If, after five years of occupancy, less than 25 percent of the Qualified Space is used for Trade Purposes, the City shall have the right to lease available space to firms engaged in Trade Purpose activities at "economically feasible" rental rates, with an allowable discount of up to 20 percent of comparable rents for new commercial office space tenants to the Trade Center, thus providing an incentive for the Applicant to market the project for its intended Trade Center purposes. Furthermore, a formula is provided in the lease agreement which specifies a variable component of the annual rent, amounting to an additional 50 cents (constant 1981 dollars) per square foot per year for floor area in the Qualified Space not used for Trade Purposes. The Applicant has not estimated the proportion of the 1,555 employees expected to occupy the Qualified Space by Trade Purpose. The 800 employees of Dade Savings and Loan Association are proposed to be relocated from other locations and thus, do not directly add to regional employment. If the 1,555 are assumed to be distributed equally among Trade Purpose 17 82"463 0 0 Industries, the CouncII estimates that, in total, the MIami World Trade Center would generate 4,567 new jobs (with 822, 3t283, 35,•and 427 in 6roward, Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach respectively), $74.9 million in total wages, and $279 million increase in output value, of which $142 million would be value added to the regional economy (Table 3). 4. Fiscal Impact Using 1981 mlilage rates and the Applicant's assumption that 1,580 new permanent jobs will be created, the net fiscal impact would be an annual surplus of $815,000 for the City, which includes $300,000 of annual rent from the World Trade Center air rights lease; $422,000 for Dade County; $401,000 for the Dade County School District; and $21,000 for the South Florida Water Management District (Table 4); for a cumulative annual regional surplus of $1,659,000. This annual surplus may vary by ± $150,000, depending on the year of operation and type of occupancy of the Trade Center, since the revenues generated by the project Include property tax, plus an annual rent paid to the City, defined by the air rights lease agreement. The annual rent itself is calculated using three components: • A base rent of $150,000, adjusted annually by 70 percent of the Consumer Price Index change relative to the previous year . 18 82w-463 0 TABLE 3: PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS A. EMPLOYMENT BROWARD DADE MONROE SO. FLA. REGION PALP0 BEACH AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 3. 4. 1. 8. 3, MINING 0. 1. '0. 1. 0. CONSTRUCTION 20. 32. 1. 53. t1. MANUFACTURING 32. 81. 0. 113. 27. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES 42. 52). 2. 565. 20. WHOLESALE TRADE 14, 56, 0. 71. 7. RETAIL TRADE 199. 314. 12. 525. 104. FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE 249. 1316. 6. 1571. 117. SERVICES 264. 957. 12. 1234. 138. GOVERNMENT 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. TOTAL 822.. 3283. 35. 4140. 427. 8. TOTAL WAGES (1000 $) AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING 12. 39. 0. 51. 116. AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 29. 49. Il. 90. 33. MINING 4. 9. 1. 14. 7. CONSTRUCTION 379. 541. 21. 941. 214. MANUFACTURING 446. 1434. 7. 1887. 308. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES 829. 6060. 51. $939. 399. WHOLESALE TRADE 256. 1014. 16. 1286. 153. RETAIL TRADE 1913. 2790. 137. 4840. 964. FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE 2526. 28498. 87. 31111. 1343. SERVICES 3649. 14994. 247. 18890. 2021. GOVERNMENT 332. 788. 19. 1139. 186. TOTAL 10375. 58218. 596. 69190. 5743. C. VALUE OF OUTPUT (1000 S) AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING 56. IBIS. 0. 242. 552. AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 83. 140. 31. 255. 92. MINING Is. 40. 3. 61. 31. CONSTRUCTION 2437. 3475. 134. 6047. 1373. MANUFACTURING 2446. 7869. 38. 10354. 1689. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES 3438. 33446. 211. 37095. 1655. WHOLESALE TRADE 509. 2019. 33. 2%0. 3D4. RETAIL TRADE 44D4. 6424. 315. 11143. 2219. FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE 12262. 138330. 422. 151014. 6521. SERVICES 7720. 31716. 522. 39960. 4276. GOVERNMENT 451. 1089. 23. 1%3. 253. TOTAL 33624. 224737. 1732. 260293. 18967. D. VALUE ADDED (1000 S) AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, FISHING 27. 92. 0. 119. 273. AGRICULTURAL SERVICES 47. 79. 18. 144. 52. MINING 1). 25. 2. 38. 20. CONSTRUCTION 422. 602. 23. 1047. 236. MANUFACTURING 919. 2956. 14. 3890. 634. TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITIES 1584. 15407. 97. 17068. 763. WHOLESALE TRADE 327. 12". 21. 1647. 195b RETAIL TRADE 2201. 3210. 157, 5568. 1109. FINANCE, INS. AND REAL ESTATE 6082. 68612. 209. 74903. 3235. SERVICES 5083. 20885. 344. 26312. 2816. GOVERNMENT 365. 882. 19. 1267. 205. TOTAL 17069. 114049. 905. 132023. 9539. T Tfi RUMPNri 04y nOT TOT51 cue To roun0tng. SOURCE: SFRPC 82-463 19 0 TABLE 4: FISCAL IMPACTS FISCAL IA►ACT "XIEL .......40040 04" ME 10: $WOE OF DEVELOPO IT WORLD TRADE CS71Tt1t LOCATION Ito NTY MWDDE I SPECIAL DISTRICT SAVE 00110CL DISTRICT DAD TYPE OF 110111L0.IENT I ametDmiaL TYPE OF DIfiL/N10 UNIT SJNMA-F MILV ILLTifN1ILY BILE-60" ISR OF UNITS O 0 0 IRSOER OF STUDEWS PSA UNIT 0.00 0.00 0.00 MAGO of POWAM PER UNIT 0.00 a 00 0. 00 TOTAL 14101WER OF UNITS 0 TOTAL I1111t11 OF "UDbITS 0. RAS1INEW POPULATION O. M11" OF tbrLOYEAS 2tt0 AWLYSIS CONDUCTED WIND AVOIIAOA ca"It1twe [KPE1OIYU E CATEOORIES CITY C011fTY SPECIAL DISTRICT SCUOAL DISTRICT 4ffwtp IL OOVERPSWIT • TM9 • 41017. • Sii. PUBLIC SWETT • 144" • 14t84 0 0, 1EALTM R10 tt1fAAA • 14501. 0 56023. • 100. RECIREATION 00 CULTURE 0 70020 0 15I64 • 0 TRANBPOtTAf ION • 142" • 96+20 4 O NATURAL RESOURCES • 7045. • 14". • 24. PUBLIC WOWS • 27417. 0 I824a • am. MISC[LtANEOui • =611. • SON • 0 EDUCATIuN t9tAWb11URLS a O KII) 11ON AN4i4L DE&I SERVICE 1RN0 CAPITAL OUTLAY 4 O SPECIAL CAPITAL FACILITY WOLIAL ERPEl0ITUNES 0 0. • 0. 0 0. • 0_ REWNUE CATE001tits CITY COUNTY SPELtAL DISTRICT SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY TAKES • ty?= • Sa17S1. 0 tIONS 401444 OTHER TAKES 0 sm". 0 ISI.1. 0 a SONIC[ CKNRKS 0 IMIL • $07MD 0 240t OTION W*-TAI I =& W4t*x • 11914. • tip. 0 a WATE 111T0100RIpt/ENRAL 0 WW4 4 t6612 0 0. /LDOIAL 10911001YOSOEINTAL 0 42121 0 ~7. 0 24 STATE SINCATIONIK • 0. ►WXWAL ZDUCATIOWL • 0. 11101:42A St RIS 0 OPM. • 111974 0 Sp. 0 a S1t-T1,t NEYo tS • gl00000 0 O. 0 a 0 a CITY GWIY WWLNL 816MICT tCIS011, DISTRICT TOTAL TOTAL Ww aw"11. 9XIMITNtEt 0 1661101 0 Si01M 0 •70. 0 a 0 SOM00 TOTAL 101 AMSIRL 0t11am0 0 7+81829. • NOSIO 0 1M70. 0 4014" 0 /967g4. WT SUlLMS / WICIT 1 0 W"it 0 42I6Dtt 0 212ok 4 401444. 0 tSsrm 840,463 0► TABLE 4: FISCAL IMPACTS ►ISGIL I "OWL .......40060 **" MTt OVtf/t2 TIM 10: O A. K law 1Ri OEVILOPTENT MOP" TRAOR CDTtA LOCATION CITY NIMI COUNTY Ow •tCIAL OI9TT+1cT DAOE t1CHWL DISTRICT OAOE TYFE OF OI:VtL� 101111ESIOOTIAL Tm O7 Of11i/1O UNIT TLLTI-FAMILY 1S0oE71 OF UNITS O 0 "is" OF STI1llms PER UNIT O 00 0.00 1SNSIfA OF fk7ls" fs11 UNIT 0,00 O, 00 MA. Nupon CIO UNITS 0 TOTAL ISN'1[R OF sTLIZOITS 0. 11MO NT POPULATION 0. I iwo OF O/LOYEFs 2300 oft"ts CONDUCTED IIs1110 avom0[ COEFFICIENTS ERPMtTUE CATEOORIES CITY COUNTY sFiCIAL DISTRICT 404m& 000E1wENT • 7"49 • 41217 ♦ Ss2. PUNLIC SWtTY • 144" • 26156 • 0. 1EALTN AO wwom • t40s1. • 04023. • 1" RECITATION AND C1LTUK • s002s. • 15I64 • 0. TM0111POI1TATlON • 16204 • 9620 • 0. NMTLSML IESOU LACES • 7045. 0 14M. • 24. PUNLIC WORKS • 27417. • 283" • 202s. M1•tEL.ftEou6 • 22411. 0 sa• • 0 EDUi.ATIw LahENDITLRiLS EDLILATtON 0*16AL Mill ' SERVICE AIO CAPITAL OMLAY 110MtC1AL WITAL FACILITY ANNUAL ERMMITURES • 0. • 0 • 0. IE'VEMIE GTEOOIUIts CITY COUNTY 1111=10d. DISMICT F7oPERTY TARES • O►7S22 • ss2711. • 2100 OT►EA TARES 0 Tom. • 19161. • O. IMIC1 CN•MOE• 0 1IM • I07SSS • 2404. OTIO1 101-TAR LOCAL IOVOSR • E101014. • 111I67. s 0. 1TATt INTOIOONOMEMAL 0 IDIOM 0 1M12 • 0. rOSIML twillooYo•OENTAL • gltZ 0 1.447. • 24. STATE 11MUCATItN10111. 411MIlI lL IOOUCATIONAL f11SCs AJOILOUS • vow. • 8111174 • My. Ola-TIN[ IIVi1•[s IS {500000 0 0. 0 IL CITY MatAL OlOTI11CT caum TOTAL IS7/ A1•ANAL <SFOOITuou • 1i~ • 11111r1Y • >lt70 TOTAL ON AMaft 11EVOSRs 0 791821. 0 641819. 0 som. 1117 SINLIIS I 111WICIT 1 • IlloM • 421.111. • 212Of. SOOa. OISTRtCT • 0 • 0 • 0. SCN OL OISTIIICT s 4014" • O. 0 0. 0 0. • 0. scow DISTRICT TOTAL • a • {{as• • 4014" • IM7F304. • 4014" • ISOf2fs 82-463 0 0 0 An additional $0 - $15O,000, depending upon the proportion of Qualified Space occupied as follows: under 50% - S -0- 50% - 74.9% - S 50,000 75% - 89.9% - $100,000 _ 90% + - $1500000 After 5 years, the Second Component is set at $150,000 regardless of occupancy, adjusted annually by 70 percent of change to the Consumer Price Index relative to the previous year . • After the fifth year of building operation, an additional $0.50 per square foot per year for each square foot in the Qualified Space not used for Trade Purposes will be assessed if 50 percent or more of Qualified Space (i.e. more than 150,000 square feet) is not used for Trade Purposes. Thus, the annual rent paid to the City could vary from $150,000 to $300,000 In the first year, and from $3O0,000 to $450,000 after the fifth year, adjusted by 70 percent of relative Increase in the cost of living. C. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. wastewater Management Wastewater flows from the project would be handled by the Mlaml-Dade water and Sewer Authority, and uncommitted capacity Is available to accommodate the estimated average flow of 67,000 gallons per day and peak flow of 268,000 gallons per day. 21 82-463 0 2. Drainage The.dralnagw plan would consist of collection systems discharging Into detention tanks that would retain the first Inch of stormwater runoff, reducing total runoff from the site and pollutants to the remaining runoff by about 80%. Runoff in excess of this amount that is within the design storm of 3 inches per hour would be disposed in on -site retention tanks. The project may require a General Permit from South Florida Water Management District pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021, Florida Administrative Code, which would have to be received prior to commencement of construction. The existing surface parking area on -site is now being replaced by the City parking garage. Pollutants from roofed areas are significantly less than from open parking areas, with pollutant loads In surface runoff, projected by the Applicant, of 15 lbs./year of suspended solids. Grease interceptors, not currently proposed by the City, should be installed in the collection systems and regularly maintained, to remove pollutants from washdown water. 3. Water Supply The Applicant estimates potable water consumption to average 67,000 gallons per day, to be supplied by the Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Authority, with peak demand equalling 268,000 gallons per day. 22 82"463 4. Solid Waste Solid waste generated by the project is expected to consist primarily of packaging and other paper waste, with some organic waste produced by the restaurant and occasional landscaping debris. The Applicant estimates a total of 4.9 tons, or 17.3 cubic yards, per day of solid waste materials, which would be collected by a private hauling company under contract and disposed of by the Dade County Solid Waste Disposal Division. 