Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubnittal-Dickman, Andrew-Objection to City of Miami-Proposed Comprehensive e Plan Text AmendmentSubmitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, Ewan, Nicole on 06-11-2020, City Clerk From: Mendez, Victoria Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:04 AM Subject: FW: City of Miami - Proposed Comprehensive e Plan Text Amendment - File ID 7291 Attachments: Settlement Agreement - Cover Letter and Resolutions - 2010 (00106691xE1 F64).PDF; Settlement Agreement - Exhibit 1 - Stipulated Settlement Agreement (00106690xEl F64).PDF; Settlement Agreement - Exhibit A - Statement of Intent - 2010 (00106689xE1 F64).PDF; Settlement Agreement - Exhibit B - Remedial Actions - 2010 (00106688xE1 F64).PDF; Opinion Brisas 102407 (00056771 xE1 F64).PDF; Opinion Hurricane Cove 080807 (00059103xE1 F64).PDF; Opinion - Coastal 082907 (00057006xE1 F64).PDF Honorable Mayor and Commissioners Please note objection from Attorney Andrew Dickman and his clients on item PZ5 regarding the comprehensive plan change that will allow hotels in industrial areas. Thank you. Todd Please make sure this is placed in the public record as well. From: Andrew Dickman <andrew@dickmanlawfirm.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:54 PM To: Mendez, Victoria <VMendez@miamigov.com> Cc: Matthew McConnell <matthew@dickmanlawfirm.org> Subject: FW: City of Miami - Proposed Comprehensive e Plan Text Amendment - File ID 7291 CAUTION: This is an email from an external source. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Victoria, I represent the Miami River Marine Group and Antillean Shipping. They brought to my attention that the city is proposing the above referenced text amendments to the comprehensive plan. They provided me with a notice of the virtual public hearing on this matter scheduled tomorrow and the requirement to submit documentation by 5 pm today. To that end, I provided my clients a quick summary of the settlement and cases involving the city and the port of Miami River plus the relevant documents. I am forwarding all this to you in the interest of time since I am not able to appropriately participate in the hearing. I believe it is too important an issue to conduct this in a virtual hearing. My clients are now telling me that they cannot upload the attached files. I realize the governor's executive order waived the physical quorum requirement but the underlying AGO did not lower the bar on the public's right to reasonably participate. I would suggest that the content of this matter is so significant that the normal use of the word "reasonable" is much higher than allowing someone to submit information and call in. I am therefore asking you to stop this hearing and more importantly look into the substantive issues related to the text amendments. It would be very easy to exempt out those marine industrial areas to preclude motels and hotels. 7291 Submittal -Dickman, Andrew -Objection to City of Miami -Proposed Comprehensive a Plan Text Amendment I have another issue with a letter promised by Sue Trone and Francisco on the Brisas rezoning, but the text amendment is the most pressing today. Submitted Into the public You can call my cell anytime. 305-335-1303. record for Item(S) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Thank you, Andrew From: Andrew Dickman Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:35 PM To: Roselvic Noguera <rnoguera@antillean.com>; markbailey@miamirivermarinegroup.org Cc: Matthew McConnell <matthew@dickmanlawfirm.org> Subject: City of Miami - Proposed Comprehensive e Plan Text Amendment - File ID 7291 Dear Ms. Noguera (Antillean Shipping) and Mr. Bailey (the Miami River Marine Group): The attached documents should be entered into the record in connection with the above matter. The documents together are the "settlement" of your 2010 appeal of the comprehensive plan text amendments which would have eliminated any all reference to and protection of the Port of Miami River working waterfront. I've separated the documents for ease of use do to the size when scanned. Below is a brief synopsis. From 2003 to 2010, the Miami River Marine Group (inclusive of Antillean Marine), the late Captain Beau Payne, and the Durham Park Neighborhood Association successfully challenged the City's rezoning properties on the Miami River from marine industrial to restricted commercial large condominium. I was and still am your attorney. Also attached are the district court opinions. When the City did not prevail in court, in 2008, it used the statutory requirement to evaluate its comprehensive plan, a process called "Evaluation and Appraisal Report" (EAR), to propose EAR -based text amendments to the comprehensive plan. These amendments would have eliminated any all reference to and protection of the Port of Miami River working waterfront, as stated above. You lobbied the state land planning agency, at that time known as the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), to opposed those amendments pertaining to the Port of Miami River working waterfront. DCA found these amendment "Not In Compliance" and put the City on notice of this in 2009. The DCA and the City began negotiating through mediation and you fought successfully to intervened in this process. In 2010, the parties entered into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement (settlement) adopted by the City on July 22, 2010 by resolution. The substantive feature of the settlement is the "Remedial Actions" which caused the adoption of extensive text amendments to the City's comprehensive plan. Those amendments are still in the comprehensive plan. In my opinion, the above referenced text amendments violate the settlement and remedial action primarily because the City is allowing "Hotel/Motel" uses on lands designated as part of the Port of Miami River zoned marine industrial. The district court cases addressed this very issue — what happens when marine industrial land on the Miami River is "converted" to non -water depended and water -related. In the opinion of the court, this will systematically deplete available land to maintain the Port of Miami River and introduce incompatible uses adjacent to the working river. These court opinions, in my opinion, fall under a doctrine called "law of the case," which essentially precludes parties from relitigating an issue already resolved by the appellate court. In other words, the City will have to show why these amendments are different from the ruling in 2010. The attached settlement documents are: 1. The transmittal letter from the City to DCA of the resolutions adopting the settlement and remedial actions; 2. Exhibit A— DCA's statement of intent to find the 2008 text amendments "Not In Compliance"; 3. Exhibit 1—the executed settlement agreement; and 4. Exhibit B—the Remedial text amendments. I will attempt to communicate your concerns with the City Attorney and request that the City exclude the Port of Miami River from the proposed amendments. Best regards, Andrew Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP DICKMAN LAW FIRM (239) 434-0840 www.dickmanlawfirm.org Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Note: This is a confidential email communication. If you are not the indended reciepient, please immediately contact me and delete the email. Thank you for your cooperation. C�ttg o'f �Ct�i�it July 26, 2010 Mr. Richard Shine Florida Department of Community Affairs Office of the General Counsel 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 (850) 488-4925 Submitted-i-n#o-the public -- record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CARLOS A. MIGOYA City Manager Re: Transmittal of Adopted Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Remedial Actions to the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) related to the Port of the Miami River portion of the 2008 EAR -Based Amendments. Dear Mr. Shine: Please find attached the adopted Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Remedial Actions related to the Port of the Miami River -related portions of the 2008 EAR -Based Amendments. The settlement agreement was adopted by the City Commission at a public hearing on July 22, 2010 as Resolution R-10-0327. The Remedial Actions were adopted at the same public hearing as Ordinance 13189. The Intervenor signed the agreement immediately following the City Commission's adoption. The Agreement includes all conditions that were agreed upon during the phone conference that was held between the City, DCA, and the Intervenor on June 21, 2010. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement includes Exhibit A, the Department's Statement of Intent, and Exhibit B, Remedial Actions required for compliance. The Remedial Actions include proposed Amendments to the MCNP and supporting Data and Analysis. The City anticipates that the Department will sign the Stipulated Settlement Agreement and allow the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan to come fully into compliance with Florida Statutes. If you have any questions, please direct them to Harold Ruck, Chief Planner of the Community Planning Section at 305-416-1424. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor / Miami, Florida 33130 / (305) 416-1400 / Fax: (305) 416-2156 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-070 Mr. Richard Shine July 23, 2010 Page 2 of 2 -Su bm- itted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Copies of this transmittal are being sent concurrently to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, District Six Office of the Florida Department of Transportation Florida Department of State, South Florida Regional Planning Council, South Florida Water Management District, Florida Department of Education, and Miami -Dade County Planning and Zoning Department, as well as the Intervenor. g Department Documents Included CC: Carlos Migoya, City Manager, City of Miami Horacio S. Agirre, Chairperson, Mayor's Transition Committee Tomas Regalado, Mayor, City of Miami Bill Pable, Community Program Administrator, DCA Mike McDaniel, Chief of Comprehensive Planning, DCA Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator, DCA Andrew Dickman, Legal Council, Miami River Marine Group Fran Sohnsack, Executive Director, Miami River Marine Group Jim Quinn, Environmental Manager, Department of Environmental Protection Phil Steinmiller, Planning Section, FDOT District 6 Susan Harp, Historic Preservation Planner, Department of State Rachel M. Kalin, South Florida Regional Planning Council Jim Jackson, A.I.C.P., Senior Supervisor Planner, SF Water Management District Tracy D. Suber, Department of Education Mark Woerner, Chief of Metropolitan Planning, Miami -Dade DPZ CITY COMMISSION FACT SHEET File ID: 08-00223ctl Submitted into tme -PUD11C record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk PZ.2 Title: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ("DCA") AND THE INTERVENOR, "THE MIAMI RIVER MARINE GROUP INC.", REGARDING A PENDING DISPUTE OVER CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ("MCNP") AFFECTING THE MIAMI RIVER; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED; DIRECTING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT TO THE MCNP IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Applicant(s): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 (305) 250-5400 Purpose: This will approve the Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs and the intervenor, "Miami River Marine Group, Inc." Finding(s): Planning Department: Recommended approval. Background and Analysis: See supporting documentation. City Commission: July 22, 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk P Z. 3 FIRST READING CITY COMMISSION FACT SHEET File ID: 08-00223ct2 Title: AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING, ADDING, AND DELETING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES PORT OF MIAMI RIVER SUB -ELEMENT AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO INCORPORATE THE PLAN AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTERVENOR "THE MIAMI RIVER MARINE GROUP, INC.", THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Applicant(s): Carlos A. Migoya, City Manager, on behalf of the City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 (305) 250-5400 Purpose: This will allow required amendments to the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan based on the Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the intervenor, "Miami River Marine Group, Inc.", the Department of Community Affairs and the City of Miami. Finding(s): Planning Department: Recommended approval. Background and Analysts: See supporting documentation. City Commission: July 22, 2010 - - — — _ ul mittedinto-thelmb1Tc— record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Background and Analysis Per Florida Statutes, all local governments shall adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendments based on a state required and adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of its Comprehensive Plan. The City adopted its EAR document December 2005, and is required to adopt amendments to its Comprehensive Plan based on EAR recommendations. On January 6, 2009, the City of Miami received issuant of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Statement of Intent and Notice of Intent finding the adopted EAR Based Amendments In Compliance with the exception of Goal PA-3, Objective PA-3.1 and Policies PA-3.1.1 to 3.1.9, Objective PA-3.2, and Policy PA- 3.2.1, Objective PA-3.3 and Policy PA-3.3.1, Objective PA-3.4, and Policies PA- 3.4.1 to 3.4.4 and Policy LU-1.4.10 that were found Not In Compliance. On October 16, 2009, the City bf Miami entered into mediation between Intervenor, "Miami River Marine Group, Inc." the Department of Community Affairs and the City of Miami in efforts to resolve dispute. On May 27, 2010, the City Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time it discussed the proposed compromised language regarding the Miami River Sub -element; at which time it voted to transmit the plan amendment and Stipulated Settlement Agreement to the Department of Community Affairs for approval. This will allow required amendments to the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan based on a Stipulated Settlement Agreement between Intervenor, "Miami River Marine Group Inc.", the Department of Community Affairs, and the City of Miami to bring the entire Comprehensive Plan into compliance. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Gti 1'. QF` City of Miami F� - 9 Legislation Resolution File Number: 08-00223ct1 Submitted Onto -the publie record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk City Hail 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamlgov.com llnal Action Date: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ("DCA") AND THE INTERVENOR, "THE MIAMI RIVER MARINE GROUP INC.", REGARDING A PENDING DISPUTE OVER CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ("MCNP") AFFECTING THE MIAMI RIVER; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED; DIRECTING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT TO THE MCNP IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. . WHEREAS, the City adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment (EAR -Based Plan Amendment) by Ordinance No. 13043 on November 13, 2008, which is sometime known as Miami 08-1 ER; and, WHEREAS, the Department issued .its Statement and Notice of Intent regarding the Amendments op January 6,2009 and found the EAR Based Plan Amendments to be in compliance with the exception as set forth below; and, WHEREAS, as set forth in the Statement of Intent, the Department contends that the following Amendments: Goal PA-3; Objective PA-3.1, and Policies PA-3.1.1 to 3.1.9; Objective PA-3.2, and Policy PA-3.2.1 ; Objective PA-3.3, and Policy PA-3.3.1; Objective PA- 3.4, and Policies PA-3.4.1 to 3.4.4; Policy LU-1.4.10 are not "in compliance" because it fails to insure the protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts as required by Section 342.07, Florida Statutes; as well as Chapter 163 II, Florida Statutes, the State Comprehensive Plan, Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida; and, WHEREAS, the pursuant to Section 163.3148(10) Florida Statues, DCA has initiated the above -styled formal administrative proceeding challenging the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the "Miami River Marine Group" challenged the MCNP amendments and is an Intervener- in the Challenge proceedings; and' WHEREAS, the City disputes the allegations of the Statement of Intent regarding the Amendment; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2009., the City enter into mediation between the Intervener, "Miami River Marine Group, Inc.", the Department of Community Affairs, and the City of Miami in efforts to resolve .dispute; and WHEREAS, subsequently the City made changes to the foregoing EAR based Plan Amendments requested by DCA; and. Gitp of Miami Page 1 of File Id: 08-00223at1 (Mersiott: I) Printed On: 71912010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Re Number.' 08-00223ctl WHEREAS, on March 11, 2010, the City Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time it discussed the proposed language regarding the Miami River Sub -element of the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan; at which time it voted to direct the Administration to open dialog with stakeholders and return to City Commission with a settlement proposal within 30 days; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2010, upon Commission request, the City of Miami held a stakeholders meeting to review and finalize proposed Port of Miami River Sub -element; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2010, the City Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time It discussed the proposed compromise language regarding the Miami River Sub -element of the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan; at which time it directed staff to proceed with the plan amendment and settlement agreement; and WHEREAS, DCA, the Intervener "Miami River Marine Group Inc." and the City have been able to amicably resolve their differences over the Miami River related amendments in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement and its exhibits which amendments have addressed the need to protect and foster recreational and commercial working waterfronts in the manner provided by the laws of the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying Stipulated Settlement Agreement and City Commission agenda memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated by reference, and has conducted a public hearing in compliance with the requirements of section 163.3184(16), Florida Statutes and further directs the Planning Director to transmit the Stipulated Settlement Agreement to the Department of Community Affairs for approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated herein as if fully set forth In this Section. Section 2. This City Commission hereby approves the Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") and the Intervener, "Miami River Marine Group Inc." relating to the pending dispute styled Florida Department of Community Affairs, Petitioner and the Miami River Marine Group, Inc., Intervener vs. the City of Miami, Respondent, (DOAH Case No. 09- 0969GM, In Re.: MCNPAmendment 08-9ER) in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and made a part hereof. This City Commission further authorizes the City Manager to execute the Stipulated Settlement Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Miami and directs the Planning Director to submit an amendment to the MCNP in the manner provided by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement to DCA for approval. Section 3. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 163.3184(16) and 163.3184(15) (b)(2) and (15)(e), Florida Statutes, and § 62-31(e) (6) of the Code of the City of Miami, the following schedule shall govern: the ordinance approving the application to amend the MCNP shall be considered at public hearing on July 22, 2010, or as soon thereafter as It may be heard. Section 4. The effective date of this plan amendment shall be the date a final order Is Issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in City, of Mianti Page 2 of 3 File Id. 08-00223ct1 (TIarsion: I) Printed On: 71912010 - --- — - --- - — - - -Submitted-into the pubtrc--. record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Fite Number 08-00223ct1 compliance in accordance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever is applicable. No development orders, development permits,•or land uses. dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before It has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by -the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Planning, and Plan Processing Team. {1) Section 5. If the state land planning agency issues a notice of intent to find that this plan amendment transmitted in compliance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, any affected person may file a petition with the agency within 21 days after the publication of notice. In this proceeding, the amendment shall. be determined to be in compliance If the City's determination of compliance is fairly debatable. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM AND CORRECTNESS; JULIE • B_ROW"�_­ CITYATTORNEY Footnotes; (1) If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission. Ctnf of M4111i Page 3 of 3 Fite Id: 08-00223etl (Herstow 1) Prtntert On: 71912010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk SubmittedSUbmitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk op., City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Legislation Miami, FL33133 �y rip www.miamigov.com Ordinance Tile Number, 08-00223ct2 FInal Action Dnte. AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BYAMENDING., ADDING, AND DELETING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES PORT OF MIAMI RIVER SUB-ELEMENTAND'COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE •CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163., PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO INCORPORATE THE PLAN AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTERVENOR "THE MIAMI RIVER MARINE GROUP, INC.", THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan (MCNP) was adopted by the City Commission of the City Miami by Ordinance No. 10544 on February 9, 1989; and WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. and Chapter 9J-5, -Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) required that each local government periodically updated its comprehensive plan through the preparation and adoption .of an evaluation and appraisal report assessing the success or failure of the adopted comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the City Commission adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report on December 1st, 2005; and WHEREAS, R-05-0707, adopting the 2005 Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR), indicated that the City of Miami shall consider amendment of the MCNP based on recommendations in the EAR and shall consider updating the comprehensive plan in accordance with Sections 163.3184, 163.3187, and 163.3191, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., requires that each local government incorporate recommendations contained in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report as amendments to the MCNP; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami in furtherance of public participation In the oomprehensive planning process through Its local planning agency, the Planning Advisory Board, held various workshops and public hearings relative to the EAR amendments; and WHEREAS, the Miami •Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting on April 30, 2008, Item No. 1, following an advertised public hearing, adopted by Resolution No. PAB 08-014, by a vote of eight to City of Miand Page I of 4 Ric Id: 08-00223ct2 (Version, 1) Printed On: "12010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk File Number: 08-00223ct2 zero (8-0), recommending APPROVAL with modifications of text amendments to the MCNP; and WHEREAS, the Miami Planning Advisory Board, at its meeting on April 30, 2008, 'Item No. 1, following an advertised public hearing, adopted by Resolution No. PAB 08-014a, by a vote of six to two (6-2), recommending DENIAL of the proposed Miami River Sub -Element as presented by the Planning Department; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 2008, the City Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time it considered the recommended changes In the review comments, from staff, and from members of the public; and WHEREAS, the public hearing held on May 8, 2008 was recessed and the City Commission continued this public hearing until May 13, 2008, at which time the City Commission deliberated, discussed and took action on the EAR based amendments; at which time it voted to transmit the amendments for review by state, region and local agencies as required by law; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2008, the City of Miami received the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) report entitled Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC); and WHEREAS, following Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) review of the amendments to the MCNP and a finding of insufficiency by Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the City Commission of the City of Miami on July 24, 2008, adopted amendments to the MCNP based on the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report of July 18, 2008"; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2009, the City of Miami received Issuant of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Statement of Intent and Notice of Intent finding the adopted EAR Based Amendments In Compliance with the exception of Goal PA-3, Objective PA-3.1 and Policies PA-3.1.1 to 3.1.9, Objective PA-3.2, and Policy PA-3.2.1, Objective PA-3.3 and Policy PA-3.3.1, Objective PA-3.4, and Policies PA-3.4.1 to 3.4.4 and Policy LU-1.4.10 that were found Not In Compliance as attached in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2009, the City of Miami enter Into mediation between the Intervenor, "The Miami River Marine Group, Inc.", the Department of Community Affairs, and the City of Miami in efforts to resolve dispute; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2010, the City Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time It discussed the proposed language regarding the Miami River Sub -element of the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan; at which time It voted to direct the Administration to open dialog with stakeholders and return to City Commission with a settlement proposal within 30 days; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2010, upon Commission request, the City of Miami held a stakeholders meeting to review and finalize proposed Port of Miami River Sub -element; and WHEREAS, on May 27, 2010, the City Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which time It discussed the proposed compromise language regarding the Miami River Sub -element of the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan; at which time It directed the Planning Director to proceed with the plan amendment and compliance agreement; and City oflia ni Page 2 of 4 Me Id. 08-00223ct2 Ne:sion:1) Printed On: 71912010 SuUfttted into the public—, record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk File Number., 08-00223ct2 WHEREAS, the City Commission after careful consideration of this matter deems it advisable and in the best Interest of the general welfare of the City of Miami and its inhabitants to amend the Future Land Use Element, Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Port of Miami River. sub -element and Coastal Management Element of the MCNP as hereinafter set forth and transmit to the .Department of Community Affairs for approval. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained In the Preamble to this Ordinance are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section, Section 2. Ordinance No.10544, as amended, the MCNP, is hereby, amended by amending the text of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of said Ordinance as attached in "Exhibit B". f1) Section 3. The City Manager is directed to instruct the Director of the Planning Department to immediately transmit certified copies of this Ordinance and the amended MCNP to the Florida Department of Comm unity Affairs, Tallahassee, Florida; South Florida Regional Planning Council, Hollywood, Florida; and any other public official or government agency requesting a copy for statutorily mandated review. Section 4. If any section, part of section, paragraph, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is declared invalid, the remaining provisions -of this Ordinance shall not be affected. Section 5. The effective date of this plan amendment shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment In compliance In accordance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, whichever is applicable. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status., a copy of which resolution shall. be sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Planning, and Plan Processing Team. {2} Section 6. If the state land planning agency issues a notice of intent to find that this plan amendment transmitted In compliance with Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, any affected person may file a petition with the agency within 21 days after the publication of notice. In this proceeding, the amendment shall be determined to be in compliance if the City's determination of compliance is fairly debatable. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: JULIE O. CITY ATTORNEY Footnotes: City of Miami Page 3 of 4 File Id: 08-00223ca (Perslou:1) Printed On. 71912010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Flle Number., 08-00223ct2 {1} Words and/or figures stricken through shall be deleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged. {2} This Ordinance shall become effective as specified herein unless vetoed by the Mayor within ten days from the date it was passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Ordinance, it shall become effective at the date stated herein, whichever is later. City of Miami Page 4 of 4 File a 08-00223c12 Mersion: 1) Printed On: 71912010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, .�,s� 0F,, City of Miami Mayor Signature Report Meeting Date: July 22, 2010 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number Title Enactment Number 08-0022301 Resolution Enactment No: R-10-0327 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENTS, APPROVING THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ("DCA") AND THE INTERVENOR, "THE MIAMI RIVER MARINE GROUP INC.", REGARDING A PENDING DISPUTE OVER CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ("MCNP") AFFECTING THE MIAMI RIVER; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE FORM ATTACHED; DIRECTING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO SUBMITAN AMENDMENT TO THE MCNP IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Sign 08-00223ct2 Ordinance Veto Enactment No: 13189 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10544, AS AMENDED, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, BYAMENDING, ADDING, AND DELETING GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES PORT OF MIAMI RIVER SUB -ELEMENT AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 163, PART II, FLORIDA STATUTES, TO INCORPORATE THE PLAN AMENDMENTS PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE INTERVENOR'THE MIAMI RIVER MARINE GROUP, INC.", THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, AND THE CITY OF MIAMI; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTALS TO AFFECTED AGENCIES; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Sign [x Veto 1771 City of Miami Page 1 of 2 Printed on 0712612010 File Number Title Mayor Tomas Re lado ate Mayor Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Enactment Number The signature of the mayor indicates review and action for the items (R-10-0327, 13189). If any item does not indicate a determination to sign or veto, the item shall be deemed to take effect 10 days from the date of the City Commission Action. ATTEST: -*AN L LPriscilla A. Thompson City Clerk `77 a6 10 Date City of Miami Page 2 of 2 Printed on 0712612010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk EXHIBIT 1 STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE- NO.: ***Unknown: Corot -Status Case No)) STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Petitioner, MIAMI RIVER MARINE GROUP, INC., Intervenor, V. DOAH Case No. 09- 0169GM CITY OF MIAMI, Respondent. STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs and the City of Miami, a Florida Municipal Corporation (City) as a complete and final settlement of all claims between the Petitioner, Intervenor and Respondent raised in the above -styled proceeding. RECITALS WHEREAS, the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs (DCA or Department), is the state land planning agency and has the authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part Il, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the Cit j is a local government with the duty to adopt comprehensive plan amendments that are "in compliance"; and WHEREAS, the Local Government adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment (EAR based Plan Amendments) by Ordinance No. 13043 on November 13, 2008, which is sometimes known Miami 08-IBR; and r Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE NO.: ***Unknown: Court -Status Case No)) WHEREAS, the Department issued its Statement and Notice of Intent regarding the Amendments on January 6, 2009 and found the EAR Based Plan Amendments to be in compliance except as set forth below ; and WHEREAS, as set forth in the Statement of Intent, the Department contends that the following Amendments: Goal PA- 3; Objective PA- 3.1, and Policies PA-3.1.1 to 3.1.9 ; Objective PA- 3.2 , and Policy PA- 3.2.1 ; Objective PA- 3.3 , and Policy PA- 3.3.1; Objective PA- 3.4, and Policies PA- 3.4.1 to 3.4.4 ; Policy LU-1.4.10 are not "in compliance" because it fails to insure the protection of recreational and commercial working waterfi-onts as required by Section 342.07, Florida Statutes ; as well as Chapter 163 II, Florida Statutes, the State Comprehensive Plan, Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3184(10), Florida Statutes, DCA has initiated the above -styled formal administrative proceeding challenging the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the "Miami River Marine Group" challenged the MCNP amendments and is an Intervenor in the challenge proceedings; and WHEREAS, the Local Government disputes the allegations of the Statement of Intent regarding the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City conducted a formal mediation with DCA and the Intervenor on October 16, 2009; and WHEREAS, subsequently the Local Government made changes to the foregoing EAR based Plan Amendments requested by DCA; and WHEREAS, the City also conducted a Stakeholder meeting with the Intervenor on April 15, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Local Government has additionally made changes to the EAR Based Plan Amendments requested by the Intervenor and these changes were approved, in principle, by the City Commission on May 27, 2010 who directed they be transmitted to DCA; and Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE NO.: ***Unknown: Court -Status Case No)) *** WHEREAS, the parties wish to avoid the expense, delay, and uncertainty of lengthy litigation and to resolve this proceeding under the terms set forth herein, and agree it is in their respective mutual best interests to do so; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein below set forth, and in consideration of the benefits to accrue to each of the parties, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby represent and agree as follows: GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Definitions. As used in this agreement, the following words and phrases shall have the following meanings: a. Act: The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, as codified in Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. b. Agreement: This stipulated settlement agreement. C. Comprehensive Plan Amendment or Plan Amendment: Comprehensive plan amendment Miami 08-1 ER, adopted by the City on November 13, 2008, as Ordinance No. 13043, as amended by subsequent requests of DCA and the Intervenor. d. DOAH: The Florida Division of Administrative Hearings. e. hi compliance or into compliance: The meaning set forth in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. f. Notice: The Notice of Intent issued by the Department to which was attached its statement of intent to find the plan amendment not in compliance. g. Petition: The petition for administrative hearing and relief filed by the Department in this case. L Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE NO.: ***Unknown: Coun-Status Case No)) **9: h. Remedial Action: A remedial plan amendment, submission of support document or other action described in the statement of intent or this agreement as an action which must be completed to bring the plan amendment into compliance. Remedial Plan Amendment: An amendment to the plan or support document, the need for which is identified in this agreement, including its exhibits, and which the local government must adopt to complete all remedial actions. Remedial plan amendments adopted pursuant to this Agreement must, in the opinion of the Department, be consistent with and substantially similar in concept and content to the ones identified in this Agreement or be otherwise acceptable to the Department. Statement of Intent: The statement of intent to find the Plan Amendment not in compliance issued by the Department in this case. k. Support Document: The studies, inventory maps, surveys, data, inventories, listings or analyses used to develop and support the Plan Amendment or Remedial Plan Amendment. 2. Department Powers. The Department is the state land plamiing agency and has the power and duty to administer and enforce the Act and to determine whether the Plan Amendment is in compliance. 3. Negotiation of Agreement. The Department issued its Notice and Statement of Intent to find the Plan Amendment not in compliance, and filed the Petition in this case to that effect. Subsequent to the filing of the Petition the parties conferred and agreed to resolve the issues in the Petition, Notice and Statement of Intent through this Agreement. It is the intent of this Agreement to resolve fully all issues between the parties in this proceeding. 4. Dismissal. If the Local Government completes the Remedial Actions required by this Agreement, the Department will issue a cumulative Notice of Intent addressing both the Remedial Plan Amendment and the initial Plan Amendment subject to these proceedings. The Department will file the cumulative Notice of Intent with the DOAH. The Department will also Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE NO.: ***Unknown: Court -Status Case No)) *** file a request to relinquish jurisdiction to the Department for dismissal of this proceeding or for realignment of the parties, as appropriate under Section 163.3184(16)(f , Florida Statutes. 5. Descrption of Provisions not in Compliance and Remedial Actions; Legal Effect of Agreement. Exhibit A to this Agreement is a copy of the Statement of hitent, which identifies the provisions not in compliance. Exhibit B contains Remedial Actions needed for compliance. Exhibits A and B are incorporated in this Agreement by this reference. This Agreement constitutes a stipulation that if the Remedial Actions are accomplished, the Plan Amendment will be in compliance. 6 Remedial Actions to be Considered for Adoption. The Local Government agrees to consider for adoption by formal action of its governing body all Remedial Actions described in Exhibit B no later than the time period provided for in this Agreement. 7 Adoption or Approval of Remedial Plan Amendments. Within 60 days after execution of this Agreement by the parties, the Local Government shall consider for adoption all Remedial Actions or Plan Amendments and amendments to the Support Documents. This may be done at a single adoption hearing. Within 10 working days after adoption of the Remedial Plan Amendment, the Local Government shall transmit 3 copies of the amendment to the Department as provided in Rule 9J-11.0131(3), Florida Administrative Code. The Local Government also shall submit one copy to the regional planning agency and to any other unit of local or state government that has filed a written request with the governing body for a copy of the Remedial Plan Amendment and a copy to any party granted intervenor status ui this proceeding. The Remedial Plan Amendment shall be transmitted to the Department along with a letter which describes the remedial antion adopted for each part of the plan amended, including references to specific portions and pages. 8. Acknowledmn . All parties to this Agreement acknowledge that the "based upon" provisions in Section 163.3184(8), Florida Statutes, do not apply to the Remedial Plan Amendment. 6 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE NO.: ***Unknown: Cowl -Status Case No» gas* 9. Review of Remedial Plan Amendments and Notice of Intent. Within 30 days after receipt of the adopted Remedial Plan Amendments and Support Documents, the Department shall issue a Notice of Intent pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, for the adopted amendments in accordance with this Agreement. a. In Compliance: If the adopted Remedial Actions satisfy this Agreement, the Department shall issue a cumulative Notice of Intent addressing both the Plan Amendment and the Remedial Plan Amendment as being in compliance. The Department shall file this cumulative notice with DOAH and shall move to realign the parties or to have this proceeding dismissed, as may be appropriate. b. Not in Compliance: If the Remedial Actions do not satisfy this Agreement, the Department shall issue a Notice of Intent to find the Plan Amendment not in compliance and shall forward the notice to DOAH for consolidation with the pending proceeding. 10. Effect of Amendment. Adoption of any Remedial Plan Amendment shall not be counted toward the frequency restrictions imposed upon plan amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes. 11. Purpose of this Agreement• Not Establishing Precedent. The parties enter into this Agreement in a spirit of cooperation for the purpose of avoiding costly, lengthy and unnecessary litigation acid in recognition of the desire for the speedy and reasonable resolution of disputes arising out of or related to the Plan Amendment. The acceptance of proposals for purposes of this Agreement is part of a negotiated agreement affecting many factual and legal issues and is not an endorsement df, and does not establish precedent for, the use of these proposals in any other circumstances or by any other local government. 12. Approval by Governing Body. This Agreement has been approved by the Local Government's governing body at a public hearing advertised at least 10 days prior to the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner prescribed for advertisements in Section 7 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE NO.: "*"Unknown: Cows -Status Case Nos 163.3184(15)(e), Florida Statutes. This Agreement has been executed by the appropriate officer, the City Manager, as provided in the Local Government's charter or other regulations. 13. Changes in Law. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to relieve either party from adhering to the law, and in the event of a change in any statute or administrative regulation inconsistent with this agreement, the statute or regulation shall take precedence and shall be deemed incorporated in this Agreement by reference. 14. Other Persons Unaffected. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to affect the rights of any person not a party to this Agreement. Thus Agreement is not intended to benefit any third party. 15. Attorney Fees and Costs. Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorney fees, incurred in connection with the above -captioned case and this Agreement. 16. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective immediately upon execution by the Department and the Local Govermnent. 17. Filing and Continuance. This Agreement shall be filed with DOAH by the Department after execution by the parties. Upon the filing of this Agreement, the administrative proceeding in this matter shall be stayed by the Administratiye Law Judge in accordance with Section 163.3184(16)(b), Florida Statutes. 18. Retention of Right to Final Hearing. Both parties hereby retain the right to have a final hearing in this proceeding in the event of a breach of this Agreement, and nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of such right. Any party to this Agreement may move to have this matter set for hearing if it becomes apparent that any other party whose action is required by this Agreement is not proceeding in good faith to take that action. 19. Construction of Agreement. All parties to this Agreement are deemed to have participated in its drafting. In the event of any ambiguity in the terms of this Agreement, the parties agree that such ambiguity shall be construed without regard to which of the parties drafted the provision in question. :I Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE NO.: ***Unknown: Covet -Status Case No» s** 20. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties and no verbal or written assurance or promise is effective or binding unless included in this document. 21. Governmental Discretion Unaffected. This Agreement is not intended to bind the Local Government in the exercise of governmental discretion which is exercisable in accordance with law only upon the giving of appropriate public notice and required public hearings. 22. Multiple Originals. This Agreement may be executed in any number of originals, all of which evidence one agreement, and only one of which need be produced for any purpose. 23. Captions. The captions inserted in this Agreement are for the purpose of convenience only and shall not be utilized to construe or interpret any provision of this Agreement. 9 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk CASE NO.: "•Unknown: Coun•Slatus Case No), In witness whereof, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their undersigned officials as duly authorized. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS By: Charles Gauthier. Director Division of Community Planning Date CITE' OF MI By: Carl igoya, City Manager t: Priscilla A.Thompson, CMC, ty clerk 11'���I0 Date INTERVENOR Miami River Marine Group, Inc. i B L r' Pr ident or Other aWwripeCorporate Offichr Date :Attest: Corporate Secretary ApLvqved as to f and le lality, Assistant General Counsel Approved as to form and legality: Julie O. ity Attorney Date (Affix Corporate Seal) 20 Submitted public -� record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Exhibit A Statement of Intent Submitted into ic- record for item(s) PZ.5, ._ on 06-11-2—QZ"4. Qleirk STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS • "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" CHARLIE CRI5T Govemor January 6, 2009 THOMAS G. PELHAM Secretary The Honorable Manuel A. Diaz Mayor, City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear mayor Diaz: j The Department of Community Affairs (the Department) completed its review of the City of Miami OMER comprehensive plan amendments adopted on November 13, 2008 by Ordinance Number 13043. With the exception of the specific goals, objectives, and policies identified in Table I below, the I' Department determined that the amendments adopted by'Ordinance Number 13043 meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part I1, Flprida Statutes, for compliance, as defined in Subsection 163 ,3184(1)(b), Florida \v J' Statutes. i The Department is issuing a Statement of Intent and a Notice of Intent to find the specific goals, objectives, and policies listed in Table I below Not In Compliance, and the remaining amendments - 1 adopted by Ordinance Number 13043 In Compliance. The Notice of Intent has been sent to the Miami Herald for publication on January 7, 2009. I Table 1 Goal PA-3 Objective PA-3.1, and Polioies PA-3.1.1 to 3.1.9 I Objective PA-3.2, and Policy PA-3.2.1 ■ Objective PA-3.3, and Policy PA-3.3.1 ! Objective PA-3.4, and Policies PA-3.4,1 to 3.4.4 Policy LU-1.4.10 l The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies in Talale 1 (which were adopted by Ordinance i Number 13043) fail to include strategies that will be tised to preserve recreational and commercial ' working waterfronts as required by Section 163.3178(2)(g), Florida Statutes. Accordingly, the Department is issuing a Notice of Intent and a Statement of Intent to find the amended goals, objectives, and policies in Table I not In Compliance. With respect to the remaining amendments adopted by Ordinance Number 13043, the ! Department's Notice of Intent to find these plan amendments In Compliance shall be deemed to be a final order if no timely petition challenging the amendments is filed. Any affected person may file a petition IJ 2655 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD + TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100 860-488-8466 (p) ♦ 850-921-0781 (f) + Webslte: www dea.state.f).us • COMMUNITY PLANNING 850468.2386(p) OV,084309(0 t FLORIDA COMMUNME6TRUST 560.9224207(p) 850.921-1747(l) • HOUSING AND cOMMUNivyDEHBLOpmeNT 650488.7956(p) 860.922.5623(f) Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk • The Honorable Manuel A. Diaz January 6, 2009 Page 2 with the agency within 21 days after the publication of the Notice of Intent pursuant to Section I 1633 t 84(9), Florida Statutes. No development orders, or permits for a development, dependent on the amendment may be Issued or commence before the plan amendment takes effect. In addition, the Notice of Intent and the Statement of Intent will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the scheduling of an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. I Please note that a copy of the adopted City of Miami 08-1 ER comprehensive plan amendments, the Statement of Intent, and the Notice of Intent must be available for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at the City of Miami City Hal 1, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida 33133. In addition, Section 163.3184(8)(c)2, Florida Statutes, requires a local government that has an Internet site to post a copy of the Department's Notice of Intent on the site within 5 days after receipt of the mailed copy ofthe agency's Notice of Intent. If an affected person challenges the In Compliance portion of the Notice of Intent, you will have the option of mediation pursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3)(a), Florida Statutes. Ifyou choose to attempt to resolve this matter through mediation, you must file the request for mediation with the administrative law judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The choice of mediation will not affect the right of any party to an administrative bearing. Finally, the following comment regarding the requirement for the City to adopt a water supply plan is offered for clarification, and not as a compliance issue. Objection E. I in the Department's O Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report noted that "The amended goals, objectives, and policies do not require the City to adopt a 10 year water supply facilities work plan." The City adequately responded to Objection E.1. However, the City's proposed text provides for the Plan to be adopted by August 15, 2008, "and if not, as soon as possible before the end of the calendar year, 2008". The quoted text should be deleted for clarity at the City's next amendment cycle, Also, the City's data and analysis in Appendix li (see un-numbered page 7) seems to infer that the requirement to complete a water supply plan does not apply to the City. The requirement to adopt a water supply plan does apply to the City. If you have any questions, please contact )Jill Pable, AICP, at (850) 922-1781 for assistance. 