HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-80-0525C
RESOLUTION N0. E 0- 5 2 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION
AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE. OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER,
APPROVING WITH MODIFICATIONS, THE WATSON ISLAND
DEVELOPMENT, A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT,
PROPOSED BY THE CITY OF MIAMI LOCATED ON WATSON
ISLAND AND BAY BOTTOM ON BISCAYNE BAY AFTER
CONSIDERING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL,
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, THE
'RESPONSE TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA RFGIONAL PLANNING
COUNCIL STAFF ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR WATSON ISLAND", CITY
OF MIAMI (MAY 1980) INCORPORATED BY REFERF."ICE,
AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY
OF MII, ASCITY OF MI
„SUPPORTIVE ORDINANCE 8290,QUIRED SUBJECTYTOHTHE CONDITIONSIOF TFF
DOCUMENTS HEARINGNEVIORDER ASTREQUIREDyBYAFTER CHAPTERN380.07G FLLORIC
InA
FOLLOW" SEND L'THE TES� RESOLUTION TOCAFFEC AFFECTED AGENCIESRANDO
TO CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Administration has submitted
a complete Application for Development Approval for a Development
of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380.07, Florida Statutes, and
did receive a recommendation for denial of a Proposed Development
Order on June 2, 1980, as set forth in the Report and Recommendations
of the South Florida Regional Planning; Co ncil attache
t a h ld hereto
er to as
fabOCUExhibit "A"; and ITEM NO to
WHEREAS, the City Commission has considered the Report
and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning Council
and each element required to be considered by Chapter 380.11, Florida
Statutes, the Application for Development Approval and the "Response
to the South Florida Regional Planning Council Staff Assessment of
the Application for Development Approval of Watson Island";and
WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its
meeting held on June 4, 1980, Item No. 1, following an advertised
hearing, adopted Resolution No. PAB 17-80, by a 4 to 3 vote
recommending approval of the Development Order for Watson Island
Project, a Development of Regional Impact, in conformity with the
City of Miami Ordinance 8290; and
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
J U L 10 1980
4 gp-
5
5
WHEREAS, a recommendation from the Miami Planning
Advisory Board has been forwarded as required by Ordinance 8290; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission has determined that all
legal requirements of publication and 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 interest 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 RFSOLVED BY THE. COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. A Development Order approving, with
modifications, the Watson Island Development, a Development of Regional
Impact, proposed by the City of Miami, located on Watson Island and
bay bottom in Biscayne Bay, be and the same is hereby granted and
issued.
Section 2. The Application for Development Approval
and the "Response to the South Florida Regional Planning Council Staff
Assessment of the Application for Development Approval for Watson
Island", City of Miami, (May 1980, attached hereto as Exhibit "B")
are incorporated herein by reference and relied upon by the parties
in discharging their statutory duties under Chapter 380.07,Florida
Statutes. Substantial compliance with the representation contained
in said documents is a condition for approval unless waived or
modified by agreement among the parties.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to send
certified copies of this Resolution immediately to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs, Division of local Resource Management,
2571 Executive Center Circle East, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 and to
the South Florida Regional Planning Council, 1515 Northwest 167th
Street, Suite 429, Miami, Florida 33169.
*'SUPPORT;`,."'
DOCUMEN7f5
-2- FOLLOW"
80-525
Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to
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:
a. That the City Commission of the City of Miami,
Florida, as of the date of adoption below, has
issued a Development Order for the Watson Island
Development, a Development of Regional Impact,
located on Watson Island (unplatted) and associated
bay bottom lands in Biscayne Bay in the City of
Miami, Florida, more specifically described as
follows:
A parcel of land lying in Biscayne Bay,
City of Miami, Dade County, Florida,
known as "4JATSON ISLAND" and situated
between the Intracoastal Waterway and
the City of Miami Beach on each side
of a portion of "General Douglas
MacArthur Causeway", also known as
State Road A-1-A, as shown on the State
of Florida Right -of -Way Map, Section
No. (8706-112) 87060-2117 - Road No.
A-1-A, Dade County, according to the plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 68
at Page 44, Sheet #3, of the Public
Records of Dade County, Florida, said
"WATSON ISLAND" being more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point shown as P.T. Sta.
iv 47+16.98 on said State Road Right -of -Way
Map. Said Point of Beginning being also
_T- a point of tangency on the center line
�* of Mac Arthur Causeway, whose bearing
is 14 63 ° 54' 30" W and 2,336.0 feet
from the center of the Palm Hibiscus
Island Bridge; thence along, the radial
line S 26° 05' 30" W 66.6 feet more or
less to an intersection with the face
of an existing sloping apron bulkhead
adjacent to the Municipal Ship Channel;
thence along said existing face of
bulkhead more or less parallel to the
former State Road A-1-A Causeway
meandering 2.350 feet more or less to
its intersection with the face of an
existing concrete bulkhead; then N 16°
03' 34" W along said bulkhead which is
parallel with and approximately 200
feet westerly of said former State Road
-3-
80-525
e-
IDOCU'�AVN11
�S
RI
A-1-A Causeway, a distance of 1,370
feet more or less to its intersection
with the southerly realigned right -of
-way line of said State Road Right -of -
Map. said right-of-way line being 200
feet south of the center line of said
MacArthur Causeway; thence along said
southerly right-of-way N 88° 4955"
W 70 feet more or less to its intersection
with the face of an existing bulkhead,
said bulkhead being also the easterly
end of the west bridge, as shown on
said right-of-way map; thence along
said bridge bulkhead in a northerly
direction 300 feet more or less to
its intersection with the northerly
realigned right-of-way line and a
curve concave to the south having a
.,..dius of 1,441.69 feet; thence along
said northerly right-of-way curve in an
easterly direction 280 feet more or
less to its intersection with the
mean high water line of Biscayne Bav;
thence meandering along said mean high
water line in an easterly direction
1900 feet more or less; thence continuing
along said mean high water line in a
southeasterly direction 2,300 feet
more or less to the point of intersection
with the northerly right-of-way line
of MacArthur Causeway, said point also
being on a radial at P.T. Sta. 47+16.98,
as shown on said State Road Right -of -
Way Map; thence S 26° of 30" W along
said radial 65.00 feet to the n_oint
of beginning.
Containing 86+ acres; together with all
accretions, however resulting.
That the City of Miami, Florida, a municipal
corporation, is the developer of the Watson
Island Development;
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
development regulation applicable to the property;
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 ofthe same.
-4-
80-525
rA
w
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10 day of July , 1980.
MAURICE A. FERRE
MAURICE A. .,
ATTEST:
7�
RA i G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AllD APPROVED BY:
1�
f A. A E I C
AS ISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM A14D CORRECTNESS:
q-.2- W-
R . l/
CITY AT R,vEY � / SUPpO� DOC1, ,
WEN7-S
FOLLOW!,
-5-
80-525
/^
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
ff-
Let it he known that pursuant to Chapter 380.0 Florida Statutes, the Commission
of the City of Miami Florida has considered in public hearing held on June 26,
1980 and July 10, 1080 the issuance of a Development Order for the Watson Island
Development, a Development of Regional Impact, to be located on Watson Island
(unplatted) and associated bay bottom lands in the City of Miami, more specifi—
cally described as follows:
A parcel of land lying in Biscayne Bay, City of Miami, Dade County,
Florida, known as "WATSON ISLAND" and situated between the Intracoastal
Waterway and the City of Miami Beach on each side of a portion of
"General Douglas MacArthur Causeway", also known as State Road A-1—A,
as shown on the State of Florida Right —of —Way Map, Section No. (8706-112)
87060-2117 — Road No. A-1—A, Dade County, according to the plat thereof,
as recorded in Plat Book 68 at Page 44, Sheet #3, of the Public Records
of Dade County, Florida, said "WATSON ISLAND" being more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point shown as P.T. Sta. 47+16.98 on said State Road
Right —of —Way Map. Said Point of Beginning being also a point of tangency
on the center line of MacArthur Causeway, whose bearing is N 63° 54' 30" W
and 2,836.0 feet from the center of the Palm and Hibiscus Island Bridge;
thence along the radial line S 26° 05' 30" W 66.6 feet more or less to an
intersection with the face of an existing sloping apron bulkhead adjacent
w
to the Municipal Ship Channel; thence along said existing face of bulkhead
cn
more or less parallel to the former State Road A-1-A Causeway meandering
2,350 feet less to its intersection face
more or with the of an existing
pm:dam..
concrete bulkhead; thence N 16° 03' 34" W along said bulkhead which is
parallel with and approximately 200 feet westerly of said former State
sr�
Road A-1-A Causeway, a distance of 1,370 feet more or less to its inter-
section with the southerly realigned right-of-way line of said State
.._.�
Road Right -of -Way Map; said right-of-way line being 200 feet south of
U
the center line of said MacArthur Causeway; thence along said southerly
right-of-way N 88° 49' 55" W 70 feet more or less to its intersection
with the face of an existing bulkhead, said bulkhead being also the
3
easterly end of the west bridge, as shown on said right-of-way map; thence
along said bridge bulkhead in a northerly direction 300 feet more or less
to its intersection with the northerly realigned right-of-way line and
a curve concave to the south having a radius of 1,441.69 feet; thence
along said northerly right-of-way curve in an easterly direction 280 feet
more or less to its intersection with the mean high water line of Biscayne
Bay; thence meandering along said mean high water line in an easterly
direction 1900 feet more or less; thence continuing along said mean high
water line in a southeasterly direction 2,300 feet more or less to the
point of intersection with the northerly right-of-way line of MacArthur
Causeway, said point also being on a radial at P.T. Sta. 47+16.98. as
shown on said State Road Right -of -Way Map; thence S 26° 05' 30" W along
said radial 65.00 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 86± acres; together with all accretions, however resulting.
Pursuant to Chapter 380.06 Florida Statutes and after due consideration of
this proposed development with regulations, and the Report and Recommendations
of the South Florida Regional Planning Council, the Commission took the
following action: Approval of this development with modifications.
Finding of Facts With Modifications.
1. The development consists of the following projects.
80-525
/'
e_\
1. A themed amusement park with 40.000 square feet of shops and
50,000 square feet of food services -
Caribbean International Village featuring ethnic foods,
crafts, products and a lighthouse.
Turn -of -the -Century Promendade featuring a cultural hall
(1,500 seats), Royal Palm IMAS Theatre (500 seats), rail-
road station, tavern, shops and snack bars.
Old Florida Arts, Crafts and Amusement Area featuring shops,
boutiques and major amusement rides (railroad train, water
flume ride, hurricane coaster).
A waterfront amphitheater (4,000 seats).
Administrative and support facilities, including an automo-
bile service center.
2. Marina Facilities -
Expansion of the 40 slip City of Miami Marina to 165 slips.
New 198 slip marina on the north side.
A waterborne transit terminal.
Retention of the existing Miami Yacht Club and Miami Outboard.
Marine Club in their present locations.
3. International amphibious airline terminal -
Ui {
JRetention of Chalk's Airlines on the south side.
i 4. Municipal heliport, relocated to the north side.
[z� _.
-0
�•; r J 5. Gardens and Landscaping -
Q.. U 0 Retention of existing Japenese Gardens in the present
0 Lim location.
~ Extensive landscaping in all park and parking areas.
6. Parking Facilities -
Parking for 3,000 vehicles plus 75 tour buses.
Vehicular and pedestrian bridges crossing McArthur Causeway.
7. Infrastructure -
Relocation of the principal water main.
Water, sewer and other untilities on the site.
Transbay sewer utility.
2. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended that debt
service for all project bonds be paid from project revenues, not in-
volving pledges of City of Miami governmental revenues, as a condition
2 80-525
0. 1—.
for project approval. The Commission finds that this recommendation goes
far beyond the charge given to the Regional Planning Council in Chapter
380 Florida Statutes; that said pledge of City of Miami governmental
revenues are the minimum necessary to back the revenue bond issue, re—
lying on the advice of the revenue bond underwriters, Prescott, Ball and
Turbin, and on the successful bond validation by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
3. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended that the
Developer — Operator Agreement be modified so that all management fees
are paid from project revenues without pledging or obligating that the
City is subjected to by the Agreement, as a condition for approval.
The Commission finds that this recommendation goes beyond the charge
given to the Regional Council in Chapter 380 Florida Statutes; that
said pledges or obligations of City of Miami governmental revenues are
the minimum necessary to induce the Developer — Operator (Diplomat
World Enterprises, Inc.) to enter into the Agreement with the City,
relying on the advice of Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, charged with re—
view and evaluation of the Agreement.
4. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended
that the
master development plan be modified to eliminate or mitigate
the negative
`•-
:�• {�j,
impacts identified in the Report and Recommendations of the
South Florida
-;.
Regional Planning Council, as a condition for approval. The
Commission
..J
finds that the Application for Development Approval, the "Response
to the
South Florida Regional Planning Council Staff Assessment of
the Application
t
®
for Development Approval for Watson Island", City of Miami,
(May, 1980) and
further Conditions in this Development Order will eliminate, mitigate, or
modify, so far as feasible, the negative impacts identified in the Council
Report.
5. The South Florida Regional Planning Council has recommended that the
Application for Development Approval be modified to provide "adequate
consitant information accurately reflecting the project and its impacts
to serve as an adequate legal basis to protect and bind the City, the
Region and the State", and be re -submitted to the Council for DRI re-
view, as a condition for approval. The Commission finds that the
Application for Development Approval, together with the "Response to
the South Florida Regional Planning Council Staff Assessment of the
3 80-525
el ?"
Application for Development Approval for Watson Island", City of Miami
(May, 1980) contain adequate and sufficient information about the
project and its impacts at this conceptual stage and together with
further conditions in this Development Order, form a sound legal
basis which affected agencies can rely upon in their discharge of
statutory duties.
6. The Applicant recognizes the potential conflict between the proposed
expansion of the west side marina to 165 slips and proposals to expand
the north turning basin. The Applicant shall resolve the issue with
the Biscayne Bay Pilots Association, the Dade County Seaport Department
and affected cruise lines so as to a) allow the west side marina to be
developed as proposed in the Application for Development Approval or
b) be appropriately modified. The Applicant further stipulates that
within 24 months of the date of issuance of this Development Order and
prior to seeking permits for west side marina expansion the resolution
of this issue will be reported to the South Florida Regional Planning
Council.
7. The Applicant shall undertake studies to provide alternate means of
access to Watson Island including, but not limited to: increased mass
transit, remote off —site parking with shuttle service to the Island,
W N flat —rate limousine service from downtown Miami and Miami Beach,
' S waterborne transportation, and an information system via radio and
`i.LJ highway enunciator signs to notify in —bound motorists when Island
"J lots are full. The Applicant further stipulates that within 24
� � J
months of the date of issuance of this Development Order an imple-
•
0 mentation program and schedule will be reported to the South
Florida Regional Planning Council.
8. The Applicant shall undertake a mitigation plan for replacement of man-
groves and seagrasses within 6 months of commencement of construction
(as defined subsequently). Recognizing the removal of 470 square feet
of red, black and white mangroves, the Applicant will revegetate Picnic
Island in Biscayne Bay by planing mangrove seedlings in the ratio of
four seedlings for every mangrove eliminated on Watson Island, utilizing
the services of the Dade Marina Institute. The Applicant has previously
agreed to move one arm of the north -side marina due to the ecological
80-525
4
e"N'
restraints to the Holodule seagrass bed and to modify the helipad to re-
duce the impact in seagrass beds. Moreover, the Applicant stipulates
that, despite all these mitigating measures, 10,000 square feet of
Thalasia seedlings will be planted elsewhere in north Biscayne Bay
as a further mitigating measure.