5. Energy The developer proposes to use electricity as the primary energy source for this project, although natural gas will be used for cooking and water heating in the on -site restaurant. Annual electrical consumption Is estimated by the Council to be 12.5 million KWH (42.5 billion BTUs). This corresponds to the energy content of approximately 6,800 barrels of residual oil. Three times this amount of energy, or nearly 20,300 additional barrels of residual oil, will be consumed at the power plant to provide this energy to the site. Restaurant natural gas consumption comprises 2.3% of the total on -site project energy use (1.0 billion BTUs). Both Florida Power and Light Company and People's Gas System have indicated that adequate power and facilities are available to serve the proposed development. Emergency power will be supplied by a 1000 KW standby diesel generator. 23 8Z"0463 The developer has proposed the following energy conservation actions as part of this development: e Sizing power company transformers closer to demand rather than connected load; e Using fluorescent lighting control within buildings controlled by local switches; e Investigating various lighting alternatives, including task lighting, energy saving fluorescent lighting, and combined return air-Iighting to determine which is more energy efficient; e Investigating the use of a central control system with the capability to control the air conditioning systems on a programmed schedule; e Adding power factor capacitor correction devices for Improved power factor on large motors and determining most feasible installation location, i.e., at motor or at motor control switchboard; e Using energy efficient electric driven centrifugal water chilling units with an approximately 0.70 kw/ton energy rate; e Using a variable volume chilled water pumping system to reduce pumping horsepower; e Using individual air handling units on each level to reduce fan horsepower and provide good air transport factors; e Providing building wall Insulation which exceeds the energy code requirements, duct insulation, and piping Insulation; 24 $Z"463 • Using reflective glass in the tower exterior facade; • At lowing the parking garage to be open to fact I Itate natural ventilation; • Making the building a cool light color to reflect the sun's rays. Energy will be used off -site to bring workers and visitors to the site. The Council estimates 4,087 daily vehicle trips. Based upon data provided for similar developments in the Miami CBD, the Council estimates an average trip length of 8.65 miles. Thus, approximately 156 bilion BTUs, or about 3.6 times annual building energy use, will be used for transportation to this site. This estimate excludes incremental energy costs for public transit and the Incremental energy costs to other passenger vehicles due to Increased traffic congestion. 6. Health Care and Fire Emergency medical service is available through the City,of Miami Fire Department Rescue Squad. Back-up response Is available under Dade County's contract with Randle -Eastern Ambulance Service. Response time of Randle -Eastern is estimated at 8 minutes, which is in excess of the maximum recommended response time of six minutes. ....- Fire call response would be dispatched from Station No. 1. Back-up response is available from Station No. 2 (1903 N. Miami 25 82-463 Avenue). City fire officials have recently expressed some concern that the proposed and approved development activity in the downtown.Miami area represents an additional demand upon Fire Department and Emergency Rescue Company sevices without any commitment of increased funding to assure the availability of the necessary facilities and services. Given the height of the proposed office building, the Applicant should Insure that the building can be evacuated in an emergency. In addition to whatever other measures might be required by the Fire Department, the Applicant should ensure that Tower construction allows for emergency helicopter evacuation from the roof of the office tower. 7. Police Police protection would be provided by the City of Miami from its downtown station at N.W. 2nd Avenue and N.W. 4th Street. City police officials have recently expressed concern that the proposed and approved development activity in the downtown area will pose problems for traffic enforcement, due to Increased pedestrian activity attracted to the DCM station and the overall increase of traffic volumes in the immediate area. The Indirect routing of DCM users to the ground level before gaining access to the garage or Tower Lobby is In response to public safety concerns. 26 ez-463 D. TRANSPORTATION 1. Existing Traffic The primary and immediate traffic impact areas of the Miami World Trade Center are shown In Figure 4. Levels of service (LOS) on roadway segments in the traffic impact area are identified in Table 5 and Figure 5 for 1980. Traffic conditions vary from LOS "A" to "F", with 40 percent of the segments operating below LOS "D". Principal north -south Corridors tend to experience lower levels of service. The Applicant's peak -hour traffic analysis is Inadequate due to the use of 1979 traffic counts and the assumed operation of the Miami Avenue River Bridge. Therefore, the transportation Impacts of development In the Miami CBD between 1979 and 1981 were not taken into consideration. The Applicant did not use post-1979 data, although It could have easily been obtained from Florida DOT and the Dade County Division of Traffic Engineering. According to the Division, six out of ten intersections in the irtmediate vicinity of the project operate at LOS "D" in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, while four operate at LOS "C." 2. Future Traffic Analysis in the analysis of future traffic conditions within the primary Impact area, the Applicant only partially accounted for projected background traffic, other committed development 27 89w-463 ROADWAY Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard Brlckell Avenue Biscayne Boulevard Brlckell Avenue I-95 1-95 S.M.-S.E. 7th Street S.N.-S.£. 8th Street Biscayne Blvd. Nay MacArthur Causeway 1-395 tV S.R. 836 %0 1-95 S.N. 2nd Avenue" 1-95 Connector MB from S.N. 2nd Street and South Miami Avenue** 1-95 Connector EB South Miami Avenue Exit Ramp*" 1-95 Connector E8 S.E. 1st Avenue Exit �^P 1-95 Contactor ES 1-95 Connector NB TABLE 5: EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS - 1980 SEGMENT NUMBER ADT From To LANES' VOLUME N.E. 17th Street 1-395 4 36.175 1-395 S.E. 2nd Street 8D 32,470 Bridge over Mlami River 4 35,530 S.E. 2nd Street S.E. 3rd Street 3 O/W 12,901 S.E. 8th Street S.E. 9th Street 40 27696 1-395 36th St. Exp. ID F/W t, 1-95 Ext. Rickenbacker Cswy. 8 F/W 83,800 1-95 Brlckell Avenue 3 0/N 6,250 1-95 Brlckell Avenue 3 O/W 8,420 S.E. 3rd Avenue Biscayne Blvd. 2 O/W 5,940 Biscayne Blvd. Alton Road 60 43.780 Biscayne Blvd. 1-95 8 F/W 61,580 1-95 N.N. 27th Avenue 6 F/W 82.100 N.M. 8th Street N.W. 2nd Street 8 F/W 113.300 Bridge over Miami River 2 11.310 2 O/W 9,724 1 6.420 1 1,755 S.E. Ist Ave. Exit S.E. 2nd Avenue Z 15,3i5 S.E. 2nd Avenue 1-95 NB%SO Exits 2 12,171 0 a Divided Highway; O/W = One Nay; F/W m Freeway •" Increase In traffic due to closure of 1-95 Connector ignored for 1984 ADT Volume. SOURCE: SFRPC �i CW ADT CAPACITY 20.000 36.000 20,000 16,000 24,000 120,000 96,000 16,000 16.000 11,000 30.000 96.000 72.000 96.000 10,000 11,000 10,000 10,000 18.000 18,000 ADT V/C 1.81 0.90 1.78 0.81 1.15 1.31 0.87 0.39 0.53 0.54 1.46 0.64 1.14 1.18 1.13 0.89 0.64 0.18 0.85 0.68 ADT LOS F B F B D E B A A A E A 0 0 0 8 A A 8 A 0 8000 iM DL JL I 0Q- -L---TL-- L I I ---I r ---I r- ( �__ J ��...�1 ��.��.r..�..r LEGEND s"Ic Volume (ADT) A A A - AWWOP 01111V Tf 15M AWAAA0 go.:. Volume.# CA00tity Ratle OIL@ 1.31 x - Le"I Of swvko (LOS, fts*mw "Pool closed -Z 803.M 87 1133004 too lie — ............ . ......... . "20 0.53* 27698 1.15 @ BISCAYM 1755 6250 Ms rt OL39*� - 35530(j!) 1.78 5 0!40 54UA SA It 12901 0.81 st FIGURE 5 Ina TRAFFIC CONDITIONS SOURCE: FOOT, DADE CM DIY. OF TRAFFIC ENG- r]nE::]F--][ r� 36175 nF D4 traffic, and World Trade Center traffic. Future traffic conditions were evaluated only for those traffic count locatlons where traffic volume data were conveniently available from public sources. In the ADA, the Applicant increased 1979 traffic counts by 2.5 percent per year to project background traffic in 1984. Other recent traffic analyses for the traffic impact area use significantly higher growth rates. The Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation Study (Barton-Aschman, Inc., October, 1981) reports that growth In overall regional traffic volumes is in the vicinity of 3.5 percent annually, and the Miami CBD Maintenance of Traffic (Greiner Engineering, Inc., draft, January, 1982) estimates that growth in background traffic in the Miami CBD is 5 percent annually. Therefore, given the intensity of growth in the project traffic impact area, even the 3.5 percent growth rate used by the Council In this assessment may even be low. Table 6 and Figure 6 show projected 1984 ADT background traffic conditions for the principal roadways in the study area. When committed development traffic is added to background traffic (Table 7 and Figure 7), levels of service on these roadway segments markedly decrease. 31 8Z-w463 ROADWAY Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard BrlckelI Avenue Biscayne Boulevard BrlckelI Avenue 1-95 S.M.-S.E. 7th Street S.M.-S.E. 8th Street Biscayne Blvd. May MacArthur Causeway 1-395 N S.R. $36 1-95 S.M. 2nd Avenue" 1-95 Connector WS from S.M. 2nd Street and South Miaml Avenue" 1-95 Connector EB South Miami Avenue Exit Re"" 1-95 Connector EB S.E. 1st Avenue Exit Rwp 1-95 QMnector E8 1-95 Connector MB TABLE 6: BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT - t964 SEGMENT NUMBER AOT ACT rp� o LANES* VOLUME CAPACITY N.E. 17th Street 1-395 4 41,512 1-395 S.E. 2nd Street 81) 37,260 Bridge over Miami River 4 40,771 S.E. 2nd Street S.E. 3rd Street 3 O/W 14,804 S.E. 8th Street S.E. 9th Street 40 31,785 1-395 36th St. Exp. 10 F/W 179,817 1-95 Ext. Rlckenbacker Cswy. 8 F/W 96,162 1-95 Brickeil Avenue 3 O/W 7,172 1-95 Brickell Avenue 3 ON 9.662 S.E. 3rd Avenue Biscayne Blvd. 2 O/M 7.055 Biscayne Blvd. Alton Road 60 50.239 Biscayne Blvd. 1-95 8 F/W 70,664 1-95 N.M. 27th Avenue 6 F/W 94.212 N.M. 8th Street N.M. 2nd Street 6 F/W 130,014 Bridge over Miami River 2 12,978 _ - 2 O/W 11,159 _ - 1 7.367 - 1 Closed S.E. 1st Ave. Exit S.E. 2nd Avenue 2 Closed S.E. 2nd Avenue 1-95 NB%SB Exits 2 Closed • 0 - Divided Highway; 0/M a One May; F/M = Freeway Of increase In traffic due to closure of 1-95 Connector ignored for 1984 AOT Volume. SOURCE: SFRPC 4M W 20.000 36,000 20,000 16,000 24,000 120.000 95.000 16,000 16,000 11,000 30.000 96,000 72.000 96.000 10,000 11,000 10,000 AOT V/C 2.08 1.04 2.04 .3 1z" 1.50 1.00 .45 .60 .64 1.67 .74 1.31 1.35 1.30 1.01 0.74 AOT Los F C F C E E C A A A F B E E 0 C B 40 #1 LEGEND AA"- mump Of *am vw� (AM) x- L"m of $wow aou *-ft@o ftem" cbm" 1 0 1 © .n E N rTTTTI • 1 O le— Ia O ` a 11 � \ � . rrraga TITTIzzZZz: 1��1© ROADWAY Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard Brickell Avenue Biscayne Boulevard Brlckell Avenue 1-95 1-95 S.M.-S.E. 7th Street S.M.