0 5incereiy )171 )/-)� �0 Mike McDaniel, Chief Office of Comprehensive Planning MDivi/bp Enclosures: ' Notice of Intent Statement of intent cc: Ms. Ana Delabert-Sanchez, Planning Director, City of Miami Ms. Carolyn A. Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council 0 —Sb-mitted- into public — record for item(s) PZ.5, --- •_ _..__-- __ — on 06-11-202�, Li y I _rk STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS IN RE: CITY OF MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 08-IER; ORDINANCE NUMBER 13043 AMENDING THE FUTURE ocket No. 08-lER-NOI-1315-(A)-(N) LAND USE ELEMENT AND THE MIAMI RIVER SUB -ELEMENT STATEMENT OF INTENT TO FIND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS NOT IN COMPLIANCE - The Florida Department of Community Affairs, pursuant to Rule 9J-11.012(6), Florida Administrative Code, hereby issues this Statement of Intent regarding the specific Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) of the City of Miami 08-IER amendments identified below. ■ Goat PA-3 • Objective PA-3.1, anal Policies PA-3.1.1 to 3.1.9 ■ Objective PA-3.2, and Policy PA-3.2.1 ■ Objective PA-3.3, and,Policy PA-3.3.1 Objective PA-3.4, and Policies PA-3.4.1 to 3.4.4 o Policy LU-1.4.10 The specific GOPs identified above were part of the Comprehensive PIan amendment adopted by the City of Miami in Ordinance Number 13043 on November 13; 2008, which is known as Miami 08-IER. The Department finds the above cited GOPs Not In Compliance, based upon the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report issued by the Department on July 18, 2008, which is hereby incorporated by reference, as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department finds that these Comprehensive Plan amendments are Not In Compliance because they are not consistent with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, the State Comprehensive Pla4, Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, and the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida,for the following -reasons: 1. INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS The City's revised Goals, Objectives, and Policies fail to include strategies that will be used to preserve recreational and commercial working waterfronts as required by Section 163.3178(2)(g), F.S., for the.following reasons: A. Lack of meaningful and kredictable standards undermines commercial working waterfront uses. The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies do not establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed Iand development regulations related to preserving the recreational and working waterfront of the Miami River. Without meaningful and predictable strategies establishing a comprehensive plan to guide and control development along the Miami River, the commercial working uses of the waterfront are vulnerable because of the potential for the creation of incompatible land use patterns and piecemeal displacement by residential uses. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk B. Not based on data and analysis. The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies are not based on data and analysis in support of the required strategies that will be used to preserve commercial working waterfronts. The City provided a report from Lambert Advisory (i.e. the Lambert Report), The data and analysis focuses on market viability versus strategies, and some of the conclusions regarding market viability are questionable because they are based on faulty or incomplete data. Furthermore, the ORC Report noted that the data and analysis must include the information identified in the accompanying citations. However, the data and analysis does not fully respond to the requirements in the referenced Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, and State Comprehensive Plan. C. Not consistent with EAR. The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies are inconsistent with the City's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). Page 2 of the City's EAR notes that one of the major issues is "the need for, and impacts of, equitable redevelopment and development". The EAR text places great importance on economic development, but the EAR based amendments related to the Port of Miami River Sub -Element are inconsistent with the noted major issue, The City provided the Lambert Report in response to this issue. However, the Lambert Report does not include data and analysis which explains how the continued loss of commercial working waterfront uses is consistent with the major issue identified in the EAR. The Lambert Report provides a market analysis of the viability of Working versus non -working waterfront uses, but it does not adequately address the preservation of working waterfronts. Furthermore, while the Lambert Report advocates converting various working waterfront sites into non -working waterfront uses, it offers no analysis of how residential projects act as an O ongoing stimulus to job creation and economic development. Therefore, the inconsistency between the Goals, Objectives, and Policies and the Evaluation and Appraisal Report is not resolved. C� D. Not internally consistent. The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies are inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Goal CM-2 notes that the City commits to "...preserving traditional water dependent and water -related uses ... and minimizing user conflipts" The most recent amended version of Goal PA-3 reads as follows. "Development along the Miami River (hereinafter the River) shall continue to provide for.water-dependent, water -related commercial, industrial, and recreational uses along the River and provide for residential and mixed use development, while acknowledging the presence of the waterfront industrial district along the River." The amended version of Goal PA-3 (and its associated Policies) does not preserve traditional water -dependent and water -related uses, and does not minimize user conflicts. E. Intergovernmental coordination. The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies do not show how the City will achieve consistent implementation of intergovernmental coordination among the governmental endiles that have planning responsibilities related to the -Miami River. Intergovernmental coordination will occur in a policy vacuum since there. are no strategies to preserve commercial working waterfronts. Also, the'goals, objectives, and policies fail to indicate how the coordination will be implemented in a consistent manner. 2 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, an 06-1 1-902 (itv_.C4erk F. Compatibility. The City's amended goals, objectives, and policies do not ensure compatibility and suitability of uses along the Miami River. Compatibility and suitability should be addressed as part of the strategies to preserve recreational and Commercial working waterfronts. However, the amendment provides no assurance that residential development would not occur along the River in a piecemeal manner and create incompatible land uses. The City has not adequately ensured compatibility and suitability of uses along the Miami River because action is generally deferred to the Land Development Regulations, and it focuses primarily on recreational waterfronts. 11. RULE AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS The Department specifically finds these Comprehensive Plan amendments are inconsistent with the . following rule and statutory provisions (citations are provided for each of the above five sections): Section LA: Rules 9J-5.005(2)(6), Florida Administrative Code, and Sections .163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3178(2)(g), Florida Statutes, Section I.B: Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.012(2)(a)(h), Florida Administrative Code; and Sections 163.3177(1), 163.3177(6)(a), and 163.3178(2)(b)(g), Florida Statutes. Section I.C: Rule 9J-5.012(2)(a), FloridaAdmtnistrative Code; and Sections 163.3177(1)(6)(a), 163.3178(2)(g), 163.3191 (10), Florida Statutes. Section I.D: Rule 91-5.005(5), 9J-5.012(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code; and Sections 1.63.3177(1)(2)(6)(a), 163.3178(2)(g), 163.3187(2), Florida Statutes. Section LE: Rules 9J-5.012(3)(c)14, 9J-5.015(3)(c)6, Florida Administrative Code; and Sections 163.3177(4) and (6)(d)(h),163.3178(2)(g), Florida Statutes. Section I.F: Rules 9J-5.003(23), 9J-5.003(128), 9J-5.006(3)(c)1-2,�9J-5.012(3)(c)9, and 9J- 5.019(4)(c)21, Florida Administrative Code; and Sections 163.3177(6)(a) and 163.3178(2)(g), Florida Statutes, III. RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTIONS A. The above inconsistencies identified in Section "I" may be remedied by taking the actions listed below. The recommended remedial actions are. summarized by the -six areas of compliance in Sections I.A through LF above. 1. Section I.A. Adopt policies to ensure that the recreational and commercial working waterfronts are preserved, which could include the following: . a. The establishment of Waterfront Overlay on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which includes policies to guide the location of uses and assure the preservation of commercial working waterfront uses. 3 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk I n b. An assessment of the required number of acres of working and recreational waterfronts required to maintain their viability, and accompanying policies to ensure that land use amendments will not be considered that would encroach on that total. c. The adoption of*a "no net loss" standard for commercial working waterfront uses along the Miami River. d. Identification of a limited number of specific sites that might be considered for conversion to non -working waterfront uses in the future, in order to preserve the remaining parcels for working waterfront uses. e. A City funded financial assistance program to assist displaced working waterfront uses to'relocate to other areas of the River if they are displaced by redevelopment. f. Creation of a marina public access requirement so that new private residential developments on riverfront marina sites rent a minimum percentage of their slips which are not leased to building residents on the open market. 2. Section I.B. Provide data and analysis in support of the strategies noted above in I.A that will be used to preserve commercial working waterfronts. 3. Section I.C. The remedial actions listed in I.A and I.B resolve this concern. �J 4. Section I.D. The remedial actions listed in LA and I.B resolve this concern. v 5. Section I.E. Adopt policies to indicate how the coordination will be implemented in a consistent manner. Such strategies might include joint planning area agreements and coordinated planning and economic development efforts to ensure the future growth and development of working waterfronts along the Miami River. 6. Section I.F. Adopt policies to ensure compatibility and suitability of uses along the Miami River, which could include the following: a. Specific setbacks for all uses within the waterfront overlay referenced above in 11I.A.i.a. b, A determination of which uses are not compatible to be located next to each other due to visual impacts, noise impacts, dust, or fumes (i.e., diesel repair next to residential). c. Design criteria which would orient potential residential uses in a manner to minimize impacts through acoustic materials, site design, or other measures. d. Require that the hours of operation of contiguous waterfront uses be taken into consideration when considering potential FLUM amendments to convert sites to residential use, and that the hours and nature of the working waterfront operation be a basis for denial of the conversion of the contiguous site to residential use. e, An assessment of whether a FLUM amendment to convert a working waterfront site to a residential use can be served by necessary public infrastructure. --bubmitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, - --^ _ -- _-- — __-- -_Qn 06-1 1-2020, Git_ k JN. CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A. inconsistent Provisions. The inconsistent provisions of the plan amendment under this subject heading are listed below. The Comprehensive Plan amendment is inconsistent with the State Comprehensive Plan goals and policies set forth in Section 187.201, Florida Statutes, including the following provisions: 1. Transportation. The amendment is inconsistent with the Goal set forth in Paragraph 1$7.201(19)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Policy set forth in Subparagraphs 187.201(19)(b)5, Florida Statutes; and 2. The Economy. The amendment is inconsistent with the Goal set forth in Paragraph 187.201(21)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Policies set forth in Subparagraphs 187.201(21)(b) 1; 4, and 12, Florida Statutes; and 3. Agriculture. The amendment is inconsistent with the Goal set forth in Paragraph 187.201(22)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Policy set forth in Subparagraph 187.201 (22)(b) 12, Florida Statutes; and 4. Employment. The amendment is inconsistent with the Goal set forth in Paragraph 187201(24)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Policy set forth in Subparagraph 187.201(24)(b)4, Florida Statutes; and 5. Plan Implementation. The amendment is inconsistent with the Goal set forth in Paragraph Cb* 187.201(25)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Policies set forth in Subparagraph 187.201(25)(b) 7, 8, Florida Statutes. B. Recommended remedial action-. These inconsistencies may be remedied by revising the Comprehensive Plan amendment as described above in Section Ill. V. CONSISTENCY WITH SOUTH FLORIDA STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY PLAN A. Inconsistent provisions. The inconsistent provisions under this subject heading are as follows: 1. Goal 2, related to increasing employment opportunities and supporting the creation of jobs with better pay and benefits for the Region-s workforce, of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, 2. Goal 8, and Policy 8.3, related to enhancing the Region's mobility and to planning land use in and around seaports to minimize unnecessary conflipts and costs, of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. 3. Goal 17, and Policies 17.7 and 17.10, related to maintaining a competitive economy, diversifying the economic base, and protectirig, marine related industries throu;h innovative comprehensive planning and zoning regulations, of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk I4. Goal 20, and Policies 20.10 and 20.I 1, related to achieving long-term efficient and sustainable development, enhancing the roles of seaports in economic development, and supporting the movement of freight and goods, of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. B. Recommended remedial action. These inconsistencies may be remedied by revising the Comprehensive Plan amendment as described above in Section III. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Comprehensive Plan amendments identified herein for the specific Goals, Objectives, and Policies are not consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Comprehensive Plan amendments identified herein for the specific Goals, Objectives, and Policies are not consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. 3. The Comprehensive Plan amendments identified herein for the specific Goals, Objectives, and Policies are not consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. 4. The Comprehensive Plan amendments identified herein for the specific Goals, Objectives, and Policies are not, consistent with the South Florida Strategic Regional Policy Plan. 5. The Comprehensive Plan amendments identified herein for the specific Goals, Objectives, and Policies are not "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3154(I)(b) Florida Statutes. 6. In order to bring the Comprehensive Plan amendments for the specific Goals, Objectives, and Policies into compliance, the County may complete the recommended remedial actions described above or adopt other remedial actions that eliminate the inconsistencies. Executed this O day of January 2009, at Tallahassee, Florida. -�In; L�14 C' � Mice McDaniel, Chief Office of Comprehensive Planning Division of Community Planning Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2100 fal bUDmittea into the Pupiic record for item(s) PZ.5, STATE OF FL0RIDA i DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS i NOTICE OF INTENT TO FIND THE CITY OF MIAW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS, GOAL PA.3, OBJECTIVE PA-3.1, AND POLICIES PA-3.1.1 THROUGH 3.1.9, OBJECTIVE PA-3.2 AND POLICY PA-3.2.1, OBJECTIVE PA-3.3 AND POLICY PA-3.3.1, OBJECTIVE PA-3.4 AND POLICIES PA-3.4.1 THROUGH 3.4.4 AND POLICY LU IA.10, ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 13043 ON NOVEMBER 13, 2008, NOT IN COMPLIANCE, AND THE REMAINING AMENDMENTS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE 13043, iN COMPLIANCE DOCKET NO.08.1 EP. NOi 1315{A)-(N) TheDepammotgivas notice of its intent to Sad the Cltyof Miami Compre#rensive Plan Amend- ments, Goal PA.3, Objective PA-3.1, and Policies PA-3.1.1 through 3.1.9, Objective PA-3.2 and Policy PA- 3.2.1, Objective PA-3.3 mid Policy PA-3.3.1, Objective PA-3.4 and Policies PA-3.4.1 through 3.4.4 and Policy LU-1 A.10, adopted by Ordinance No. 13043 an November 13, 2008, NOT IN COMPLIANCE, and the remaining arneodments adopted by Ordinance No.13043, IN COMPLIANCE, pursuant to Sections 163.3194, 163.3187 and 163.3189, F.S. The adopted City of Miami Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the Department's Objections, Recom- mendations, aod•Commeats Report (if any), and the Department's Statement of leletd to rind the Comprelren- sive Plan Amendments Not In Compliance wM be available for publko inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal holidays, during normal business hours, at City of Miami Planning Departtaent, 444 S.W. e Avenue, 3w Floor, W ornti Florida 33130, Any affected person, as defined in Section 163.3194, F.S., has a right to petition far an admin- Istradve hearing to challenge the proposed agency determination that the above referenced amendments to the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan are In Compliance, as defined in Subsection 163.3184(I ), F.S. The petition must be filed vAthia twenty-one (21) days afterpublioation of this notice; a copy most be mailed or delivered to the local government andmust include all of the information and contents described in Uniform Ride 28-106.201, FA.C. The petition must be filed with tlm Ao y Clerk, Departraeut of Community Affairs, 2555 Shu hard Oak: Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. Failure to timely Me a petition shall consdtute a waiver of sayright to request an administrative proceeding as a petitioncrunder Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. If a petition is filed, the purpose of the administrative hearing will be to present evidence and testimony mid forward a recommended order to the Department. If no petition is Filed, this C`� • Notice ofliteat oball became final agency action �J1 This Notice ofliteat and the Statemeat of intent for those amendments found Not In Compliance will be forwarded by petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) of the Department of Management Services for the scheduling of an Administrative Hearing pun uaat to Sections L20.569 and 120.57, F.S. The purpose of the administrative -rearing will be to present evidence and testimony on the noncompliance issues alleged by the Department in its Objediois, Rccommeadatims, and Cormnents Re- port and Statement oflatert in order to seame a recommended order forforwmding.to the Administration Commission Affected persons may petition to intervene in either proceeding referenced above. A petition for intervemioannust be filed at kwtt=V (20) days before the final hearing and nnast include all of the iafor- madua cad contents desedbalio UniformRato 28-106.205,F.A.C. Pmauant to Section l63.3184(l0), F.S., no» sw issues maybe alleged as a reason to find a plan anandment not is compliance in a *don to inter- vene Hied more than twauty one (21) days after publication ofthis notice unless the petitioner establishes goat cause fornot alleging such new Issues within the twenty ono (21) daytime period. The petition for intervention shall be filed at DOAH,1230 Apalsobee I'mitway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, and a copy mailed ordelivered to the local government and the Department Failure to petition to intervene within the allowed time fiv= constitutes a waiver of any right such a persoahas to request a hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to participate in. the administrative hearing. After an administrativeheariuMlition is timely filed, mediation is availablopursuant to Subsection 163.3189(3xu), F.S., to any affected person who is made a party to the proceeding by filing that request with the administrative faw judge assigned by the Division ofAdministtative Hearings. Tho choice of mediation shal l not affect a party's right to an administrative hearing. Charles Gauuthier, AICP, Director Division of Community Planning Departmentof CcmmrmltyAfWrs 2555 Shmnmd Oak: Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 2100 L Submitted in o the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Exhibit B Remedial Actions Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk ATTACHMENT Revisions based on June 21, 2010 DCA Conference Call_ C4v°pc�cken text represents deleted text; underlined text represents additional new text. FUTURE LAND USE Policy LU-1 3 3• Pursuant to Ch.163.3177(6)(a),F.S., the City shall maintain regulatory incentives and criteria that encourage the preservation of recreational and commercial Working Waterfronts as defined in Ch.342.07 F.S... particularly in the "Port of Miami River' Subelement to guide future development within the Miami River Corridor. Policy LU-1.3.7.: The City will continue to use the City's Enterprise Zone, Tx 4nGrement Finanoing DiStFiG, Empowerment Zone, Commercial Business Corridors, and Brownfield Redevelopment Area strategies to stimulate economic revitalization, and encourage employment opportunities. (Policy PA-3.3.10.). Policy LU- 1.3.8.: The City will foster or develop and implement job training, vocational, and educational programs to assist the City's existing and future residents, water dependent and water related businesses and uses along the Miami River, in achieving economic self-sufficiency utilizing government resources as necessary, and will continue to work with appropriate State and County agencies to direct training programs and other technical assistance, to support minority and semi -skilled residents of the city including, without limitation, their involvement in recreational and commercial working waterfronts along the Miami River as defined by s 342.07 Fla. Stat.. (Policy PA-3.3.11). Policy LU-1.4.10: The City will continue to develop modifications to existing regulations with the intent of providing greater flexibility in the design and implementation of mixed -use developments within the general Downtown area and particularly along the Miami River up to and including_51h Street consistent with the Port of Miami River Sub -Element. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into t-he pub-lic record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk j Interpretation of the 2020 Future Land Use Map Restricted Commercial: , � ,. a ••� � � _ •. TRANSPORTATION Objective TR-1.9: The City shall seek to achieve consistency and coordination belweeFl-with the Port of Miami. Port of Miami River and the Miami International Airport plans and the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Policy TR-1.9.1: The City, through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, will annually coordinate with the Port of Miami, Port of Miami River and Miami International Airport to ensure consistency between the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the port and airport master plans, and to improve access to and compatibility with port and airport facilities. PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES Peft of 4 Miami Rever valued and -eeenemka#y viable sempeRent-i"e efty!s mad"e indu6t4a! base. Develepment' along the Miami River- (heFeinaffig the ffiverJ, 69WMye-ate +-The4Pe"- Miami Rivet!4s4mpty- egaWame-used4o idenr*wme444RdependeFi pOvately-owned-small-shippin"ompaNes4erated-along the -Miami Riw and4s-noW-!Ro t-Facility" hbin4ho-usuaFmeaning-oNho4eFFn. eidengriisaliwof4hese4hippin"onsemsesdhe'Per{- Wiami Rwe4 was made-in49g6-fekhe-sele-purpese of WOSfydng a U.S. GBa5l GUM Fegulat+en-geveaxn01ga pump WIS. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 2 Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk �.- — 1 � • - wo Mor MWITt --- IN - - '�lTl1. \�1�141•Il\ l-1'.-J \i1i1•• - l■'��Il�•1».■ l•1�� - IY\1l• !Il ..l!1 ■. 