9. The Applicant recognizes that key permits or approvals must be obtained
prior to commencement of construction (as defined subsequently) as
follows:
a) Complex source permit from the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulations;
b)
Surface Water Management Permit from South Florida Water
Management District pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV,
Florida Statutes;
c)
Approval of re -platting of Watson Island per Article IV,
W..
Section 10 of the City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
6871 from the Miami City Commission;
-
.�
�:w �
d)
Approval of construction and operation of additional recreational
CD
facilities in a P-R zoning district per Article XVIII-I Section
d U.
4 (1) of the City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 6871
from the Miami City Commission;
e)
Approval by the Miami City Commission of a negotiated sale of the
bond package to bond underwriters;
IO.The Applicant
further recognizes that additional permits or approvals must
be obtained
prior to undertaking certain aspects of the project, as follows:
a)
Building permits from the City of Miami, which review will in-
clude conformity to federal state and local laws and land
development regulations including the South Florida Building
Code and Federal Insurance Administration rate maps (for
flood hazards);
b) Conditional Use approval of docks in excess of 25 feet by
the Miami Zoning Board;
c) Approval by the Director of the Florida Department of
Natural Resources of marine -related aspects of the project
in conformity with Chapter 16C-17 FAC Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve Rules; and
5 80.525
I—,'
d)
Permits from Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation for marina, transbay utility pipe-
lines and heliport construction, which review will include
conformity to the Chapter 16C-17 FAC Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve Rules.
11. The Applicant shall:
a) Maintain the Japanese Gardens intact in its present location;
b) Where possible, maintain existing ornamental trees and shrubs
in their present location or as an alternative, existing
ornamental landscape material will be moved to other locations
W on Watson Island;
Zc) Where possible, use predominantly native species as additional
LU C) plant material in the park and parking areas; and
L O
A d) Eliminate two existing undesirable exotic species (Australian
A � �
C" Z5 � Pine and Brazilian Pepper);
••�,%�� e) Obtain tree removal or relocation permits from the Miami De-
partment of Building and Zoning Inspection.
12. The Applicant shall coordinate the future development of Chalk's Airlines
with the development plan for Watson Island, shown in the Application
for Development Approval.
13. The Applicant shall assure adequate fairway (minimum 150 feet) between the
proposed north -side marina and any proposed marinas on the south side of
Biscayne Island by reviewing applications for docks or marinas under the
City of Miami Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and also by evaluating leasing
proposals for City -owned bay bottom between Watson Island and Biscayne Island.
14. The Applicant shall designate a professional, experienced in soils, to
personally supervise, select from and approve the use of fill materials to
be used on the Watson Island Development in order to reduce potential
pollution hazards.
15. The Applicant is directed to consider wind orientation and solar radiation
in site design, building placement and roof slopes in final design to
achieve energy efficiency. The Applicant is also directed to review
security aspects of the project with the Miami Police Department, in
final design.
16. The applicant shall submit a report, 12 months from the date of issuance
of this Development Order and each 12 months thereafter until project
6 gp-525
completion, 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 12 months:
- A general description of construction progress in terms of
construction dollars and employment compared to the schedule in
the Applicant's Application for Development Approval;
- Demonstrated compliance with the City of Miami's affirmative
action program for minority construction employment and con-
struction contracts;
- Any unforseen environmental impacts and the applicants' efforts
to mitigate these impacts;
- Specific progress response to paragraphs 4, 6, 7, S, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15 and 17 of this Development Order, it being understood
that submission of this report is not a substitution for specific
W- reports required by these paragraphs;
C " - Accumulative list of all permits or approvals applied for,
i.. i? (7
�j approved or denied, including but not limited to paragraphs
9 and 10 of this Development Order;
0 Law - A statement as to whether any proposed project construction
` changes in the ensuing 12 months are expected to deviate sub-
stantially from the approvals included in the Development Order;
- Any additional responses required by rules adopted by the State
of Florida Department of Community Affairs.
The Planning Director, City of Miami Planning Department is hereby desig-
nated to receive this report, monitor compliance and assure compliance with
the provisions of this Development Order.
17. The Development Order shall be null and void if the construction has not
commenced within 24 months of the date of issuance of the Development
Order. "Commencement of Contruction" is defined, as follows:
a) Filling, grading and compaction of the entire site to within
6 inches of final grade;
b) Installation of underground utility infrastructure throughout
the entire site, i.e. water, sanitary sewer and gas lines, and
7 80-525
c) Completion of driving of piles to final refusal depth for
all large buildings and rides.
18. Documents which have been supplied to the South Florida Regional Planning
Council and any additional information requested subsequent to the
Council hearing will be incorporated into a complete document and supplied
to the Regional Planning Council, City of Miami, Dade County and the State
within 6 months of the date of the issuance of the Development Order.
19. The Application for Development Approval shall be incorporated by reference
into any Development Order issued by the City of Miami, as follows:
"The Application for Development Approval is incorporated
Cn
herein by
reference and relied upon by
the parties in dis—
`W
= �— 2
charging
their statutory duties under
Chapter 380, Florida
W �
Statutes.
Substantial compliance with
the representation
R0
contained
in the Application for Development
Approval is
J
CL U 0
a condition
for approval unless waived
or modified by
M Q
agreement
among the parties".
:i
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Watson Island Development complies with the Miami Comprehensive
Neighborhood Plan, is consistent with the orderly development and goals of
the City of Miami and is consistent with, and will comply with, local land
development regulations, being Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance 6811.
The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with the objec—
tives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the City of
Miami.
The proposed development does not unreasonably interfere with any of the
considerations and objectives set forth in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
The proposed development is inconsistent with the Report and Recommenda—
tions of the South Florida Regional Planning Council which recommended denial
of the project.
The Report and Recommendations of the South Florida Regional Planning
Council specifies changes in the Application for Development Approval that
would make it eligible for approval, pursuant to Section 22F-1.23, Florida
Administrative Code.
The City Commission desiring to overcome the objections of the South
Florida Regional Planning Council has addressed said specific changes, thereby
bringing the development proposal into consistence with the Council report
and making the project eligible for approval.
8 80-525
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF DADE
CITY OF MIAMI )
I, RALPH G. ONGIE, Clerk of the City of Miami,
Florida, and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby
certify that the attached and foregoing pages numbered 1
through 8, inclusive, contain a true and correct copy of a
Development Order for Watson Island authorized by Resolution
No. 80-525 adopted by the Commission of said City at a
meeting held on the loth day of July, 1980.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and
impress the official seal of the City of Miami, Florida,
this 14th day of July, 1980.
RALPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
MIAMI, FLORIDA
(Official Seal)
By:
Deputy City Clerk
``P I'`�'c
SUPPG
DOWNIEE�
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF DADE
CITY OF MIAMI )
I, RALPH G. ONGIE, Clerk of the City of Miami,
Florida, and keeper of the records thereof, do hereby
certify that the attached and foregoing pages numbered 1
through 5, inclusive, contain a true and correct copy of a
resolution adopted by the Commission of said City at a
meeting held on the loth day of July, 1980.
SAID RESOLUTION WAS DESIGNATED RESOLUTION
NO. 80-525.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and
impress the official seal of the City of Miami, Florida,
this 14th day of July, 1980.
(Official Seal)
RALPH G. ONGIE
CITY CLERK
MIAMI, FLORIDA
By:
Deputy City Clerk
DOCUIVIC-
FOLLOVVIP
rn
o C" rn
n ln ,OSEPH R. GRASSiE 0
.'�,. /', J J�', ink •'� Ciyanager'U�
i`
IO 1
July 15, 1980
1
,y
0
,h
Mr. Michael Garretson, Director
Division of Local Resource Management
Department of Community Affairs
2571 Executive Center Circle East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
RE: Watson Island Develop-
ment of Regional Impact
Dear Mr. Garretson:
Enclosed is a certified copy of Resolution 80-525 dated July 10, 1980
being a Development Order approving with modifications , the Watson
Island development, a Development of Regional Impact in the City of
Miami. Please note that the Resolution is responsive to recent amend-
ments to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. By copy of this letter, the
South Florida Regional Planning Council has also been supplied with
the Resolution.
Sincerely,
.� e,e4 --
m Reid, Director
Planning Department
JR / JM: ek
cc: Barry Peterson, Executive Director - South Florida
Regional Planning Council - 1515 N. W. 167th Street,
Suite #429 - Miami, Florida 33169
Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
John Gilchrist, Project Manager, Watson Island, NEAT Building
July 15. 1980
Mr. Richard P. Brinker, Clerk
Dade County Circuit Court
73 West Flagler Street
Miami. Florida 33130
Dear Mr. Brinker:
IOSEPH R. GRASSIE
City Manager
Enclosed, for recording in the official records of Dade County Flan ids
is a certified copy of City Commission Resolution 80-525 dated July
10, 1980 regarding Watson Island. Section 4 of the Resolution directly
pertains to this recording request, per recent amendments to Chapter
380 Florida Statutes.
Sincerely,
.AW�`
m Reid, Director
Planning Department
JR / JM: ek
ENCLO SUR ES"
cc: Ralph G. Ongie, City Clerk
John Gilchrist, Project Manager - Watson Island NEAT Building
P O :3�.�% ;W-A tit .r .,i. ,.i �;1 { i j. i'9•Mklb
e op�
a soi.trrim ND. F 0- a 2 5
A UD1A'T 04 OF TWE CITY OF MTAMI Cl"ISSION
ALMIO ItIM ISSVAIICE OF A NEVELDPMIT ORDtR.
APPROVING WITH MODIFICATIONS. THE WATSON ISLAM
DEVELOPMENT, A DEVELOPW-NI OF MCIONAL tMPACT,
PROPOSED by THE CITT OF FlAln 1111CATKD ON WATSON
ISLAND AND SAY BOTTOM Op SISCAYiR BAY AFTtR
CONSIDERIt1C THE REPORT AND RECOM EnDATIOMS OF
THE S01'TH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLA0111C, COIRICIL,
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. THE
itESPOTISE TO THE. sot?" n minA RFCloKAL Pu►wRt4. r
COITNCIL STAFF ASSESSMETTT OF T8r APPLICATIO4 FM
DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR WATSON ISLAND". CITY
OF KAKI (MAY 1980) I"1CnRPORATr.D BY R£FF..RI:"ICf .
A11D 111C PLAtINtNr ADVISORY BOARD Or THE CITY
or mwi, AS 1IRE0THE CITY OF InAMI
"SUPPORTIVE I1RDI:WICE 8290,nSVBJECTYTO THE CONDITIMS Or TNF
DE%'ELOPn.!"r ORDER MRDOCUMENTS NEARING AS REQIIRF.DyBYACHAP RNDII380.07. FLARITM
FOLLOW, SE11D THE RESOLLTION TO AFFECTED AT-EYCIF AND
TO CLF.RR OF THE CIRCUIT CnVPT I1' A'1P FOR DAT1E
COLUTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS. the City of Miami Administration has submitted
s complete Application for Develoxent Approval for a Devel4Mww t
of Regional Impact pursuant to Chanter 380.07. Florida Statutes, and
did receive a recommendation for denial of a Proposed tleveloonent
Order on June 2, 1980. an set forth in the Report and Recosnendatioes
7
of the South Florida Regional Planning C�O�u a to h1 )IDEA
As
"D CA:•
Exhibit "A"; and
ITEM
ne
WHEREAS, the City Cosnission has cons or t Reeort _
and Recomendations of the South Florida Rational Planning. Council
and each element required to be considered br Chapter 360.11, Florida ,j,gNa
Statutes. the Application for Development Approval and the "Fembosa
to the South Florida Regional Planning Council Staff Assesownt of
the Application for Development Aporoval of Matson Island";and }
WHEREAS. the Mimi Planning Advisory Ward. at its w
meettne bold on ,tune •. 1990. Item No. 1. follwift M advertised
heartna, adopted Resotutton Ito. !AS 11•90. by a A to 3 Vote L,
recommending approval of the Irwlopment Order !er ibtaoe Island .t.�.
Project, a Development of Regional bgwt. to eeeueralty with
City of Miami Ordinance 8290; nod
cm C0
a F
JUL i 0
a 4;
ii
f
RESPONSE TO THE
SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
STAFF ASSESSMENT
OF THE
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
FOR
WATSON ISLAND
a
This document is a rebuttal to and clarification of factual issues
included in the South Florida Regional Planning Council staff assess -
rent of the City of Miami's proposed Watson Island Development.
Review of the City of Miami's proposed Watson Island Development and
Application for Development Approval was scheduled for the May S, 1980
SFRPC regular monthly meeting. At the request of the City, the Council
granted a postponement of the Watson Island review and rescheduled it
for the June 2, 1980 SFRPC meeting to allow the City adequate time to
prepare a presentation responsive to the SFRPC staff assessment. The
Council's motion to postpone included stipulations that the City provide
a formalized rebuttal to be included in the Council's agenda packet and
delivered to the SFRPC staff no later than May 20, 1980. Further, the
motion stipulated that the document to be provided include no new in-
formation beyond that previously provided to the SFRPC staff in the
City's application for Development Approval and the City's responses
to the SFRPC staff requests for additional information in their adequacy
review.
The information included herein is being provided to the South Florida
Regional Planning Council in order to correct SFRPC staff interpretations
of the City's Application for Development Approval as provided to the
Council in the SFRPC Staff Assessment.
SFRPC COMMENT
RESPONSE
The applicant is proposing
This statement is not correct. The ADA states
to possibly relocate the
specifically in several places that the Japanese
Japanese Gardens. (The
p-
Garden will remain intact. This has been reitera-
applicant has presented
ted in subsequent responses to SFRPC question. Page
conflicting information
13-13 of the project description says... on this
possibility.)
"Japanese Gardens are to be retained...". Chapter
(Page 7).
18 (Vegetation and Wildlife) states the Japanese
Gardens "will remain intact" (Page 18-9). Page
18-12 (Question 18.C) says "There will be no change
in the Japanese Garden..." All maps submitted with
the ADA confirm that the Gardens will remain in
their present location. Furthermore, as recently
as March 1980, the response to the SFRPC specific _
-question "What vegetation —will be impacted or
removed for the project" was "see Question 18.0 of
the ADA." The allusion to the possible relocation
of the garden in the documents submitted appeared
in the Economic Research Associates Study (Page
D-15 of Appendix D which contain a historic
description of the park that merely said "the area
north of the Causeway has been -allocated to parking
and space for the relocation of the Japanese
Garden." It did not state that the Garden will in
fact be "removed." The management agreement also
allocated funds for the pssible relocation of the
gardens. In any event, any possibility of the
Japanese Gardens being relocated is Not of regional
impact.
The locations and land areas
This statement is not correct. The Applicant has
provided allocated for individual
land areas in accordance with the regulations rides'
and various other'struc`,
appearing in the SFRPC's own "DRI Application for
tures have not been provided
Development Approval Questionnaire" which requires
by the applicant
using Level II of the Florida Land Use and Cover
(Page 8).
Classification System. In addition, locations of
"individual rides and various other structures" as
described by the SFRPC are shown on Map H-2.