-S.E. Bth Street Biscayne Blvd. May MacArthur Causeway v+ 1-395 A S.R. $36 1-95 S.M. 2nd Avenue" 1-95 Connector WO from S.M. 2nd Street and South Miami Avenue" 1-95 Connector E8 South Miami Avenue Exit Ramp' 1-95 Connector EB S.E. 1st Avenue Exit Ramp 1- Connector EB 1-95 Connector WB TABLE 7: BACKGROUND PLUS COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC (WITHOUT PROJECT) - 1984 SEGMENT NUMBER ADT ADT ADT ADT From To LANES* VOLUME CAPACITY V/C LOS N.E. 17th Street 1-395 4 41,752 20,000 2.09 F 1-395 S.E. 2nd Street 8D 39,699 36,000 1.10 C Bridge over Miami River 4 51.261 20,000 2.56 F S.E. 2nd Street S.E. 3rd Street 3 O/W 28,906 16.000 1.81 F S.E. 8th Street S.E. 9th Street 4D 42,323 24.000 1.76 F 1-395 36th St. Exp. 10 F/W 183.335 120.000 1.53 E 1-95 Ext. Rickenbacker Cswy. 8 F/W 98.360 96,000 1.02 C 1-95 Brlckell Avenue 3 O/W 10.533 16.000 0.66 A 1-95 Brickell Avenue 3 O/W 16,653 16,000 1.04 C S.E. 3rd Avenue Biscayne Blvd. 2 O/W 23,738 11.000 2.16 F Biscayne Blvd. Alton Road 6D 52,544 30,000 1.75 F Biscayne Blvd, 1-95 8 F/W 76,124 96,000 0.79 8 1-95 N.M. 27th Avenue 6 F/W 98.400 72.000 1.37 E N.M. 8th Street N.M. 2nd Street 8 F/W 138,170 96,000 1.44 E Bridge over Miami River 2 17,978 10,000 1.80 F - - 2 O/W 16,336 11,000 1.39 E - - 1 12,544 10,000 1.25 0 - 1 Closed_ - - - S.E. 1st Ave. Exit S.E. 2nd Avenue 2 Closed - - S.E. 2nd Avenue 1-95 NB/S8 Exits 2 Closed - - - D - Divided Highway; O/W - One May; F/W - Freeway increase in traffic due to closure of 1-95 Connector ignored for 1984 ADT volume. N SOURCE: SI RPC W 0 I 11-j LEGEND AAA 7AAAA- Aw�/s Ogler ThNle Vskm (ACT) A AA Ox @a$- vw..sic"Milr 11u1N X- Lffa sf solow (LOS) II II j lm P IT UK 1.80 ® : 12541 125 25 r�r � A 0.66 01 4 323 0 51281 0 � 2.56 237W wCArMs sAr 2.18 28906 lei 3334 u 11 1 11 L-nL-,L --1L-- 398 Site •• FIGURE 7 N,.. 1sN sACK011a1N0 PLUS ••' corEa of KOPMEKT rin TRAMC COMD1T10Ms iwITMOYT MWMCT) M24 n 029 ke/ in addition to understating background traffic and traffic from other committed development in the primary impact area, the -Applicant provided unrealistically low estimates of project traffic: a total of 2,410 daily vehicle trips to be generated by the World Trade Center at full occupancy. To achieve this low estimate, the Applicant used traffic generation rates lower than approved Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates; assumed 50 percent transit usage by project employees; included employee work trips only, and excluded trips for the hotel and Convention Center. Thus, data, assumptions, and procedures in the ADA are inadequate. For example, an international trade building, by its nature, can be expected to generate an even greater number of trips than predicted by the ITE trip generation rates for a typical office building. Use of lower rates is not acceptable. The 50 percent mass transit usage assumed by the Applicant for the project is also unlikely. First, completion of the Downtown Component of Metrorali (DCM), Is currently scheduled for October 1984, six months after the completion of the World Trade Center. Of course, the Trade Center would not be expected to achieve full occupancy within this half year period and, thus, at least during the period Immediately after project completion, automobile use would not be significantly higher than if 50 percent transit use was assumed. 36 $Zm-463 0 However, the 1-95 Downtown Distribution Design Traffic Forecasts (Greiner Engineering, October 1981), approved by the -Dade MPO, estimates modal spilt to be 30 percent transit for Average Daily Traffic (ADT) in 1985 and 2000, and 35 and 50 percent transit for peak -hour trips in 1985 and 2000, respectively. The Council has previously approved the use of a 50 percent transit usage split in the Miami Center II and Southeast Bank Financial Center DRis. However, since access to the Trade Center tower lobby from the DCM station is indirect, transit ridership by project employees and visitors may be closer to the 30 percent estimate than the 50 percent assumption. Using ITE trip generation rates, the Council projects 8,758 person -trips would be generated by the project. Assuming thirty percent of these, or 2,627, would be by transit leaves 6,131 person trips by automobile. Using an average 1.5 persons/vehicle occupancy rate results in 4,087 dally vehicle trips being placed on the roadway system in 1984, approximately 70 percent higher than the Applicant's estimate. Even assuming a 50 percent transit split yields 2,919 vehicle trips, 21 percent higher than the Applicant's estimate. Thus, the Miami World Trade Center will prove a significant contributor to traffic in downtown Miami in 1984 and thereafter. Table 8 and Figure 8 show the effects of the project on ADT and levels of service, with 30 percent transit patronage, in 1984. U.W463 37 ADADWAY Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard Brickell Avenue Biscayne Boulevard Brickell Avenue 1-95 1-95 S.M.-S.E. 7th Street S.M.-S.E. Bth Street Biscayne Blvd. Way MacArthur Causeway 1-395 S.R. 836 %A 1-95 co S.M. 2nd Avenue's 1-95 Connector WB from S.M. 2nd Street and South Miami Avenue'• 1-95 Connector EB South Miami Avenue Exit Ramp** 1-95 Connector EB S.E. 1st Avenue Exit Ramp 1-95 Connector ES 1-95 Connector WB TABLE 8: BACKGROUND PLUS COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC (WITH PROJECT) - 1984 1 SEGMENT NLWR PROJECT VEHICLES ADT ADT ACT ADT From To LANES* WITH 30% TRANSIT VOLUME CAPACITY V/C LOS N.E. 17th Street 1-395 4 407 42,159 20,000 2.tl F 1-395 S.E. 2nd Street 80 655 40.354 36,000 1.12 0 Bridge over Miami River 4 611 51,872 20.000 2.59 F S.E. 2nd Street S.E. 3rd Street 3 0/W 327 29,233 16,000 1.83 F S.E. 8th Street S.E. 9th Street 4D 343 42.666 24,000 1.78 F 1-395 36th St. Exp. 10 F/W 817 184.152 120,000 1.53 E 1-95 Ext. Rickenbacker Cswy. 8 F/W 1,021 99,381 96.000 1.04 C 1-95 Brickell Avenue 3 O/W 134 10,667 16,000 0.66 A 1-95 Brickell Avenue 3 O/W 134 16,787 16,000 1.05 C S.E. 3rd Avenue Biscayne Blvd. 2 O/W 305 24,043 11.000 2.19 F Biscayne Blvd. Alton Road 6D 204 52,748 30,000 1.76 F Biscayne Blvd. 1-95 8 F/W 0 76,124 96,000 0.79 B 1-95 N.M. 27th Avenue 6 F/W 614 99,014 72.000 1.38 E N.M. 8th Street N.M. 2nd Street 8 F/W 1,431 139,601 96,000 1.45 E Bridge over Miami River 2 212 18,190 10,000 1.82 F - - 2 O/W 421 16,757 11.000 1.52 E - - 1 200 17,744 10,000 0 Closed - S.E. 1st Ave. Exit S.E. 2nd Avenue 2 - Closed S.E. 2nd Avenue 1-95 NB/58 Exits 2 Closed i D a Divided Highway; O/W - One May; F/W - Freeway, increase In traffic due to closure of 1-95 Connector ignored for 19R4 ADT Volume. AWE: SFRPC M co However, this does not reflect the impact of the project on the downtown street system, In the Immediate vicinity of the _ project; where the effects of project traffic will be felt most strongly, since the Applicant insisted, despite Council information adequacy review, on assuming the existence of the Dupont Plaza 1-95 bifurcated ramps and improved surface street system by 1984. Thus, the Applicant presented no Information In the ADA on project Impacts on the current roadway network, which may, unfortunately, be in existence for longer than envisioned at the time of the Southeast Bank and Miami Center If DRI reviews. Figures 9 and 10 show the access and egress routes for Miami World Trade Center traffic. There are eight access routes to the Miami World Trade Center: 1) Brickeil Avenue Bridge to Biscayne Boulevard Way to Biscayne Boulevard to S.E. 2nd Street to Garage 2) Biscayne Boulevard to S.E. 2nd Street to Garage 3) N.E. 2nd Avenue to S.E. 2nd Street to Garage 4) North Miami Avenue to S.E. 1st Street to S.E. 2nd Avenue to S.E. 2nd Street to Garage 5) S.W. 1st Street Bridge to S.E. 2nd Avenue to S.E. 2nd Street to Garage 6) Flagler Street Bridge to S.W. 2nd Avenue to S. W. 1st Street to S.E. 2nd Avenue to S.E. 2nd Street to Garage 7) S.W. 2nd Avenue Bridge to S.W. 1st Street to S.E. 2nd Avenue to S.E. 2nd Street to Garage 8) 1-95 Southbound to Downtown Distributor Miami Avenue Exit to S.E. 1st Street to S.E. 2nd Avenue to S.E. 2nd Street to Garage 40 Sz-463 lol" �f _ - I Project Site I j!r , FIGURE 10 ^ 1ee4 �0 TRADE CEM M Ranges naUTls SOURCE: SFAPC ■ 0 The south entrance to the parking garage will not be available during the construction of the bifurcated ramps leading into the Dupont Plaza garage and realignment of the 1-95 downtown distributor. Furthermore, access to the south entrance of the garage is through the Convention Center building. There are seven routes by which one may exit the Center: 1) Garage to S.E. 2nd Street to S.E. 1st Avenue to S.E. 2nd Avenue/Brlckell Avenue 2) Garage to S.E. 2nd Street to S.E. 1st Avenue to S.E. 1st Street to Biscayne Boulevard 3) Garage to S.E. 2nd Street to S.E. 1st Avenue 4) Garage to S.E. 2nd Street to S.W. 2nd Avenue 5) Garage to S.E. 2nd Street to 1-95 Downtown Distributor NB 6) Garage to S.E. 2nd Street to 1-95 Downtown Distributor SB 7) Garage to S.E. 2nd Street to S.E. Avenue Project traffic, during construction of the Dupont Plaza transportation improvements, cannot be assigned with a reasonable confidence level to individual routes due to the rerouting of traffic necessitated by the closure of the 1-95 Downtown Distributor and the associated burden placed on the downtown street system. Such a prediction of individual motorists' behavior without knowledge of future traffic loads and signage effectiveness would most likely have a low validity. A signage plan for traffic management during Dupont Plaza construction 1s currently being developed by Greiner Engineering for the Dade County MPO. 43 82-463 The project's 1984 peak -hour traffic can be determined by using the Dade estimate of 35 percent transit patronage. The Applicant, however, makes no distinction between ADT modal split and peak -hour modal split: 50 percent is used In both cases. Such a figure could only be approached with the DCM operating and the advent of greater incentives to use mass transit facilities. As Greiner Indicates, peak -hour transit trips in the year 2000 should constitute roughly 50 percent of World Trade Center total peak -hour trips. Yet, to expect half of all project trips (including both non -work and off-peak trips) to make use of transit would be an unfounded assumption. Of the 8,758 trip ends generated by the project, 4,760 are work trips and 3,998 are non -work trips. Of the work trips, the Applicant states that 58 percent occur during the AM peak and 60 percent occur during the PM peak. This results in a contribution of 2,761 and 2,856 person -trips in the AM peak and PM peak, respectively. In another recent traffic analysis, Downtown Miami Traffic Access and Mob111ty Improvement Study (Wilbur Smith b Associates, November 1981), It was determined that 11.12 percent of non -work trips to office destinations occur during the AM peak. One may assume that approximately the some number occur during the PM peak. This adds an additional 445 person trips to the Applicant's assumptions to both the AM and PM peaks. 44 eZ-'463 Allocating 35 percent of peak -hour trips to translt, 2,084 and 2,146 person trips during the AM and PM peaks, respectively, -are non -transit. Taking into consideration the vehicle -occupancy ratio of 1.5, 1,389 vehicle trips are projected by the Council to occur during the AM peak and 1,430 vehicle trips during the PM peak. Again, reasonable assignment of these trips to the existing and construction roadway system In downtown Miami by the Council is Impossible due to the lack of adequate data and information from the Applicant and of a construction traffic management plan for the Dupont Plaza area. in the 1-95 Downtown Distributor Design Traffic Forecasts Study, peak -hour vehicles were assigned to the roadway system with resultant LOS I'D" under the assumption that both the Miami Avenue River Bridge and the 1-95 Downtown Distributor bifurcated ramp system would be operational. However, these two Improvements will not be realized until July and December of 1985, respectively, at the earliest. Table 9 compares the Applicant's assumed project completion dates and those recently proposed by the Florida Department of Transportation (Figure 11), which are themselves rather optimistic since funding Is still not resolved. Certainly, with these two main traffic arteries closed and the Downtown Component of Metrorall not yet in service, achieving even LOS I'D" during the peak -hour would be quite unrealistic. 