I. CHAIRS REPORT:

Mr. Everingham called the meeting to order and welcomed everyone to the October meeting.   He stated that there are 12 parking spots that are reserved for MRC members or their designees behind the United Way building.  Phil advised that copies of the final Urban Infill Plan are available for MRC members.  He stated there was a quorum present and asked for approval of the September minutes.  Tom Parker made the motion to approve the September minutes.  Cleve Jones seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 

II.        5^th Street Bridge Replacement Presentation

            Mr. Everingham recognized Andre Goins, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), for the 5^th Street Bridge Replacement Presentation.  Mr. Goins stated the bridge was built in 1925.  A vessel struck the bridge about 1.5 years ago and it took 8 months to repair at a cost of about $2 million.  This incident prompted the Planning, Development & Environmental (PD&E) Study to replace the bridge that the FDOT is currently undertaking.  There is money available to build a new bridge.  The bridge provides a connecting link to SR-7/US-441, SW 8^th Street (US 41) to Miami-Dade/Broward County line.  The vertical clearance is too low, at 11.5 feet, and the horizontal clearance too narrow, at less than 75 feet, prompting the Coast Guard to designate the bridge as an “obstruction to navigation”.   Additionally, there is no 15-foot opening to serve as a spillway on the north side of the bridge.  Without this spillway, the bridge structure in the river creates excessively strong currents in this area.  As part of the PD&E study, FDOT conducted a traffic study.  They found that the amount of traffic that crosses the bridge is substantial; about 14,000 vehicles per day.  The bridge is part of the Metro Bus System route with approximately 2300 passengers per day, as well as Miami-Dade County Schools with approximately 1500 school children transported over the bridge.   Over a twelve-hour daytime period, 500 pedestrians and 200 bicyclists were counted crossing the bridge. These are high numbers for a non-downtown area. 

As part of the study, FDOT did an analysis.  First, they looked into improving the vertical clearance of the bridge.  The current Coast Guard policy requires a vertical clearance of 25 feet from the river to the bottom of the bridge.  Mr. Goins stated that in order to meet these criteria, the bridge would have to be much higher than the existing bridge and the higher the bridge the greater the impact to the surrounding area.  FDOT looked at three different bridge alternatives.  The first option is a 17-foot vertical clearance.  With this option, there would be significant changes to the elevations of the streets on either side of the bridge and would require the intersections on either side of the bridge to be raised by 7 feet.  The second option is a bridge with a 21-foot vertical clearance and this would raise the intersections by 12 feet.  The third option is a bridge with a vertical clearance of 25 feet (Coast Guard policy guidelines) and this option would raise the intersections by 16 feet.  To understand what the different vertical clearances would mean for bridge openings, FDOT completed a vessel survey.  FDOT plotted every vessel that transited the bridge over three days to determine vessel heights.  They used this data to evaluate what the percentage reduction of bridge openings would occur.  (This assumes that similarly sized vessels will operate on the river during the 70-year life span of the bridge.)   If the vertical clearance were 17 feet, there would be a 26% reduction in bridge openings from the existing bridge.    If the vertical clearance were 21 feet, there would be a 37% reduction and if it the full 25-feet vertical clearance were provided they would expect a 47% reduction in bridge openings. 

In addition to looking at vertical clearance, FDOT also looked into alternatives for the horizontal clearance.  The first option has a 108-foot span in order to reach a 100-foot channel opening for navigation on the River.  The second option is a 122-foot span.  This would be a bridge that is straight across the River channel so that navigation would be improved and this is FDOT’s preferred option.  The third option considered was a bridge with a 150-foot span.  This option was developed after meetings between FDOT, the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).  With this option, the structure of the bridge that supports the bridge spans falls directly on the current intersection on the north side.  The USACE stated that this is the horizontal clearance requirement for new bridges over the Miami River.

             Sandy O’Neil asked if the funding was available.  Mr. Goins responded that the funding is presently available for the FDOT’s preferred option, but they probably did not have enough money to build the 150-foot wide bridge.  Janet McAliley asked if the 25’ clearance is a mandatory requirement imposed by the Coast Guard.  The answer was that this is not mandatory, but if FDOT wanted a lower vertical clearance they must demonstrate the impact of a lower vertical clearance.  The Coast Guard would then evaluate the issues and make a decision.  FDOT is hoping that the Coast Guard will approve a 17’ vertical clearance height. 