Location of the rides, however, cannot be construed;: is
to be of regional impact.
::Yrf
w
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Region IV 1375 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30309
May 12, 1980
Mr. Michael Lee
Post, Buckley, Schuh 6 Jernigan, Inc.
7500 N. W. 52nd Street
Miami, Florida 33166
Dear slr. Lee:
This confirms your telephone conversation with Jim Smith of this office
on May 7, 1980.
Please be advised that the current Flood Insurance Rate Map for Dade County
Florida is dated August 25, 1978.
Should you have additional questions, please feel free to contact this ofice
at (404) 881-2391.
Sincerely yotars,
3en�'t C. �Wooldlax'od,(—J�x.
Director 1-1
Insurance and Mitigation Division
QUESTION 18. ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURC M
VEGETATION AND WILDLIPE
SPRPC COMMENT
The proposed project would
eliminate most of the exis-
ting vegetation as parking
lots are proposed on that
part of the island which
has the greatest variety
and density of trees
(Page 21).
Applicant has declined to
provide acreage of Halophila.
Halodule, and Syringodium
that will be impacted. By
north marina or heliport
(Page 21).
RESPONSE
This statement is incorrect. Existing vegetation
will not be eliminated. The ADA specifically states
"The 'majority of the existing healthy vegetation on
Watson Island will be utilized in the final plan"
(Page 18-9). It further states "An attempt will be
made to keep the existing ornamental trees and
shrubbing intact." When this is not possible the
shrubs "will be boxed and moved to other locations
on Watson Island or elsewhere "(Page 18-9). A full
landscaping plan has been submitted as Map H-3.
This is incorrect.
The ADA has provided the total acreage of seagrasses
surrounding Watson Island (Page 18-7). The ADA
states that 6.9 acres of Halophila on the west side
of the island will be destroyed (Page 18-15). The
ADA further states that all of the recommendations
appearing in the "Survey of Watson Island Waters"
prepared by Dr. Anitra have been accepted and incor-
porated into the plan. As a result, the development
will not have a significant longterm impact upon the
remaining grasses.
This statement is incorrect.
Mitigation plan for marine Included as a part of the ADA is a copy of the
vegetation has not been agreement between the City of Miami Parks Depart -
supplied (Page 21). ment and the Dade Marine Institute for the "En-
vironmental Enhancement Program" (see Section 16).
Step 3 of the program is to "mitigate the impact
of the proposed Watson Island development." According
to the Director of Parks, the project "will assist
the Watson Island project by serving as a mitigating
action in regards to the enhancement of Biscayne
Bay.
11
A detailed mitigation plan for the 6.9 acres will
be submitted during the permitting process.
Marine faunal list This stament is not correct. Page 18-9 states that
remains incomplete recent studies and surveys indicate "aquatic fauna
(Page 23) abundances and species are very sparse." Table 18.3
contains a list of existing Watson Island wildlife.
In addition, Tables 17 through 42 in Appendix F
contain the complete inventory of all fauna found
in the recent survey of Watson Island Waters con-
ducted by Dr. Anitra Thorhaug. The 25 page inven-
tory contains the classification, identification,
location, and number of each marine animal found.
QUESTION 18. ENVIRONMENTL AND NATURAL RESOURCES:
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
SFRPC COMMENT
The Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve Rule states that
docks and piers are to be
designed to minimize bot-
tom shading (Page 22).
..Seagrasses would be stres-
sed by other development -
related activities such as
dredging and runoff...may
result in their destruction
which conflicts with the
BBAPA which states as a goal.
"To preserve and promote
indigenous life forms"
(Page 22).
Elimination of these grassbeds
will further decrease a viable
habitat for manatees; an en-
dangered species (Page 23).
RESPONSE
The applicant will design the docks, piers and
heliport to conform to the Biscayne Bay Aquatic
Preserve's requirements to minimize bottom shading.
This has been described in Pages 18-15 and 18-16.
The ADA has constantly demonstrated how the project
has been planned to preserve and promote existing
life forms. As stated, there will be no dredging
for the island or marina development. The drainage
plan will result in only a minimal increase in
annual pollutant loading to the Bay in comparison
to existing conditions (Page 22-8). All modification
to construction recommended by the biologists to
preserve and promote existing life forms have been
adopted.
According to Dr. Anitra Thornhaug (Page 18-14)" if
the grasses are replaced as proposed...the manatee
population may be slightly dispersed but not harmed.
TABLE 4A
SITE SUITABILITY ASSSSS'1SNT
A
• L E G t N D
0
c
a
c ° 0e A txtellent
c x 3 Gooc
A
` " ° C Fair
� v
vi 0 .+ V v
< > D Poor
« C
N u c• _ o J
_ 1. C
N 0 C V G .# u G v t Very Poor
Site .v+ u c v a�i ►�. 0 i
No. Location in .° _6 . Carren;s
15 1-95 a No. River Drive C C 8 8 C C 8 8 iE Good commercial marine site
I6 Lumrsus Park 6 8 C B 8 B B B D No further dev. Fully utilized
17 Sewell, Park A 8 D C A 8 C 8 D Storm refuge potential
18 Gerry Curtis Park B B B B E 8 C B D Present marine use is ade;uate
19 Melreese Golf Course B B D D A A E 8 0 Storm refuge potential
20 Tract west of 22 Avenue B E C E C D B 8 E No potential, bridge restric;io:_
21 Fern Isle Park B E B E C C C B E No potential, bridge restrictio.
22 Tract-fliami River NW 17 Av E D E D B C C D E Not a potential site
23 Tract -Miami River Nu 17 Av 0 D D D B C 8 D E Not a potential site
24 Tract -Miami River NW 17 Av D D D C 8 C B B D Not a potential site
25 Lot Little River NE 84 St E E 0 D C C C B E Not a potential site
26 Lot Little River NE 77 Av E E D E C C C E E Not a potential site
27 Biscayne Bay 2E t :y St E C E C D E C C E Not a potential site
28 Lammas Island 8 B E 8 D E E D B Co+m,ercial/port expansion
29 Miami Marine Stadium B B B A B B B C 0 Expansion potential is limited
*30-35 Spoil Islands - - - - - - - - Not a potential site
*PICNIC ISLANDS
Source: "Comprehensive Marina Development Study" prepared for the City of Miami
by Greenleaf/Telesca
QUESTION 20,
ECONOMY: EMPLOYMENT AND EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
SFRPC COMMENT
RESPONSE
There are a number of negative
At the time the Marriot parks were developed, Mr.
comments in this section resul-
Brown was in the employ of Marriott Corp. as Vice
ting from the SFRPC staff's
President for the development and operation of
evaluation of project feasibi-
Marriot's two parks. R. Duel! was Marriott's
lity which they based on
design consultant and Economic Research Associates
information obtained from a
(ERA) was Marriott's economic consultant.
magazine article by David L.
Brown. Mr. Brown is repre-
ERA is qualified to perform the feasibility study
sented by the staff as the
for Miami's Watson Island since they also performed
design and management con-
the feasibility studies for:
sultant for Marriot Corp's
three great America theme
° Disney World,
parks.
° Astroworid, USA,
° Great Adventure, '
° World's of Fun,
° Circus World,
° Carowinds,
° Opryland,
° Magic Mountain,
° Marriott's Parks.
The staff review by the SFRPC
The economic feasibility study for the Watson Island
of the project proposed for
project carefully explains that the project has
Watson Island concludes that
purposefully not been designed as a major theme
the project is not economi-
park, and that its viability specifically rests on
tally feasible because it
the workings of a concept tailored to suit the
does not fit the traditional
availability market opportunity in Miami.
model of
a. major theme . park
as described in a magazine
To highlight the principal differences in concept,
article.
the following observations characterize major theme
parks of the sort that the staff review is descri-
bing, and which were envisioned in the article
Thinking of a Theme Park? by David L. Brown which
is quoted in the staff review:
° The principal purpose of the major theme parks
is to provide an intense concentration" of ride
and show experiences in an entertaining environ-
ment. The offering of rides and shows is adequate
to entertain visitors for an average of 7 to 8
hours. In units of hourly entertainment capacity
(i.e., the number of ride and show seats which are
available on an hourly basis), major parks must have
f upwards of 40,000 units to satisfy their visitors:
nn..1
SFAK COMMENT
�FS�ONSF
a Major parks also have food service facilities,
shopsi and crafts displays, but the emphasis on
these facilities is much less important than the
ride and show content, and the amount of space,
content and style of service is far more limited
than what is planned for Watson Island. -
° The amount and degree of theming varies, from the
heavily themed Disney parks to such facilities as
Cedar Point and Magic Mountain, which have relative-
ly little theming. In contrast of the major theme parks, the Watson -
Island project has been designed to match the avai-
lable market opportunity. One consideration is that
many residents and tourists to South Florida have
the opportunity to visit traditional theme parks
in Central Florida, including Disney World, Sea
World, Busch Gardens, and Circus World. In addi-
tion, although the resident market contains many
families, it also contains an above -average con-
centration of retired persons, and its visitor
market consists largely of adults traveling without
children. The strongest response to traditional
theme parks -- with the special exception of the
two Disney facilities -- has been among families
with children.
These factors indicate a less than optimum response
if another traditional theme park is built in South
Florida. In ERA's experience, adult response to
specialty retail centers has been exceptionally
strong. This concept recognizes that browsing
in shops and dining out are extremely popular adult
pastimes, and that a concentration of imaginatively
themed restaurants and boutique -size shops can exert,:,
as strong a drawing power as major theme parks, anti
that they often even surpass them in annual atten=
dance. Examples of projects of this sort include
San Francisco's Ghirardelli Square and Pier 39
Los Angeles' Ports of Call, Trolley Square in Salt
Lake City, Fanneil Hall in Boston, and numerous
others. Omni in Miami is experiencing about 8.6
million people per year.<
,r
a
20-2
WPG___OOMMW
QUESTION 20. ECONOMY
j�.
RESPONSE
To provide the strongest possible magnet, the project
for Watson Island is a blend of the concepts embodied
in both theme park and specialty retail center
development. It has a basic component of rides and
shows, but ride and show capacity totals about
12,000 units/hour, which is about 40 percent of
that found in most major theme parks. In addition,
there is approximately 90,000 sq. ft. of restaurants
and retail space, far more than in the major theme
parks. Admission prices are planned at a nominal
level, ($3.00 for adults, $2.00 for children, and
$5.50 a season pass) to enhance repeatability,
particularly among local residents, and to attract
adult visitors who do not want either the intense
ride -show experience or the "up -front" commitment
of a $9 to $12 per person ticket associated with
attendance at a major theme park. Perhaps the
closest attaction in operation to the Watson Island
concept now is Copenhagen's Tivoli Gardens.
Because the blend is different at Watson Island, �;
length of stay, spending patterns, space allocations,,
and many other factors depart from typical theme
parks experience. These are reviewed briefly in
the paragraphs to follow, but prior to this material:
it is appropriate to observe than when Disneyland:..,
was planned, it, too, was a radical departure from
existing practice in the entertainment industry.
By the same token, comparisons with amusement parks ?.
helped provide certain benchmarks and guidelines
relative to expected performance and proved useful
in projecting public response. The same is true
for the proposed Watson Island project: comparisons._;
are useful, but they must be carefully applied.-:;.
This is why the feasibility study states that the:, -
project is not a major theme park and then makes ce.r=
tain comparisons with theme park experience; there
is no contradiction or logical fallacy in this -,.-
approach, since ERA has not made mechanical extra-
polations.
Attendance
The staff review claims that 3 million is.an
unattainable level of attendance at Watson Island =
because some established theme parks have not.-'
attained it. Attendance at any attraction is a
20- 3
qutgTION 20: ECONOMY
_ C CIiM I Nfi RESPONSE
function of content, market site and composition,
competition, length of season, and price.
The Watson Island Project will draw the projected
3 million visitor level of attendance because it
reflects the interests of a broad segment of its
available market, because it does not compete
directly with other Florida attractions but provides
ai.different blend of elements, and because cost to
attend is much lower than it is for traditional
major theme parks, triggering a higher potential
for repeatability, and attracting adults who are
more interested in the restaurants, shops, and
atmosphere than they are in the rides. To compare
attendance of 3 million as an absolute number
against other attractions without considering avai-
lable market size and composition and price level
is meaningless.
Length of Stay
Length of stay at an attraction is largely a function;
of content. As the staff review correctly states,
major theme parks are characterized by an average
stay of 7 to 8 hours. On the other hand, specialty
center visits include dining at sit-down restaurants,;
resulting in an average stay of 3 to 4 hours. It>is
the judgement of ERA and Randall Duell Associates
that the content planned for Watson Island -- com
bining both theme park and specialty center .ele
ments -- will produce an average stay of 5 hours
In passing, it should be noted that even pure theme
park attractions do. not divide themselves into
those with 1-to-2 hours stays as opposed. to those
with 7- or 8-hours stay's. Among the amusement
attractions with 4-to-5 hour,average stays can, be
numbered: :
Sea World of Florida,
Sea World of San Diego,
Sea World of Ohio, y.
Hanna Barbera' s Mari nel and,}�
Cypress Gardens,
Florida's Silver Springs,
Silver Dollar City -Branson, Mo.
Libertyland - Memphis, Tenn.,
Valley Fan - Shapokee, Minn., and
Adventureland - Des Moines, Iowa.
n n A
SPRM. COWENIT
QUESTION 20, ECONOMY
kESPONSE
ERA does not disagree that many attractions have
1-or 2-hour visitor stays: many wax museum9i
tropical gardens, alligator farms, and the like
-,fall into this category. Further, there are
approximately 400 amusement parks in the U.S. and
Canada, many of which contain an acre or two of
kiddie rides or carnival "flat" rides. Many of
these also have visitor stays of less than 2 hours,
but they are not in any way comparable with the
plan proposed for Watson Island.
It,also should be noted that exit and departure
times at attractions can be managed by carefully
timing the occurence of major events and shows,
a factor which helps govern length of stay. Moreover,
for those who come in groups, length of stay is
pre -arranged, and the operator of Watson Island
will have the opportunity to help set arrival and
departure times with tour operators. Length of
stay for those arriving by public vehicle also
can be influenced by the way in which parking,
rates are graduated.
Amount of Land In -Park
Excluding parking and storage, the amount of land
required at a visitor attraction is governed by '
length of stay, content mix, and the monthly
and daily distribution of attendance. At Watson`:
Island, space can be used efficiently because out-
of -town visitors will constitute a large share of
attendance, and they come to Miami throughout the'``';
year and are free to attend on weekdays. Restau-
rants and shops also permit more intensive use of
space than rides, and a 5-hour length of stay
allows greater turnover (and therefore space
economy) than a longer stay attraction. The space
allowance of 35 acres in -grounds for Watson Island`
has been carefully calculated on the basis of al'1
these factors.
Although its relevance is limited, the staff
reports assertion that Watson Island's 35 acres;'`
is disproportionately small in comparison with
major theme parks is misleading. Disneyland en-
tertains 10 to 11 million visitors annually on
S WC_COMMENT
OUBTION 20. ECONOMY
RESPONSE
70 acres of in -grounds space. Six Flags over Texas
and Six Flags over Georgia each draw 2.7 2.8
million visitors annually, and at least 75 percent
of them attend in the 100 days between Memorial and
Labor days. These parks have 45 - 48 acres of in -
grounds space apiece. Table 11.3 of the staff report
does not address these issues, and it focuses atten-
tion on total acres -- including vast parking
areas -- rather than on in -grounds space. Further-
more, it includes attractions like Great Adventure
and Busch Gardens in Tampa, which contain large
wild animal preserves, greatly inflating their
land requirement.