82-w463 45 FIGURE 11 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULING MIAMI WORLD TRADE CENTER 6dneule Sri* Struelam ' W — rteN 04 RNM of M•r Atry.i•him w r P.rph TTIF EawM CONSTRUCTION North Approach g ArRtk.1• , 1I11ol of wn Aq.i.rtlM M E W S haels CONSTTIUCTION e South Approach A„ni.•t• M Pistil of WIT A hMiat M Imc to hrub CONSTRUCTION MIAMI CITER Phan It MOlrtArlll MIAMI CENTER PHASE 11 c.Mtr.aitr rt... rt•prttlN Biiurtebd Pan &Wl*N for Riot VhlTrwi.r Matt filet Pitt$ Htiweted C.nt"mie. hri.d S N N O SE Fimmeiel s Comer sE BANK coll:ilnlerroll ao All SOURCE: FDOT 82-463 A9: TRANSPORTATION PROJECT COMPLETION iss , Current Projection* ADA Miami Avenue Bridge July, 1985 1983 1-95 Downtown Distributor Bifurcated Romps December, 1985 1983 Metrorall, and Downtown Component of Metrorail October, 1984 June, 1984 S.M. 7th and 8th Streets Improvements 1 1991 1986 *SOURCES: Florida Department of Transportation Dade County Metro Transit Agency Table 10 compares the current (1982) levels of service at ten Intersections in the immediate vicinity of the World Trade Center, as provided by Dade County, with Applicant —estimated levels of service in 1984, after openings of the Hyatt Hotel, Knight Convention Center, and Miami Center Phase I. The results of the Applicant's Intersection capacity analysis, for which no Justification or support data are provided, are clearly unreasonable. Considering the phenomenal amount of CBD committed development traffic, especially in and around Dupont Plaza, the levels of service which the Applicant details severely underestimate the traffic to be generated by such development and the associated reduction in levels of service. TABLE 10: PEAK -HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE - DOWNTOWN MIAMI Miami Avenue - S.E. 1st Street Dade County 198? AM Peak LOS Applicant 1984 AM Peak2LOS with Project C A Miami Avenue - S.E. 2nd Street D A S.E. 1st Avenue - S.E. 1st Street D B S.E. 1st Avenue - S.E. 2nd Street C A S.E. 2nd Avenue - S.E. 1st Street D A S.E. 2nd Avenue - S.E. 2nd Street D A S.E. 2nd Avenue - S.E. 3rd Street D A S.E. 3rd Avenue - S.E. 1st Street C A S.E. 3rd Avenue - S.E. 2nd Street D A S.E. 3rd Avenue - S.E. 3rd Street C A SOURCE: iDede County Division of Traffic Engineering Applicant ADA 82q-463 47 0 41K Thus, the only reliable data on which the Council may proceed with respect to the project's traffic impact is Its _ contribution to ADT and peak -hour traffic. As discussed more fully to the Issues section, this information, in conjunction with traffic analyses of other recent downtown developments, may be used for determining the Applicant's equitable share of the costs of the roadway improvements in Dupont Plaza, upon which the World Trade Center is dependent. The relationship between the timing of the project and the required Dupont Plaza roadway improvements also remains an Issue of regional concern. 3. Parkin For office towers, the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance requires one space for every 400 gross square feet of floor area. However, the project is located in the Central Commercial District (C-3) In which there are no minimum parking requirements. The City has, however, adopted parking policy guidelines that suggest that one space be provided per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Using this guideline, 599 spaces would be required for the World Trade Center project. Although the ADA claims 1,487 parking spaces available in the garage, the May 20, 1980 design and construction contract between the City and the builder, Miami Center Associates, Inc., calls for 1,456 spaces. 82--463 48 The University of Miami, under the terms of its lease for space In the Convention Center, has priority access to 25 spaces on a _daily basis. In addition, the University can, at its discretion, reserve an additional 300 spaces. There 1s a direct financial incentive for the University to do so: its lease with the City provides a 15 percent reimbursement on University guest room expenses In the complex hotel. Thus, Increased University use of its downtown Conference Center In the Convention Center will provide additional benefit by having its guests use the Hotel. Thus, since no cost is borne by the University in reserving its full complement of 325 spaces, it must be assumed that, for its own convenience, such reservations will be made frequently, reducing the parking available in the garage by 325 spaces. Furthermore, the Hotel Is also allocated 24.9 percent (or 363 spaces) of all parking in the Trade Center garage. Thus, of 1,456 total spaces, a maximum of 766 would be available to Trade Center occupants on any one day. In addition, one must remember that the Knlght/Hyatt Convention Center, a 4,000 seat facility, will also place significant demand on the parking garage. Thus, it is apparent that a substantial number of potential World Trade Center garage users will be displaced to nearby Dupont Plaza garages, which do not themselves meet the desired standard of 1 space per thousand square feet of gross floor 49 84-463 area. An additional adverse effect of this displacement Is to shift project traffic to the Dupont Plaza roadway system. In other words, In order to park, motorists will have to use the routes through Dupont Plaza (the 1-95 ramp and surface street system), resulting in a Larger share of project traffic than Is necessary on these roadways. 50 Uw-463 . b ., Alk 113 PART IiI - DEVELOPMENT ISSUES A. DVCA ADMINISTRATION OF THE BINDING LETTER OF INTERPRETATION PROCESS As shown throughout this assessment, the City -owned Trade Center/Convention Center Garage is an Integral component of the proposed project structurally, operationally, and financially. Structurally, the garage was designed to support the 35 story structure, and to provide space for elevators and utilities for the tower. The majority of space on the ground floor Is reserved for pedestrians and freight access to the tower, and, in total, an estimated 100,000 square feet of the garage are taken up by non -parking areas devoted to Trade Center use. This reduces the available parking area by 18 percent. Operationally, the garage will provide parking for Trade Center employees and vlstors, though not in an adequate amount to support project parking demand even If 50 percent of all Trade Center trips use transit. Although the Trade Center is not assigned a specific number of spaces in the garage, morning work trips peak between 8:30 and 9:00 a.m., earlier than the start of most convention functions. Thus, employees of the Trade Center will have a competitive edge over Convention Center visitors, who would tend to arrive later in the day, in finding available parking spaces. Realistically, therefore, the garage will be filled primarily by the Trade Center users, rather than by Convention Center visitors. 51 84w-463 SAv-4 i 0 Further, since the hotel and the Convention Center are located directly south of the 1-95 Downtown Connector, the Miami Center II garage in Dupont Plaza actually provides more direct access to these facilities than the "Convention Center" garage. By virtue of the convenience of direct vehicle access to the Miami Center it Dupont Plaza garage via the bifurcated ramps, Its ease of access by hotel and Convention Center guests at least equals, and may Indeed exceed, that of the City -owned garage. No parking is being provided by the Applicant. Rather Trade Center employees and patrons must rely on the City -owned parking garage on which the Center is being constructed. The construction cost of the garage is estimated at approximately $15.7 million. While the garage is designed with 1,456 parking spaces, prior allocation of spaces for the hotel and University of Miami leave a maximum of 768 parking spaces, or 52.7 percent, for the tenants of the Mlaml World Trade Center. Thus, on an available space basis, a b7.3 million dollar public (federal and City) investment was made to provide parking for the proposed World Trade Center project. Excluding the $5.0 million dollar federal subsidy (U.S. HUD Urban Development Action Grant) for the construction of the garage, the City's share of the public Investment allocated to the proposed project Is approximately $5.6 million. This cost is being financed by City -Issued revenue bonds. 52 BX"3 In its November 21, 1980 Binding Letter Determination, the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs found as a "Finding of Fact" that: The parking garage, which will serve the parking requirements of the Miami Trade Center and the Convention Center as well as provide the building foundation for the Miami Trade Center is presumed to be an Integral part of the Miami Trade Center develoment and, therefore, is Included In this development of regional impact determination. Thus, logically, their "Conclusions of Law" included the following: Evidence has not been submitted which would successfully rebut the presumptive threshold of Rule 22F-2.07, F.A.C. Therefore, the Miami Trade Center, including the parking garage, is a Development of Regional Impact (emphasis added). Although the Department's binding letter rules include a provision for applicant request for reconsideration, no such request was made by the World Trade Center developer. Despite this Department decision, which, by law, binds the developer, regional council, and local government, the City of Miami Commission, on March 19, 1981, passed Resolution #81-203, authorizing issuance of a building permit for "construction of the World Trade Center Bullding and Garage" (emphasis added). Council staff, by letter dated March 25, 1981, notified the Mayor of Miami and Department of Veteran and Community Affairs that Chapter 380.031, F.S., defines a development order to include "any building permit, zoning permit, plat approval, rezoning, certification, variance, or other action having the effect of permitting development..." Further, a local government may not Issue any such development order for a Development of Regional Impact until the project has undergone the review and recommendation requirements of Chapter 380.06, F.S. 53 y; 0 Although the Department is responsible for enforcement of Chapter 380, and is legislatively provided with Injunctive powers to ensure that enforcement, it took no action to uphold either 380 or its Binding Letter Determination. The World Trade Center Applicant subsequently filed an Application for Development Approval (ADA) with the Council, which was reviewed for information adequacy, pursuant to s. 380.06(9)(b), F.S. By letter dated September 28, 1981, Council staff notified the Applicant of Inadequacies in its ADA, including the following comment: The bulk of the revisions necessary are a result of non-compllance with the conclusions of law and administrative order of the Division of Local Resource Management in the Miami Trade Center binding letter (SLID 1181-006), regarding inclusion of the parking garage as an Integral element of the DRI application for development approval. The