Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutsubmittal bBM(TTED INTO THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH TESTIMONTI 6/24/04 — DRI II AMENDMENT & MUdgUBLIC RECORD FOF ITEMPZ.z.. ONThank you for allowing me to present the City of Miami Beach s won proposed amendment to the Downtown DRI and the MUSP for the Island Gardens project on Watson Island. My name is Christina Cuervo, and I am an Assistant City Manager with the City of Miami Beach. I would like to begin by stating, for the record, that the City of Miami Beach is not appearing before you today in opposition to the proposed project. In fact, from a purely economic development perspective, 605 hotel rooms means more tourists that will spend more money in our region and in Miami Beach. However, 605 hotel rooms and 221,000 square feet of retail also means additional traffic to MacArthur Causeway. Normally, a project of this size would trigger a DRI review and certain mitigation requirements, as did the 4 towers that have recently been constructed in the South tip of Miami Beach. Your process, in essence, is stating that this project is a non -substantive deviation and therefore, that more extensive review is not required. The City of Miami Beach's only interest at this time is to ensure that all negative impacts are addressed and that the appropriate mitigation strategies are identified and implemented. As you know, traffic congestion is currently the single greatest threat to the region's economy. The City has identified several areas and points of concern, but our main issue is the transportation impact and the adverse effects on the quality of life of area residents and businesses that will occur due to the size and type of the proposed development. To put it in some perspective, a 605-room hotel will be the 6th largest hotel in Miami -Dade County, and 221,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space is the same size as Bayside, not to mention the other components of the project. Again, let me state, we are not here to oppose the project but to properly address its impacts. While the City of Miami has held a number of public meetings regarding development on Watson Island, many of those meetings occurred during the development of the Request for Proposals, the selection process and during the subsequent referendum which was held in November 2001. The most recent public hearings were conducted after the filing of the Notification of Proposed Change — Page 1 of 6 therefore, between November 2001 and April 2004, the City of Miami Beach is unaware of any opportunities for its public input, other than the pre -application meeting hosted by the South Florida Regional Planning Council in September 2002 which we attended. Furthermore, our Mayor and City Manager met with representatives of the City of Miami in February and August 2002 and expressed our interest in participating in discussions related to development on Watson Island. Our next and only opportunity to comment has been now by participating in the Notice of Proposed Change process. While the Transportation Assessment was expected to take 12 months to complete, in reality it took 17 months, but the City of Miami Beach had only 30 days to review and respond to it, following its submission on April 28, and we do not feel that our concerns have been heard. Included in their letter to the DCA regarding the NOPC Notice of Proposed Change, the SFRPC stated that portions of the traffic analysis do not clearly and convincingly rebut the presumption that no roadways will be significantly impacted. The City of Miami Beach understands that FDOT does not see a fatal flaw in the traffic impact 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 for this project. FDOT states that MacArthur Causeway operates somewhere between a freeway and an arterial. It is the City of Miami Beach's position that since the Causeway is classified as an arterial, it should be studied as such. Therefore, the City of Miami Beach feels that there are still outstanding traffic issues identified by the consultants for both the City of Miami Beach and FDOT that necessitate further study. We are here to support FDOT's recommendation that the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach partner with the MPO to address regional transportation issues and seek your support to address these challenges. Yes, there has been significant development in Miami Beach, and there is a traffic congestion problem in Miami Beach that extends beyond our boundaries. However, all of those projects within our boundaries went through either their own DRI process, or have been reviewed under, and have been subjected to mitigation under, the City's Concurrency System. Much of our traffic is not necessarily related to these Page 2of6 developments, but to the unprecedented and, unexpected level of international popularity the City has received. The reality is that the transportation assessment for this project underestimates the true impact that will occur on the Causeway, which will not only have a negative impact on Miami Beach, but ultimately, on the Island Gardens project itself. A new transportation study should be conducted with participation of all affected parties, and the final outcome should be identifying the impacts and recommending mitigation strategies, rather than showing no impact just so that the project can be approved. One specific item of significance is that the City of Miami Beach is unaware of, and therefore cannot yet comment on, is what mitigation may be required by FDOT. The City understands that the Miami Children's Museum, along with other organizations, have serious concerns that they are still trying to address through the City of Miami's Major Use Special Permit process, such as traffic, parking, access, and drainage. I would also clarify that while voters in the Venetian Causeway precinct voted in favor of the project in the City of Miami's referendum, only two of the Causeway's six residential islands are located in the City of Miami and were afforded the opportunity to cast a ballot. The other 4 Venetian Islands: Belle Isle, San Marino, Rivo Alto and Dilido, are in the City of Miami Beach. Additionally, there are residents of four islands on the MacArthur Causeway that are even more directly impacted by the proposed development that had no opportunity to vote on this issue. These residents were on Palm, Hibiscus, Star and Fisher Islands. In fact, these residents have already been affected by the development that has already occurred on Watson Island. We had an opportunity to meet with the City Manager and your staff last Friday, to discuss issues related to the project. 