With respect to the ability of Tivoli Gardens
attraction, which is closest in concept to the
Watson Island plan, to handle crowds, that faci-
lity has approximately 22 acres of in -grounds
space and attracts over 4 million visitors operating'
in the summer season only.
Parkinq
Theme parks have traditionally used more land for
parking than for entertaining people. The"diffi-
culty of assembling large and attractive in -town
sites led prospective theme park developers to look
in newly developing suburbs; this in -turn led them
to rely on visitors arriving by private auto.
Watson Island is a different case, and to argue
that it should be located away from the city center;
in a location where everyone will have to come
by car is to argue in favor of increased traffic
congestion and air pollution in South Florida
Given the concentrations of tourists accommodations,.'`
in South Florida it is not necessary or desirable
that visitors be encouraged to travel to a suburban
;.location by private automobile; hence the enormous`>'
parking areas reflected in the acreage requirements
of Table 11.3 of the staff report are unnecessary`:.
at Watson Island.
20-6
OUESTiON 20. ECONOMY
SFRPC COMMENT RESPONSE
The Desirability of Suburban vs Urban bevelooment
Major theme parks built in suburban areas can have
a strong impact on local development, but it does
not follow that because the Watson Island project
will be built near the Miami City Center that
equally important contributions to the local economy
will not be realized.
First, to the degree that the Watson Island project
will stimulate and strengthen hotel demand in the
general downtown area, where it can serve a variety
of purposes rather than drawing it off to a remote
suburban locations in the western part of the
county, appears to ERA to be a benefit, not a
disadvantage.
Furthermore, as the staff report observes, it is
calculated that the Watson Island project will
generate about 1,000 jobs, but that many of them
will be part-time jobs at salary levels which make
them desirable for secondary, rather than primry
wage-earners. Locating the source of these jobs
close to the urban core, rather than in the suburbs
appears to ERA to be a major advantage: the Watson
Island project is much easier to reach than the
outlying areas for center city residents who have
high rates of unemployment and limited job skills..
,)n-7
st�pc._COmmw
coneral comments concerning
service contract with Diplomat
World Enterprises (DWE)
(Pg. 27-35)
The agreement between the City
and OWE provides to OWE a five
percent development fee of
approximately 2.5 to 3 million
dollars and a management fee
of 12 million dollars. These
fees, which do not include
additional amounts which may
result from change orders of
future contingencies are to
be paid to OWE out of City
general revenues - not project
revenues over a period of
approximately six and one-half
years (Pg. 27).
Diplomat World Enterprises will
act as the City's agent in the
development and subsequent
operation of the project. In
this capacity as agent for
the city, OWE will have none
of its own resources at risk
(Pg. 27).
The agreement is binding on the
city and OWE for an indefinite
period, with a proviso to nego-
tiate a new agreement after the
anniversary of the fourth year
following substantial completion
pf project construction. At
that time, the agreement may
be renewed for up to 30 years.
QUESTION 20. ECONOMY
RESPONSE
A copy of the contract between the City and OWE was
provided to the SFRPC staff per their request,
Judging by the staff comments in their report they
were obviously confused by it.
The five percent development fee will be paid from
bond proceeds. The actual amount ($2,436,000)
is clearly shown in the same report on page 37
(Table 11.2), as part of the project costs with the
anticipated sources of funds.
The $12 million management fee will be paid out
of surplus project revenues. These amounts are
shown in Table 21 of ERA's Feasibility Study.
The City has hired OWE to perform a professional
service. As such, OWE will act as the park operator
for areasonable' fee. OWE will not be an owner and
will.not share any profits generated.
For, the revenue bonds to maintain a"tax exempt`
status, OWE is precluded from having a vested
interest in the project.
The City has the right to terminate the agreement
without cause on any anniversary of the commence-
ment date. The city may at anytime terminate the'
agreement for cause. The Internal Revenue Service`'
will not allow a contract in excess of five years.'
with an annual termination without cause requirement
effectively a year by year agreement in any case-:=
IRS will never allow a 30-year contract. The
contract has no automatic options for renewal on th--
part of either party. The city can terminate the
agreement with OWE for the following causes:
Failure by OWE to perform any of its covenants:;
duties, obligations, or promises; t"
° Should OWE file for bankruptcy; and
° Failure of the operation of the park to generate,;'
sufficient revenues to meet current obligations:
and specified debt service coverage ratio's;l'
The termination options give the City greater pro
tection than most other agreements of this type
20-6
OUESft6N 26
according to Peat, Marwick, Mitchell d Co. in s
report on the agreement dated December 109. No
Wtioh of this most important clause was found in
the staff report, although nine pages were used on
discussion of the contract.
Since fiscal stability of the
This statement. is made without an obvious under-
Region's local governemnts is
standing of the contract clauses and the so called
essential to the regional eco-
in-depth discussion omits the provisions protec•.
homy, the implications of this
ting the City.
agreement on City finances,
discussed in depth in the
following section, are of
concern (Pg. 28).
Although project revenues
Neither of the two negative comments within the
would not cover costs, even
statement are correct. The SFRPC staff continues "
by the Applicant's own es-
to misinterpret the contract between the City and
timates, through the first
OWE. The development fee of $2.436 million will be
two years of operation, 9.6
paid by the end of the development phase and prior
million dollars in develop-
to the initial operation of the park from bond _
ment and management fees will
proceeds. Management fees are due after the first`
be due and payable by the
year of operation these fees are established and
City to OWE (Pg. 28).
payable as follows per the contract:
First year management fee of $4 million paid at
`a rate of $200,000 per quarter over the five year.:;':.
period of the contract; ;>
Second year management fee of $3.2 million paid
_,at a rate of $200,000 per quarter over thefour;.;
`
remaining years of the contract;
° Third year management fee of $2.4 million paid at,;
a rate of $200,000 per quarter over the :three:;
remaining years of the contract;
Fourth year management fee of $1.6 million pat,d
at a rate of $200,000 per quarter over the final;`;
two years of the contract; and :f
° Fifth year management fee of $800,000 paid'at a:
a quarterly rate of $200,000 over the'''final year;`
of the contract. r;
'These fees were provided to the staff in 'the' 'contrat
and are clearly shown in ERA'S feasibility stun
several locations. Yet reference and' useOf
.S
management fees in the Staff report `'is wrong `;
i
J
z,
20_9
•
`r5
QUESTION 20, ECONOMY
SFRPC COMMENDED
Further; as subsequent sections
This statement has absolutly no basis and there are
more fully explain, the project
no revenue and cost projections by the feasibility
may not generate enough rove-
consultant that lend to even a remote conclusion of
nues to cover all operating
this sort,
costs over the long term
(Pg. 28).
Yet DWE's 12 million dollar
Again, the SFRPC staff either does not understand
management fee is in no way
the, contract or chooses to ignore the contract
tied to project performance
clauses which protect the City. The contract can
(pg. 2$).
be terminated for cause if sufficient revenue is
not generated by the project to cover the management .
fee.
The annual payroll for City
The $10.06 million figure was derived somehow by
employees at the proposed
the SFRPC staff. The City's salary costs provided
development would be $10.06
to the staff in ERA's feasibility study included
million (1980 dollar's), ex-
all benefits and pension costs where applicable.
b cluding benefits and pensions,
g (Pg. 26) The City pension
plan cost is 8% of an emplo-
yee's annual salary. There-
fore if all 1000 full time
equivalent positions are fil-
led by employee working at
least one-half time, or 20
hours per week, these payroll
costs would increase by 8%
bringing total permanent em-
ployment costs to $10.87 mil-
lion per year (1980 dollars)
excluding insurance and other
benefit cost (Pg. 26).
The applicant has twice `decli-
zi
All. information known -about ^the private operator's
nod however, to provide"infor=
employees was provided. Appendix E of the ADA:shows
mation about DWE'employees who
an `organization chart of the: park: The -chart on
will manage the City employees
page E_4 shows 6 key pfilled ositions to be by DWE
(pg. 27).P
employees. However the number of employees- re uired;
q
to :support these key positions is unknown to., the
City.
u r a
,
QUESTION 204 ECONOMY
SF-RRP-C-SOMM NY
RE S
#ncreases in other financing
page 20-1 of the ADA stated very clearly that pro-
Jett construction costs have been es'ealated by
costs, as well as increases
in the costs of construction,
percent per month. This amounts to 12 percent
labor, and materials have al-
annually, not 7 percent.
ready occurred and may continue
overtime. For example, the
construction costs shown in the
table (Table 11.2) have been
projected by the applicant
from 1979 to February 1982
using annual inflation of
7 percent. The actual 1979
inflation rate was 13.2 percent
according to the U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor Consumer Price
Index for Miami. Thus, if price
increases continue at -the 1979
level for the remainder of this
j three year period, the applicant
will have underestimated the
effects of inflation on the costs
of the proposed development by
18.6 percent (Pg. 38).
i
i Development of the proposed
The .City ,does ,not plan..to,, pay, f.or any park face
or opera ions with City government funds`
project would require expen-
lities
di tures of public funds for
general government, public
safety, health and welfare,
;
and other public services
(Pg. 38).
The City of Miami would pay
-The' construction of water and wastewater facilities
in the project. construction budget pro
for the construction of po-.
are?listed
vided to the staff `which, will be funded by the
table water and wastewater
facilities and the purchase
proceeds from the bonds. (Pg. N-14 of ADA).
of fire protection equipment
as well as fire protection
services to be provided on
The purchase of the mini -pumper (five equipment)
the bond Although t `,
the island (Pg. 38).
' wi 1.1 also be funded from proceeds:
;it .,is not listed as a Line item, it' can easily be a
:funded from the construction contingency which
equipment
allows over $2 million for ancillany
and an inflation cushion.
lj
Fire protection services are also covered in.:.the ,
20-11
The City would also commit
public funds to fullfull the
requirements of the $12
million, five-year renewable
contract with DWE for park
management services as well
as. to serve the $20 million
City -supported bond issue
which contributes to project
construction financing. These
expenditures are the major
components of the range of
fiscal deficits described
in the following section but,
as noted in that section, the
magnitude of the annual fiscal
deficit depends on the reve-
nues realized from the pro-
posed Watson Island Develop-
ment (Pg. 38 and 39).
The applicant estimates that
These figures were generated,
by the SFRPC staff .and
the proposed development based
used for their projections.`.
They are'not the.appli
on theme park attendance and
'cants estimates. See,ADA Page D-6 for Applicant's
per capita expenditure
estimates.
assumptions, slip rental fees
at the two proposed marinas,
and parking fees on the island
would yield revenues of $32.47r'
million in the first full year
4
of operation, increasing to
$39.19 million i n the third
full year (in 1980 dollars)
(Pg. 39).
F
.
� p
The applicant's theme ark
See discussion on`Pagei20"3'of
the comments/responses;,
attendance assumptionsare
optimistic based on the
' 33t�fa.
experiences at other theme
x 1
�-
parks (Pg. 40).
,y
F 20-12
SFRPC COMMENT
The proposed Watson Island
theme park is extremely small
(Pg. 40).
Other larger parks, however,
such as Busch Gardens, and
the Sea World parks operate
on similar schedules but have
not attracted 3 million visi-
tors per year (Pg. 42).
Thus, it appears that the pro-
posed Watson Island Park may
be compared to other theme
parks (Pg. 43).
Visitors to existing parks are
believed to stay at the park
for seven to eight hours since
the admission price allows free
access to all facilities. At
Watson Island, however, visi-
tors would pay for each ride
or show after the first
activity which is included
in the price of admission;
thus, the five hour average
daily visitor stay antici-
apted by the Applicant. This.
appears to be an erroneous
assumtion based on the re-
lative park size, scope of
activities, and the fact that
visitors to Watson Island
would have to pay extra for
additional rides and shows
(Pg. 43).
QUESTION 20. ECONOMY
RESPONSE
See discussion on Page 20-5 of Comments/Responses.
See discussion on Page 20-3 of Comments/Responses.
See discussion on Page 20-2 and 20-3 of Comments/
Responses.
See discussion on page 20-3 and 20-4 of Comments/
Responses.
20-13
SFRPC COMMENT
David L. Brown, the design
and management consultant
for Marriotts, Great American
Parks contends that minor
theme parks, with less than
200 acres, have an average
daily visitor stay of one
or two hours (Pg. 44).
If the average annual atten-
dance or the average daily
length of stay which affects
the average daily per capita
expenditures level, falls
below the Applicant's pro-
jected levels the proposed
project could operate at
an annual loss (Pg. 44).
If either attendance or length
of stay are over estimated by
the applicant, City of Miami
public finances would be ad-
versely affected since the
$20 million bond and the
DWE contract are secured by
City governmental revenues.
(Pg. 44).
The west marina is not
feasible due to conflicts
with the Port of Miami
turning basin and ship
channel; and the north
marina also conflicts with
the south marina proposed
for Biscayne Island
(Pg. 45).
QUESTION 20. ECONOMY
RESPONSE
See discussion on Pages 20.1 and 20-5 of Comments/
Responses.
See discussion on Pages 20-3 and 20-4 of Comments/
Responses. Also, ERA has prepared a breakeven
analysis for park attendance. See attached chart.
According to the breakeven analysis chart prepared
by ERA, the project requires an attendance of only
1.7 million to pay all expenses and cover all debt
service. An attendance of only 1.4 million is
required to fully fund debt -service. This is less
than half of the projected 3 million.
SFRPC COMMENT
Adequate parking has not been
provided for either marina,
thus creating the need for
potential marina customers to
walk or ride the theme park
tram from remote parking
areas to the marinas. Thus,
parking as well as the ques-
tion of the feasibility of
the marinas means less annual
revenue than estimated by the
applicant (Pg. 45).
In summary, the applicant es-
timates that project revenues
would equal $21.05 mili.ion in
the eight months in fiscal,
year 1982, when the applicant
expects to begin operation,
with revenues increasing to
to $39.19 million by fiscal
year 1985 (see Table 11.4)
(Pg. 45).
QuBTION 20= ECONOMY
RESPONSE
See Question 41 for marina discussion. if both mari-
nas were scraped, the effect on project financing
would,be negligible. The marinas are essentially a
break-even operation. They were placed at the park
primarily for two purposes: demand and asthetics.
These estimated figures and Table 11.4 estimates were
prepared by the staff and not the applicant.
QUESTION 20. ECONOMY
SERPC COMMENT RESPONSE
The assumption's upon which the This statement is the opinion of someone inexpe=
applicant has based these cal" rienced in the economics of visitor attractions.
culations, however, appear to be
inappropriate.
Marina revenues are projected The $13.05 per theme park visitor is a meaningless
by the applicant to equal number considering it includes marina revenue which
$1:09 million in the third year has no bearing on a theme park. These numbers were
of project operation bringing calculated by the staff, not by the applicant,
the total project revenue to
$39.19 million for the year or,
for comparative purposes $13.06
per theme park visitor
(Pgs. 47 & 48).
Annual operating and debt These are staff calculations, and not the applicant's,
service costs are projected as stated. These calculations are also incorrect
by the applicant to total for this project.