Council is charged, under State law, to review all aspects of the development proposal, consistent with the guidelines provided in s. 380.06(11)(a). By letter of November 9, 1981, the Applicant transmitted to the Council a copy of an October 21, 1981, letter from DVCA to the Applicant, which erroneously states: ...the arkin ara a was not identified as a function of the Ora a Center under the Findings of Fact, therefore, it should not have been included under the Conclusions of Law (emphasis added). As previously specified, the Binding Letter states, as a Finding of Fact, that "the parking garage, which will serve the parking requirements of the Miami Trade Center ... as well as provide the building foundation for the Miami Trade Center, Is presumed to be an integral part of the Miami Trade Center Development and, therefore, 89-w463 54 is included in this development of regional impact determination." The -Department, however, in Its October 21, 1981 letter, amended its determination as follows: Conclusion of Law No. 3 on page eight of the Binding Letter for Miami Trade Center Is hereby amended. Conclusion of Law No. 3 should read, "Evidence has not been subitted which would successfully rebut the presumptive threshold of Rule 22F-2.07, F.A.C. Therefore, the Miami Trade Center is a Development of Regional Impact." Thus, the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law in the Trade Center Binding letter now are directly contradictory. Thus, eleven months after the binding letter had been issued, 7 months after notification of Issuance of a building permit in violation of the binding letter, and 2 months after the start of the Councll'DRI review, the Department acted to amend its Binding Letter Determination, rather than enforce Chapter- 380. In acting to amend the World Trade Center Binding Letter, the Department also violated its own rules. As stated In a staff letter to the Department, dated November 6, 1981, We have reviewed Department rules, Chapter 913-16, FAC, pertaining to this action by the Division. Rule 9B-16(15) states: 11(15) A request for reconsideration of a binding itter shall be granted by the Division If the applicant's request alleges that there are additional material facts not previously considered or that the Division's findings of fact or conclusions of law are substantially Inaccurate. If a request for reconsideration is not timely flied with the Division or If such request does not specify disputed issues of material fact, the Dlvlston shall, within 7 days of receipt, deny in writing the request for reconsideration. Dental of a request for reconsideration shall constitute final agency —+I.Qn 463 55 0 , 0 regarding the application for a binding letter..." With respect to the timing of the request for reconsideration, Chapter 9B-16(14) stipulates: "...The Binding Letter of Interpretation shall be final agency action unless, within thirty (30) days of the date of filing of said determination the applicant requests in writing a reconsideration of the Binding Letter of Interpretation including an opportunity to present additional testimony..." As you are aware, upon receipt by the Division of such a reconsideration request, Chapter 9B-16(15) provides that: "AlI additional information or evidence shall be submitted to the Division by the applicant within 90 days of the date the request for reconsideration is received by the Division and shall be provided to the entities (sic) specified in Section 9B-16(2)." For further clarification, the above -referenced section, 9B-16(2), stipulates: 11(2) A copy of the entire appilcatlon...shall be provided by the applicant to the regional planning agency..." Based on the above -enumerated stipulations of law, we note that the South Florida Regional Planning Council has not received, within or outside the prescribed time periods cited In the Department's Rules as they relate to the Trade Center determination, any request for reconsideration, additional application, information, statements of disputed tact, or, pursuant to s. 9B-16(16), a petition request for a formal hearing under Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In response to the Council staff letter, the Department, on December 21, 1981, maintained: The Division amended the Conclusions of Law for the Miami Trade Center not in response to a reconsideration request but to alleviate a confusing and contradictory statement... DVCA's actions on this binding letter are another instance of the ad hoc decision making that the Council has objected to over time and that the First District Court of Appeals rejected In 1977. 56 62-w463 0 4 Substantive standards of general applicability for Department decisions on binding letters have not yet been adopted, by rule, as requ-Ired by the Court. Further, this action by DVCA is the first instance of state intervention during an ongoing DRI review to amend a binding letter, upon which a regional council relied in carrying outs its responsibilities, to exclude portions of a development from DRI review. The result of that intervention, in this case, was a delay in processing the application; a waste of Council resources during information adequacy review, increasing Council and developer costs; a final ADA which includes inadequate transportation data for complete conduct of Council responsibilities; and a concommitant additional increase to the costs of the review, as staff was required to attempt to obtain adequate information from other sources and to conduct independent analyses. 82"-463 57 V B. TRANSPORTATION DATA, INFORMATION, AND ANALYSIS INADEQUACIES The Transportation Impact section of the Wor-id Trade Center ADA contained substantially inadequate information. Prepared by the consultants who prepared the Watson Island ADA, which was appealed by the Council, due, in part, to transportation information inadequacy, the World Trade Center ADA suffers similar deficiencies, described previously In this assessment. The Hearing Officer's (State Department of Administrative Hearings) findings of fact in the Watson Island case specify deficiencies that also occur in the World Trade Center ADA; Data provided by the City of Miami in support of Its contention that the proposed development would have no significant traffic impact is deficient because it understates the traffic impact of the proposed development, overstates roadway capacities, and understates increased levels of roadway usage that are likely to result without regard to the Watson Island development.... The City has contended that trattic growth on the MacArthur Causeway between 1980 and 1985 can be estimated at 2.27 percent. This estimate is based upon growth reflected during the year 1975 to 1979 at one location on the causeway. The Dade County Department of Traffic and Trans ortatiorr and the Florida Department of Transportation consider that 3.5 percent Is a more realistic growth figure. This latter figure is more credible, and is itself conservative when other large planned developments in close proximity to the MacArthur Causeway are considered. These Include projects known as Fisher Island, Ball Point, Downtown Government Center, Dupont Plaza, Southeast Financial Center, and World Trade Center. (Emphasis added, Finding of Fact V , DOAH, Case No. 80-1843). In accordance with The Matter of Three Rivers Project, Lake County, Florida DRI 674-87, Document No. 74-2 (September 5, 1974, accepted and adopted by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, at page 8), the Hearing Officer recommended dpnlal of the Watson 58 82w-463 4 Island Development Order and a resubmittal of a new, adequate ADA to the Council for review pursuant to s. 380.06. The Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commisson (FLWAC), while adopting all of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, Including those related to information sufficiency, approved the City's DO, subject to the future conduct of studies to provide the adequate information that the Applicant had refused to supply in the ADA. As a notable departure from the provision of s. 380.06, the FLWAC further decided that state agencies - not the regional council - would review the information when It became available. In recommending Council appeal of the FLWAC Watson Island Final Order, the staff analysis (Agenda Item #5a, October 5, 1981, pp. 12-1 4 ) stated: The entire ad hoc arrangement established by the FLWAC for granting a conditional approval to Watson Island is fraught with legal, procedural, and substantive difficulties. It Watson Island were the only project to be affected by this action, the significance of these issues would be less critical. Unfortunately, FLWAC action establishes precedent for all future DRis. if unchaliendged, this FLWAC action on Watson Island would: 1. Allow an applicant to refuse, with impunity, to provide adequate information on development plans during the DRI review process at the local level 2. Allow an applicant, instead, to prepare necessary Information for state agency review and recommendation, after the regional and local review and approval is complete. 3. Substitute a staff there is no legal information requl rev ew and report agency review procedure, for which basis, for applicant compliance with the ements of s. 380.06(9)(b), the regional requirements of s. 380.06(11), and the 82-463 59 4 local approval and Its attendant requirements of s. 380.06(13). 4. All -ow an applicant to substantially modify development plans described in the ADA submitted to the regional council and local government during a subsequent State agency review. 5. Relegate regional councils and local governments to the role of providing comments to the state agencies conducting DRI reviews. 6. Abridge the right, pursuant to s. 380.07, for regional councils and/or local governments to appeal orders for development projects with unresolved adverse Impact, since final plans will not be prepared, nor their impacts determined, until after the opportunity for an appeal is passed. 7. Substitute State agency decisions on the adequacy of "curative measures" for regional and local determination of what is adequate for impact mitigation, since these measures similarly will not be defined until after the appeal period lapses. Thus, this FLWAC action establishes not merely a precedent, but also an incentive, for developers to refuse to comply with Chapter 380 requirements, since their refusal, it appealed, would have the practical effect of removing them from the DRI process, as now defined by statute and case law, and any further local or regional review of their development plans, regardless of Impact. The precedent of this FLWAC action for all future DRI reviews to be conducted by this Council and its local governments, as well as by all other regional councils and local governments, cannot be ignored. Council action to let the FLWAC action stand, without appeal, would effect a majaw change In the present balance between local and State land use authority. (emphasis added). The Council voted not to appeal the FLWAC Final Order. Due to the Trade Center Applicant's refusal to provide adequate Information In this ADA, Council staff was required to devote substantially greater effort to identifying basic data for review of this project than Is either appropriate or envisioned and '''463 lb 0 local approval and its attendant requirements of s. 380.06(13). 4. Wow an applicant to substantially modify development plans described in the ADA submitted to the regional council and local government during a subsequent State agency review. 