The timeline proposed is to finish the PD&E study early next year and this would be followed by three years of design, with a construction start time sometime in 2007.  Mr. Goins stated that there was a possibility to speed up this process.  The three-year design window includes the process for FDOT to acquire any land or right of ways that may be necessary.  Discussion ensued.  FDOT would like to have a vertical clearance of 17’ and a horizontal span of about 100’-122’.  Mr. Goins stated that between 122’ and 150’, the price of construction of the bridge would more than double.  The conceptual bridge plans are available through FDOT, but they do not have a website.  Captain Beau Payne wanted to know what would be done with the existing bridge in the meantime.  FDOT stated that they have not decided yet if they will first tear down the old bridge before building the new bridge.  Residents in that area are worried that the new bridge will block their view and be out of scale with the neighborhood.  Sandy O’Neil wanted to know what the FDOT wanted from the Commission today.  David Miller responded that  FDOT was requested to come before the Commission to ensure MRC members were aware of the impacts and options for bridge replacement and the status of the PD&E study.  The Economic Development & Commerce committee has monitored this issue.  Sandy O’Neil felt that the MRC should make a motion or vote on our preferred alternative.  Discussion ensued.

            Capt. Jim Watson, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port, stated that this bridge should be removed as soon as possible, since it is a serious hazard to navigation for coastal freighters and larger yachts.  In conjunction with the upcoming dredging project, it would be much more beneficial if the 5^th Street Bridge was removed sooner rather than later.  He further stated that not having a new bridge until after 2007 does not make any sense.  FDOT replied that even if the bridge were to be removed the removal project would have to undergo the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process because it would impact the surrounding land and people.  Gerardo Fernandez feels that the MRC should have some sort of recommendation for the FDOT regarding the removal of the 5^th Street Bridge, prior the dredging project.  Michael Cox stated that the surrounding community would be impacted if the bridge were removed, due to the great increase of traffic in previously quiet neighborhoods.  David Miller stated that it would benefit the MRC’s mission of river improvement to expedite the replacement of this bridge.       

            Sandy O’Neil made a motion for the MRC to develop a recommendation for this issue by the December meeting in order to help expedite the process.  Bruno Barreiro seconded the motion.  Janet McAliley asked Sandy to add an amendment that the impact to the surrounding communities be taken into consideration, as well as capturing the character and ambiance of the community when designing the bridge in order to preserve those qualities.  The amendment was accepted.  Gerardo Fernandez asked that the motion be further amended to include examining the water conveyance issues and the additional dredging of the rock and spoil that impedes water flow.  Sandy accepted this as a friendly amendment.   FDOT stated that they could only dredge the areas that fall within their right of way.  David stated that he spoke with USACE and if the bridge were not removed/replaced before the dredging project, then FDOT would be responsible, after bridge replacement, to dredge (within FDOT’s right of way) to a 16 foot depth (15 feet plus one foot of over dredging) and to the horizontal criteria required by the USACE.  The USACE is also working on a related issue, as over the decades since the bridge has been in place, the property owner on the southeast side has encroached substantially into the navigable channel.  The property owner will have to remove that material before or during the dredging process or the Corps will remove it and charge the property owners.  Discussion ended and a vote was taken on the amended motion and the motion passed unanimously. 

Phil Everingham introduced Michael Cox, Ernie Martin’s designee, to the commission.

III.            Proposed Water and Sewer Department Facility

            Phil Everingham recognized Mr. Bill Brant, the Director of the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department (WASD), and asked that he make a presentation to the MRC regarding the proposed purchase by the county of 3.4 acres of property between NW 5^th and 6^th Streets and NW 6^th and 7^th Avenues for a WASD facility.  Mr. Brant stated that WASD would like to be located close to the residents as they provide water and sewer services to the entire county, and much like the police they have facilities throughout the county to be able to best service everyone’s needs in the quickest and most efficient manner.  WASD would like to purchase this 3.4-acre site, which is adjacent to their existing property.  This proposal for this site would include a 3-story office building, a parking garage, a fueling station, a sewer pump station and a small repair shop.  This site would also have ground level parking for their trucks and heavy equipment.  The office building would be utilized by meter reading personnel and service crews would report to this building each morning to pick up their assignments and their trucks.  Vehicle repair would also take place at this location.  This would provide an employment center for 300 people.  The owner of the property is a willing seller to the county.  Jorge Ferrer, the architect of the site made a presentation of the proposed site plan to the group.  WASD stated that they are happy to work with the MRC and they will try and make adjustments where possible. 