$18.45 million in fiscal
year 1982 increasing to
$30.52 million by fiscal
year 1985.
Cost assumptions also appear The debt service calculations in Table 11.15 are not
inappropriate due to the low correct. The correct amounts were provided to the
interest rate estimates of 8.0 staff. See ADA Appendix M, Attachment M-1. The
percent and 6.75 percent for interest rates used were provided by the city's`
the $35 million series A financial advisors and were appropriate at the
Revenue bond and $20 million time. Anyone experienced with the bond market
Series B Tax supported Bond, knows that interest rates vary from day to day. By
Respectively (See Table 11.5). the time these bonds are sold, the interest rates
could be even lower than estimated.
20-16
QUESTION 20. ECONOMY
SFRPC COMMENT RESPONSE
Therefore, only costs which This statement and resulting tables and other ne-
may be payable from City gative impact statements to follow are not true.
taxes or other funds, and The SFRPC staff has pulled cost items already
revenues payable to the covered in their previous discussion of project
City as a local unit of construction and operating costs and are trying
government are included in to use them again for negative impact purposes.
the fiscal impact analysis Table 11.6 lists the financial impacts that the
of the proposed Watson staff considers negative. An explanation for each
Island Development on the item is now in order. See applicant notes to Table
City of Miami (Pg. 49-55). 11.6.
20-17
AP Lf ANI, _ SON$ _fib 5 �0 TOLL 11. 6
1) $382400 (Annual fire services operating costs)- Phis is normally a tax-'
supported expense. However, since the Watson Island Project will generate no
ad valorem taxes, this expense will be paid from project funds. there will be
no financial impact on the City for this amount. The projected annual
operating budget for the project contains, $1,230,000 for miscellaneaous items
such as this.
2) $53,840 (Annual potable water facility operating costs)- This cost will be
covered in the water bill paid to Miami Dade Water & Sewer Authority. The item
was included in the ADA as a part of the projected annual budget for utilities,
3) $45,990 (Annual wastewater facility operating costs)- Same as Item 2 above.
4) $28,000 (Annual utility service tax payment)- This cost will be covered in
the electric bill paid to FPL. Budgeted under utilities, the item is already
covered in the operating budget.
5) $883,772 (Annual debt service on $3,350,000 short-term loan, 5 years at 10 per-
cent)- ERA projections show that the surplus revenue from the project will more
than cover this debt. See ADA, Page D-69.
6) $105,449 (Annual debt service on the $1,075,000 water and wastewater facilities
construction, 20-year bond at 7.5 percent)- This item is listed in the capital
budget (ADA Page N-14) and is already included in the series A and B bond debt
service.
7)
8*
9*
10*
11*
12*
13*
$41,000 (Mini -pumper five equipment paid for in the first year of project
operation)- The need for this capital item occurred after the initial capital
budget was established. However it can easily be paid out of the more than
$2,000,000 in the budgeted capital contingency.
$4,000,000 DWE management fee in the first year of operation.
$3,200,000 " second
$2,400,000 " third
$1,600,000 " fourth
$ 800,000 " fifth
0 sixth
* The management contract allows the City to pay only $200000 per quarter for. the
.
management fees shown above. Therefore the city 'actually pays the following
1st Year
$ 800,000
2nd "
1,600,000
3rd "
2,400,000
4th "
3,200,000
5th "
4,000,000
The contract also states that if the revenues of the project are not sufficient`to
pay DWE, DWE is in default and can be terminated for cause. Should 'DWE.`be
terminated with cause the City does not have to pay any fees earned but not paid
after the date of termination.
20-18
r✓ C�i L��{��
K �
,��y�1!���11
L (�d Y/.:
.i
QUESTION 2b, =NNY
the applicant has declined to
Other project ADA's have not required this infor14``.'
provide information on the
oration, Actually, there is no fiscal impact since
annual operating costs of the
the cost of operations is paid in the water and
proposed potable water and
sewer bills,
wastewater facilities, twice
requested by the Council
during information adequacy
4
review. Staff has obtained
estimate annual operating
costs of these facilities
required to serve Watson
-7
' Island Development from the
Miami -Dade Water and Sewer
Authority for inclusion in
the fiscal impact analysis
(Pg. 50).
j
All of these, costs are payable
This statement is not correct. See Applicant
- from City governmental revenues
Response to Jable 11"6.
(Pg. 55).
The components listed in Table
;Table 11.7, (City of Miami) has been: revised
11.6 are then combined with
show the fiscal' projections of Ec6nomlC!Research ._
non -variable governmental costs
.. ,
'Associates.'"
- and revenues to derive the
annual fiscal impact antici-
pated for the City of Miami,
Dade County, the South Florida
Water Management District, and,;
the Dade County Public Schools
due to the proposed development.
The anticipated range of the
net fiscal impact (governmental
revenues less governmental. ex
= penditures of the proposed
project on the four local
governments of jurisdiction -
is presented in Table 11.7).
(Pg. 52)•
S'I
f '.,t A 2 t. ���' 'vi •�
t, r
20-20
W
E `
ANNUAL NET FISCAL IMPACT
(1080 0611 APO
SFRPC
City of Miami City of Miat�i�
YEAR
� b Y,
�__nwt n7h
B Est, T+z
+ 279,000
_
A Est: 4b
YEAR
2
B Est. =
+ 4,023,000
•
-A Est: _
—
YEAR
3 r rAIt 1%-7n
B Est. -
+ 5,590;000
5 a 4
A Est.
YEAR
4
elm
-
A Est.
YEAR
5
B Est.--�oT-='z
A East:
YEAR
6c ew n-7n
B Est. -_
a
A.estimate values are derived under the assumption that the Watson Island
.
at yields revenues sufficient_to cover` all_bond.debt service costs
expected to be greater than indic'ated in .;
Actual annual fiscal deficits, are
the 7.50 percnt interest rate used, for he water and waste
the table since
water facilities construction bond/loan is low, thus understating the annual':
r
deficit.
b
B estimate values are derived under the assumption 'that the Watson Island
`debt service
'
attraction yields revenues that are not -sufficient to cover
Series B Tax Supported Bond: Maximum possible
k
payments on the $20,oO0,000
ual fiscal deficits are annexpected to be greater than. i ndi cated in the
`
table since a 7.50 percent interest rate is used for the water and waste
a 6.75 percent interest rate
<<�
water facilities construction bond/loan and
B Tax Supported Bond Issue, thus understating
'
is used for the Series
possible maximum annual deficits.
try
y,
c
The annual fiscal deficit in year six and later will be higher if the
'rlded. The .contract allows
contract with Diplomat Wo,Enterprises is renew
the Applicant's market feasibility
s
for renewal for up to 30 yearn, and
that the managemenfee in the sixth year would`be
} E
-t
study estimates
$4 million if the contract is renewed.
1'
SFRPC Assessment of Watson Island ADA, Table 11.7.
2
Source: Economic Research Associates.
r
51
Of,
7 mSji$*W( s' i
3SFr
rt
5$
I itl K
i
;NiNY;
S�R�C .aGCMM�N1`
This analysis indicates that
Only
the proposed project would
have a considerable negative
On
annual fiscal impact on the
City of Miami, a modest Po-
sitive annual fiscal impact
on bade County and the South
Florida Water Management
District, and no direct im_
j
p" t on the Dade County
'
School District. The
cumulative annual fiscal
impact of the proposed
development would range
=f3
from minus $1.47 million
to minus $7.19 million
during the pro ject' s ",f i rst
six year'(Pg. 58).
7 t
A
Furthermore, the applicant
" Ti
assumes that average per ary
capita expenditures would
was
be $12.70 perlday (in 1980
sic
dollars) based on an average
.7 l i5�
daily visitor stay of five
hours, which according to a kof
prominent theme park consul
= 'F
taut; would actually be. ig
m ficantly lower (Pg
�., ECONOMY
apparent
it'impl
�etai ned-I
0-4` Comme
ati!ve
are
1
The total cosh of the prop Ail revenue and costs in both Tables 11,8 b ll,i
. posed project including both were`prepared by the SPRPO staff. Several off' the
costs incurred by the City of adtual expense items in the Tables have been incl,A
Miami, which are payable from " ded twice. The OWE management fee obligations are
public funds, and operating not even close to actual, and the debt service
and debt service costs of the amounts are not correct. An accurate fiscal,ana`
proposed Watson Island beve= lysis of the project was provided. See Page,0�5
lopment would be $33.09 of the AOA
million in the first year
rising to $34,00 million x
(in 1980 dollars) in the,
third full year of project
operation (see Table 11.9).
Tables 11.6 and 11:9 were
prepared based on the k
Applicant's attendance and
financial assumption plus
the fiscal impact analysis'.'
conducted by staff (Pg. 59).
p
In fiscal year 1985, the third f:"This 'statement is not correct. See Breakeven<'
-full year of project attendance Analysis Chart '020 Attendance can-Arop Ito ,1 7'
and the first year in which the million,or43 percent before`a deficit is
Applicant expects annual atten- incurred
dance to equal three. million r.,
people, the project would ope-
rate at a deficit if either h'per capita expenditures pendi Lures or,
� u
attendance are 10.7 percent�t�`a
lower than expected even if
all other assumptions made by
the Applicant were reali zed
Table 21
I'ItOJECTED FLOW OF FUNDS AND DEBT SERVICE COVF:RAGC
(Thousands of 198Z Dollars)
j2ez(2)
1983 1264
1985
191t&
1987
Gross Revenues(1) $Z3.941
$37.090 $43.IZZ
$44.67Z
$".87Z
$45p61Z
(:oats of npsratlua and Malnlenance 11
119 IDS
.445
15.437
Net operating Revenues ,t 968
3_&
9►01 14.057
15.437
Less:
Deposits Required by the Indenture
1,400
3. 390
3.38t1
3. 39Z.
1.38T
#.341"
Series A Band Service Requirement
Funds Available after Series A
Debt Service
3.568
5.911
10,669
1T,045
DZ.aSai+
32,„t30
Least' 1
Series D Boad Service Requlremeot
675
1.350
1.350
1,350
i.350}
1.390�
Renewal and Replacement Deposits
-0-
1.164
1.796
Z.094
Z.181
2.181
Deposit to Working Capital Account (Net)
1,500
1.900`
1.500
_Z11
to
Funds Available to City to Pay Manager
1.393
1.497
6. On
8.390
8.419
� M+cageis Fee
400
MIt200
;_2)7
2.000
=_�,023
Z..800
i..�.59_
3_600s
�" m191
-•.000111
y 4 7Q1
Balance Distributed to City
r
i_QQl
_r_.,
1 500
; `3 400
It 4 900
f S.1111
S.1.11
9,Z11
Balance in Working Capital Account _ . •
Ratio (Debt Service Coverage)
of Funde Ava11a1le for Series A Band
Service Iteyuirentent to Series A Bond
Service lleyulremcnt 3.56 Z.74 4. i5 4.55r
i•
Ratio (Debt Service coverage)
of Funds Available for Series B Bond
Service Ileyulrcntcnt to Series 0 Band
Service ltegµlrement 5.29 4.38 7.90 8.9Z 8.9R1
Ratio (Debt Service Coverage of Net Operating
9.00
1icvenuee to rutal Bond -service Itcqulra- "
meat 2.'3q 1.96 t.9T J.26 J. Zb T.l'h
I�1 11141uder.ael revenue on marina fuel tales at f. 10 per gallon.
(Zi Narlial Ycar. r w
(!I f J 11 1967 bared upon upening of the Project an Vebru&ry 1., l4az_ Theprojecred
F.xisltng•,Manager . ■ Agrecment ter as u anu+ry
pay.ncnir,tu ti►e M+eager ter the period Fels 1, l98? to Sepletuber !U. 1987 Ariaassamcd at $t.U00,UUtY.
t
,' i t i`��p F x§
rf� �#
M t�€.b1441 } W
KWifir
f '
f
1
t
i
us Ut'fACILITIEt MANA GE
Qii 4 t
jis� E
C C MOT
.
++��=�►Pdllutant loads entering
Tables 22.4 and 22.5 of the AbA outline the astir
discharging `into'Biscayne
1
Bisbayno Bay would intfOase by
mated pollutant loads
Bay from Watson Island before and after development.
approximately 20 percent. This
"
The post -development load estimates were calculated
increase in pollutants"pepreo
bated on the drainage system removing 80 percent of
Broward
tents a negative impact on
the Bay
the pollutants in the stoat runoff. The
retention design
water qualityin
`County 208 study stated that a
Management Criteria
(Pg, 71). k
,based on South Florida Water
of 80 percent of the annual
could remove in excess
pollution load.
+.
i o pre- and post -develop-
A compar s n of the estimated
k
ment` stage at Watson Island' shows the .following
annual -increase in pollutants:
lids 2867 Lbs.
Suspended5o53Lbs.
B.O.D 36 Lbs.
`
Total Nitrogen_ 3 Lbs
Total Phosphorous . 3159. Lbs
TotalAnnualIncrease 865.Lbs
Daily:Increase
or Total eve. `
in
d
Obviously; these quantities are extremely small
theF
the total Bay context.. For instance,
,Biscayne
:Port of Miami has an .estimated annual .increase of
"'the Development Condition` of4
0011 utants i n Post -
bs
;1
t 7sl 0e a
4,4 t 1 k 1
4 fl,
w. 3
i,if�fitdN � R1'SLIt FACILITIES! WAM SUPPLY
CLUE ,
y,
^ t
, { RESPONS
ENT
SFRPC Comm
9$D letter from Miamisbade Water
the ,arivaryi, ,
No specificcosts given and Sewer Authority indicates that final siting and
for water mai fi. location of facilities 1 i t es will be deter ►i ned when the
:#ty enters into formal agreements with the authoi
2.) plan Approval required pity to provide services. Accurate cost estimates
from Miami Reach . No
are not possible without knowing the size, lengths
evidence of agreement.hd location of the item being estimated (see
3) No plans showing the Section 23).
installation will not
disrupt water service
- A"formal agreement with the City of Miami 3each'has.
,,not been negotiated. The letter from the Miami -Dade
(Page 71). Water and Sewer Authority (October �5, 1979 epd of
Section 23 of the ADA) notes that the authority
does have sufficient capacity in its Sys�tem"for the
Th
eme Pa
rk.
_ proposed ^
r
-p P
The specific method of taping the water supply
' os,mpt pf regional impact
}, ? for the City of Miami Beach }
Since the water supply and,: t4
comes from
several ` pipelines to the
, mainl
a; brief :closing of one line will not: interrupt m
xso
water service.
�t
-
t ry a
r
F � Y t t 5 h i r I ,'�z.3.tt'�✓ ep '.
� i i �• : r t 4 �; Ay 4 .� � q 4 a
SFppD COMMENT
While lighting and air-
condi-tioning are proposed in exces-
sive and inefficient forms and
locations, the proposal also
identifies 21 measures for
energy conservation which
would be considered during
H waver
eg 4
r'
is
e
QUESTION WHY
f
RESPONSE
As shown on Map H=2, the buildings are arranged
in an open plan allowing for air circulation.