11 - ■ 1 1 • • l � I ■ . - :LJLi�. •1\•I.l• - r.Tz 1 7• 1 ••\ • lJ•• •[•1. •\mil-1:l!Il.�s!I�yJi• Al2tL\ZIAM ■�i - - ERMA / mil- 77• •P s . l•1.7.111�JY1!I.t'1'.�l-•lll• Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk n UlatiOR Map GOODS. • l ■ ■. 1i 1 • - :.: ■. 11 BMW■VMS ■. ■ ■. 11 ■ Statute 342.07, along the . Poky PA. n 9� 4. The Gity of 11 aFni-shall f.anilifefe FRUNG60al oefffl6Wne for Water i�8ti@p-�pCU��,{,-a--rnt�ir�or-ronarrrr�rran—rc�vnrcucc.r��u� � 1, p. � y Mena e RtVBF. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 4 Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Port of Miami River2 Sub -Element Goal PA 3• The Port of Miami River shall be encouraged to continue operation as a valued and economically viable component of the City's maritime industrial base. Objective PA 31 • (PLANNING AND ZONING) The City shall protect the Port of Miami River from encroachment by non -water -dependent or non water -related land uses, and shall regulate the Port of Miami River's expansion and redevelopment in coordination with applicable future land use and coastal management goals, obiectives policies (See Policy LU-1.3.3 and Goal CM-3). Policy PA 31 1: The City shall maintain a Working Waterfront Table of Properties to guide future development within the Miami River Corridor. The Table shall clearly depict the location and description of all properties of recreational and commercial working waterfront uses on the River, as defined in Ch. 342.07 F.S. (hereinafter referenced as the "Working Waterfront") The Table shall classify working waterfront properties into Categories "A" and "B" The Table shall be incorporated as supporting data and analysis within Appendix PA-1. Policy PA 312 Category A: The City may adopt a comprehensive plan future land use map (FLUM) amendment for properties designated "Industrial" on the FLUM, along the Miami River only if the proposed amendment complies with this sub -element. The future land use designation for any of the properties identified "Industrial" therein may be amended only through the large-scale comprehensive plan amendment process Applications for such amendments shall demonstrate that either of the following conditions exists: 1 The Development — redevelopment as industrial is not economically feasible based on a market and site analysis using a professionally acceptable methodology that has been peer reviewed: or 2 The Proposal includes an equivalent transfer or expansion of industrially designated property offsite to another location on the Miami River within the City of Miami. 9 The I'on of bliami Rivcr' is a shallow dmfi revering Ron consistmL of'independent. plivat lly-owied small shiname comnamc�. Pry. IA) W Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Policy PA-3.1.3 Category B: All Category "6" properties shall maintain a working waterfront use. Additionally, the City shall require that any residential development with a density greater than duplex residential or any mixed use development include Working Waterfront use component per Ch. 342.07. F.S. or other amenities that is accessible to the public which promotes the enioyment of the Miami River unless prohibited by the Miami -Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management DERM . Policy PA-31.4• The City shall encourage the establishment and maintenance of Working Waterfront uses along the banks of the Miami River, and to discourage encroachment by incompatible uses. Policy PA-31.5: The City shall encourage the development and expansion of the Port of Miami River Working Waterfront consistent with the future land use, coastal management and conservation elements of the City's comprehensive plan. Policy PA-3.1.6: The City shall encourage only those developments, rezoning, and land use amendments in the vicinity of the Working Waterfront lands designated "Industrial" on the adopted future land use map that are compatible and suitable with the existing "Industrial" use of property. Policy PA-3.1.7: The City shall, through its land development regulations, adopt and enforce appropriate setbacks and buffering requirements for Non -Working Waterfront properties along the Miami River in order to protect the existing Working Waterfront use from encroachment of incompatible and unsuitable uses. Policy PA-3.1.8: There shall be no net loss of recreational wet -slips along the Miami River. Policy PA-3.1.9: The City shall require from new residential development and redevelopment located along the Miami River a recorded covenant acknowledging and accepting the presence of the existing Working Waterfront 24-hour operations as erg mitted. Policy PA-3.1.10: In its commitment to support the Port of Miami River, the City of Miami shall continue its support of the dredging of the River. Policy PA-3.1.11: The City of Miami shall facilitate and expedite municipal permitting for water -dependent water -related, commercial, industrial and recreational working waterfronts along the Miami River.by expediting the application process for such uses. Obiective PA-3.2: (TRANSPORTATION), The City shall encourage with appropriate agencies the coordination of surface transportation access to the Port of Miami River Working Waterfront with the traffic and mass transit system shown on the traffic circulation map series. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Policy PA-3 21 • The City shall through the Transportation Element of the comprehensive plan encourage the coordination of the intermodal surface and water transportation access service to the Port of Miami River Workinq Waterfront (See Obiective TR-1.9, Policy TR-1.9.1). Obiective PA-3 3• (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & COORDINATION). The City shall coordinate its Port of Miami River Working Waterfront planning activities with the multiple regulators and stakeholders who have an interest in the Miami River. Policy PA-3 31 • Give the Miami River's multi jurisdictional and regulatory nature, the City shall coordinate with: 1 The United States Army Corp of Engineers regarding the dredging, navigation, and commerce on the Miami River; and 2 The United States Coast Guard regarding security and safety on the Miami river: and 3 The Miami -Dade County Planning Department to evaluate the interdependence and effectiveness of the CountVs Port of Miami River sub -element in its comprehensive plan with that of that of the CitVs: and 4 The Miami -Dade CountVs Department of Environmental Resource Management and the Manatee Protection Plan Committee regarding the protection of manatees and establishment of new wet and dry marine slips on or near the Miami River: and 5 The Miami -Dade County Property Appraiser to ensure that all Port of Miami River Working Waterfront properties are assessed by the "current use" pursuant to Section 4, Article VII of the Florida constitution and S.193.704. Fla. Stat. Policy PA-3 3 2: The City shall remain an active member of the Miami River Commission as established by Ch.163.06, F.S. and shall continue to request and consider from the Miami River Commission written recommendations related to policy, planning development and other River issues within the scope established by the Florida Legislature. Policy PA-3 3 3• Within 18 months of adoption of this policy, the City shall consider approving a ioint planning agreement with the Miami River Commission and Miami - Dade County to revise and adopt the "Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan" as the strategic plan for the Miami River. Policy PA-3 3 4: Within three years of the adoption of this policy, the City along with Miami River stakeholders property owners and businesses shall consider submitting an application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Waterfronts Florida Partnership Program for assistance in protecting and promoting the Miami River traditional Working Waterfront. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Policy PA-3.3.5: The City shall coordinate with Miami River stakeholders. property owners and businesses to prepare reasonable Working Waterfront code compliance and enforcement policies to eliminate unsafe, abandoned, and blighted conditions along the river banks. Policy PA-3.3.6: The City of Miami shall provide technical assistance to Working Waterfront businesses along the Miami River. Policy PA-3.3.7: The Citv shall work to imorove the economic vitality of the Miami River in cooperation with other concerned public and govemmental agencies and organizations. (See Miami -Dade County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan, Port of Miami River Sub -element Policy PMR-1 Q Policy PA-3.3.8: The City will work with property owners along the Miami River to secure Enterprise Zone tax incentives to businesses for creation of iobs and revitalization. Such incentives consist of the following and are based on availability: Enterprise Zone Incentives 1. Jobs Tax Credit 2. Business Equipment Sales Tax Refund 3. Building Materials Sales Tax Refund 4. Property Tax Credit 5. Community Contribution Tax Credit Program Policy PA-3.3.9: The City will continue to use Brownfield redevelopment Area strategies to stimulate economic revitalization to Working Waterfronts. Such incentives consist of the following and are based on availability: a. Financial Incentives i. 35% Voluntary Cleanup Tax Credits H. $2500 Brownfields Bonus Refund N. Low -interest loans iv. Sales Tax Credit on Building Materials v. Up to 5 years of State Loan Guarantees of Loan Loss Reserves vi. Site -Specific Activities Grant, and A. National Brownfields Assessment. Revolving Loan Fund, Cleanup Grants, and HUD Brownfield Economic Development Loans b. Regulatory Benefits i. Risk Based Corrective Action H. Cleanup Liability Protection iii. Review of Voluntary Cleanup Projects at FDEP Conducted Separately From Enforcement Mandated Cleanups by Responsible Parties iv. Expedited Review and Response to Technical Reports and Correspondence v. CERCLA Site Clearance Issued by EPA, and vi. Lender Liability Protection to the extend allowed by applicable laws Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Policy PA 3 310: The City will continue to use the City's Enterprise Zone, Empowerment Zone Commercial Business Corridors and Brownfield Redevelopment Area strategies to stimulate economic revitalization and encourage employment opportunities within the Port of Miami River. (Policy LU-1.3.7.). Policy PA 3 311 • The City will foster or develop and implement lob training, vocational and educational programs to assist the City's existing and future residents, and water dependent and water related businesses along the Miami River, in achieving economic self-sufficiency and will continue to work with appropriate State and County agencies to direct training programs and other technical assistance to support minority and semi -skilled residents of the City including, without limitation, their involvement in recreational and commercial working waterfronts along the Miami River as defined by Ch 342.07 F.S. (Policy LU-1.3.8.) Policy PA 3 312• The City, through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, shall support and coordinate with other governmental agencies having iurisdiction over the River to support and enhance the Miami River's economic importance and viability. The functions of the Miami River shall be consistent with the future goals and o_biectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan particularly with respect to the unique characteristics of the Miami River's location and its economic position and functioning within the local maritime industry. Objective PA 3 4• (MONITORING & EFFECTIVENESS). The City shall monitor track the effectiveness of its goals objectives and policies designated to preserve and promote the Port of Miami River as a valued and economically viable component of the City's maritime industrial base. Policy PA 3 41 : City staff shall prepare or cause to be prepared, an annual report on the status of the Planning and Zoning Economic Development and Coordination, and Transportation Objectives and Policies contained in this Sub -element, which shall be presented to the City Commission at a dully noticed public hearing. Policy PA 3 4 2• City staff shall prepare or cause to be prepared, an annual report on the loss or gain of recreational and commercial Working Waterfront lands and uses, which shall be presented to the City Commission at a dully noticed public hearing. Coastal Management Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Goal CM-2: Improve public awareness, appreciation, and use of Miami's coastal resources by preserving #radi€ieenal-water-dependent and water -related uses, ensuring adequate public access to such uses, and minimizing user conflicts. Objective CM-2.1: Wherever feasible, increase physical and visual public access to Biscayne Bay, the Miami River, the City's shorelines, and publicly -owned islands. Policy CM-2.1.1: Where appropriate and in the interest of public safety and promotion of outdoor recreation opportunities on environmentally sensitive areas, future land development regulations will require non -water dependent or related development or redevelopment to maintain public access to the coastal and Miami River shorelines. (See Parks, Recreation and Open Space Policy PR- 3.2.4) Policy CM-2.1.2: Where appropriate,-M City owned; waterfront property, including the Miami River shorelines, willshall provide for public open spaces that allow esimilar access to the shoreline and the City will work with Miami -Dade County to provide similar access to County owned public open spaces that provide access to the shoreline where appropriate. 4.1.12.) ■ . 1 l 1 - • - • - - - Policy CM-2.1.43: The City will continue development of the river- walk and bay- walk along City owned property as funds become available and will continue to require development of the baywalk and riverwalk along private property through its land development regulations, where appropriate Whenever feasible the City will encourage the riverwalk to interact with recreational and working waterfronts along the Miami River. Policy CM-2.1.54: The City shall continue to implement design guidelines along the baywalk and riverwalk in accordance with the Miami River Greenway Action Plan and other adopted plans as appropriate. Policy CM-2.1.55: [Reserved] Policy CUP-2.1.76: The City will incorporate provisions for public physical and/or visual access to the shoreline in its waterfront zoning regulations (See Parks, Recreation and Open Space Policy PR- 3.2.3.) Policy CM-2.1.97: As specified in the City of Miami Charter and related laws, and more specifically the Waterfront Charter Amendment and Ordinanee 1100 Zoning Ordinance for the City of Miami) all new development and redevelopment along the downtown waterfront is required to provide a waterfront setback, and those Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 10 Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk developments within Special Districts (SDs) that require publicly accessible shoreline walkways, will design them in conformance with the "Baywalk/Riverwalk Design Standards." (See Parks, Recreation and Open Space Policy PR- 3.2.11.) Policy CM-2.1.88: The City will continue to work toward increased physical public access to Virginia Key and Watson Island by pursuing appropriate development and redevelopment as directed by the Virginia Key and Watson Island master plans. Policy CM-2.1.489: The City will ensure that development regulations are not altered so as to prohibit water dependent facilities or uses such as swimming, boating, and fishing and will encourage and support such facilities and uses. Goal CM-3• Pursuant to Ch 963 3978(2)(g), F S., The City shall maintain strategies that will be used to preserve and adequate supply of land for recreational and commercial Working Waterfront uses defined in Ch. 342.07, F.S.3 Obiective CM-31 • The City shall strive to allow no net loss of acreage devoted to recreational and commercial Working Waterfront uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. Policy CM 31 1 • The comprehensive plan and land development regulations will encourage water -dependent uses along the shoreline and strategies that will be used to preserve recreational and commercial Working Waterfronts as defined in Ch. 342 07 F S particularly on the Miami River. (See Goal PA-3 and Policy LU-1.3.3). Additional strategies to preserve and encoum eg recrewtional and commercial Working Waterfront uses are contained in the Poris. Aviation. and Related Facilities element. "Port ol'Miami River" Sub -element. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 11 Selective Goal Objective Policy Updates June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk APPENDIX PA-1 The following Working Waterfront Table of Properties and the attached map identify properties of recreational and commercial working waterfront uses along the Port of Miami River and are subject to criteria listed in Port of Miami River Sub -Element Policy PA-3.1.1. This space was intentionally left blank. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Goals Objectives Policies June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Working Waterfront Table of Properties No. Address Folio FLUM Designation Cate-ciory 1 236 SW North River Dr 555 NW South River Dr 0101140002010 Industrial A 2 0102000101071 Industrial A 3 325 NW South River Dr 510 NW 1 St 0102000102030 Industrial A 4 0102010001020 Industrial A 5 169 NW South River Dr 0102000401190 RESERVED Industrial A 6 RESERVED RESERVED RESERVED 7 8 RESERVED 2190 NW North River Dr RESERVED Q131340241140 0131340510570 RESERVED Industrial RESERVED A 9 1201 NW 22 AV Industrial A 10 2116 NW 12 St 0131340510610 Industrial A 11 227 NNW 14 St 0131340730010 0131340950010 Industrial A 12 2 199 NW South River Dr Industrial A 13 1270 NW 11 St 0131350210180 Industrial A 14 1 1201 NW South River Dr 0131350220110 0131350230100 RESERVED Industrial A 15 1 1261 NW 8 Ter Industrial A 16 RESERVED RESERVED RESERVED 17 1175 NW South River Dr 298 SW North River Dr 300 SW North River Dr 0131350310010 Industrial A 18 0141370310010 0141370310020 0141380030130 0141380030150 Industrial A 19 Industrial A 20 431 NW South River Dr Industrial A 21 437 NW South River Dr Industrial A 22 377 NW South River Dr 0141380441020 Industrial A 23 151 NW South River Dr 0141380270020 Industrial A 24 405 NW South River Dr 801 NW 4 St 0102000101010 Industrial A 25 Q102000101020 Industrial A 26 311 NW South River Dr 301 NW South River Dr 01020 0102040 Industrial A 27 0102000105010 Industrial A 28 129 NW South River Dr 961 NW 7 St 0102000501130 Industrial A 29 0131350310020 Industrial A 30 971 NW 7 St 0131350000020 Industrial A 31 2100 NW North River Dr 2100 NW North River Dr 0131340241160 Industrial A 32 0131340241161 Industrial A 33 2000 NW North River Dr 0131340241170 Industrial A 34 2490 NW 18 Ter 0131340290010 Industrial A 35 2525 NW 18 Ter 0131340310110 0131340510580 Industrial A 36 2181 NW 12 St Industrial A 37 2161 NW 12 St 0131340510590 0131340510600 Industrial A 38 2151 NW 12 St Industrial A 49 501 NW South River Dr 131 NW South River Or 01413 0030160 Industrial A 40 0141380270010 Industrial A 41 401 SW 3 Ave 0141380490030 Industrial A 4 242 SW 5 St 0102030801010 Indus ' I A 43 19 NW South River Dr 0102010001230 Industrial A 44 2154 NW North River Dr 2660 NW 18 Ter 0131340241150 Industrial A 45 0131340310010 Industrial A 46 600 NW 18 Ter 01 1340310020 Industrial 47 2570 W 18 Ter 1 2540 NW 18 Ter 0131340310030 Industrial A 48 131340310060 Industrial A Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Goals Objectives Policies June 2010 Submitted into -the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk 49 2530 NW 18 Ter 0131340310070 Industrial A 50 2551 NW 18 Ter 0131340310160 Industrial A 51 2601 NW 18 Ter 0131340310170 Industrial A 52 1350 NW 18 Ave 0131340420090 Industrial A 53 1881 NW 27 Ave 0131340310180 Industrial A 54 2670 NW 18 Ter 0131340310210 Industrial A 55 19 SW North River Dr 0101130803130 Industrial A 56 121 SW North River Dr 0101130901141 Industrial A 57 114 SW North River Dr 0101130901160 Industrial A 58 300 SW 2 St 0101130901280 Industrial A . 59 200 SW North River Dr 0101140001090 Industrial A 60 737 NW 4 St 0102000103010 Industrial A 61 745 NW 4 St 0102000103020 Industrial A 62 101 NW South River Dr 0102000104010 Industrial A 63 125 NW South River Dr 0102000501120 Industrial A 64 1995 NW 11 St 0131340420040 Industrial A 65 1320 NW 18 Av 0131340420120 Industrial A 66 1142 NW 21 Av 0131340490090 Industrial A 67 2051 NW 11 St 0131341010010 Industrial A 68 2750 NW 20th St 0131330070040 Light Industrial B 69 1960 NW 27 Ave 0131330670030 Liaht Industrial B 70 1970 NW 27 Ave 0131330070020 Liaht Industrial B 71 1990 NW 27 Ave 0131330070010 Light Industrial B 72 1583 NW 24 Ave 0131340680010 Industrial A 73 1583 NW 24 Ave 0131340590020 Industrial A 74 1583 NW 24 Ave 0131340590010 Industrial A 75 2215 NW 14th St 0131340000160 Industrial A 76 1645 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241190 Industrial A_ 77 1635 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241200 Industrial A 78 1625 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241210 Industrial _A 79 1615 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241220 Industrial A 80 1605 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241230 Industrial A 81 1585 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241240 Industrial A 82 1575 `-NW Ave 0131340241250 Industrial A 83 1565 NW 22nd Ave 013134024126Q Industrial A 84 1545 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241270 Industrial A 85 1525 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241280 Industrial A 86 1515 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241290 Industrial A 87 1505 NW 22nd Ave 0131340241300 Industrial A 88 RESERVED RESERVED RESERVED RESERVED 89 1884 NW North River Dr 0131340241180 Industrial A 90 _ 1884 NW North River Dr 0131340170140 Industrial A_ 91 1818 NW North Ri er Dr 0131340170120 Industrial A 92 663 NW South River Dr 0141380040080 Restricted Commercial B 93 661 NW South River Dr 0141380040090 Restricted Commercial B 94 555 NW South River Or 0141380030180 Restricted Commercial B 95 603 NW South River Dr 0141380040010 Restricted Commercial B 96 517 NW South River Dr 0141380030170 Restricted Commercial B 97 448 NW North River Dr 0101070101250 Light Industrial B 98 442 NW North ' 1 0101070101240 Light Industrial B 99 440 NW North River Dr 0101070101230 Light Industrial B 100 450 NW North River Dr 0101070101 21 Light Industrial B 101 422 NW North River Dr 0101070101220 Light Industrial B Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Goals Objectives Policies June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk 102 412 NW North River Dr 404 NW North River Dr 400 NW North River Dr 398 NW North River Dr 0101070101210 I.i ht Industrial B 103 0101070101200 Light Industrial B 104 0101070101190 -Light Industrial B 105 0101070101180 Light Industrial B 106 343 NW South River Dr 0102000401020 Industrial A 107 201 NW South River Dr 0102000401180 Industrial A 108 250 NW North River Dr RESERVED 0101090302020 Ma'or Inst. Public Facilities B 109 RESERVED RESERVED RESERVED 110 111 112 90 NW North River Dr 28 NW North River Dr 40 SW South River Dr 0101100901110 0101110201090 Restricted Commercial 1 Restricted Commercial B B 0102010101111 Restricted Commercial B 113 1 SW Sou h River Dr 0102010101075 Restricted Commercial B 114 115 5 SW South River Dr 1 27 SW South River Dr 401 SW 1st St 40 SW North River Dr 0102010101070 Restricted Commercial B 0102010101020 Restricted Commercial Restricted Commercial Restricted Commercial B 116 117 0102010101120 0141370360080 B B 118 109 SW South River Dr 0102010801040 Restricted Commercial B 119 129 SW South River Dr 0102010801010 Restricted Commercial B 120 135 SW South River Dr 510 NW 7h Ave 0102000106010 Restricted Commercial B 121 0131350271420 Li ht Industrial B 122 528 NW 7N Ave 0131350271410 0131350271400 Light Industrial B 123 600 NW 70, Ave 700 NW 7' Ave ndurstnal B 124 0131350271160 0131350271140 Light Industrial B 125 710 NW Th Ave Light Industrial B 126 722 NW 7m Ave 0131350271130 Light Industrial B 127 732 NW 7h Ave 0131350271120 0131350271110 Light Industrial B 128 800 NW 7h Ave Light Industrial B 129 808 NW 81^ St Rd 0131350271100 Llaht Industrial B 130 _ 810 NW 8t^ St Rd 0131350271090 Medium Density Multifamily B Residential 131 _ 812 NW 8t^ St Rd 0131350271080 Medium Density Multifamily B Residential 132 830 NW 8t" St Rd 0131350271070 Medium Density Multifamily B Residential 32 852 NW 81" St Rd 0131350271060 Medium Density Multifamily B Residential 134 _ 900 NW 8e St 0131350271051 Medium Density Multifamily B Residential 135 _ 908 NW 8u^ St Rd 0131350271050 Medium Density Multifamily B Residential Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan Goals Objectives Policies June 2010 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Tbirb �t"!Arirt court of appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed October 24, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-2718 Lower Tribunal No. 06-1146 The Durham Park Neighborhood Association, Inc., the Miami River Marine Group, Inc., and Captain Herbert Payne, Appellants, vs. City of Miami and Brisas del Rio, LLC, Appellees. An Appeal from the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Andrew W.J. Dickman (Naples), for appellants. Jorge L. Fernandez, City of Miami Attorney and Rafael Suarez -Rivas, Assistant City of Miami Attorney; Shutts & Bowen and Stephen B. Gillman and Stephen T. Maher and Suzanne Youmans Labrit, for appellees. Before WELLS and CORTINAS, JJ., and FLETCHER, Senior Judge. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a Final Order of the Florida Department of Community Affairs which adopted the administrative law judge's Recommended Order and denied Appellants' Exceptions. The administrative law judge ("ALY) made certain findings of fact and concluded that appellants failed to meet their burden of establishing that the City of Miami's approved small-scale amendment of its Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan for two parcels of property ("Parcel 1" and "Parcel 2") along the Miami River was not in compliance with pertinent statutes and administrative regulations, was not supported by the adequate data and analysis, and/or was internally inconsistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. The amendment, approved by the City in Ordinance 12776, changed the land use designation in the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM") for Parcel 2 from "Industrial" and "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" to "Restricted Commercial." The amendment did not change the "Medium Density Multifamily Residential" for Parcel 1. The City passed the amendment pursuant to the procedures for small-scale development amendments found in section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2005). 2 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk The ALJ who adjudicated appellants' current petition' found that appellants were collaterally estopped from raising certain aspects of their challenge based on the adjudication of a previous petition in which the same petitioners challenged a similar small-scale amendment to the FLUM for a different parcel of property, which was also located near the Miami River. See Payne v. City of Miami, DCA Case No. 06-GM-132, DOAH Case No. 04-2754 (Fla. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, Final Order, June 21, 2006). The AU further held that the Department of Community Affairs' Final Order in DOAH Case No. 04-2754 conclusively established certain disputed issues in this case. The Recommended Order in this case also cites the Department of Community Affairs' Final Order in DOAH Case No. 06-759, which was a similar challenge to a third small-scale FLUM amendment for yet another piece of property along the Miami River. See Payne v. City of Miami, DCA Case No. 06-GM-214, DOAH Case No. 06-759 (Fla. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs, Final Order, Aug. 31, 2006). Both the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 04-2754 and the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 06-759 were appealed and each appeal, including this one, has raised almost identical challenges. On August 8, 2007, we reversed the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 04-2754, and on August 29, 2007, we also reversed the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 06-759. See Payne v. City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. 1 The same AU adjudicated Appellants' petition in DOAH Case No. 06-759 and this case. 3 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Weekly D1885 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) and Payne v. City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2055 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Importantly, the AU in this case found the Final Orders in DOAH Case No. 04-2475 and DOAH Case No. 06-759 (which were reversed on appeal by this court) to be collateral estoppel in the instant action. Thus, we are compelled to reverse the order presently before us and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinions in those cases. Reversed and remanded. 11 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk The Durham Park Neighborhood Assoc., Inc., Miami River Marine Group, Inc., and Herbert Payne, v. City of Miami and Brisas de Rio, LLC. Case No.: 3D06-2718 WELLS, Judge, (specially concurring). I agree that because we are bound by our earlier decisions in Payne v. City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2055 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 29, 2007), and Payne City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D1885 (Fla. 3d DCA Aug. 8, 2007), the order on appeal here must be reversed. FLETCHER, Senior Judge, concurs. 5 Tbirb aigtrict Court of appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Opinion filed August 08, 2007. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-1799 Lower Tribunal No. 04-2754GM Herbert Payne; Ann Stetser; The Durham Park Neighborhood Association, a Florida not -for -profit corporation; and The Miami River Marine Group, Inc., a Florida not -for -profit corporation, Appellants, LTM City of Miami, a Florida municipal corporation; and Balbino Investments, LLC, Appellees. An Appeal from the Department of Community Affairs. _. Andrew W.J. Dickman (Naples), for appellants. Greenberg Traurig and David C. Ashburn (Tallahassee); Greenberg Traurig and Elliot H. Scherker and Lucia Dougherty and Paul R. Lipton and Pamela A. DeBooth, for appellee Balbino Investments, LLC; Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney, and Rafael Suarez -Rivas, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee City of Miami. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Submitted into the public Before GERSTEN, C.J., and CORTINAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ. record for item(s) Pz.5, ROTHENBERG, Judge. on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Balbino Investments, LLC ("Balbino") owns a parcel of land located on the north side of the Miami River at approximately N.W. 18th Avenue and which was being used as a commercial boatyard and marina. Balbino applied for and obtained from the City of Miami ("City") a small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM Amendment") of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan ("Comprehensive Plan"), changing the land use designation of the property from Industrial and General Commercial to Restricted Commercial. Balbino also applied for and obtained a zoning change from SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial to C-1 Restricted . Commercial and a Major Use Special Permit ("MUSP"), thereby allowing Balbino to construct a mixed -use project on the property with a maximum density of 150 units per acre, comprising of three high- rise buildings consisting of 1,073 condominium units with a median price of $200,000 to $225,000 per unit. The following parties filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearing ("DOAH"), challenging the ordinance that approved the FLUM Amendment: Herbert Payne ("Payne"), a boat captain who owns and operates one of the largest tugboat companies on the Miami River and who relies exclusively on commercial marine business on the Miami River for his livelihood; Ann Stetser, a ►] ` Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, n 06-11-20P0 City Clerk local resident; the Durham Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. `Durham Par ")', a non-profit neighborhood association comprised of approximately ninety homeowners and businesses located in the Durham Park area, which is across the Miami River and to the west of Balbino's property; and The Miami River Marine Group, Inc. ("Marine Group"), a trade association representing marine and industrial businesses along the Miami River (collectively referred to as "the appellants"). This petition was dismissed as untimely filed. On appeal, this court reversed and remanded, finding that the petition was timely filed. Payne v. City of Miami, 913 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)("Payne I"). Meanwhile, the circuit court dismissed Marine Group from the petition, finding that it lacked standing. That decision, which will be addressed more fully in this opinion, was, also reversed by this court in Payne v. City of Miami, 927 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)("Payne II"). On remand, the appellants sought leave to amend the petition to include arguments regarding additional provisions contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Balbino objected, arguing that the provisions the appellants sought to include pertained to land development regulations, and therefore, did not apply to the challenged FLUM Amendment which pertains to land use. The administrative law judge ("ALT') agreed with Balbino, and he denied the appellants' motion for leave to amend the petition with allegations arising from those provisions. t] After a hearing conducted by the ALJ on April 4 and 5, 2006, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order, which was subsequently adopted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("the Department"), which is the subject of the appellants' appeal. Because the appellants are challenging agency action, our review is governed by section 120.68, Florida Statutes (2006), and Coastal Developm,,rit of North Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001). The relevant provisions of section 120.68 provide: (7) The court shall remand a case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision or set aside agency action, as appropriate, when it finds that: (a) There has been no hearing prior to agency action and the reviewing court finds that the validity of the action depends upon disputed facts; (b) The agency's action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent, substantial evidence ... ; (c) The fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure; (d) The agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and a correct interpretation compels a particular action; or (e) The agency's exercise of discretion was: 1. Outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law; 2. Inconsistent with agency rule; 3. Inconsistent with officially stated agency policy or a prior agency practice, if deviation therefrom is not explained by the agency; or 4. Otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision[.] (Emphasis added). Submitted into the public 4 record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Amendments to a local government's comprehensive plan are legislative in nature and, therefore, are subject to the fairly -debatable standard of review. Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Thus, where reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the planning action, it should be affirmed. Id.; see also Coastal Dev., 788 So. 2d at 206 (applying the fairly - debatable standard of review to small scale development amendments). However, because the future land use map of a comprehensive plan represents a local government's fundamental policy decisions, any proposed change to that established policy is a policy decision that requires that those policies be reexamined. Coastal Dev., 788 So. 2d at 209. It seems to us that all comprehensive plan amendment requests necessarily involve the formulation of policy, rather than its mere application. Regardless of the scale of the proposed development, a comprehensive plan amendment request will require that the governmental entity determine whether it is socially desirable to reformulate the policies previously formulated for the orderly future growth of the community. This will, in turn, require that it consider the likely impact that the proposed amendment would have on traffic, utilities, other services, and future capital expenditures, among other things. Id. at 209 (quoting with approval Jacksonville Beach v. Coastal Dev. of N. Fla., Inc., 730 So. 2d 792, 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)(emphasis added)). In applying these standards, we conclude that the AW erred in refusing to apply this court's findings in Payne II at the time of hearing, or in the alternative, Submitted into the public 5 record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk erred by not continuing the hearing, as requested by the appellants, until the opinion did become final. Instead, the ALJ chose to rely on the Department's definition of the term "Port of Miami River" in Monkus v. City of Miami, D)AH Case No. 04-1080 GM (Department of Community Affairs, Final Order, Oct, 28, 2004)("Monkus"), a definition rejected by this court in Payne II. Although the ALJ did recognize this court's holding in Payne II in his Recommended Order, his untimely adoption did not cure the error, as the ALJ precluded the appellants from introducing relevant evidence and from making critical arguments based upon his incorrect conclusion that the Port of Miami River Subelement of the Comprehensive Plan was not relevant. Additionally, although the ALJ ultimately recognized this court's holding in Payne II, he still declined to apply the goals, policies, and objectives of the Port of Miami River Subelement of the Comprehensive Plan. This was error. The ALJ additionally erred in failing to examine the FLUM Amendment's impact upon, and consistency with, other fundamental policy decisions contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Miami River Master Plan, and he made findings that are unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. We conclude that had the correct law been applied to facts which are supported by competent substantial evidence, it would compel a finding that the Balbino FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Miami Submitted into the public 6 record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, River Master Plan. on 06-11-2020, City Clerk STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 163.3161, Florida Statutes (2004), which is known as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was enacted to strengthen local governments' role in the establishment and implementation of comprehensive planning to control future development. Section 163.3161 provides, in part: (5) It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared and adopted in conformity with this act. (7) The provisions of this act in their interpretation and application are declared to be the minimum requirements necessary to accomplish the stated intent, purposes, and objectives of this act; to protect human, environmental, social, and economic resources; and to maintain, through orderly growth and development, the character and stability of present and future land use and development in this state. §163.3161(5), (7), Fla. Stat. (2004)(emphasis added). Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that comprehensive plans shall include certain elements, including: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, 7 conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land . . § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2004). Amendments to comprehensive plans may not be made more than two times during any calendar year except: (a) in the case of an emergency, (b) when the amendment is directly related to a proposed development of regional impact, or (c) if the amendment is for a small scale development. § 163.3187(1)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). The Balbino FLUM Amendment was sought and granted as a small scale development pursuant to section 163.3187(1)(c). Section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2004), provides an exception to the time limitation for small scale amendments to comprehensive plans if: 1. The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer and: f. If the proposed amendment involves a residential land use, the residential land use has a density of 10 units or less per acre, except that this limitation does not apply to small scale amendments described in sub -sub -subparagraph a.(1) that are designated in the local comprehensive plan for urban infill, urban redevelopment, or downtown revitalization as defined in s. 163.31641 urban infill and redevelopment areas designated, under s. 163.2517, transportation concurrency exception areas approved pursuant to s. 163.3180(5), or regional activity centers and urban central business districts approved pursuant to s. 380.06(2)(e). § 163.3187(1)(c)(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (2004). 8 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Thus, before a small scale FLUM Amendment may be approved without complying with the requirements normally imposed, the applicant must demonstrate that the amendment involves a use of ten acres or less and the proposed amendment involves a residential use with a density of ten units or less per acre or that the property is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as urban infill, urban redevelopment, or downtown revitalization. We note that the AL3 and the City incorrectly applied the 2005 version of this statute and that there was no evidence presented demonstrating that this small scale FLUM Amendment satisfied these requirements or the requirements of the 2004 version of section 163.3187, Florida Statutes.' The density exception does not apply as the density for the proposed development is over ten units per acre, and the current Industrial classification, which pertains to nearly all of the property contained in this small scale FLUM Amendment, permits no residential uses. The only exception the Balbino FLUM Amendment could conceivably be relying on is that the subject property is located in an urban infill zone. However, the City, after paying for and participating in the creation of the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan ("Infill Plan"), failed to adopt the Infill Plan, and takes the position that the entire City is an urban infill site. We find this argument hard to ' The 2005 version of this statute provides a further exception where the future land use category allows a maximum residential density allowable under the existing land use category, an exception which does not pertain to the Balbinc FLUM Amendment. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 9 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk accept. We additionally note that the Infill Plan targeted certain areas for ufban infill development and this particular site is not a designated urban infill target area under the Infill Plan. The only challenge, however, made by the appellants regarding whetherthe FLUM Amendment complies with section 163.3187 was that the subject property is larger than ten acres. As the ALJ concluded that the FLUM Amendment involves less than ten acres, and the appellants have not raised the issue on appeal, nor have they argued that the Balbino FLUM Amendment does not fall within any of the exceptions contained in the statute, we make no finding regarding whether the requirements of section 163.3187 have been satisfied and do not base our analysis or reversal on whether the subject property fiilfills the statutory requirements of a small scale amendment. In addition to the statutes regulating land development, requiring the enactment of comprehensive planning to control future development and providing a regulatory scheme for amendments to comprehensive plans, is the City's Zoning Code. Article 6 of the City of Miami Zoning Code (2004) ("City's Zoning Code") provides for the creation of SD Special Districts to protect certain areas or districts within the City. Article 6, Section 600, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Section 600. Intent. 10 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk It is the intent of these regulations to permit creation of SD Special Districts: (a) In general areas officially designated as having special and substantial public interest in protection of existing or proposed character, or of principal views of, from, or through the areas; It is further intended that such districts and the regulations adopted for them shall be in accord with, and promote the policies set out in, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and other officially adopted plans in accordance therewith. City of Miami Zoning Code, Art. 6, § 600 (emphasis added). "The regulations shall be designed to promote the special purposes of the district, as set out in the statement of intent." Id. at § 600.4.3. Article 6, section 604 of the City's Zoning Code specifically provides for the creation of a waterfront industrial district to regulate the waterfront property along the Miami River, and states, in pertinent part, as follows: Sec. 604. SD-4 Waterfront Industrial District. Sec. 604.1. Intent. This district designation is intended for application in areas appropriately located for marine activities, including industrial S operations and major movements of passengers and commodities. In view of the importance of such activities to local economy and the limited area suitable and available for such activities, it is intended to limit principal and accessory uses to those reasonably requiring location within such districts, and not to permit residential, general commercial, service, office or manufacturing uses not primarily related to waterfront activities except for office uses in existing office structures. For the purposes of Submitted into the public record for item(s) P 1 I on 06-11-2020, City Clerk section 3(mm) of the City of Miami Charter, this district shall be construed as an industrial district. Sec. 604.4. Principal uses and structures. 604.4.1. Permitted principal uses and structures. 1. Piers, wharves, docks, and railroad service to related loading, storage or distribution facilities. 2. Freight terminals; facilities for warehousing and storage, packing, packaging and crating of materials from or for marine shipment; assembly and distribution facilities for marine shipments, except as provided under permitted uses and structures in section 604.4.2 below. 3. Passenger terminals, including related facilities for handling baggage or freight ground transportation, parking, and establishments to serve needs of passengers and visitors including retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, ticket agencies, currency exchanges and the like. 4. Facilities for construction, maintenance, service, repair, supply or storage of vessels, including shipyards, dry docks, marine railways, shops for marine woodworking, electrical, communication and instrument installation and repair, welding, sail making, engine and motor repair and maintenance; ship chandlers; fuel supply establishments. Manufacture, maintenance, service, repair and/or sales of supply of parts, accessories and equipment for marine needs. 5. Bases for marine dredging, salvage, towing; marine construction offices and yards, piloting headquarters. 6. Sales, charter or rental of vessels, marine supplies and equipment, marine sporting goods and supplies. 7. Establishments for collection, processing and/or 12 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk distribution or sales of marine food products and byproducts, including eating and drinking establishments related to such operations. 8. Hiring halls for seamen and dock workers. 9. Telecommunication transmission and relay stations; radar installation. 10. Structures and uses other than as listed above for performance of governmental functions (including private facilities supplementing or substituting for governmental functions such as fire protection or provision of security), or relating to operation of public utilities. 11. Commercial marinas, including permanent occupancy of private pleasure craft as living quarters and for temporary occupancy for transients (maximum stay: thirty (30) days) as shall be required for work or security purposes, or for repair work within the district. 