            Karen Cartwright a resident of Overtown had an objection.  She wanted to know why they had to locate this sewer pump station in Overtown, and not somewhere else in the county.  She stated that if the sewer pump station will not improve service to Overtown, then the residents do not want it.  She further stated that neither the residents of Spring Garden nor Overtown want this pump station no matter how it looks on the outside.  Mr. Brant stated that this would be the backup station to pump station number one and this pump station would serve the residents of Overtown as well as Spring Garden.  WASD stated that they are willing to undergo a City of Miami urban design review.  The property is currently zoned as C-2.  Commissioner Bruno Barreiro stated that his first priority is the 5^th Street Bridge.  His next priority is to find a good use for this parcel of land that will meet the needs of the neighborhood and take into account the revitalization of the neighborhood as well, whether this is through new affordable housing opportunities or by allowing WASD to use the land.  He thinks that the county should acquire the property now and hold on to it until the Fifth Street Bridge issue is resolved along with greenway development issues. He wants to determine the best use of the land, before letting WASD develop the property. 

            WASD stated that their employees are currently working out of substandard facilities, and they have to walk 3 or more blocks to their cars at night, which is unsafe.  Irby McKnight, President of the Overtown Advisory Board, stated that he has many concerns.  He stated that WASD met with residents of Spring Garden, but they are planning on building their facility in Overtown and they have not met with the residents of Overtown.  Mr. McKnight stated that he wanted to know about the landscape buffer and the variations in the width.  He stated that it is these details that annoys the people and make them fight against WASD.  Mr. McKnight felt that the landscape buffer on 6^th Avenue should be increased.  He also wanted to know if Overtown needed a second pumping station?  Mr. Brant stated that the whole area needed a second pump station, not necessarily just Overtown.  He further stated that pumping stations could only be located in certain places, due to the hydrology of South Florida.  Mr. McKnight stated that there are only 9,000 residents of Overtown and 4,000 of them are homeless, so why the need for a second pump station in Overtown!  Mr. McKnight stated that their community board has an engineer as a member and he would like her to work with WASD to try and relocate this proposed pump station.  WASD stated that they would be happy to work with her and the residents of Overtown on this issue. 

            Javier Fernandez stated that he has some concerns.  He wondered if this was an appropriate use of the land, which is basically a “gateway” into a community.  This land connects East Little Havana to Overtown.  He also wanted to know if some of the buildings and vehicle storage could be located somewhere else, even if the sewer pump station must be located there.  Javier stated that the City was not consulted about this project and they only found out about it within the past week.  Javier felt that the development of this land by WASD would be in conflict with the Urban Infill Plan.  The City asked that the County Commission defer their decision regarding the property acquisition until the City can learn more about the proposed project.  Janet McAliley stated that she felt that the existing WASD property is not a good neighbor to the surrounding community.  Janet stated they have rusted equipment sitting out on their property in full view of the street with no landscaping to camouflage it; it is an eyesore.  She feels that the community is probably afraid that the new site may not be maintained either, and she agrees with them; therefore, she has a problem supporting this project at this site.  Commissioner Bruno Barreiro asked if Mr. Brant would be willing to buy and hold the property for at least 6 months without doing anything and let WASD go along with the MRC design for this site.  He stated that the MRC understands that there is a need to have a sewer pump station there, but at this time we do not have all the facts and community comments to make a good decisions.  Mr. Brant stated that he would give it a shot.  Sandy O’Neil stated that we do not have a firm bridge design yet and until that happens we do not know if there will be housing options available at the site.  Michael Cox asked what the hours of operation would be and what types of vehicles would be housed there.  Mr. Brant stated that their work vehicles/trucks would be housed there and the hours of operation typically start at 7 a.m., but some personnel would be on hand 24-hours a day for emergency situations.  Javier Fernandez asked why they chose this particular site.  Mr. Brant stated that the initial drive for this site was for the other uses, not necessarily the sewer pump station.  This site will work as a pump station and it has been difficult to locate property to build a pump station.  Javier asked if they have searched the area for property to build the ancillary buildings.  Mr. Brant responded that they had not yet done an exhaustive search for property to build the ancillary buildings. WASD needs at least an acre of property to locate a pump station.