The
roof Slopes are not shown on the plan as the buil-
ding plans have not been finalized. Potential
roof slopes are indicated in the artist's sketches
(Figs. 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3, of the ADA) where
south facing roof slopes are shown.
the final design. o ,
the master development plan
(see Figure 2) indicates buil-
dings oriented in directions
which do not optimize the use
of cooling winds (prevailing
winds from the southeast, ave-
rage monthly speeds of 3.16 to
12.45 knots, with calm air less
than five percent of the time)
with roofs that have peaks that
do not face south and, thus, do
not allow optimum potential use
of solar hot water heaters.
tr
-
Therefore, two significant po41
tential conservation measures
appear to be precluded by the
a
extensive use of air-condi-
tioning and the insensitivity
;' ,
of the site design to natural-
ly available energy sources
(pg. 77).
r
The theme
park designer R. Duell & 'Associates,
provision is made for
No prove
`considered
the egress requirement of. people from
providing emergency power
rides, and
concluded that alternate means of egress
to assist in the egress of
'existed and the use of emergency generators for
people from rides and other
",ride egress
purposes was not necessary (as noted oh
park facilities during
(pg..78)•
a e 25 2.of
P 9.
the ADA).
_ power outages
s 4
'y r
i
7 lS L
to tson islanu 'rnem� ra+••
a
QUESTION 31. TRANSPORTATION
SFRPC COMMENT
The SFRPC staff has indicated
that existing and future traffic
conditions and impacts have not
been provided by the applicant.
RESPONSE
The following information
background data necessary
sment of the Watson Island
followed by a response to
finally by the analysis of
indicates significant
to respond to the asses -
project. This data is
individual comments, and
findings.
The primary impact area of the Watson Island deve-
lopment is shown on Figure 31.1. The area is essen-
tially bounded by the Julia Tuttle Causeway (1-195)
to the north, Collins Avenue (A-1-A) to the east,
and I-95 to the west. The southern boundary of the
impact area as defined by the South Florida Regional
Planning Council is established by Government Cut,
Fisher Island, the Port of Miami, and S.W. 8th Stree
on the mainland.
INTRODUCTION
The Dade County Department of Transportation and Tra
fic has observed that MacArthur Causeway is the prin
cipal roadway which will be impacted by the Watson
Island Theme Park. In assessing the degree of impac
traffic from the Theme Park and all other traffic us
ing MacArthur Causeway must be projected to determin
the volume of future traffic and the resulting level
of service.The traffic which will be contributed by
the Theme Park is presented in various figures, maps
schematic sketches, and bar -graphs within this secti
These figures illustrate that the Theme Park traffic
would contribute in the range of 7 percent of total
1985 Causeway traffic.
The future traffic on MacArthur Causeway has been
i'estimated by the Miami Urban Area Transportation.
'Study (MOATS) group to the year 2000. For purposes
of the Application for Development Approval (ADA) ".
and independently from MUATS, traffic has also been';
estimated to 1985.
The two methods yield substantial agreement in traf-
fic flows for comparable assumptions of urban area``'
development. This report presents the figures deve='
loped independently of MUATS. The total traffic'is,
the sum of background traffic, other development -
traffic, and project traffic. Future year backgeou
traffic is estimated by applying statistical extra-
polation techniques to recorded volumes for the.yea
1974 through 1979, yielding an annual growth rate'o
2.27 percent. From their respective DRI's, the esti
`mated traffic for other major developments in the i
'fluence area is added; and finally the estimated pi
ject traffic is added to arrive at total estimated
traffic.
SERPC__COMMENT RESPQNst
It is probable that this procedure results in an
over statement of the 1985 MacArthur Causeway Traf-
fits since the 2.27 percent growth rate reflects a
measure of local and regional development to which
the estimated traffic from other major urban deve-
lopments scheduled for completion by 1985 is added.
A portion of the 2.27 percent may be presumed to be
within the traffic estimates from the major urban de-
velopments thus leading to an undefined amount of
double counting. The MUATS model accounts for traf-
fic from Watson Island, South Shore Redevelopment,
The Port of Miami expansion, DuPont Plaza, and Gov-
ernment Center. The MUATS estimated ADT for the year
2000 for MacArthur Causeway west of Watson Island is
63,418, compared with the 61,674 estimated for 1985
by the DRI procedures. In this case, because of the
fast pace of scheduled urban development, the traffic
on MacArthur Causeway will increase at an accelerates
rate through 1985 then taper off as the urban develop
mental plateau is reached. The best method of deter-
mining the most probable volume of traffic on Mac-
Arthur Causeway in 1985 would be to code and run the
MUATS model for that year.
The evaluation of the impact of the Theme Park on tr<
fic flow extends to the conditions or quality of ser•
vice, with and without the new project. The most com•
mon measure of the quality of traffic flow is the Vo*
ume/Capacity Ratio. This is the quotient of unit tim:
flow, or volume, divided by the Volme which the road
may, can, or will carry. There is much misunderstand
attendent to this ratio and the definition of capaci
Without modifiers, capacity defines the maximum volui
of traffic which a road can carry up to the point wh
increasing congestion and start and stop operation 1.
to a sharp fall -off in rates of flow. In engineering
practice, the term "design capacity" is also used,, yr
is equivalent to the terms "practical capacity°'and.
"service volume". To avoid confusion, the latter -is!
preferable term, and indicates the number of cars pc -,
unit of time which a given roadway can carry under`G;'
fined conditions of traffic flow quality. These'conc:
tions are labelled "Levels of Service", and range`'fr
'practically free flow at Level A to stop and go ope'
tions at Level F. Level of Service E has undesirabl(.
constraints on speed and freedom to maneuver but at,'
this level traffic does flow at capacity. Urban'higi>
ways have often been designed to operate at Level C;
are now often designed for Level D, and frequently
operate at Levels E or F. The choice of a Level ofs.
Service is not an engineering decision, but ratherrs
public policy decision.
. V
SM COMMM PESPONSt
In the Miami metropolitan region, the Matter of
highway Capacity definition and usage is further
influenced by practice within the MUATS organiza-
tion. Here the interest is in transportation plan-
ning, and due to the uncertainties of the future,
the modeling process uses rather moderate traffic
flow rates per lane, or per roadway link in their
general planning studies. The rates chosen are
nominally for Level of Service C, but are actually
close to the lower limit of Level B. Unfortunately,
although these flow rates are actually service vol-
umes for planning purposes, they also act as keys
to the computer for capacity restraint traffic as-
signments. These rates are also referred to as pra-
ctical capacities, which in turn has been contra-
cted in columnar headings to the single word "ca-
pacity". This has led to the practice of comparing
these arbitrary planning guidelines to estimates
of future traffic to derive volume -capacity ratio.
To do this, and to present the results to laymen
leads to the conclusion that if the ratio is great-
er than unity, the segment of road in question is
over congested when, in fact, the road may have a
reserve capacity of many thousands of vehicles per
day.
The traffic studies in this DRI application are a
compromise in methodology and terminology. Since
decision -making officials are presumed to desire
realistic scenarios of future conditions, the traf-
fic carrying capabilities of those roadways most
affected by the Theme Park have been estimated in
accordance with sound engineering practice for Le-
veis of Service C and D, which are both tolerable
in urban areas. These service volumes are then
compared with estimated future traffic to determine°
the ratio,of service. MUATS capacities are not used:
Tables 31.1 and 31.5 contain these results which
show that MacArthur Causeway, the roadway most af-'"
fected by the Theme Park, would carry all 1985 traf
fic within the boundaries of Level of Service C. As'
previously discussed, traffic on the Causeway attri-
butable to the Theme Park is approximately 7 percent
of the estimated 1985 volume.
Table 31.1 shows the roadway capacity, volume/capac-
ratio, and level of service for existing conditions"
and Table 31.2 indicates the programmed and planned
roadway improvements. A letter from Dade County'Dep-
ment of Traffic and Transportation regarding the ca
city on MacArthur Causeway is included in this Sect.
QUESTION #31. TRANSPORTATION OTHER TRAFFIC IMPACTS PARKING
SFRPC COMMENT
The supply of parking for the
project does not appear to be
adequate (Page 92).
West side Marina-115 permanent
slips and 50 seasonal slips
with 58 parking spaces provided
(Page 93).
Visitor Marina-122 permanent
rental slips and 76 slips
for day visitors 82 parking
spaces provided (Pafe 93).
Despite this apparent discre-
pancy between the presumed
parking demand and the supply
provided to support the marinas,
the Applicant has declined to
provide further information as
requested (Page 93).
The possible inadequacy of the
parking supply for the project
is further suggested by the
management agreement between
the Applicant and Diplomat
World Enterprises. This agree-
ment requires the applicant to
conduct "Priority studies for
design and construction of a
people move -system for the
property connecting to...(d)
off -site parking facilities
(Page 94).
RESPONSE
Response to this question was supplied to SFRPC
information response for the Watson Island
ADA, Item 31.44 page 38 in Volume 3 of 3: "Parking
for 58 vehicles is provided adjacent to the
marina." This parking is adequate for average daily
conditions but not for peak periods. It is
anticipated that during peak times a north side
parking area on the island will be provided with
shuttle vehicles available for boat owners to
transport themselves and supplies to and from their
boats and motor vehicles." City of Miami parking
requirements for the 115 permanent slips are 65
spaces.
The response indicated in Item, 31.4.4, Page 38 in
Volume 3 of 3 is based on the statement
"...will require a parking space for each slip..."
The City of Miami parking requirement for the
122 permanent slip would be 69 parking spaces. Thf4'
day visitors would not require a parking space.
The space above the requirement can serve as remote
parking for the west marina.
The combined permanent rental slips for both
marinas 237 will require 133 parking spaces while
and 140 spaces are provided. The required parking
can be reasonably met but because of the
outstanding location and potential additional:
avialability of parking (the majority of the time)
the applicant has stated that parking space for
each birth attainable although not required
As clarified in the above responses, the marinas
can provide the required parking spaces for the
island although a shuttle service will be provided:
where spaces are not provided contigious to the
boat slips. No additional studies have been made
by the City since adequate parking is provided on
the island.
QUESTION 11. TRANSPORTATION OTHER TRAPPIC IMPACTS
PUBLIC ACCESS
SFRPC COMMENT
A conflict would exist between
the two-way vehicle traffic
flow on the west side of the
island and the pedestrian
traffic accessing the theme
park, the marina, the amphi-
theater, and the shoreline.
The apparent lack of board-
walks, sidewalks, and cross-
walks in the area would create
a safety hazard for pedes-
trians (Page 100).
...The site plan restricts the
accessibility of the heliport
which could function as an
emergency service' access point
to the island if traffic tie-
ups on the Causeway prevent
vehicle access (Page 100).
RESPONSE
The pedestrian conflicts with vehicular travel in
this area is anticipated to be minimal since the
use of the marina is for primarily contract rentals
on a permanent and seasonal basis and not as water
access to the theme park. The vehicular access
roadway is for service to the marinas and the theme
park. Access to the amphitheater is from the grade
separated internal pedestrian walkways over the roa
from the theme park. The provisions for the bike a
pedestrian path adjacent to the marinas is indicate
in the ORI in Figure 31.28, Page 31-50.
Emergency helicopter service can be provided within
the Administration and Support Buildings area in
addition to heliport. There are a variety of path,
and roadway roules to the imergency helicopter
service area for which emergency vehicle use can be
obtained by standard emergency flahers & sirens
(see Map #2).
...The site plan provides no The Master Development Plan -Watson Island Theme
means of emergency vehicle Park Detail -Map H-2, Volume 3 of 3 indicates the
access directly into the emergency vehicle access is provided near the auto
theme park area (Page 100). and bus overpass, through the Administration and
Support buildings and directly into the Theme
Park at the First Aid Station
...vehicle circulation pattern The Waton Island Theme Park circulation pattern:
does not indicate how access/ is shown in Map H-4 in Volume 1 of 3. The detail
egress will be made to Chalk's access/egress to Chalk's seaplane is shown in Map.
seaplane terminal (Page 100). H-2, Volume 3 of 3. Access is conveniently provide
from the two-way circulation road close to the
vehicular overpass.
...accessibility to the west Vehicular access is indicated on the maps as I ndi-
side marina and west side Gated above and is intended as a low volume road-
entrance gate (Page 100). way as service to the marinas. The west, side'
entrance gate is for the limited use of the patron
of the west marina. No theme park patron parkin'
is intended or provided.
QUESTION #31, TRANSPORTATION OTHER TRAFFIC IMPACTS
PUBLIC ACCESS
SFRPC COMMENT
RESpbNE
..,the site plan illustrates
This is not Correct. SERPC made errors in their
Calculations regarding slope and the ramp does fall
a pedestrian overpass whichthe
ieve that
is approached by a ramp whichwithin
itperfuired
#s estimated to have a slope
ormedlbyeSFRPC webeldeveloped from
Plan Watson Island Theme
of 6 degrees, 36 minutes. The
the Preliminary Grading _
Park Ma H-6. The plan shows the bottom of the
p
South Florida Building Code
and Federal guidelines fora�pn9having
nelvationof and approximate elevation
Federal guidelines
public access limit construe
an
for The 18.5 foot elevation different divided by
tion to a slope of 4 degrees,
290 feet equals a grade of 6.371M not a slope of 6
50 minutes. Consequently,
design
degrees, 36 minutes. The slope is in fact appro
g50 —
the proposed ramp
appears to be inaccessible to
minutes,
Xalculati isecons snthany the slope
the handicapped (Page 100 and 101).
ns$ considerably
c access. The
standard established for handicapped
City of Miami's design criteria is to provide for a
30
slope of 4 degrees, 50 minutes for a distance of
level interval of 5 feet. This design
feet then an
criteria is met for the pedestrian ramp. However,
this entire level of detail is premature and is not
it is not
Vequested in the ADA guidelines moreover,
of regional impact. _
rx -
. t 5 P
z.
}
t
r
F. F'
J�
t
QUESTION 1�
TRANSPORT �#�N �R TRA���� i�1�A'�fi�
ii
PUBLIC ACCESS .
5i+�p0 COMMENT
_REPO
.,,the site plan illustratesitu1
SERPC Made errors in their
tioot gardng slope and the ramp does fall
overpass
a pedestrian overpass which
is Pedestrian
a ramp which
i
within required guidelines: We believe that the
Performed by SFpPC were developed from
is estimated to have a slope
calculations
the Preliminary Grading Plan Watson island Theme
of 6 degrees, 36 minutes, The
South Florida Building Code
Park Map H-6. The plan shows the bottom of the
an approximate elevation of 9 feet and
and Federal guide lines for
ramp having
rising to an elevation of and Federal guidelines ,
by
public access limit construe
p
for The 18.5 foot elevation different divided
6
tion to a slope of 4 degrees,
290 feet equals a grade of 6.37/ not a slope of
.50 minutes. Consequently,
design
degrees, 36 minutes: The slope is in fact appro-
g to. SFRPG
the proposed ramp
appears to be inaccessible to ximately 3 degrees, 50 minutes, contrary
101).` calculations, is considerably less than the slope
ed Pa a 100 and
the handicapped (Page
standard established for handicapped access. The
City of Miami's design criteria is to provide for a
50 minutes for a distance of 30 _
slope of 4 degrees,
;;feet then an level interval of 5 feet. This design
criteria is met for the pedestrian ramp. However,
this entire level of detail is premature andisnot
requested in the ADA guidelines moreover, it is not
of regional impact
t i
X ?
i! ,q rJ t V 4n V.A
77
r
QU S1`IDN 3 i TRANSPbRTATION
BFRPCCOMMENT
DenerAl Note, Report from ADA 3 Of
StOPC STAFF
Answered in ADA 3 of 3, 2I80, 7 '31i) i li sd
Pi Soxisting Trgffio
' :`f�e5pon5e5 ..
fi rafi o
431.2. 7 ;
`Answered i n ADA 3 of 3 i able, P i 1.,� if31, 2.