12. Cellular communications site provided that where a transmission tower is used the transmission tower shall be by Special Exception only. The transmission tower and anchoring devices, if directly -abutting a residential district, must: (1) be located in the interior side or rear yard of the property; (2) meet minimum setback requirements; (3) be securely anchored, installed and maintained in accordance with all applicable codes; (4) not exceed a maximum height of one hundred and fifty (150) feet; and (5) be separated from adjacent properties by a landscape buffer. Despite section 163.3161(5), which prohibits development unless it is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan; section 163.3161(7), which specifies that the purpose of the Act is to protect certain resources and to maintain the character and stability of development in this state through orderly growth and Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 13 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk 1 development; section 163.3187, which limits amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and Article 6 of the City's Zoning Code, which designates key areas oo the Miami River as a protected district due to its importance to the City's economy, a designation that specifically prohibits residential use or other uses not primarily related to waterfront activities, the City granted Balbino a small scale FLUM Amendment for its property located within this specially protected district, to permit the construction of residential units that are not primarily related to waterfront activities. As will be addressed in depth herein, Balbino's FLUM Amendment is contrary to these provisions and is inconsistent with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Miami River Master Plan. THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ("Comprehensive Plan") The ALJ found that the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The ALJ's evaluation of the evidence is, however, flawed because he failed to consider critical sections found in the "Port of Miami River Subelement," and portions of the "Coastal Management" and the "Future Land Use" sections of the Comprehensive Plan in reaching this conclusion. The Port of Miami River Subelement The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Commission in 1989 and Submitted into the public 14 record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk amended through August of 2004. Within the Comprehensive Plan is a section devoted to "Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities," specifying the City's goals, objectives, and policies regarding development within these critical areas. Within this section there is a subelement titled the "Port of Miami River." The appellants claim that the Balbino FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with this subelernent. Although the appellants claim that the Balbino FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the Port of Miami River Subelement of the Comprehensive Plan, the AU precluded the appellants from introducing evidence regarding this subelement because he incorrectly concluded that it was not relevant. The ALJ based his conclusion, in part, on the Monkus definition of the Port of Miami River, despite our contrary conclusion in Payne II. At the time of the hearing, the ALJ's justification for failing to apply this court's findings in Payne II was that Payne II was still under consideration for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The appellants' motion for a continuance pending the issuance of a mandate by this court in Payne II was denied. The ALJ's failure to permit the appellants to introduce evidence or to present argument that the Balbino FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive, Plan, was error. Balbino and the City claim that the Port of Miami River Subelement found in the Comprehensive Plan only relates to the fourteen commercial shipping companies that were located along the Miami River in 1989. They premise their 15 arguments on a footnote in the Port of Miami River Subelement of the Comprehensive Plan, which states: The "Port of Miami River" is simply a legal name used to identify some 14 independent, privately -owned small shipping companies located along the Miami River, and is not a "Port Facility" within the usual meaning of the term. The identification of these shipping concerns as the "Port of Miami River" was made in 1986 for the sole purpose of satisfying a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing bilge pump outs. Based upon this footnote, they argue that the policies and objectives regarding the Port of Miami River in the Comprehensive Plan only apply to those fourteen companies. Not only is this argument illogical, it was rejected by this court in Payne II: We find that the "Port of Miami River" subsection is not limited to 14 unidentified companies. Rather, the footnote explains that the "Port of Miami River" is not a port in the traditional sense of the word. Accordingly, appellants did not have to allege that they were one of the 14 shipping companies referenced in the footnote. Pa ne, 927 So. 2d at 908 (footnote omitted)(emphasis added). Some of the objectives and policies found in the "Port of Miami River" Subelement of the Comprehensive Plan, which the ALJ failed to consider when he found that the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, are: Objective PA-3.1: The City of Miami, through its Land development regulations, shall help protect the Port of Miami River from encroachment by non water -dependent or water -related land uses, and shall regulate its expansion and redevelopment in coordination with Submitted into the public 16 record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk the City's applicable coastal management and conservation plans and policies. Policy PA-3.1.1: The City shall use its land development regulations to encourage the establishment and maintenance of water -dependent and water -related uses along the banks of the Miami River, and to discourage encroachment by incompatible uses. Policy PA-3.1.2: The City shall, through its land development regulations, encourage the development and expansion of the Port of Miami River consistent with the coastal management and conservation elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy PA-3.1.3: The City shall, through its land development regulations, encourage development of compatible land uses in the vicinity of the Port of Miami River so as to mitigate potential adverse impacts arising from the Port of Miami River upon adjacent natural resources and land uses. Policy PA-3.3.1: The City of Miami, through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, shall support the functions of the Port of Miami River consistent with future goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly with respect to the unique characteristics of the Port of Miami River's location and its economic position and functioning within the local maritime industry, and the necessity for coordination of these characteristics and needs with maritime industry that complements, and often competes with, the Port of Miami River. The City and Balbino's argument, that these objectives and policies do not apply to the Balbino property because it is not located on one of the orginal shipping company sites, is illogical. It is undisputed that many of the fourteen shipping companies that were located at various sites along the Miami River in 1986 have moved, changed hands, and no longer exist, and that instead of fourteen shipping companies along the Miami River, there are now at least twenty-eight. Submitted into the public record for item(s) P 17 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Since the Comprehensive Plan's enactment in 1989, the City adopted The Miami River Master Plan, which will be addressed more fully herein, and the City has amended and readopted the Comprehensive Plan. It is also undisputed that the marine industry along the Miami River has grown substantially and has become an important economic asset to the City. The Miami River generates over $800 million in input, $427 million in income, $45 million in tax revenue per year, and provides employment to 7,500 people. The shipping industry along the Miami River is not only growing, further expansion is all but certain when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completes its dredging of the Miami River. It is, therefore, illogical to conclude that the City meant only to protect the original fourteen shipping companies along the Miami River when it drafted, enacted, amended and readopted the Comprehensive Plan. Thus, we reaffirm our position in PaneII, that the Port of Miami River referred to in the Comprehensive Plan, and as amended and adopted in 2004, is not limited to the fourteen shipping companies that existed in 1989. Our conclusion is supported by the findings contained in the Miami River Master Plan, prepared by the City of Miami Department of Planning, Building and Zoning, and adopted by the City on January 23, 1992, by Resolution #92-61 . In this document, the City recognized that, although the Miami River is a navigable waterway used extensively for commercial shipping, it is not officially regulated as Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 18 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk a port by state or local government; these commercial shipping operations are 100% owned and operated by private enterprise and, therefore, do not enjoy the structure, authority, and advantages normally associated with ports; that the name Port of Miami River was simply coined in 1986 to satisfy a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing bilge pumpouts; and that there are currently between twenty- five and thirty independent shipping companies operating on the Miami River as opposed to the fourteen companies operating in 1989. Miami River Master Plan, River Management Port of Miami River, 2.12 (Jan. 1992). Indeed, based upon this rather unusual structure, or lack thereof, the Miami River Master Plan stresses the need for a formal organization to manage the use of these facilities, providing, in part, as follows: RECOMMENDATIONS Policy: 2.4.9 Create an official "port" organization with responsibility to assist with enforcement of rules and regulations applicable to commercial shipping activity. (a) Support the private sector efforts to fulfill the role of a port through a cooperative organization. (b) If the private port cooperative fails to effectively manage shipping activity, establish a public port agency with legal authority to enforce regulations. Id. at 2.13. Additionally, the Infill Plan contains a summary specifically addressing the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 19 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Port of Miami River Subelement. It reads as follows: In 1988 The Port of Miami River consisted of approximately 14 independent shipping terminals, along the Miami River as shown in Figure IV-16, that were joined together in 1986 in order to comply with U.S. Coast Guard regulations regarding pumpout of bilge water. The Infill Plan lists the fourteen original shipping terminals; discusses the services provided and the tonnage of cargo shipped; notes the estimated $1.7 billion value; and then addresses the Port of Miami River Subelement as it existed in 1995: As shown in Figure IV-19, in 1995 the Port of Miami River consists of about 28 independent shipping terminals located along navigable 5.5 miles of the Miami River that stretch from the salinity dam to the Biscayne Bay. The Infill Plan names the twenty-eight shipping terminals that existed in 1995 and which were considered the Port of Miami River at that time. While the Infill Plan does not provide a more current list of the Port of Miami River entities, its drafters make it clear that the term clearly includes the shipping terminals along the river wherever they are located and regardless of the name or ownership. Jack Luft, who testified for the appellants and who was accepted by the ALJ as an expert in the field of comprehensive land planning, was a land planner with the City for twenty-eight years; participated in the rewrite of the Comprehensive Plan in 1978; was the senior project manager for several components of the Comprehensive Plan in the 1980's; wrote master plans for various cities and areas, including Virginia Key, Dinner Key, Coconut Grove, downtown, Watson Island, Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 20 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Bicentennial Park, and for a number of neighborhood revitalization parks; planned the Design District in the 1990's; was a consultant for Sunny Isles Beach's Comprehensive Master Plan in 2000; and is considered an expert for last year's Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, Mr. Luft served as the Director for the Department of Development for the City and was involved in revitalization strategies for Little Havana and Little River, where he analyzed census information, income data, and housing costs and conditions to determine how to approach the revitalization of these communities. Mr. Luft testified that the Port of Miami River is not specifically defined in the Comprehensive Plan, but rather, it is only "vaguely referred to as a collection of marine industries and nonspecific locations of an unspecific number." It is Mr. Luft's expert opinion that the Port of Miami River comprises the marine industrial uses and properties along the Miami River, which include the shipping terminals, shipping operations, and an array of services including freight forwarders, port construction companies, repair facilities, equipment suppliers, and other entities that operate and service the vessels on the Miami River. Dr. Francis Bohnsack, the Executive Director of the Miami River Marine Group and who serves as the Miami River Port Director for the United States Coast Guard as a liaison for the marine industry on the Miami River with local, state, and federal agencies, agrees with Mr. Luft's definition of the Port of Miarni Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 21 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk River. Dr. Bohnsack explained that the Miami River Marine Group was established because of the Port of Miami River's unconventional structure. While conventional ports have an operational infrastructure owned by the government, the Port of Miami River is comprised of privately owned companies that compete with each other. The Miami River Marine Group was established as an independent entity to serve its interests and the interests of the marine industry. She further explained that the Port of Miami River is a "riverine port" with many terminal addresses running along the entire length of the Miami River in designated marine industrial sites. It is, therefore, the position of both Mr. Lutz and Dr. Bohnsack that the Port of Miami River includes the port facilities that are water -dependent, zoned SD-4, and regulated by the Coast Guard, customs, and the various federal, state and local agencies. The evidence supports Mr. Luft's and Dr. Bohnsack's definition of the Port of Miami River. We, therefore, conclude that the Port of Miami River encompasses the water -dependent marine activity on the river, which includes the shipping companies and terminals and the associated supporting marine industries zoned SD-4 on the Miami River. This conclusion, however, is not dispositive. Whether we view the Port of Miami River as the ever -changing shipping terminals along the river or as the. SD- 4 water -dependent and water -related marine industries on the river, the ALJ erred Submitted into the public 22 record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk in refusing to permit the appellants to introduce evidence or to argue that this FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the objectives and policies of the Port of Miami River Subelement. Additionally, while the ALJ ultimately recognized this court's holding in Payne II, in his Recommended Order, he failed to consider the objectives and policies of the Port of Miami River Subelement previously listed in this opinion. This error is material, as Balbino's proposed land use is clearly inconsistent with the Port of Miami River Subelement of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective PA-3.1 requires the City to "protect the Port of Miami River from encroachment by nonwater-dependent or water -related land uses" (emphasis added). This Subelement also provides clear policy which requires the City through its land development regulations to encourage the maintenance of water - dependent and water -related uses along the banks of the Miami River and to encourage expansion of the Port of Miami River. Contrary to these objectives and policies, the City approved Balbino's small scale FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use designation which is mostly Industrial to Restricted Commercial; and also permitted this parcel of land, located directly on the Miami River, to be rezoned from SD4-2 Waterfront Industrial to Restricted Commercial, thereby allowing the construction of a mixed -use project, which is neither water -dependent nor water -related and will limit future expansion of the 23 Port of Miami River. Balbino and the City additionally argue that the Port of Miami River Subelement applies to land development regulations (zoning), not to land use, which is what the FLUM Amendment addresses. Balbino and the City, therefore, argue that regardless of how we define the Port of Miami River, the ALJ did not err in refusing to consider whether Balbino's FLUM Amendment was consistent with the objectives and policies of the Port of Miami River Subelement. We disagree. The Balbino property was, for the most part, zoned SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial. Therefore, its land use designation was, by necessity, identified as Industrial. The SD-4.2 classification precludes any residential uses. The SD-4-2 land development regulation was placed on this property to reserve and preserve it as a water -dependent or water -related industrial use that could not be used for residential purposes. The Port of Miami River Subelement was enacted to specifically protect the Miami River from encroachment by non -water -dependent or non -water -related uses that have no relevance to and do not support the shipping - - ...industry. By changing the land use designation from Industrial to Restricted Commercial, the only water -related or water -dependent use permitted in that classification would be for a marina. Additionally, the FLUM Amendment will permit residential use, a land use specifically precluded by the SD-4.2 land Submitted into the public 24 record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk development classification. Thus, by changing the land use, the FLUM Amendment dramatically changes the permitted land development uses. We are also unwilling to pretend ignorance or to engage in willful blindness. The City agreed to amend the land use designation from Industrial and General Commercial to Restricted Commercial, granted Balbino's petition to change the land development classification from SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial to Restricted Commercial, and granted Balbino's MUSP, thus granting Balbino permission to build three mixed -use high-rise buildings, which are in no way related to the shipping industry and which are completely inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This parcel of land has always been used for marine industrial purposes. When the City approved the FLUM Amendment, zoning change, and MUSP, the property was being used as a water -dependent commercial marina and "self-help" boat repair facility. Therefore, the land use change is clearly tied into the zoning change and MUSP. We, therefore, conclude that the ALJ erred in refusing to allow the -appellants to offer evidence; to consider that evidence; and to evaluate whether Balbino's FLUM Amendment was consistent with the goal, objectives, and policies of the Port of Miami River Subelement. We find that had the ALJ done so, the inescapable conclusion would have been that the FLUM Amendment is Submitted into the public 25 record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Coastal Management The Comprehensive Plan also contains a section, titled "Coastal Management," which addresses the coastal areas located within the City. One of the goals specified in this section is to "[p]rovide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses." Goal CM-3. In order to accomplish this goal, Objective CM-3.1 provides: "Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami" (emphasis added). Moreover, Policy CM-3.1.1 states: "Future land use and development regulations will encourage water dependent uses along the shoreline." The ALJ concluded that because the change to a Restricted Commercial land use designation will still permit a commercial marina to operate at that location, the FLUM Amendment will result in no loss of acreage devoted to water - dependent use. This conclusion ignores the intent of Coastal Management Goal CM-3. The AU ignored the fact that (1) the property is currently a commercial marina; (2) the FLUM Amendment, zoning change, and MUSP approval were all tied together and approved together: the City's approval allows Balbino to construct over 1,000 residential units on property where residential units were previously precluded; and (3) eliminates the commercial marina currently operating at that location, as well as twenty-seven of the ninety-three dry boat slip., Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on the Miami River. on 06-11-2020, City Clerk The Balbino FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use designation, which is primarily Industrial to Restricted Commercial, and the zoning change from SD4-2 Waterfront Industrial to Restricted Commercial, will result in a net loss of acreage devoted to water -dependent use, thereby conflicting with Coastal Management Goal CM-3. Instead of "[p]rovid[ing] an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses[,] ... [a]llow[ing] no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami," and using its land use regulations to "encourage water dependent uses along the shoreline," these changes to this property's land use and zoning will deplete land specifically reserved by the City for waterfront industrial use in its Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's goals, objectives, and policy considerations regarding coastal areas, and specifically those coastal areas along the Miami River, are in recognition of how important the shipping industry and other water - dependent uses are to the City's economy. In view of the importance to the local economy, the limited available areas suitable for high intensity water dependent uses, and strong population pressures of the 1960's, the City created in the mid 1960's a zoning classification entitled Waterfront Industrial. This zoning classification strictly prohibits uses that are not directly related to waterfront activities. Since any new water dependent or related facilities would involve redevelopment of existing waterfront properties, these zoning ordinances are considered sufficient to insure that adequate land area for water -dependent or related uses is protected. Along the Miami River, an economic study in 1986 reported that the firms located in the study area ... have a significant impact on the Miami economy. They employ an estimated 7,000 workers on a full time basis and over 600 part time. Total sales are estimated at $613 million, or about $87,000 for a full time worker. An additional indirect impact of $1.2 billion of business activity in the Miami area is created by firms in the study area. Many of the firms located in the study area are marine related businesses in part composed of water dependent and water related activities. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, Volume II, Data and Analysis, Coastal Management Element (emphasis added). The ALJ, however, failed to consider the importance of the marine industry to the City's economy or to appreciate that the Industrial land use designation and Waterfront Industrial SD-4 zoning classification were created to protect those uses and to ensure that there will be adequate land area for water -dependent and related uses. Future Land Use The Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan also provides that a future land use goal is to "[mjaintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and Submitted into the public 28 record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods; (2) fosters redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas; (3) promotes and facilitates economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the City ... and (6) protects and conserves the city's significant natural and coastal resources." Goal LU-1. The ALJ found that the FLUM Amendment is consistent with Goal LU-1. He concluded that because the "FLUM Amendment will eliminate the potential for development of industrial uses that may generate `excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact[,]" it will improve the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhoods, and it is, therefore, consistent with subpart (1). He additionally found that because the Balbino property is located in Allapattah, a declining area, the FLUM Amendment will provide redevelopment and revitalization of the area, and is, therefore, consistent with subpart (2). These findings, however, are unsupported by the record. Ms. Stetser, a resident near the Balbino property, testified that rather than "enhancing the quality of life" in the neighborhood, the addition of over 2000 additional cars to the already congested two-lane North River Drive and to the 17th Avenue bridge, which already backs up, will cause further delays and frustration tc the neighborhood's drivers. Submitted into the public 29 record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk We also note that in 1997, the Florida Legislature created the Miami laver Study Commission to assess the main issues along the Miami River and to cake recommendations for improving its management; in 1998, the Legislature established the Miami River Commission to coordinate state, regional, and local activities impacting the Miami River; and in 1999, the Legislature adopted the Urban Infill and Redevelopment Act to assist local governments in implementing their local comprehensive plans. In 2000, in recognition of the importance of the Miami River and the need for a single, multi jurisdictional plan for the entire Miami River Corridor, the City, Miami -Dade County, and the Miami River Commission executed a joint planning agreement to create an urban infill plan for the Miami River Corridor. After two years of collaborative effort, the Infill Plan was adopted by the Miami River Commission and Miami -Dade County as their Strategic Plan. While the City has not yet adopted the Infill. Plan it helped create, it does periodically refer to data contained in the Infill Plan, and it has been relied upon, in part, by the City, the ALJ, and Balbino during the proceedings. The Infill Plan identifies the Allapattah area as a neighborhood stretching from N.W. 17th Avenue to N.W. 27th Avenue on the north bank of the Miami River. The Balbino property is located at approximately N.W. 18th Avenue directly on the Miami River. The Infill Plan notes that A.11apattah is the home to thriving marinas, two of the largest yacht basins on the Miami River, numerous 30 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk produce and flower markets, and a thriving wholesale and retail clothing district on N.W. 20th Street. In addressing the waterfront properties along the Miami River, the Infill Plan states that both high density and lower density residential development may not be the most appropriate use of the neighborhood's river frontage and that "Allapattah's waterfront industrial zoning should be maintained." Thus, while it may be beneficial to develop certain areas in. the Allapattah area, the waterfront in areas zoned Waterfront Industrial is not one of them. Rather than promoting economic development and the growth of job opportunities as required in LU-1(3), the, evidence establishes that it will do just the opposite. Jack Luft testified that the Miami River Master Plan; the Urban Infill Plan; the City of Miami; Miami River Market Analysis; and the 