            Gerardo Fernandez asked if the MRC could defer action in light of what has been seen today.  Gary Winston wanted to know if it was possible for this process to go on without incorporating the concerns of the community, which is what he feels is being done at the present time.  WASD response was that they were afraid to defer purchasing the property, because they are afraid the sale will fall through since the seller wants to sell ASAP.  Commissioner Barreiro reiterated that WASD should buy the property while it is available as he is concerned that a developer might come in and purchase the land for some other type of use.  He stated that he, as a commissioner, would not support any action that does not work for the surrounding community.  Discussion ensued. Bill Mauzy commented that he is the developer who is building the Miami River Project located on NW 4^th   Street and NW 4^th   Avenue.  This is a forty-unit development.  The WASD proposed project site is close to this new development.  He stated that no one wants to live near a pump station.  He feels that things like this keep popping up in Overtown without any regard to the people that are not only living, but also working in the community.  Javier Fernandez made a motion to indicate the MRC’s support for locating a pump station, but not the ancillary uses and having the design of the pump station undergo City review.  The motion failed for lack of a second. 

            Bruno Barreiro made a motion to support the purchase of the property, but to withhold planning or use of the property until everyone, including the residents of Overtown and the MRC, has reviewed it.  Sandy O’Neil seconded the motion.  Bruno clarified that if the property is purchased it does not necessarily mean that the construction of the proposed project could happen, unless the County Commission approves it.  If not approved by the County Commission, that property could be sold back to the private sector.  Javier stated that many private developers are interested in purchasing the property for uses that are complimentary to other ongoing projects in that area.  Janet would like to go on record to ask the County to reject the proposed resolution that they have in front of them regarding this issue.  Discussion ended and a vote was taken on the motion and it failed by a vote of 2 for and 12 against. 

Janet McAliley made a motion to oppose the Water and Sewer Department to acquire the property.    Gerardo Fernandez seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.  Commissioner Barreiro stated that if the County purchased the property, they would be able to utilize it for many possibilities.  He is afraid that a developer will purchase the land, if we wait, and then we will be unable to have any say in the use of the land.  Discussion ensued.  The vote on the motion was 3 for and 11 against.  The motion failed. 

Bruno Barreiro made a motion to allow the county to purchase the property with the contingency that the MRC, the City and the Community have to approve the plan for the property.  Sallye Jude seconded the motion.  Javier Fernandez made a friendly amendment to include the Miami River Commission’s opposition to the current proposed county resolution.  The motion with amendment passed unanimously.

IV.       Miami River Greenway Design Between I-95 and SW 12^th Ave

            Phil Everingham asked Brenda Marshall to speak about this issue.  Brenda stated that Trust for Public Land (TPL) received a grant from the Knight Foundation for the construction of a Greenway.  As part of that grant, the Knight Foundation asked TPL to look at the section of the Greenway between I-95 and SW 12^th Avenue.  TPL has been working with the neighborhood and Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA) to develop a plan.  Today we are looking at that segment.  Scott Mingonet of KHA made a presentation of the proposed greenway.  He stated that the only deviation from the Greenway Action Plan is for the greenway to go under the 5^th Street Bridge and not up 7^th Avenue.  Dick Rogers, of Curtis and Rogers, made a presentation of the engineering schematics.  Sallye Jude stated that FPL should be made aware that their huge utility poles are not appropriate for a greenway.   For the most part the greenway is an on-road walkway that runs parallel with the river, but not directly on the riverbank, with some exceptions.  In places where establishments require on street parking, the design of the greenway will be altered to accommodate the parking needs.  KHA recommends development of off street parking, so as not to impinge on the width of the greenway.  Sallye Jude made a motion that this greenway corridor is significant and Florida Power and Light should relocate utility cables underground.  Sandy O’Neil seconded the motion.  The motion passed unanimously.        
     V.       New Business

David Miller thanked Sandy O’Neil and Mayor Penelas for writing the letters to the Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate the dredging project.