D. R
P 82 Future
31. 2. 8, Table ' 31-1,
,.
131':1.5. ADA 1 of 3, Pi 11�45
1Answered in ADA Vol, 1 P. 31,44; Vn�. 3 of 3
P. 84-'Other Developments
31.2.7
n t 0 t a q ue stibn.
This �s a new comma , n
p. 85-'Modol.Sp lit
Answered ADA Vol. 1, T. 31.1, Vol. ' 3, 1t31.1:5
P. 85`Causeway Capacity
' ' statement; as ;without the
is a misleading
these: roads
p. 85 Capacities; Biscayne
ickell Ave:
Br-
,This
Theme Park development traffic on
the traffic with the
Blvd:':, I-95,
a roximate
`would closely pp
ADA Vol. 1, Figs 31.16, 31.17,
Theme Park. "See
31.19,.31:21.
Anin ADA Vol. 1, P 31 45 .::' Theme ,Park
north -
P. 88, Capa cites
pis' incremental. traffic u h Biscayne ,Blvd.
bound is �1:4perce nt
is 2.1 percent, so
;bound.
only roadway which the Theme ParK Traffic will:
is MacArthurz.
p . 88 Improvements
.The
;impact to any appreciable extent
Park -will build an over
Causeway. Here the Theme
intersection which will eliminate the present
:.pass y{
=intersection at grade and will improve capacit
on all developm3q'
_(
This improvement is clearly shown
P. 31-43; ADA Voi. 3, P.'
maps; ADA- Vol. 1,
5 t-
1 'act a) Answered as per the response to "P. 85 Causeway;
` �.
fi d e
Understates Pro3
Capacity". The. 5,400 Figure. -is not just
Imp"acts
>:
a);capacity MacArthur
,.
Causeway
�.
,'.
7 a 3
. a r
�f
C�t�Ni N
RES `
'i�� Arthuw Causeway
fibs effects of Theme Park Traffic ors MacArthur
and #igutas
causeway are doeumth ted in test, tables,
a is
�
ADA Vol •
31.3, 31141 31i5,
�'
fiables 31:1, 31 i 7
1 T�,j 113,�1i �y, f
, yY fji
gFigureg17� ti�qy JL aiy z�,+�i+�i
�3�t0, 31Y9, 33.i1, 3i•11, 3i'2� 31i13, Ji�14y 31.15,
icy +� j
'iy qqp ty y r�q g 1y S 2 2
31r 3i 1I Jir8, a71i 19 y Ji. L0;i LaL f :JisG;. ,.
x.
,
31.23, 31.24, 31,25, 31,26, 31i279
"ADA ol, 11 Pi 31-43
'traffic
' `
j daily from the
°$ tes the 1985 incremental
to
Theme Perk is 1,089 vehicles east of Watson Island.
total of
«}
This is two percent of the estimated
For the in
r
58,444 vehicles. perspective,
is less than the growth for one
ai
,fiheme Park traffic
"normal traffic." Hence, the ; Theme Park
' h �`' k n ax {',
> year of
:will not affect access. between Miami Beacr
adversely
nor to and from the residential islands '
;and :Miami ,
served by. the Causeway.
r l 3
Z 5, (. J3 �1 ii..'3f3�,.�T;t��1. `�'ti� kA#�rij`.1.. .z {.,.._
1..� .. •.. .. .. .. ,. 'a .-. . .'� "+ ) T ...
Peak hour traffic analysis
The ADA shows that the Theme park traffic is a
near insignificant component of the total traffic
stream at the intersection in question. The pur-
pose of the DRI is to assess the impact of the
Theme Park on the region. The adequacy of the
regional public transportation system is an entirely
separate matter, and is not the subject of this
ADA. The ADA does show that Theme Park traffic
will not "...unduly burden public transportation
•
facilities" which is the sale charge, with respect
to transportation, of Florida Statutes, Chapter 380.
° Traffic counts
In the investigation of whether the Theme Park will
"unduly burden public transportation facilities,"
-;
the ADA has used available traffic records from
those officially charged with their collection and
publication. It is our opinion that they suffice
for the above purposes.
° Traffic growth factors
The procedures used in the ADA for estimating
traffic growth are sound and conservative. They
i
lead to traffic estimates on MacArthur Causeway
is
for 1985 which approach those estimated by MUATS
for 2000. They are thus conservatively on the
high side, and do reflect the "traffic increase
as a result of land use intensification in the
�>
downtown area." The ADA discusses this subject in
i;
pages 31-41, 31-43,-31-44, 31-45, and 31-46. The
ADAVol. 3 of 3, also discusses this matter:in.,
Sections 31.2.7,-31.2.8, and 31.2.9. _
- P. 91- Other development
The response is the same as for the preceeding,:
-,y projects.
.-point-traffic growth factors.
° Modal split assumptions
This refers to..the estimated 30 percent of cusTomer;
arriving by ,public and charter _bus. This; is ;the;
"best judgement of ERA applied to this _.project
r f=
1
1. 3
L ri do
f,
QUESTION 21, TRANSPORTATION
RESPONSE
ps 9
Causeway Capacity
The ADA does not assume that the Causeway east of
Watson Island will be widened; Capacity expressed
is not dependent on a widening; and capacity is
correctly stated.
P. 91
Causeway differential
The ADA shows traffic on the Causeway east and west
capacities
of Watson Island in the six tables and in the
Figures enumerated in the response to the query
on Causeway impacts. The capacity of the Causeway
east and west of the island has been reduced in
the analysis by the 17 percent reduction for bridge
openings which reduces both sections to 65,400
vehicles per day.
P. 92
"No adverse traffic impact"
The ADA does not "claim that the project will have
no adverse traffic impact." The ADA responds to
Florida Statutes, Chapter 380 and investigates
"Whether, and the extent to which ... (d) The
development will efficiently use or unduly burden
public transportation facilities." The inves-
tigations, analyses, exhibits, and findings clearly;
demonstrate that the traffic from the Theme Park:
is actually less than that anticipated in the year;
2000 Master Plan; that there is sufficient capacity,
on MacArthur Causeway to receive this traffic; and
that whatever capacity constraints may be encounters
.,on regional roadways, they are not attributable ,to
the Theme Park development from this the following;
conclusions are drawn:
1) The Theme Park will not unduly burden public
transportation facilities; and
L 2) In accordance with Dade County policy to
"Develop an effective and integrated trans=
portation system which provides an optimal
balance of mobility and accessibility withi
and to all forms of land use, especial l`at if
Causeway's activity centers and ma 'or to s
and recreational activities;" and
3) That the transportation need of the Theme -Parr
will be adequately met by the current system_:"
the Dade County Transportation Improvement
Program.
i
a
�1��61'��iJ 3�+ fiRANS�DRTAit6N
Thy ADA conclusively demonstrates that Theme Park
Pofit.
traffic will not adversely affect accessibility
to any region or neighborhood. Theme Park traffic
a total
tO of Watson is just seven percent of the
the east,
traffic on MacArthur Causeway, and to
Park traffic
just two percent. The peak hour Theme
Blvd, amounts to
to and from the north on Biscayne
traffic
just 76 vehicles out of a total four-way
is
'on Biscayne Blvd., of 3,488 vehicles. This a
2.3 percent increment which is approximately equal
to the annual growth factor. The comparable figurer
i
'
Ito and from the south are 50 vehicles out of a total
'.3927. During the evening peak hour the outbound to
inbound Theme Park traffic is approximately 42 per -
tent to 58 percent. Thus, of the 76 Theme Park
Vehicles 32 would turn north on Biscayne Blvd, and
44 would turn from the Boulevard to MacArthur
:Causeway. These amounts to one vehicle per two mi-
nutes north bound, and one per ch min
Blvd."
'
second from the north. The effect n Biscayne
is minuscule. Similarly, as discussed in other,
responses. The two-way peak hour Theme Park traffic"
on MacArthur Causeway ,to the coast is just two per
i
cent of the total traffic flow. All of this data
presented in the ADA, and any. deduction of,"an:
exa
adverse effect on accessibility is a gross
geration, ;
%•'. f ,M 11 'emu L�Q i.
t 41F.: ey ��S iftj•.,. i�`-1^,+�y+ fih'_
�!
`
z
awi
Y k lSG
i1pr
4 i3
3r�i
J4,
j M u-
�}.'j3�y�k,'
1
VIT
,+3
r
XLF
t Y��
QUBTION 31, TRANSPORTATION
S WC..COMMENT RESPONSE
ANALYSIS OF rINDINGS
The Chapter of the Florida Statutes 380 requires
that "In preparing its report and recommendations,
the Regional Planning Agency shall consider whe-
ther, and the extent to which............
d) The development will efficiently use or un-
duly burden public transportation facilities."
Roads and streets are assumed to be public trans-
portation facilities, although Chapter 380.031 -
Definitions does not define either roads and streets
or public transportation facilities.
In this context, the goals and objectives of MOATS
which were developed in response to adopted Dade
County policy, provide as an objective:
"Develop an effective and integrated transportation
system which provides an optimal balance of mobili-
ty and accessibility within and to all forms of lane
use, especially at the County's activity centers anc
major tourist and recreational activities."
The policy and objectives of Dade County and MOATS
clearly support development of a transportation sy-
stem (of which roads are an integral part) to serve
this major tourist and recreational facility. The
traffic analysis thus serves primarily to identify
where, if any, improvements to the transportation-
system are needed to provide the optimal balance of
mobility and accessibility needed to serve the Them.
Park.
Reviews of the data assembled and generated in re-
sponse to Section 31 lead to the conclusion that the
transportation needs of the Theme Park will be ade-
quately met by the current system and the Dade Count;
Transportation Improvement Program; that the Theme-
Park will not impose loads on the transportation sy
stem unforeseen in MOATS planning; and that, with tl;
exception of the interchange forming part of the Tht
Park, no major improvements attributable to Theme P
traffic are needed.
This conclusion is supported by MATS in several ke;N
aspects. First, the MOATS year 2000 model provides
.for 8,603 vehicle trips per day to and from Watson;`
Island. This figure contrasts with the 5,408 trips i
and from the island attributable to the Theme .Park -'
1985. The Theme Park generates less traffic than-tht
MOATS planners assumed. Theme Park daily traffic'to
;and from the west is 4,319 vehicles, which is only.'
S �tpC C_OM MEA
Percent of the estimated 61,674 causeway traffic
between Watson Island and Biscayne Soul evar� o. The
Comparable figures east of Watson Island are 1,089
Vehicles from the Theme Park, or 2 percent of the
total 58,444 vehicles.
In arriving at the traffic assignments for the year
2000, the MUATS group has recognized the Dade County
Comprehensive Development Master Plan, and most im-
portantly, has assumed the completion of other deve-
lopments within the influence area of the Watson
Island Theme Park. This associated traffic is incor—
porated in the highway loadings, as follows:
Watson Island 8,603 trips per day.
South Shore Redevelopment 28,262
Port of Miami 15,677
DuPont Plaza 2,784
Ball Point 2,784
Government Center 17,561
The resulting traffic assignments to MacArthur
Causeway by MUATS are:
West of Watson Island 63,418 ADT
East of Watson Island 56,310 ADT
Since assignments are made by capacity restraint
procedures and no major expansions of MacArthur
Causeway are in the network model, it is axio-
matic that the MUATS group considers that the ,
6-lane MacArthur Causeway has the capacity to
handle the 63,418 ADT.
The 1985 traffic loadings derived through the
Section 31 procedures are less than the MUATS:-
assignments for year 2000. Hence, since both>
procedures have traffic loadings from Watson
Island and the MUATS Loadings are heavier than
d the estimated Theme Park loadings, there can
be no question that the Theme Park will not un-
duly burden public transportation facilities
when attention is focused on MacArthur Causeway.
This conclusion is independently reinforced by
the Dade County Department of Traffic and Trans-
portation (DOTT), February 1978, in their memo-
randa entitled "MacArthur Causeway, Watson Island
li `:Development Traffic Reviews" and "Traffic Review
of Planned Developments In The Biscayne Boulevard
'MacArthur Causeway Area". Both of these documents
vindicate that the MacArthur Causeway has ample re-
serve capacity to carry the Theme Park traffic plus
that of other major developments planned for Biscay!
Boulevard.
NAtt i%onanda also cons#der the effect of
Them Park traffic on Biscayne Boulevard aKd cdn=
luda that since the average patron will travel
to this attraction by expressway.••"that this dei
velopment will generate minimal traffic on Biscayne
Boulevard." The traffic analysis in this DRI ap=
plication shows that Theme Park traffic contribu=
tion to major arteries in the influence area is
minimal. Figures 31.16, 31.170 61.19, and 31.21
combine to illustrate this minimal contribution.
During the 5 to 6 p.m. evening peak hour, the two,
way Theme Park traffic west of Watson Island totals
359 vehicles. Of these, 73 interchange with Biscaynhi
Boulevard to the north and 56 to the south; 230 use`
1-395 to 1-95, where 120 interchange to and from thi,
north; and the remaining 110 use State Road `836 t6
and from the west. When these minor increments are
compared with the evening peak hour total traffic of
the same routes shown by Figure 31.21, the percent-
ages of Theme Park traffic to total traffic are re-
x spectively: MacArthur Causeway, 8.3 percent; Bisca;
.Boulevard North, 2.1 percent; Biscayne Boulevard S6
J. percent; I-395, 3.8 percent; and I-95 North,'0�!
r percent. These percentages do not constitute an and
:burdensome load on public transportation'facil iies
"
In.fact, the actual Theme Park traffic is less than
'a he hta
MUATS planning assumptions for Watson Islandr
estimated..
r.
.Theme Park traffic to,,and.from the east is 20 perce
.of the total Watson Island traffic.,'The minimal im'
,pact on roadways is�`apparent in Figures 31.16 throb
f3l 26.
'F
The.directional distribution of MacArthur Causeway;
."traffic from all sources is illustrated in Figures;
31.14 and 31.27, which clearly indicAte,that ;;Theme"
"`
fi{ Park traffic is a minor, component of the total tral
our
fic flow, especially during peak h
n
{
'.
QUESTION
46. pETBCLEUM STOWS FACILiiIES V
RE5dN
$FBpC__COMMENT
E
The City of Miami�sW permitting procedure for the
.
The airport, service station
tanks/and
installation of underground tanks will ensure pros
Construction will be in
collection system
the oil spill should pro-
tction of ground water.
the South Florida Building Code
i
tected from contact with the
accordance with
and NFPA standards.
seaOaterly
7.Vg. 104 ;
Increased boat traffic due to
On pg. 41-7,�the ADA states "An oil containment boom
be deployed by the marina staff to isolate
the marinas will al increase
which can
accidental oil spills will be readily available
'fuel and oil s ills
any
at the pump. Pick-up of an oil spill will be accom-
system with
Pg. 104)
plished by use of a permanent vacuum
underground collection tanks shoreside."
app
This vacuum system will be an improvement to the
has no for emer-
existing marina which provisions
gency oily waste collection.