5. Relegate regional councils and local governments to the role of providing comments to the state agencies conducting DRI reviews. 6. Abridge the right, pursuant to s. 380.07, for regional _ councils and/or local governments to appeal orders for development projects with unresolved adverse impact, since final plans will not be prepared, nor their impacts determined, until after the opportunity for an appeal is passed. 7. Substitute State agency decisions on the adequacy of i "curative measures" for regional and local determination of what is adequate for impact mitigatlon, since these measures similarly will not be defined until after the appeal period lapses. Thus, this FLWAC action establishes not merely a precedent. but also an incentive, for developers to refuse to comply with Chapter 380 requirements, since their refusal, if appealed, would have the practical effect of removing them from the DRi process, as now defined by statute and case law, and any further local or regional review of their development plans, regardless of impact. The precedent of this FLWAC action for all future DRI reviews to be conducted by this Council and Its local governments, as well as by all other regional councils and local governments. cannot be ignored. Council action to let the FLWAC action stand, without appeal, would effect a major change In the present balance between local and State land use authority. (emphasis added). The Council voted not to appeal the FLWAC Final Order. Due to the Trade Center Applicant's refusal to provide adequate information in this ADA, Council staff was required to devote substantially greater effort to identifying basic data for review of this project.than 1s either appropriate or envisioned und1;e-i-4663 60 o��ii 4 E! 380.06. For example, since the Applicant's traffic assignments could not be.relied upon, determination of the World Trade Center's equitable share of the costs of Dupont Plaza Improvements required recalculating Southeast Bank's and Miami Center's financial contribution, based on projected average dally vehicle trips, a less precise measure than the originally used percentage contribution to traffic at each intersection and on each link in Dupont Plaza. Further, as detailed in previous sections, some data, estimates, and projections simply could neither be obtained nor developed by Council staff. For example, although FDOT and City consultants are currently undertaking numerous studies of the Dupont Plaza area, including assignments of future Trade Center traffic, Council staff found, upon analysis, that no trips had been assigned to the north entrance of the Trade Center/Convention Center garage. In conversation with the consultants, staff discovered that no one had ever advised the consultants that there was a north entrance to the Trade Center garage. Further, one consultant is using 450,000 square feet of space for the Trade Center (the figure provided by the Applicant to the State for Binding Letter Determination), rather than the correct 600,000 square feet, In developing traffic data. Thus, these traffic assignments also could not be used. It Is Important to note that the above specified and previously described problems in the Council obtaining or generating more detailed transportation data occurred for a project located In one 61 U-463 of the most heavily studied areas of the Region. Public information is even less available for most other areas, due to the fact that information for planning purposes is often substantlally different from that required for project specific impact analysis. Indeed, it would be impossible for any public agency to collect or maintain data that would be applicable, regardless of the type of development, to specific sites or areas In its jurisdiction. This, of course, Is the reason that State and local regulatory programs require a developer to submit documents such as the DRI Application for Development Approval. In the case of the World Trade Center project, the Council Is able to proceed, despite these inadequacies, since the 1-95 Bifurcated ramps and improved Dupont Plaza surface street system are already planned. Should other applicants and consultants for projects In other areas also begin to also refuse to provide credible data, actuate impact review in the DRI process will be seriously jeopardized. 62 8Z-463 W C. EQUITABLE FUNDING PARTICIPATION IN CBD CORE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Based upon the Applicant's inadequate traffic analysis, Including i unsubstantiated low trip generation rates, exclusion of all but work trips, assumption of extraordinarily high transit use rates, assumption of operation of unfunded roadway and transit system improvements not scheduled for completion until after project completion, misstatements of parking availability, and Incorrect determinations of roadway capacity and levels of service; the Applicant has not proposed to fund any roadway improvements. The Hyatt Hotel, the James L. Knight Convention Center, the Miami World Trade Center and the Trade Center/Conventlon Center Garage have been developed conceptually and, indeed, to the description contained within the Convention Center and Garage Revenue Bond, as a single "complex". Yet, other than interna► street modifications, neither the City nor the Applicant has committed funding to construct critical roadway improvements necessary to support the intensification of development to the Miami CBD. The two Developments of Regional Impact in Dupont Plaza: Southeast Bank Financial Center and Miami Center 11, have agreed to fund their share of roadway, transit station, and pedestrian Improvements necessary to keep Dupont Plaza traffic at minimally acceptable levels of service. Southeast Bank Financial Center Is committed to fund an estimated $3.44 million (1982 dollars), while the 63 82--463 corresponding contribution by the Miami Center II developer is S13.76 million (1982 dollars). These contributions towards the construction of the 1-95 bifurcated ramps were required In the form of "front -ending loansP1 where the developers would provide "fair -share" financing and, under financing plans to be developed by the City, County, and State, would be reimbursed by the public agencies. Since the initial cost estimate developed by FDOT for the bifurcated ramps - $14.6 million, construction costs have escalated more quickly than the general inflation rate, and revised design estimates have increased the cost of the 1-95 bifurcated ramps to S27 million (1982 dollars) and the Miami Avenue Bridge to $24.9 million (1982 dollars). Of this, there are front-end sources for only $17.2 million (1982 dollars). Since approval of the Dupont Plaza projects, the City has added, and the Applicant proposes to add, substantial development adjacent to Dupont Plaza. This development will, during the roadway construction period (1983-85) and thereafter, add substantial traffic to Dupont Plaza and other roadways in the CBD core, for which private developer commitments for contributions have been obtained for only a portion of the cost of improvements. it 1s recommended that the Applicant and the City share funding the unmet portion of 1-95 bifurcated ramp construction. 64 82`463 This allocation of costs, In the absence of reliable traffic analysis, should be based upon an average cost of $810.17 per vehicle tripper day resulting from the analysis in the Southeast Bank Financial Center and Miami Center II DRIB and increased by the increase In the Consumer Price Index relative to December, 1980. Based upon the staff estimate of 4,087 vehicle trips per day generated by the Miami World Trade Center, the Applicant's fair share contribution to the 1-95 Bifurcated Ramp improvements Is $3.31 million 0 982 dollars). In order to keep consistent and equitable terms among the three developers of the DRIs in Miami CBD core, It is recommended that this funding be provided under a similar "front -ending" arrangement. In addition to front -ending loans, direct contributions to surface roadway improvements and exit ramps leading from the bifurcated ramps directly Into the Miami Center II garage were required of the Dupont Plaza developers. These direct contributions totalled $2.31 million (1980 dollars) for Miami Center it and $374,000 (1980 dollars) for Southeast Bank Financial Center. These direct contributions averaged 0.58 percent of total project construction cost. In the absence of more detailed traffic Impact Information, it is recommended that the Miami World Trade Center developer also contribute 0.58 percent of total project cost (Including the Implicit portion of the Miami World Trade Center garage projected to 65 UmP463 44 it be used by the project). This would amount to $416,000 In dliect contiibutlon for any needed surface street Improvements. The balance of uncommitted funds for the I—(a5 bifurcated ramps is — $6.49 million (1982 dollars)o which should be borne by the City of — Miami as developer of the Convention Center and the local government responsible for encouraging and sponsoring massive development in the CBD without an adequate physical or financial plan to provide necessary Infrastructure. 66 82-w463 i D. TIMING OF ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS TO SUPPORT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT the -pitfall of securing financing for needed transportation Improvements from developers, without comparable commitments from local and State governments to provide the required public funds and build the improvements, Is highlighted by the ongoing problems with, and discussions surrounding, which governmental agency will take responsibility for reimbursing the Southeast Bank and Miami Center developers for their front -ending loans. The Council recommended in Its review of these projects that certificates of occupancy (COs) be withheld by the City until either a front -ending agreement with the applicants or a public sector - financing package, for construction of the 1-95 bifurcated ramps, is committed. So far, the City, County, and the State have each indicated that adequate public funding is simply not available to fund these improvements, and various financing plans are still at the "discussion" stage. Great hope was placed In the 1982 Legislature passing the 1 cent sales tax increase; yet Inaction to date does not augur well for this funding source. In the meantime, Southeast Bank Financial Center and the City entered into an agreement by which Southeast Bank would provide a Letter of Credit that cannot be drawn upon by the City until an as yet unidentified public agency enters into an "equitable reimbursement" with the developer. Since the City/Southeast 67 83-463 agreement would allow COs to be issued for the Financial Center, regardless of whether or not the Letter of Credit funds ever become available to -the public for 1-95 ramp construction, the agreement violates the Development Order and Is subject to Council appeal. Thus, the developer Is currently working with the City to revise the agreement to be consistent with DO requirements. Southeast Bank Financial Center is currently under construction; therefore, it Is critical that this issue be resolved early to avoid costly delays later. The most recent proposed FDOT schedule for construction of the bifurcated ramps (construction beginning January, 1984) and the Miami Avenue Bridge (construction starting July, 1984) must be considered optimistic, since so little progress has been made In reaching financing agreements. Yet, the World Trade Center Applicant based the ADA traffic analysis on these improvements being in place and the DCM system In operation at project completion (1984). Rather than these transportation system improvements being operational at the proposed opening date of the World Trade Center, it Is more likely that, in the best case, construction of these Improvements will begin at that time, with the result that 4,087 new vehicle trips will occur in the Dupont Plaza area simultaneous with massive disruption of the street system. At worst, project trips will be loaded onto the existing, woefully inadequate roadway system for an uncertain number of years. 