HomeMy WebLinkAboutsubmittal -2Lttu 4J1Uami
ARTHUR E. TEELE, JR.
CHAIRMAN
July 8, 2004
The Honorable Vice -Chair Joe Sanchez and
Honorable Members of the City of Miami Commission
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Florida 33133
P.O. BOX 330708
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33233-0708
(305) 250-5390
FAX (305) 250-5399
Subject: Proposed Inter -Local Agreement (RE: PZ #2 Island Gardens @ Watson Island)
Dear Colleagues:
Before the City Commission acts upon the Major Use Special Permit on today, I am interested in
ensuring that traffic assessment methodology utilized to review and make a recommendation in
this MUSP properly reflects the realistic traffic impacts that will be generated by the Island
Gardens Project.
I was advised that the City and the developer extended the Downtown DRI methodology and
transportation parameters and applied them to the MacArthur Causeway and Watson Island.
However, I am now advised that FDOT acknowledges that the MacArthur Causeway should not
have been classified as a "Freeway", as was applied in the transportation assessment that was
submitted for this project.
Thus, the effect of expanding the DRI boundaries, the transportation methodology reflects a
capacity level that allows the project to proceed without considering any traffic mitigation
measures on a causeway that is already congested and functions during peak times at a LOS "F".
While the application of this methodology may be expedient in moving the project forward, I am
now deeply concerned that it does not properly address the long-lasting effects of the actual
traffic impacts of and on this project and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
In essence, the traffic study methodology masks the real impacts on the causeway and
consequently not only on the businesses already located within Watson Island and the residents
of both Miami and Miami Beach, and unincorporated Miami -Dade County (Fisher Island), but
on the Island Gardens project itself.
SUBMITTED INTO THE
PUBLIC RECORD FOR
lTEMZ.) ON7-'-oq
MUSP: Island Gardens
July 7, 2004
Page 2
Some examples of how the approved methodology may not properly address the projects impacts
are as follows:
1. By classifying the MacArthur Causeway as a freeway and applying a LOS threshold "E"
directional service volume of 5990 for a freeway, consistent with the DRI approved
methodology, there may be an overstated maximum service capacity giving the illusion
that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate this project. The MacArthur Causeway is
an arterial (Class II), not a freeway, and using the correct directional service volume of
2730 the real maximum service capacity is cut in half. I note specifically that FDOT
does not see a fatal flaw in the traffic assessment methodology, but they do acknowledge
that the MacArthur Causeway should not be classified as a "Freeway". as was done in the
transportation assessment that was submitted by the applicant for this project. What the
maximum service capacity is if you applied FDOT's finding that the MacArthur
Causeway lies somewhere between an arterial road and a freeway is the open question.
2. The reductions in the ITE trip generation equate to approximately 45%. These reductions
are generally fully applied in urban areas, where there will be a great deal of not only
transit use, but bicycles, pedestrians, and other alternate forms of transportation. This
level of reduction should not normally be considered on a freeway. Taking a more
realistic trip reduction, how would this revised trip generation affect the traffic
assessment?
3. Growth Rate: The traffic assessment uses a .84% weighted adjusted compound growth
rate consistent with the weighted adjusted compound growth rate of the approved DRI
along SR 836/1-395. There is no analysis or justification for this growth rate as it relates
to the MacArthur Causeway that reflects a computed average growth rate per year based
on historic traffic of 2.7%. What would the traffic impacts be if the historical realized
growth rate of 2.7% were applied vs. the Downtown adjusted compound growth rate, the
latter of which is not really reflective of the Watson Island environs?
4. How do the anticipated traffic impacts from the planned Port of Miami tunnel
extension factor into this traffic assessment is a very important issue that needs an
answer.
5. Parking, Parking, Parking... is a major problem throughout the City. The updated
assessment should include clear methodology, mitigation, and recommendations to
insure both mobility and vehicular amenities.
These are some of the questions that I believe are relevant and justify our previous decision to
require an inter -local agreement for a supplemental study to update the "Traffic Assessment";
however, I again reaffirm our collective inclement that any outcome, finding, or
recommendation will not automatically place additional burdens or obligation on the
applicant of the MUSP. Consequently, the updated "Assessment" should also contain
recommendations for appropriate mitigation strategies so this project can be a success for our
generation and those to come.
MUSP: Island Gardens
July 7, 2004
Page 3
Finally, I believe that the proposed Inter -Local Agreement would be enhanced with the further
inclusion and participation of the Public Works Department of Miami -Dade County
(representing unincorporated Fisher Island), and, most importantly, the MPO itself as the sponsor
of the ongoing Bay Link.
Thank you again for your consideration of these important issues.
Warmest regards,
Faithfully,
Arthur E. Teele, Jr.
Chairman
Attachment
cc: Honorable Mayor Manny Diaz
Honorable Mayor David Dermer and Miami Beach Commissioners
Joe Arriola, City Manager — Miami (ATTN: Mary Conway, Director of Capital
Improvements & Transportation)
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager — Miami Beach
Maria Chiaro, Esq., Acting City Attorney - Miami
Murray Dubbin, Esq., City Attorney — Miami Beach
Robert Ginsberg, Esq., County Attorney
George Burgess, County Manager (ATTN: Jose Mesa, MPO Secretariat; ATTN:
Aristides Rivera, Director of Public Works)
Priscilla Thompson, City Clerk — Miami
Bob Parcher, City Clerk — Miami Beach