1. The City of Miami Beach respectfully requested that the City of Miami defer actions on the proposed project until after the developer has made a presentation to the Miami Beach City Commission on July 7; Page 3 of 6 2. The City of Miami Beach also respectfully requested that the City of Miami and the developer, jointly with the City of Miami Beach, conduct a new traffic impact analysis, and that the developer agree to implement the mitigation that the analysis recommends; 3. The City of Miami Beach also asked if the developer and the City of Miami had any problem with a prohibition of residential use on the island, since hurricane evacuation was not reviewed during the DRI process. The developer has assured the City of Miami Beach that residential use is not a component of their project, and the proposed conditions to the Development Order that we received on Monday do include this restriction on residential use. I also understand these use prohibitions were just approved by the Board of Trustees. Therefore, the City of Miami Beach feels first and foremost that we have not had the opportunity to fully address the impacts of the proposed project and review the additional information that we have only received in the last week, and that there still exists many unresolved issues related to the proposed project. To that end, the City of Miami Beach has invited the City of Miami and the developer to make a presentation to the City of Miami Beach Mayor and Commission on July 7. We also request your support for a new traffic study and implementation of its recommendations, to be funded by the developer, with participation by the FDOT and the cities of Miami and Miami Beach. Thank you for affording me the time to express the City of Miami Beach's comments and for your consideration of our requests. Page 4 of 6 COMMENTS TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE RECORD FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH TESTIMONY 6/24/04 DRI INCREMENT II AMENDMENT & MUSP : The City of Miami Beach has provided comments on the Notification of Proposed Change for the Downtown Miami Development of Regional Impact to the South Florida Regional Planning Council. We feel that there are still issues related to the Notification of Proposed Change to the DRI that have also been raised by the South Florida Water Management District and the Miami Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management, which to our knowledge have not been fully resolved, and include: 1. Several documents were inconsistent with the most recent information in the Class I permit application file. (DERM) 2. The need for specified additional permit requirements and close consultation during project development. (DERM) 3. The need to provide documentation from the Army Corps of Engineers that the proposed dredging will not conflict with their easement. (SFWMD) and (Federal Government) 4. A revised proposal to indicate that turbidity screens will extend to the bottom, rather than a depth of 14 feet. (SFWMD) 5. The need to identify which of two benthic mitigation options will be incorporated into the plan. (SFWMD) 6. A revision of the seagrass mitigation plan. (SFWMD) and (Federal Government) Included in their letter to the DCA regarding the submitted Notification of Proposed Change, the SFRPC stated that portions of the traffic analysis do not clearly and convincingly rebut the presumption that no roadways will be significantly impacted. The Planning Council also stated that the Development Order should specify that development on Watson Island is limited to the types and uses proposed, and is not subject to the application of the existing flexibility matrix. The City of Miami Beach acknowledges that the restriction of uses on Watson Island is included in the proposed conditions to the Development Order that were forwarded to DCA on Monday. The City of Miami Beach understands that FDOT does not see a fatal flaw in the traffic impact methodology, but they do acknowledge that the MacArthur Causeway should not Page 5of6 be classified as a freeway, as was done in the transportation assessment, but that it operates somewhere between a freeway and an arterial. It is the City of Miami Beach's position that since the Causeway is classified as an arterial, it should be studied as such. Therefore, the City of Miami Beach feels that there are still outstanding traffic issues identified by the consultants for both the City of Miami Beach and FDOT that necessitate further study. These include: 1. As mentioned before, overstating of the maximum service capacity for the MacArthur Causeway. The MacArthur Causeway is an arterial road and not a freeway 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. 3. The vehicle occupancy used different ratios for vehicle occupancy for capacity and person trips. Additionally, there are other uses and related issues such as residential use, and, while speculative at this time, casino operations, and the corresponding hurricane evacuation plans that have different impacts that were not reviewed as part of the Development of Regional Impact amendment process. Page 6 of 6