82"P463 A At some point the City must fulfill Its responsibility to ensure adequate public Infrastructure and facilities rlor to approving developments that produce more traffic, reducing roadway levels of service and, therefore, Increasing traffic congestion, travel time and cost, air pollution, and energy use for all citizens, and reduce the Miami CBD's competitive accessibility within the Region. Developer loans do no one any good, If public agencies cannot agree on which will take responsibility for Improving the roadways. City of Miami motorists and other regional residents cannot drive on letters of credit. Unless the City is wlIIIng to commit to ultimate responsibility for reimbursing the Dupont Plaza and World Trade Center developers for their loans, the City should withhold building permits for the Trade Center and any other development not already approved in the Immediate area of Dupont Plaza, until funds are committed by another source* If approval of World Trade Center construction is delayed until the public Infrastructure is assured to coincide with project completion, the detrimental economic effects to the Region and the City may be relatively minor. As indicated by the Applicant, 800 of the 2,380, or just over 1/3, of project employees would be relocated from existing bank offices In the City of Miami. Of the remaining two-thirds of employees in the Trade Center, an unknown but substantial portion may also be drawn from existing 82-463 69 44 a Ioffice spice in the area. Many firms engaged In aspects of iInternational trade, foreign consulates, and trade missions have been -or are expected to be approached for possible relocation in the 1 Trade Center. The Miami World Trade Center project wlII not only draw upon existing firms in the Region, but will also compete with other recently approved and committed projects. A recent article in the Miami Herald, for example, reported that among the committed tenants of the 35-story Ball Point (Miami Center 1) office building were "a number of major law firms specializing In international law." A recent study by Coldwell Banker has found that vacancies in the Miami CBD have been Increasing from under 3 percent in 1980 to approximately 5 percent in January, 1982. For Dade County as a whole, office vacancies Increased from 2 to 4.2 percent in the last year. With the scheduled opening of the Miami Center I office building, the vacancy rate In the downtown Is expected to.increase further. As the Miami CBD is often considered an "office relocation market," new office developments in the area tend to result in temporary vacancies in existing buildings. Thus, the Miami World Trade Center can be expected to either have some difficulty In achieving acceptable occupancy levels, or will create office vacancies elsewhere In the Region. In conclusion, it appears that within the timeframe of scheduled project completion, other alternatives will be available for firms WaP463 70 requiring space In the Miami CBD. Those already located In the area may have the option of staying in their existing facilities or relocating to'other space in the CBD, while those being brought into the Region for the first time can move Into other available space. While the City has played an active role in encouraging and supporting private investment and directly sponsoring public facilities in the CBD, It must bear its primary responsibility for the continuation of growth and redevelopment in its commercial core, by ensuring the timely provision of transportation infrastructure. The advantages of the concentration of economic activity, primarily convenient access, can be dissipated by the failure to act decisively In accordance with a viable plan for growth management. 71 82-463 E. INTEGRATION OF DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT The artificial separation of the World Trade Center Tower and the World Trade Center Garage, formally established by the ad hoc decision of DVCA, represents only the tip of the problem of functionally integrated, but developmentally Isolated, development in the Miami CBD. In the Council's review of Dupont Plaza and Ball Point DRIs, coordination of the three projects was enhanced through a simultaneous review of the two major projects, with extensive consideration given to functional integration with the previously approved Miami Center I DRI. The World Trade Center, through the commonality of the garage, DPM Station, protected pedestrian passageway, and service access road through the Convention Center, Is functionally linked to the hotel and Convention Center. Furthermore, through ownership and development interests of Earl Worsham and the City of Miami in each of these three projects, financial and marketing interests are shared are wel I. Advantages to the City, the Applicant, and the Region could have resulted by an integrated development approach to these projects, rather than a piecemeal approach apparently selected to avoid the DRI process. First, adequate parking facilities for all users in the complex should have been provided. Instead, patrons and employees are forced to compete for inadequate parking facilities, and unmet perking demand is shunted to adjacent public and private facilities. 72 82w-463 Secondly, while no single development component is suitable in scale or use to warrant financial investment In a cogeneration facility, all three projects together may have made a district cooling/heating cogenerator feasible. This type of electrical generating plant can provide significant energy savings to its users, nearly doubling the amount of useful energy obtained from the primary fuel by using otherwise waste heat to drive air conditioning systems and to provide hot water. The Downtown Government Center DRI, reviewed by the Council in April, 1981, will contain such a facility and, thus, County taxpayer costs for Center operations will be significantly reduced. In addition, an evaluation of the feasibility of a cogeneration plant In Dupont Plaza, required in the Development Orders for two DRIs located there, may result in such a facility for Miami Center I and II and Southeast Bank, thereby reducing operating costs. The Miami CBD has been and is projected to continue to be•a dynamic area with tremendous growth potential. However, much of this growth has taken place within the loose guidelines of the C-3 zoning district which places few conditions upon development. With the exception of the DRI process for the largest scale projects, there Is little attempt to provide assurance to the developer and the general public that adequate transportation and public facility infrastructure are available to support the types and magnitudes of 82-463 73 1 proposed projects. Furthermore, there Is no formal mechanism to indicate to developers the type or extent of public improvements that -may be expected of the developer of any particular property. Urban development planning need not be a stifling, restrictive process. Because of the massive public and private investment in the downtown core and In the peripheral Omni and Brickell Avenue extensions; Including Metrorail and the DCM system, parking garages, public river and bayfront parkways, and second level pedestrian walkways; an urban design plan, defining public amenity and infrastructure components and characteristics, should be developed and adopted by the City. This plan should incorporate requirements for redevelopment, specific to location, including standards for sidewalk width, scenic views, parking garages, landscaping and shading, pedestrian midblock walkways and arcades, bus turnout lanes, direct access to elevated rail stations, connections to district cooling heating systems, shopping gallerla, etc. Specific incentives, in terms of increased floor area ratios, reduction of City development permit fees, or other mechanisms could be provided to compensate for the added cost of the specified Improvements in particular locations. In this way, the City can be assured of a consistent set of public improvements to enhance the viability of Its commercial core over the longer term, while the development community can be aware of forthcoming demands placed upon private redevelopment schemes and include cost and design considerations early in the project planning process. 82"P463 74 The City has taken an increasingly active role in expanding and imprgving its'CBD as is evidenced by its participation In the development of the Convention Center, and through the sale of air rights for the Hyatt Hotel and the Miami World Trade Center. This dynamic participation can be refined, however, by avoiding "project opportunism," and implementing an urban plan based upon clearly established environmental, energy, and economic development principles and policies. Once Implemented, the current trend towards urban complexitication can be guided to optimize public and private Investment, while allowing private developments to bear their fair share of costs for needed facility Improvements. Further, if the City Itself and private developers, with the support of DVCA, are going to fragment projects to avoid DRI review, regardless of lost benefits to the community, It would be appropriate for the City to take advantage of the provisions of s. 380.06(21), which allows a Downtown Development Authority to do a master DRI for "any or all of the land" over which it has authority. Such a Downtown development plan, with specific land development regulations and a capital improvements program, would, upon approval by the Council, end the requirement for Individual project DRI reviews In the area covered by the plan. 75 82"P463 PART IV - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Development of Reglonal impact assessment for Miami World Trade .I Center Indicates that the project would have a number of positive regional impacts: • Up to 1,580 permanent new jobs would be generated by the project with an additional 800 relocated from existing office space in the Miami CBD. Nearly 4,600 new permanent full-time jobs could be generated in the four county Region, with a $75 million increase In total wages and a $280 million Increase In output value, of which $142 million Is value added to the regional economy. • A annual surplus of nearly $1.7 million dollars to taxing jurisdictions with approximately $815,000 for the City, $422,000 for Dade County, $401,000 for the Dade County School District, and $21,000 for the South Florida Water Management District. Nearly half of the City's fiscal surplus is from "a variable ground rent" which depends on the number of years of building occupancy, proportion of space occupied by firms involved in aspects of international trade, and cost of living. • Contribute substantial increased ridership of the DCM system, adding between 2,600 and 4,400 passengers per work day. • The project would support the expansion of international trade In the Region by providing a focus for interactions of firms engaged In trade i related activities. 