The plan does not provide a
In the absence of specific state or local regula-
State of Florida Department of Envi=�
disposal site for oily wastes Lions, the
ronmental Regulations recommends disposal of oily
(pg. 41 7
wastes in a permitted sanitary landfill." The
Department of Envi-
'
procedure is described in the
Regulation interoffice memorandum dated
i
ronmental
July 25, 1977 . Page 41-7 of the ADA
(Appendix J)
be in permitted
says special disposal —will ;a
described in the DER
sanitar landfill as
memorandum.
,4
- ....
4
y
r
QUESTION 12,
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
e
REP
SpRPC COMMENT
to R. buell and Associates Elect
project is expected to gene
The consultants
thohiC Media Inc:, 1 used a general formula,
from
rate 90 d9(A) at the park
Noise levels would
SQL= pWL-20 log (r)) for sound propagation
A more comprehensive study
boundary.
be attenuated to 36 dB(A) at
ark.
the amusement p- ;
including the noise reflective quality of water
500, and 24 dB(A) at 2000'
would have also encompassed such things as: existing
noise, and
3 reservations relative to
park noise, existing residual residential
the attenuation value of earth berms and plant life.
these estimates:
Some of these items would increase and others would,
through air
decrease the attenuation of sound waves
over water,
1) Noise is not attenuated as
well over water as over
Existing Watson Island Noise
land.
from a levated rides
Watson Island currently encompasses a major roadway,
a heliport, a marina, and other
2) Noise
b
will not be reduced y a
MacArthur Causeway,
buildings. MacArthur Causeway, running through the
by
12' or 13' berm.
center of Watson Island, is heavily travelled
trucks, motorcycles, buses, and other.,
3) Noise due to the 3 north-
automobiles,
vehicles. The sound level from this roadway on
park,
ern docks and the heliport
not considered. These
bus days can exceed 100 dB(A). The amusement
y will generate a maximum of 90
are
facilit ies would be within
as a point source,
dB(A).. Using a method for combining decibels from
indicate
750 feet of residential units,
multiple sources, the following examples
there would be significan-
what sound levels may be generated:
tly greater noise distur-
bance to the nearby rest-
Existin Sound`Level - Watson Island n
dents than the applicant
a
110 "dB(A)
has estimated (Pages
MacArthur Causeway
100 dB("A)'
13 and 14)
He,l;ip-ort ; 90 d6(A)
Marina
(Heliport)
100 'dB(A) (Marina)
f3
-90. dB(A7,10 }
"Addition of ��UnequalDecibel�
From 'Figure " 2:2, r,
Levels ,° a difference ;of 10 d8 'in 'noise :levels
decibel to be added to -the
."
would indicate a 0.4
re the
ofthe two sound levels'. _ Therefore
higher
total combined sound level of the heliport an thef�s
io,
marina would be 100.4 dB(A).;
Likewise', h�
110 dB(A) MacArthur Causeway �z
Combined Heliport and 1
-14 dB(A)
9.6 dB(A) Marina sound 1 evel
From Figure 2.2, 0.4 decibel should be added to the`
the
higher of the two sound levels. Therefore,
rJx.�
QUESTION 11, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES: AIR
RES�6N5E
SERPC_.CbMMEN
"Estimates of current and proms
table 11.1prepared by the South Florida Regional
Planning Council does not represent data appearing
acted air pollutant emissions
have been included in the ADA.
in the ADA. the data
Table 11.1
in
,. presenthow aft
v from the
sland ADAand srangin9
oal1l
shows that the increase
the
increase in emissions for parameters
emissions for all parameters
from only 0.2 to 5.7 percent. The percentage
range from 9 to 37 percent."
increases of paa lutant emissions in Table 11.1 of
a MacArthur
SFRPC comment include emissions from
Island
Causeway, the Port of Miami, and the Watson
According to the Watson Island ADA,
development.
the following are the percentages of the total
the
1985 emission that would be attributed to
Watson Island development;
Carbon Monoxide 5.
1'
Hydrocarbons
0.2%
Nitrogen Oxides
0.7%
Particulates
0'2%
Sulfur Oxides
(See Table of Comparison of Air Pollution Emissions',
in the Watson Island Vicinity of the ADA and SFRPC)
"However, these estimates do
A, review of the emission calculations indicates that;
d for . total monr
not directly take into account
buses were Number t of busesn-wase o puted the
emissions from the buses which
vehicles.sitors in
of I for every 130
are expected by the Applicant
accordance withbasis
the traffic studiesrand projections
to.bring 30 percent of the
Table 31.3 of the Watson Island ADA reflects t e
theme park visitors, boats
number of buses used in the air emission calcula
at the marinas, Chalk's air-
tions. The emissions from the boats and the heli
craft, or helicopters."
copters'were not available.
Ozone 1 evel s "currently exceed
The t ionsl been of •12 exceeded ppm o at the Rr dei.
national standards and the in
centra havendnots
County sampling sites (according to conversations
creased vehicular activity
�:
with Dade County Environmental'Regulations staff.
which would result from the
'
project would serve to main-
tain the high ozone concen-
tration."
(a) SFRPC refused to identify..
their. source.of ,i nformation until a ; "written reque$t for
s information" i s suboii tted
FY
ter"
Area
TOTAL
rods per; day)
Nitrogen Rarticuiates �
Oxi des f%aide
ri
(d) (a) () (a) (b) (a) cb)
FRPC
ADA SFRPG AEIA� �FRP AOA� SR��
.14 153
14.461' 14;$601
(a) Tables
Table
QUESTION 14.
SERPC_COMMENT
Proposed development would
require...fill...in as yet
unspecified locations and
in amounts to be obtained
from unidentified sources
Applicant has declined to
provide this information
(Page 14).
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES: LAND
RESPONSE
This statement is not correct. the ADA
specifically states on Page 14=6 that fill "will be
deposited on that part of the Island South of the
Causeway "where development (rides, structure,
etc,, will occur). Map H indicates in greater
detail where fill will be placed. However, final
engineering will be done at the time of final
design. The applicant further states that fill may
be secured from "spoil materials deposited on
Virginia Key and previously dredged from the bay
bottom, ship channel improvements and from the
access channels to the new facilities at the Port
of Miami extension (Page 14-6). The exact source
will depend upon project timing.
Master Development plan indi-
No lake dredging plans have been submitted because
lake dredging is contemplated. This has been
cates...two lakes not Curren-
The appli-
no
stated in the ADA (Page 15-5 and 15-10) and is also
tly in existence.
cant has not provided lake
obvious since lake construction is not discussed
they appropriate sections of the ADA.
dredging plans... may not have
adequate circulations...degra-
in any of the
The word used in the
ride.�nBoth
dation of water quality, etc
of beingwa art of n
context P
"bodies of water shown on the Master Plan from the
(Page 15).
base for amusement rides...one the Everglades Flume
Ride (hence "lake") and one the Miami River Rapids
Ride. The flume ride will consist of altrough in
which flowing recirculated water will propel small
boatlike vehicles. The area labeled lake is actu-
ally a pool providing setting, brae, d water
storage required for the ri deand ll besealed
off from the ground by concrete. The entire pool
will be above ground/water level. The Miami River
j
Rapid Ride like the Everglades Flume Ride will be,
4
an artificial waterway created to provide a boat.
ride. The water body shown is a pool in which the
travel in a pre -determined path which will be.;
k
boats
about 2 to 3 feet deep and will be sealed off from
the surrounding ground.
,
i
i
14-G
QUESTION 14, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES: LAND
SFRpC'DOMMENfi RESPONSE
It should be noted that this information is not
required in the SPRPC "DRI Application for Develops
mint Approval Questionnaire" and in other similar
ADA's.
Applicant has declined to The ADA points out that soil on the island is
provide the current bearing man-made (Page 14-1). Area fill has been in place
value and information re- over 50 years and is well compacted. Deep borings
garding compaction. (Appendix Q indicate sand and limestone gravel to
Many of the structures proposed boulders. No organics were encountered. When a
cannot be classified as light specific structure foundation for a designated
structures such as ------ location is designed, bearing values will be
the bearing capacity of the determined by recognized tests, analysis, and
soil is exceeded, damage to procedures performed by a competent licensed soils
structures may result due to testing laboratory. This is normal and acceptable
settling and compaction, re- construction practice.
7t
t 1T
QUESTION 14:
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL. RESOURCES - LAND
Sp ._COMMENT
R€SpbN.�€
' Applicant stated "no modifica-
There is no conflict between the Applicant state,
"no oreline" and the infor-
tion to existing shorelines
merit modification to sh
ADA,
other than relocation of sea-
mation presented throughout
Plane ramp are contemplated."
Construction of the marinas will not change the
AbA in direct conflict- species
shoreline. No -dredging will be required (Page 15-5
willremain
abe It
fi cal ly... two marinas, rel oca-
and15 lure The
see 9 3) ,existingThere will no repair's
tion of heliport, removal of
'existing structures that will require shoreline
existing boat ramp and repairs.,
t ''.modifications. The heliport will be built over
(Page 16).
;the water and will not change the shoreline. The
;existing ramps which "will be abandoned and possi-
�bly relocated" (Page 41.4) may be used as a small
'boat storage area (Page 12-7). The existing
public boat ramp facilities functions will be
}abandoned and this service will be provided else-
I'where by the city of Miami's expanding boat ramp
`proaram currently being implemented at other
locations. The Watson Island ramps will remain
}where located and may become incorporated into
_
!'the adjacent private marine clubs.
3
i .F1
9 {;
I )
A,
!t
,
f 3 rfJ x�Aif�t y
r
QUESTION #15.
SFRPC_ COMMM
There is insufficient infor-
mation about breakwater
depth. If iw were to extend
almost to the bottom, this
would obstruct circulation
and allow accumulation of
floating debris (Page 16).
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES: WATER
RESPONSE
Plans and construction of the breakwater (and
Marina) will be subject to approval and permitting
by the Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion (DER). Any activity will "Impede
circulation." However, construction of the
breakwater is not expected to impede circulation
-
beyond DER acceptable standard. The breakwater is
expected to be similar to the Miami Beach Marina-
which has an interference rate of 5 percent, a rate
approved by DER.
Samples taken over a short Final design will include openings at the apposite
time period at a station lo- ends of the breakwater next to the exisitng seawall
cated some distance from well disperse ferating debris within the marina and
Watson Island cannot rea- aj wave ameieorting panel which will extend
sonably represent the water approximately six feet deep (or one half the depth
quality in the island (Page 17). of the way).
Concentrations of metals in
the sediment extraction
analyses exceeded state stan-
dards for most metals. This
indicates that pile driving
and dredging activities will
have an adverse impact on
water quality (Page 18).
Water quality around Watson
Island would be degraded by
oil and fuel spills, runoff,
solid waste litter and boats
that do not use sanitary
pump -out facilities (Page 18).
I
Results of sampling indicate water quality near
Watson Island is very good. (see Table 15.2 of the
ADA) station E-3 is less than one mile from the
Island. While station E-4 is approximately two
miles from E-3, it exhibits very similar
characteristics, thus confirming the good mixing`;.
found in the hydraulic study. Due to its proximity
to Watson Island and good mixing qualities, E-3 is
a good indicator of water quality in the area.
As stated throughout the ADA there will be no
dredging for the island or marina cons truction:`=`
(Pages 15-5 and 15-10) Dredging for the utility
crossing to the mainland and pile driving will bey::::
in accordance with DER permitted procedures.
Watson Island has been planned to protect the na=
natural resources of the area and will meet ala
applicable Federal State, and local regulations for
preserving or enhancing water quality. As stated
on Page 41-6, both marinas will have pump -out and:;::,
boats will be required to connect to them. (Thi`s
is an improvement over present conditions)>.
Floating oil collars and sorbent materials will -beer
stored on -site (see Pages 15-11 and 41-7) for
clean-up of any accidental fuel spills. Runoff
control will be achieved by percolating the first b
inch of runoff to the groundwater. (Page '22 1)_
*,3"10,V,
•
! � �' �Tr s mum t.; �,�a� #y.. '� d i* -
i5.
9
t, f
VVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCESz WMANOS Y
S�R�G �6MM�NT
��5
Picnic Island to
This. statement ,5 not correct. Infact, Table: 4A
..,according
the marina study prepared by
ofthe "Comprehensive Marina Development Study"
Greenleaf/Telesca.,,may be
prepared by Greenleaf/ eiesoa states that the
is a
_
developed as a marina, (thus
Spoil Islands (o1= which Picnic Island part)
"het potential marina sites" based on their
placement of mangroves..►
are
Site 5 itability Assessment (see attachement).
does not appear viable,.,
(Pg. lg).
The mitigation plan doe't�ot;
¢.This statement is incorrect. The approved agreement
Marine Institute will
r
topsider duration of renegeecifies_
sp that the Dade
"monitor the island for one year and replant
tation program in event
vegetation if requirod" (see agreement in Section
seedlings do not survive`
16, of the AdA).
(Page 19).
a
1. C
}{
L u V 6061 '�
tOM
'L to in s
k ;� fib• r LbE� Nt�:.o �10i
n. ,GOn
tip-
{,' 1� 1=45'0 Ne. �llvei' .Dfr i�►Z .
w ,1
f
SFRPC COMMENT
Marina Noise Disturbances
Page 16
Proposed marina would
affect ship channels,
'turning basin and boat
traffic... (Page 94-97).
QUESTION 41, PORT FACILITIES
RESPONSE
The marina is not principally a night time
activity. The residents presently are affected by
sound levels in excess of sounds which well eminate
from the proposed various in the form of the
existing heliport, the Miami Yacht Club, Miami
Outboard Club, MacArthur Causeway traffic, Challes
Airline and the Cruise port.
There will be no conflict between the transient
boat marina and movement of the S.S. Norway. The
Port was selected for the home base of the S.S.
Norway with their management fully aware of the
size of the turning basin. The Norway has been
modified so that she can negotiate docking and
undocking without outside assistance, which
indicates that management feels that the 1,600-foot
turning radius of the present basin is adequate.
The S.S. Norway's dimensions are: Length, 1,035
feet; beam 110 feet; propellers 34 feet center to
center. She is the largest passenger ship in
service. To facilitate maneuvering she has been
fitted with two stern thrusters and three bow
thrusters totalling 11,000 horsepower. Captain
Karsten Hansen of the Norwegian Carribbean Lines
has stated that the ship can turn 180° in her own
length in six minutes without assistance.
The S.S. Norway will start service from Miami prior'
to any firm design or permit to expand the turning
basin. Negotiations between the City of Miami and
the Port authority, will be necessary to determine
adequate turning basin expansion as well as to any'
modification to the proposed Watson Island warivas.
In projecting the number of boats to be active at
one time, it must be realized that this activity
would take place over the boating day (6 to
8 hours) with a maximum use on a Sunday or legal
holiday -a time when there is little to no conflict
;with cruiseship schedules. The boats in the west
or transient marina are large craft and once moored
generally are not moved. Craft in the north marina
may or may not use the turning basin, dependent on
their destination. Haulover marina activity is a
poor comparison to Watson Island, as it, is
'if+ basically a commercial drift boat marina with twice
daily trips. Watson Island does not plan tc
accommodate tour or commercial fishing boats.
There are no plans to accommodate tour ,oi
commercial fishing boats. There has not been am
accident to date between cruiseships and privat