76 83"-463 A Council evaluation Indicates that the proposed project should not create adverse Cmpact on ground water, lolls, animal life, vegetation, historical or archaeological sites, water supply, wastewater management, or solid waste disposal. In terms of adverse regional impact, Miami World Trade Center would: e Deteriorate air quality in the Miami CBD, exceeding acceptable air quality standards, and continue to do so untlI some time after 1987, stlII undetermined due to unrealistic assumptions in the ADA. e Increase potable water demand by an average of 67,000 gallons per day. e Increase annual energy demand within the Region by an equivalent of 93,000 barrels of oil. e Generate an average of 4.9 tons, or 17.3 cubic yards, per day of solid waste mater i a Is. e Place additional demands upon police, emergency rescue, and, fire services, and, by Increasing pedestrian activity and traffic congestion in the downtown core, reduce response times of these services to other developments in the area. e Generate nearly 4,100 dally vehicle trips on the downtown street network, which will contribute to detertoratlon of levels of service below "D" on many local and regionally significant roadways. The Um-463 77 A traffic analysis, however, assumed the completion of the DCM station — in the World Trade Center garage, the bifurcated ramps from the 1-95 Downtown Distributor leading Into the Miami Center 11 garage, the reopening of the Miami Avenue River Bridge, and the improved Dupont Plaza surface street system, none of which will be complete by the scheduled project opening. • Reduce the available parking space within the public garage which forms the base of the project, by approximately 18 percent due to structural, public access, and mechanical system requirements. i In addition to the above specified regional Impacts, five regional issues associated with the Trade Center project have been raised in the Council assessment. First, the belated DVCA determination that the Miami World Trade Center garage Is not part of the Miami World Trade Center Development of Regional Impact has been shown to be a fallacious assumption structurally, operationally, and financially. The Council's analysis of the project was hindered by this interpretation and, In fact, some potential recommendations to mitigate project Impacts were rendered moot by the fait accompil of garage and lobby approval. Second, the practice of submitting ADAs with outdated, misleading, and Inadequate data leads to inefficient, costly use of Council staff resources in conducting DRI reviews, as well as development delays, and seriously jeopardizes the DRI process. 78 83-463 Third, given the complete dependence of the proposed Florid Trade Center and other committed projects on an Improved Dupont Plata area transportation system, equitable participation by the Applicant In required improvements is analyzed, consistent with prior Council review of the DRIs under development by Holywell Corporation, the Miami Center Joint Venture, and Southeast Bank. Since these developments are completely dependent on the construction and operation.of the recommended roadway and transit facilities, the Council recommended in each assessment that the Applicants front end identified public sector costs, if public funds were not available to insure timely completion of the system. Fourth, the difficulties and pitfalls in relying on developer funding for the proposed bifurcated ramps to the 1-95 Connector, without a concommitant commitment from the public sector to take responsibility for ultimate reimbursement, are discussed. City commitment should precede any additional City project approvals in the Dupont Plaza area. Finally, the continued piecemeal redevelopment of the Miami C8D, without a strong urban plan identitying overall Infrastructure and public amenity guidelines, not only creates conflict In the use of limited physical resources, but reduces the ability of the City to achieve significant cost and energy savings. Fragmentation of projects to avoid DRI review is unnecessary. An alternate approach - preparation of a master DRI by the Downtown Development Authority - that would eliminate the need for individual DRI reviews Is discussed. 79 82-w463 I Recommendation Based on consideration of the above specified positive and negative Impacts and regional issues, it is the recommendation of the Council to the City of Miami Commission that the Application for Development Approval for Miami World Trade Center be APPROVED subject to Incorporation of the following conditions Into the Development Order: THE APPLICANT WILL: i. Obtain any permits from the South Florida Water Management District required pursuant to Ch. 16K-4.021 F.A.C. 2. Obtain required height variances from the City of Miami. 3. Incorporate into the project all energy conservation measures proposed in the ADA, specifically: • Sizing power company transformers closer to demand rather than connected load; • Using fluorescent lighting control within buildings controlled by local switches; • Investigating various lighting alternatives, Including task lighting, energy saving fluorescent lighting, and combined return air -lighting to determine which is more energy efficient; • Investigating the use of a central control system with the capability to control the air conditioning systems on a programmed schedule; 80 82"P463 • Adding power factor capacitor correction devices for improved power factor on large motors and determining most feasible installation location, I.e., at the motor or motor control switchboard; • Using energy efficient electric driven centrifugal water chilling units with an approximately 0.70 kw/ton energy rate; • Using a variable volume chilled water pumping system to reduce pumping horsepower; • Using individual air handling units on each level to reduce fan horsepower and provide good air transport factors; • Providing building wail Insulation which exceeds the energy code requirements, duct Insulation, and piping insulation; • Using reflective glass or the equivalent in the tower exterior facade; • Designing the parking garage to facilitate natural ventilation; • Making the building a cool light color to reflect the sun's rays. 4. Construct the building to allow for emergency helicopter evacuation from the roof of the office tower. 5. Collaborate with the City to incorporate security systems Into the design and operation of all portions of the project, Including the ground floor lobby, truck loading bays, service areas, pedestrian walkways and retail areas, garage 10th floor tower service areas, 81 82-w453 111 and tower lobby to assist in protecting employees and patrons from crime. 6. Fund, bond, or provide a letter of credit to the City and/or the State for any incremental costs to 1-95 ramp reconstruction necessitated by truck access to the project truck loading bays on S.E. 3rd Street. 7. Fund, bond, or provide a letter of credit to the City, County, and/or the State for up to $416,000, in 1982 dollars, for construction of City and/or County -identified surface street improvements in the Miami CBD prior to obtaining any building permits for the proposed development. 8. Front-end, which may include arranging loans to or bond purchases from appropriate governmental agencies, $3.31 million, in 1982 dollars, for the construction costs of the 1-95 bifurcated ramps, based on an equitable reimbursement agreement among appropriate parties which shall specify Interest rates and maturity dates, it a public sector financing package has not been committed by March 15, 1983. 9. Consolidate all original and supplemental Information submitted to the Council Into a revised ADA, and submit the document to the Council, the City of Miami, the Downtown Development Authority, the _- County Division of Traffic and Engineering, and the State land planning agency within 90 days from the date of issuance of the Development Order. 82m-463 82 'A THE CiTY WILL: 10. Ensure that grease interceptors are installed in the drainage system in the garage to remove pollutants from washdown water. 11. Ensure that access to the S.E. 3rd/4th Street entrance of the garage, which cuts through the Convention Center Building, will not be closed during normal working hours of the Miami World Trade Center except for reconstruction of the 1-95 Downtown Distributor and critical repair of the Convention Center or other emergencies. 12. insure that the required funds, bond, or letter of credit required In Condition 7 has been provided prior to issuing and building permit for development. 13. Withhold certificates of occupancy for the Miami World Trade Center until a public sector financing package for the 1-95 Bifurcated Ramp System is committed or the $3.31 million front ended funds are provided to the City by the developer pursuant to Condition 8. 14. obligate itself to ensure that funds for 1-95 ramp construction are available by March 15, 1983. Such obligation must specifically provide that, if state monies are not provided or an agreement for State reimbursement of City funds Is not executed, the City will, In collaboration with the County, provide funds to front-end construction costs of 1-95 ramp system. 83 82-463 w. IN 15Y 16. 17. 18. Collaborate with the Applicant to incorporate security systems into the design and operation of all portions of the project, including the ground floor lobby, truck loading bays, service areas, pedestrian walkways and retail areas, garage 10th floor tower service areas, and tower lobby to assist in protecting employees and patrons from crime. Evaluate preparation of an urban design plan, as described on page 74 of the DRI Assessment, and/or a master development plan for the Downtown Area, pursuant to s.380.06(21) and as described on page 75 of the Council report, to promote integrated development of the Downtown area. Incorporate the Application for Development Approval, as revised pursuant to Condition 9, by reference Into the Development Order for Miami World Trade Center as follows: "The Application for Development Approval Is incorporated herein by reference and relied upon by the parties in discharging their statutory duties under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Substantial compliance with the representations contained in the Application for Development Approval is a condition for approval unless waived or modified by agreement among the parties." Provide that the Development Order shall be null and void If the following activities are not completed within two (2) years from the date of Issuance of the building permit or the Development Order, whichever is later: obtaining all required permits and variances; the deposit of all monies, bonds, or letters of credit for City or County-Identifled surface street Improvements In the Miami CBD; cow1++ment of a public sector financing package or 84 U-463 I applicant provision of front -ended funds for construction of the 1-95_bifurceted ramps; and construction of the first ten stories of the project tower above the garage. 19. Specify monitoring procedures in the Development Order to Insure compliance with all specified conditions. 20. Designate an official to monitor compliance with all conditions of the Development Order. 21. Specify requirements for an annual report in accordance with Chapter 380.06(14)(c)(3). 85 82-w463