2004 Economic Impact Analysis, all reflect that the Miami River and its marine industrial base is a significant source of jobs and economic enhancement to the City. This includes not only the shipping industry, but a variety of marine industrial support services that reinforce and directly serve the industry. He noted that from 1991 to 2001, the - . marine industries on the river doubled in ports serving the Caribbean and in the cargo handled along the river. Jobs have tripled. The Miami River marine industry is an important economic asset to the City which provided over $4 billon in trade during the ten-year period from 1991 to 2001. Mr. Luft testified that "this Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 31 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk amendment eliminates irreplaceable marine industrial land from the river. There is L not another place to recapture it, and it completely violates the promotion and facilitation of economic development of one of the most important industries in the city. It's clear." Mr. Luft additionally stated that the FLUM Amendment not only eliminates this particular marine use on the river, it threatens the viability and the very existence of the surrounding marine industrial uses and that it is the Miami River maritime industry itself which provides jobs in the region. The AU also failed to address LU-1(6), which requires the City to protect and conserve its "significant natural and coastal resources." Since 2000, fifty percent of the properties designated for marine industrial water -related and water -dependent uses along the banks of the Miami River have been lost due to the multiple small scale land use amendments to make way for residential high-rises. These small scale amendments do not require the scrutiny that is normally required to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, developers, with City approval, have been compromising the marine industry and in effect, changing the Comprehensive Plan piecemeal, rather than performing a comprehensive review with appropriate public and governmental input and oversight. The Balbino FLUM Amendment is an example of this piecemeal alteration of the City's coastal resources, and when viewed in conjunction with the other small scale amendments, dramatically affects the stated goals and objectives 32 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk to preserve the Miami River as a working river, which are to protect the marine industries along the river and to reserve a sufficient amount of waterfront industrial land for expansion of water -dependent and water -related uses. Despite the FLUM Amendment's conflict with the overall goals, objectives, and policies specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the River Master Plan, the ALJ upheld Balbino's FLUM Amendment because he found that it was consistent with Policy LU-1.3.6, which encourages "diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants" in certain areas of the City, including the "River Corridor." The ALJ, however, failed to consider that while diversification and mixed -use classifications may be desirable in certain locations along the River Corridor, the Comprehensive Plan and the River Master Plan make it clear that these goals only apply to appropriately zoned areas, not to land reserved for waterfront industrial purposes: Goal CM-3: Provide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses. Objective CM-3.1: Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, Volume II, Data and Analysis, Coastal Management Element: In view of the importance to the local economy, the limited available areas suitable for high intensity water dependent uses, and strong population pressures of the 1960's, the City created in the mid 1960's a zoning classification entitled Waterfront Industrial. This zoning classification strictly prohibits uses that are not directly related to waterfront activities. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 33 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk River Master Plan, 0.2: The function of the Miami River as a "working waterfront" should be preserved. Scarce waterfront land should be reserved, wherever possible, for use by businesses that are dependent on a waterfront location or are essentially related to the maritime economy of the area. River Master Plan, Urban Design 4.20: New housing construction should be encouraged, except on lands reserved for water - dependent uses. River Master Plan, Urban Design 4.20, Objective 4.8: Encourage residential development on appropriately zoned lands in the Mid - River area. Additionally, there was no evidence presented to support the ALJ's findings that the Balbino project will "fulfill a need for housing for persons who work in the Civic Center area" and will promote job creation. No evidence was presented that there is a need, for such housing. In fact, the evidence presented paints a very different picture. Jack Luft testified that Miami and Florida have initiated an aggressive marketing campaign to strengthen its ports. The Caribbean Basin Initiative and the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) are two of those initiatives..-, He additionally noted that Rule 9J-5 of the State Administrative Code requires the City to do an assessment of need. In compliance with Rule 9J-5, the studies performed demonstrate an enormous need to preserve waterfront industrial sites along the Miami River. The Port of Miami River handles one-third of the tonnage that serves the Caribbean basin and is one of the major ports serving the shallow draft ports of the Caribbean. Mr. Luft 34 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk testified that the existing need, while great, is continuing to grow with no other location to fulfill the need. He astutely pointed out that while there are many suitable upland locations for the residential buildings planned by this developer, the marine industry has no such latitude. MIAMI RIVER MASTER PLAN ("River Master Plan") The River Master Plan is as a result of a planning study undertaken by the City of Miami Department of Planning, Building and Zoning, to provide a long- range and a short-range vision of the Miami River as a "working waterfront." It specifically provides that: The function of the Miami River as a "working waterfront" should be preserved. Scarce waterfront land should be reserved, wherever possible, for use by businesses that are dependent on a waterfront location or are essentially related to the maritime economy of the area. The river should grow as a shallow draft seaport— a lifeline to the Caribbean Basin — providing good -paying jobs for city residents. New shipping terminals should be located where they will not be detrimental to residential neighborhoods. The river's role in the regional market for repair, sales and service of boats and marine equipment should be maintained and strengthened. The marine character embodied by the fishing industry on the river should be preserved. River Master Plan, 0.2 (emphasis added). Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk 35 The River Master Plan addresses the limited availability of land suitable to development and expansion of water -dependent marine businesses, stating in pertinent part: Within Dade County, there. is estimated to be only 13.7 acres of undeveloped land['] with suitable water access and zoning to permit expansion of water -dependent marine businesses. Of that total, 8 acres are located on the Miami River. Given the economic significance of the marine industry, particularly in terms of the type and number of jobs created, it is important to prevent encroachment upon the limited amount of land available for growth of marine activities in the Miami River area. RECOMMENDATIONS Objective: 1.1 Reserve the limited amount of waterfront land available for expansion of marine industries. Policies: 1.1.1 Retain and enforce the requirement for water -dependent and water -related uses within areas currently designated SD-4 in the City of Miami. River Master Plan, The Working Waterfront 1.4 — 1.5 (emphasis added). The River Master Plan also specifically addresses the SD-4 zoning designation for coastal areas along the Miami River to provide protection from intrusion by non -water -dependent or related uses. In the City of Miami, marine industries along the Miami River and its 2 The River Master Plan was adopted in 1992. Thus, the data is reflective of available water -dependent land at that time. 36 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk tributaries are protected by a special zoning designation from intrusion by other uses that are not dependent on a waterfront location. This special zoning is called "SD-4, Waterfront Industrial Special District." It is intended for application in areas appropriately located for marine activities, to limit principal and accessory uses to those reasonably requiring waterfront locations, and to exclude residential, general commercial, service, office or manufacturing uses not primarily related to waterfront activities. River Master Plan, The Working Waterfront, Waterfront Industrial Zoning 1.12 (emphasis added). The River Master Plan divides the SD-4 zoning classification into SD-4.1, Waterfront Commercial, and SD-4.2, Waterfront Industrial categories. Waterfront Commercial SD-4.1 includes marinas, boatyards, fisheries, boat sales and service, mixed use, and limited restaurant or residential with water dependent use. Waterfront Industrial SD-4.2 includes shipping terminals, marine contractors, commercial shipyards, towing, and salvage, and all SD-4.1 uses, except residential. This waterfront zoning classification was recommended by City planners in 1956, was adopted by the City in 1961, and generally remained intact until recent -- years- -when -the City began approving small scale amendments to the - 'Comprehensive Plan and the concurrent zoning changes. Most of Balbino's property is zoned SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial property, and therefore, is reserved for waterfront industrial purposes and specifically excludes any residential uses. The City, Balbino, and the ALJ all contend that, because the subject property is located in the "Mid -River" section where most of the existing housing WA is located along the Miami River, a change from an Industrial land use, and SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial zoning, to a mixed -use residential Restricted Commercial designation is consistent with the area's land use. We disagree, as the River Master Plan, which recognizes the importance of housing opportunities in the Mid - River area, specifically limits its application to land not reserved for water - dependent uses. Residential Development A number of opportunities remain for development of new housing by building on vacant lots or by increasing the density of existing developed lots. New housing construction should be encouraged, except on lands reserved for water -dependent uses. In the proposed SD-4.1 Waterfront Commercial zoning district (see page 1.14) residential development could be permitted as an accessory use to a marina. Objective: 4.8 Encourage residential development on appropriately zoned lands in the Mid -River area. River Master Plan, Mid -River, Urban Design, 4.20 (emphasis added). Balbino's property, which is zoned SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial, therefore, is specifically excluded from the City's stated residential development goals along the Mid - River. Even SD-4.1 Waterfront Commercial zoned land may only include residential development as an accessory use to a marina. Lastly, the River Master Plan recognizes that higher land values and the Submitted into the public 38 record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk concomitant increase in property taxes results in the displacement of marine businesses and that the SD-4 Waterfront zoning was created, in part, to protect the maritime industry along the Miami River from being priced out of the location. It, therefore, provides for specific objectives and policies to protect these marine businesses from displacement by higher land values. Land Values One issue which directly affects the continued viability of marinas and small boatyards, as well as other businesses along the Miami River, is that of increasing land values and the concomitant increase in property taxes. Clearly this has been the case in the Downtown portion of the river and has resulted in the displacement of marine businesses with office buildings.... Q • _�I�! �� elm Objective: 1.3 Preserve the marine repair, service, equipment and related industries along the Miami River that are vital to the shipping industry or the recreational boating industry. Policies: 1.3.1 Protect boatyards and related- marine businesses from displacement by higher land values uses by adopting separate "marine industrial" and "marine -commercial" zoning district classifications. River Master Plan, Marinas and Boatyards, Land Values 1.9. Balbino's FLLJM Amendment, changing the land use designation from Industrial to Restricted Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 39 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Commercial, is clearly inconsistent with the objectives and policy considerations relating to property values. Balbino's 1,073-unit residential towers will most likely raise the property values and taxes, not protect them, thereby creating a financial strain on smaller marine businesses critical to the working waterfront. The ALJ erred in failing to consider this issue in finding that the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the River Master Plan. CONCLUSION While we recognize that agency action enjoys great deference, findings of fact must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Furthermore, when the agency incorrectly interprets the law or, fails to apply the law, the decision rendered is subject to reversal. Because we conclude that the ALJ erred in precluding the appellants from introducing evidence and in making argument regarding the FLUM Amendment's inconsistency with the Port of Miami River Subelement of the Comprehensive Plan; failed to consider the Port of Miami River Subelement and critical areas of the Coastal Management and Future Land Use sections of the Comprehensive Plan; failed to consider critical sections of the River Master Plan; and made findings that were unsupported by the evidence, we reverse. We find that had the .ALJ considered these areas of the Comprehensive Plan and the River Master Plan, he could not have concluded that Balbino's FLUM Amendment wa! consistent with either. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk We further note that these "small scale" amendments, when viewed together as a whole, are changing the character of the Miami River waterfront without proper long range planning or input from appropriate agencies, departments, and citizen groups. Because the Miami River is such an important asset to the City, County, and State, such piecemeal, haphazard changes are not only ill-advised, they are contrary to the goals and objectives of those who worked together, debated, and determined how the Miami River waterfront should be developed. If the City's vision for the Miami River has changed, then that change should be clearly reflected in its Comprehensive Plan to provide industries and land owners along the Miami River with fair notice. Reversed. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk 41 Tbirb ;Di5trirt Court of Zipped State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2007 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, Opinion filed August 29, 2007. on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D06-2409 Lower Tribunal Nos. 06-759 GM; DCA 06-GM-214 Captain Herbert Payne; The Durham Park Neighborhood Association, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation; and the Miami River Marine Group, Inc., a Florida not for profit corporation, Appellants, VS. City of Miami, a Florida municipal corporation; and Riverside Investments, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Appellees. An Appeal from the Department of Community Affairs. Andrew W.J. Dickman (Naples), for appellants. Greenberg Traurig and David C. Ashburn (Tallahassee); Greenberg Traurig and Elliot H. Scherker and Lucia Dougherty and Pamela A. DeBooth, for appellee Riverside Investments, LLC; Jorge L. Fernandez, City Attorney, and Rafael Suarez -Rivas, Assistant City Attorney, for appellee City of Miami. Before RAMIREZ, CORTMAS, and ROTHENBERG, JJ. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, ROTHENBERG, Judge. on 06-11-202.0, City Clerk Riverside 22 Investments, LLC ("Riverside") owns a 4.3-acre parcel located on the south side of the Miami River at 2215 N.W. 14th Street, Miami, Florida. Riverside applied for and obtained from the City of Miami ("City") a small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map ("FLUM Amendment") of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan ("Comprehensive Plan"), changing the land use designation of the property from Industrial to Restricted Commercial. Riverside also applied for and obtained a zoning change from SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial to C-1 Restricted Commercial, and a Major Use Special Permit ("MUSP"), thereby allowing the construction of a multi -family development project on the property. The ordinance approving the FLUM Amendment was adopted by the City Commission on January 26, 2006, and was signed by the Mayor on January 31, 2006.1 The City approved the rezoning of the property and the MUSP on the same day. The approved development on this 4.3-acre waterfront parcel is for two twelve -story residential condominiums consisting of 633 dwelling units. The MUSP and the rezoning have not been challenged in this appeal. The following parties filed a petition with the Division of Administrative 1 Ordinance Number 12761. 2 Hearing ("DOAH"), challenging the ordinance that approved the FLUM Amendment: Captain Herbert Payne ("Payne"), a boat captain who owns and operates one of the largest tugboat companies on the Miami River and who relies exclusively on commercial marine business on the Miami River for his livelihood; The Durham Park Neighborhood Association, Inc. ("Durham Park"), a non-profit neighborhood association comprised of approximately ninety homeowners and businesses located in the Durham Park area, which is located on the south side of the Miami River and to the east of the Riverside property; and The Miami River Marine Group, Inc. ("Marine Group"), a trade association representing marine and industrial businesses along the Miami River (collectively referred to as "the appellants"). After a hearing, the administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued a Recommended Order, which was subsequently adopted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs ("the Department"), and to which the appellants now appeal. Because the appellants are challenging agency action, our review is governed by section 120.68, Florida Statutes (2006), and Coastal Development of North Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 2001). The relevant provisions of section 120.68 provide: (7) The court shall remand a case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision or set aside agency action, as appropriate, when it finds that: (a) There has been no hearing prior to agency action and the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 3 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk reviewing court finds that the validity of the action depends upon disputed facts; (b) The agency's action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent, substantial evidence ... ; (c) The fairness of the proceedings or the correctness of the action may have been impaired by a material error in procedure or a failure to follow prescribed procedure; (d) The agency has erroneously interpreted a provision of law and a correct interpretation compels a particular action; or (e) The agency's exercise of discretion was: 1. Outside the range of discretion delegated to the agency by law; 2. Inconsistent with agency rule; 3. Inconsistent with officially stated agency policy or a prior agency practice, if deviation therefrom is not explained by the agency; or 4. Otherwise in violation of a constitutional or statutory provision[.] (Emphasis added). Amendments to a local government's comprehensive plan are legislative in nature and, therefore, are subject to the fairly -debatable standard of review. Martin County v. Yu.sem, 690 So. 2d 1288, 1295 (Fla. 1997). Thus, where reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the planning action, it should be affirmed. Id.; see also Coastal Dev., 788 So. 2d at 206 (applying the fairly - debatable standard of review to small scale development amendments). However, because the future land use map of a comprehensive plan represents a local government's fundamental policy decisions, any proposed change to that established policy is a policy decision that requires that those policies be reexamined. Coastal Dev., 788 So. 2d at 209. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 4 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk It seems to us that all comprehensive plan amendment requests necessarily involve the formulation of policy, rather than its mere application. Regardless of the scale of the proposed development, a comprehensive plan amendment request will require that the governmental entity determine whether it is socially desirable to reformulate the policies previously formulated for the orderly future growth of the community. This will, in turn, require that it consider the likely impact that the proposed amendment would have on traffic, utilities, other services, and future capital expenditures, among other things. Id. at 209 (citing with approval City of Jacksonville Beach v. Coastal Dev. of N. Fla., Inc., 730 So. 2d 792, 794 (Fla. lst DCA 1999)(emphasis added)). In applying these standards, we conclude that because the ALJ (1) refused to apply the findings of this court in Payne v. City of Miami, 927 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ("Payne II"), preferring, instead, to rely on the Department's contrary definition of the term "Port of Miami River" in Monkus v. City of Miami, DOAH Case No. 04-108OGM (Department of Community Affairs, Final Order, Oct. 28, 2004) ("Monkus"), a definition rejected by this court in Pa, nee II; (2) failed to examine the FLUM Amendment's impact upon, and consistency with, fundamental policy decisions contained in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Miami River Master Plan; and (3) made material findings that are unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, we must reverse. We additionally conclude that had the correct law been applied to facts supported by competent, substantial evidence, it would compel a finding that the Riverside FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Miami River Master Plan. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 5 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Section 163.3161, Florida Statutes (2005), which is referred to as the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land- Development Regulation Act, was enacted to strengthen local governments' role in the establishment and implementation of comprehensive planning to control future development. Section 163.3161 provides, in part: (5) It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared and adopted in conformity with this act. (7) The provisions of this act in their interpretation and application are declared to be the minimum requirements necessary to accomplish the stated intent, purposes, and objectives of this act; to protect human, environmental, social, and economic resources; and to maintain, through orderly growth and development, the character and stability of present and future land use and development in this state. (Emphasis added). Section 163.3177(2) provides in pertinent part that "[t]he several elements of the comprehensive plan shall be consistent, and the comprehensive plan shall be financially feasible. . . ." Additionally, section 163.3177(6) provides that the comprehensive plan shall include certain elements including: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk S residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of,the public and private uses of land. . .. For coastal counties, the future land use element must include, without limitation, regulatory incentives and criteria that encourage the preservation of recreational and commercial working waterfronts as defined in s. 342.07.... Amendments to the comprehensive plan may not be made more than two times during any calendar year except: (a) in the case of an emergency, (b) when the amendment is directly related to a proposed development of regional impact, or (c) if the amendment is for a small scale development. § 163.3187(1)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). The Riverside FLUM Amendment was sought and was granted as a small scale development pursuant to section 163.3187 (1)(c). 4n July 1, 2005, prior to the City's first reading of the proposed ordinance to amend the future land use designation of Riverside's property,2 section 163.3187(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2004), was amended to provide an exception to the time limitation for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for a small scale amendment if: 1. The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer and: e. The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment 2 The first reading was on July 28, 2005, and the ordinance was ultimately passed by the City on January 26, 2006. Thus, the 2005 version of the statute would most likely apply. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 7 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1)... . f. If the proposed amendment involves a residential land use, the residential land use has a density of 10 units or less per acre or the proposed future land use category allows a maximum residential density of the same or less than the maximum residential density allowable under the existing future land use category, except that this limitation does not apply to small scale amendments involving the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3) .... § 163.3187(1)(C)(1)(e)-(f), Fla. Stat. (2005).3 Thus, before a small scale FLUM Amendment may be approved without complying with the requirements normally imposed, the applicant must demonstrate that the amendment involves property that is ten acres or less and (1) the property is not located in an area of critical state concern unless the amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of section 420.0004(3) and other factors, or (2) the proposed amendment involves a residential use with a density of ten units or less per acre or the maximum density is equal to or less than the density allowable under the existing 3 The previous version of this section of the statute also required that the proposed residential land use have a density of ten units or less per acre unless the amendment is to a designated urban infill site. This version of the statute does not provide the further exception found in the July 1, 2005 statute where the proposed future land use category allows a maximum residential density under the future land use category. Regardless of whether the July 1, 2005 version of the statute or the previous version is applied, the analysis and result would be the same. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 8 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk future land use category, unless the small scale amendment involves the construction of affordable housing pursuant to section 420.0004(3), or the property is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as urban infill, urban development, or downtown revitalization. We note that there was no evidence presented demonstrating that this small scale FLUM Amendment falls into any of these exceptions or that it qualifies for any of the exceptions provided for in section 163.3187, Florida Statutes (2005). There was no evidence presented demonstrating that this small scale FLUM Amendment was sought to build affordable housing. The evidence in the record, in fact, suggests a contrary conclusion. The picture of the proposed development reflects that the Riverside project is for something on a much grander scale, and it is on the water, which generally increases the value and, thus, the cost of a residential unit. The density for the proposed development is over ten units per acre, and as the current Industrial classification permits no residential uses, the density exception clearly does not apply. The only exception the Riverside FLUM Amendment could conceivably be relying on is that the subject property is in an urban infill zone. However, the City, after paying for and participating in the creation of the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan, failed to adopt the Plan, and takes the position that the entire City is an urban infill site. We find this argument hard to accept. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk 9 Because the appellants have not challenged the FLUM Amendment on the basis that it fails to comply with section 163.3187 or that the FLUM Amendment does not fall within any of the exceptions contained in the statute, we merely note our concern but do not base our analysis or reversal on this issue. In addition to the statutes regulating land development, requiring the enactment of comprehensive planning to control future development and providing a regulatory scheme for amendments to comprehensive plans, is the City's Zoning Code. Article 6 of the City of Miami Zoning Code (2004) ("City's Zoning Code") provides for the creation of SD Special Districts to protect certain areas or districts within the City. Article 6, Section 600, provides in pertinent part as follows: Section 600. Intent. It is the intent of these regulations to permit creation of SD Special Districts: (a) In general areas officially designated as having special and substantial public interest in protection of existing or proposed character, or of principal views of, from, or through the areas; It is further intended that such districts and the regulations adopted for them shall be in accord with, and promote the policies set out in, the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and other officially adopted plans in accordance therewith. City of Miami Zoning Code, Art. 6, § 600 (emphasis added). "The regulations 10 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk shall be designed to promote the special purposes of the district, as set out in the statement of intent." Id. at § 600.4.3. Article 6, section 604 of the City's Zoning Code specifically provides for the creation of a waterfront industrial district to regulate the waterfront property along the Miami River, and states in pertinent part as follows: Sec. 604. SD-4 Waterfront Industrial District. Sec. 604.1. Intent. This district designation is intended for application in areas appropriately located for marine activities, including industrial operations and major movements of passengers and commodities. In view of the importance of such activities to local economy and the limited area suitable and available for such activities, it is intended to limit principal and accessory uses to those reasonably requiring location within such districts, and not to permit residential, general commercial, service, office or manufacturing uses not primarily related to waterfront activities except for office uses in existing office structures. For the purposes of section 3(mm) of the City of Miami Charter, this district shall be construed as an industrial district. Sec. 604.4. Principal uses and structures. 604.4.1. Permitted principal uses and structures. 1. Piers, wharves, docks, and railroad service to related loading, storage or distribution facilities. 2. Freight terminals; facilities for warehousing and storage, packing, packaging and crating of materials from or for marine shipment; assembly and distribution facilities for marine shipments, except as provided under permitted uses and structures in section 604.4.2 below. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 1 1 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk 3. Passenger terminals, including related facilities for handling baggage or freight ground transportation, parking, and establishments to serve needs of passengers and visitors including retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, ticket agencies, currency exchanges and the like. 4. Facilities for construction, maintenance, service, repair, supply or storage of vessels, including shipyards, dry docks, marine railways, shops for marine woodworking, electrical, communication and instrument installation and repair, welding, sail making, engine and motor repair and maintenance; ship chandlers; fuel supply establishments. Manufacture, maintenance, service, repair and/or sales of supply of parts, accessories and equipment for marine needs. 5. Bases for marine dredging, salvage, towing; marine construction offices and yards, piloting headquarters. 6. Sales, charter or rental of vessels, marine supplies and equipment, marine sporting goods and supplies. 7. Establishments for collection, processing and/or distribution or sales of marine food products and byproducts, including eating and drinking establishments related to such operations. 8. Hiring halls for seamen and dock workers. 9. Telecommunication transmission and relay stations; radar installation. 10. Structures and uses other than as listed above for performance of governmental functions (including private facilities supplementing or substituting for governmental functions such as fire protection or provision of security), or relating to operation of public utilities. 11. Commercial marinas, including permanent occupancy Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 12 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk of private pleasure craft as living quarters and for temporary occupancy for transients (maximum stay: thirty (30) days) as shall be required for work or security purposes, or for repair work within the district. 12. Cellular communications site provided that where a transmission tower is used the transmission tower shall be by Special Exception only. The transmission tower and anchoring devices, if directly -abutting a residential district, must: (1) be located in the interior side or rear yard of the property; (2) meet minimum setback requirements; (3) be securely anchored, installed and maintained in accordance with all applicable codes; (4) not exceed a maximum height of one hundred and fifty (150) feet; and (5) be separated from adjacent properties by a landscape buffer. Despite section 163.3161(5), which prohibits development unless it is in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan; section 163.3161(7), which specifies that the purpose of the Act is to protect certain resources and to maintain the character and stability of development in this state through orderly growth and development; section 163.3187, which limits amendments to the Comprehensive Plan; and Article 6 of the City's Zoning Code, designating key areas on the Miami River as a protected district due to its importance to the City's economy, a designation that specifically prohibits residential use or other uses not primarily related to waterfront activities, the City granted Riverside a small scale FLUM Amendment for its property located within this specially protected district, thereby allowing the construction of residential units that are totally unrelated to waterfront activities. As will be addressed in depth herein, Riverside's FLUM Amendment is Submitted into the public record for item(s) PJ 13 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk contrary to these provisions and inconsistent with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan and the Miami River Master Plan, THE MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ("Comprehensive Plan") The ALJ found that the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The ALJ's evaluation of the evidence was, however, completely flawed because he failed to consider two of the most critical sections of the Comprehensive Plan, the Port of Miami River Subelement and portions of the Coastal Management section, in reaching this conclusion. Additionally, the ALJ's confusion as to where this property is located seriously calls into question his understanding -of the evidence and his ability to evaluate the evidence with respect to the Comprehensive Plan. The Port of Miami River Subelement The Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Commission in 1989 and amended through August of 2004. Within the Comprehensive Plan is a section devoted to "Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities," specifying the City's goals, objectives, and policies regarding development within these critical areas. Within this section there is a subelement titled the "Port of Miami River." Unfortunately, the definition of the "Port of Miami River" has occupied a prominent position of contention among the parties in their pleadings and arguments before the ALJ and Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 14 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk this court, despite our ruling in Pa. nrnee II. Because the ALJ who heard the appellants' petition in this case refused to apply this court's findings in Payne II, precluded the appellants from presenting evidence and argument in reliance upon this court's holding in Payne II, and, instead, relied upon the Department's definition of the term "Port of Miami River" in Monkus, a definition clearly rejected by this court in Payne II, we must address the issue again. Riverside and the City cite to a footnote in the Comprehensive Plan and argue that when the Comprehensive Plan refers to the "Port of Miami River," it is referring to the fourteen commercial shipping companies that were located along the Miami River in 1989. The footnote Riverside and the City are referring to states: The "Port of Miami River" is simply a legal name used to identify some 14 independent, privately -owned small shipping companies located along the Miami River, and is not a "Port Facility" within the usual meaning of the term. The identification of these shipping concerns as the "Port of Miami River" was made in 1986 for the sole purpose of satisfying a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing bilge pump outs. Based upon this footnote, they argue that the policies and objectives regarding the Port of Miami River in the Comprehensive Plan only apply to those fourteen companies. Not only is this argument illogical, it was rejected by this court in Pie II: We find that the "Port of Miami River" subsection is not limited to 14 unidentified companies. Rather, the footnote explains that the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 15 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk "Port of Miami River" is not a port in the traditional sense of the word. Accordingly, appellants did not have to allege that they were one of the 14 shipping companies referenced in the footnote. Payne, 927 So. 2d at 908 (footnote omitted)(emphasis added). Some of the objectives and policies found in the "Port of Miami River" subelement of the Comprehensive Plan, which the ALJ failed to consider when he found that the FLUM Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, are: Objective PA-3.1: The City of Miami, through its Land development regulations, shall help protect the Port of Miami River from encroachment by non water -dependent or water -related land uses, and shall regulate its expansion and redevelopment in coordination with the City's applicable coastal management and conservation plans and policies. Policy PA-3.1.1: The City shall use its land development regulations to encourage the establishment and maintenance of water -dependent and water -related uses along the banks of the Miami River, and to discourage encroachment by incompatible uses. Policy PA-3.1.2: The City shall, through its land development regulations, encourage the development and expansion of the Port of Miami River consistent with the coastal management and conservation elements of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Policy PA-3.1.3: The City shall, through its land development regulations, encourage development of compatible land uses in the vicinity of the Port of Miami River so as to mitigate potential adverse impacts arising from the Port of Miami River upon adjacent natural resources and land uses. Objective PA-3.3: The City of Miami shall coordinate its Port of Miami River planning activities with providers and regulators including the US. 16 Coast Guard, and Miami -Dade County's Port of Miami. Policy PA-3.3.1: The City of Miami, through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies, shall support the functions of the Port of Miami River consistent with future goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly with respect to the unique characteristics of the Port of Miami River's location and its economic position and functioning within the local maritime industry, and the necessity for coordination of these characteristics and needs with maritime industry that complements, and often competes with, the Port of Miami River. The City and Riverside's argument is illogical as it is undisputed that many of the fourteen shipping companies that were located at various sites along the Miami River in 1989 have moved, changed hands, or no longer exist, and that instead of fourteen shipping companies along the Miami River, there are now at least twenty-eight. Since the Comprehensive Plan's enactment in 1989, the City adopted The Miami River Master Plan, which will be addressed more fully herein, and the City has amended and readopted the Comprehensive Plan. It is also undisputed that the marine industry along the Miami River has grown substantially and has become an important economic asset to the City. The Miami River generates over $800 million in input, $427 million in income, 7,500 jobs, and $45 million in tax revenue per year. The shipping industry along the Miami River is not only growing, but further expansion is all but certain when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completes its dredging of the Miami River. It, therefore, is illogical to conclude that the City meant only to protect the original fourteen Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 17 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk shipping companies along the Miami River. Thus, we reaffirm our position in Payne II, that the "Port of Miami River" referred to in the Comprehensive Plan, as amended and adopted in 2004, is not limited to the fourteen shipping companies that existed in 1989. Our conclusion is supported by the findings contained in the Miami River Master Plan, prepared by the City of Miami Department of Planning, Building and Zoning, and adopted by the City on January 23, 1992, by Resolution #92-61. In this document, the City recognized that, although the Miami River is a navigable waterway used extensively for commercial shipping, it is not officially regulated as a port by state or local government; these commercial shipping operations are 100% owned and operated by private enterprise and, therefore, do not enjoy the structure, authority, and advantages normally associated with ports; that the name "Port of Miami River" was simply coined in 1986 to satisfy a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing bilge pumpouts; and that there are currently between twenty- five and thirty independent shipping companies operating on the Miami River as opposed to the fourteen companies operating in 1986. Miami River Master P1 River Management, _Port of Miami River, 2.12 (Jan. 1992). Indeed, based upon this rather unusual structure, or lack thereof, the Miami River Master Plan stressed the need for a formal organization to manage the use of these facilities, providing, in part, as follows: 18 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk RECOMMENDATIONS Policy: 2.4.9 Create an official "port" organization with responsibility to assist with enforcement of rules and regulations applicable to commercial shipping activity. (a) Support the private sector efforts to fulfill the role of a port through a cooperative organization. (b) If the private port cooperative fails to effectively manage shipping activity, establish a public port agency with legal authority to enforce regulations. Id. at 2.13. Additionally, included in Riverside's January 26, 2006 FLUM submittal is a summary specifically addressing the Port of Miami River Subelement. It reads as follows: In 1988 The Port of Miami River consisted of approximately 14 independent shipping terminals, along the Miami River as shown in Figure IV-16, that were joined together in 1986 in order to comply with U.S. Coast Guard regulations regarding pumpout of bilge water. The submittal lists the fourteen shipping terminals; discusses the services provided and the tonnage of cargo shipped; notes the estimated $1.7 billion value; and then addresses the Port of Miami River Subelement as it currently exists: As shown in Figure IV-19, in 1995 the Port of Miami River consists of about 28 independent shipping terminals located along navigable .5.5 miles of the Miami River that stretch from the salinity dam to the Biscayne Bay. This document names the twenty-eight shipping terminals that existed in 1995 and Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 19 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk which were considered the "Port of Miami River" at that time. While the document does not provide a more current list of the Port of Miami River entities, it is clear that the term includes the shipping terminals along the river wherever they are located and regardless of the name or ownership. Jack Luft, who testified for the appellants and was accepted by the ALJ as an expert land planner based upon a stipulation by the parties, views the Port of Miami River more expansively. Mr. Luft was a land planner with the City for twenty-eight years; participated in the rewrite of the Comprehensive plan in 1978; was the senior project manager for several components of the Comprehensive Plan in the 1980's; wrote master plans for various cities and areas, including Virginia Key, Dinner Key, Coconut Grove, downtown, Watson Island, and Bicentennial Park, and for a number of neighborhood revitalization parks; planned the Design District in the 1990's; was a consultant for Sunny Isles Beach's Comprehensive Master Plan in 2000; and is considered an expert for last year's Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, Mr. Luft served as the Director for the Department of Development for the City and was involved in revitalization strategies for Little Havana and Little River, where he analyzed census information, income data, and housing costs and conditions to determine how to approach the revitalization of these communities. Mr. Luft testified that the Miami River Master Plan was adopted in 1992, Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 20 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk and as a result of this plan, the Port of Miami River Subelement was introduced into the Comprehensive Plan to further the specific objectives of the Miami River Master Plan. He noted that the Miami River Master Plan was a "holistic view of the river," designating different land uses along the river and creating a balance between the uses, while identifying the core of the sustainable marine river industries that must be protected and preserved as marine industrial. He testified that the Miami River Master Plan specifically mentions the Comprehensive Plan, which has the force of law behind it, lays the foundation for subsequent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends the establishment of a "Port of Miami River." In reliance of this background, Mr. Luft defines the "Port of Miami River" as: [A] collection of shipping industries ... supported by a variety of marine water -related activities including tugboats, construction firms, repair, vessel maintenance, parts distribution, freight forwarders that are all part of the network that makes the port operate. There [are] literally the container ships and the offloading and unloading and there is a subsidiary of groups that are essential and critical to provide that as an operation. The port element speaks to maintaining and supporting those other dimensions of the port industry. It's all a part, and therefore it is within the industrial area of the river, it is not confined to just a specific number of terminals that actually are supposed to expand and may expand in different locations within the industrial zone. So literally in my opinion the industrial zone and its associated industries that are all interconnected and interrelated are the port. That's the way the port works. Without that support industry the port is not functional and not sustainable. (Emphasis added). 21 Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Dr. Francis Bohnsack, the Executive Director of the Miami River Marine Group and who serves as the Miami River Port Director for the United States Coast Guard as a liaison for the marine industry on the Miami River with local, state, and federal agencies, agrees with Mr. Luft's definition of the Port of Miami River. She testified that the Port of Miami River includes the port facilities that are water=dependent, zoned SD-4, and regulated by the Coast Guard, customs, and the various federal, state and local agencies. The evidence supports Mr. Luft's and Dr. Bohnsack's definition of the Port of Miami River. We, therefore, conclude that the Port of Miami River encompasses the water -dependent marine activity on the river, which includes the shipping companies and terminals and the associated supporting marine industries zoned SD-4 on the Miami River. This conclusion, however, is not dispositive. Whether we view the Port of Miami River as the ever -changing shipping terminals along the river or as the SD- 4 water -dependent and water -related marine industries on the river, the ALJ erred in failing to consider the objectives and policies of the Port of Miami River Subelement, because in Payne 11 we specifically found that the Port of Miami River Subelement was not limited to the original fourteen shipping terminals. The ALJ, therefore, was not free to conclude otherwise. This error is material, as the proposed Riverside land use is clearly Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 22 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk inconsistent with the Port of Miami River Subelement of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective PA-3.1 requires the City to protect the Port of Miami River from encroachment by non -water -dependent or water -related land uses. This Subelement also provides clear policy which requires the City through its land development regulations to encourage the maintenance of water -dependent and water -related uses along the banks of the Miami River and to encourage expansion of the Port of Miami River. Contrary to these objectives and policies, the City approved Riverside's small scale FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use designation from Industrial to Restricted Commercial, and permitted this parcel of land located on the Miami River to be rezoned from SD4-2 Waterfront Industrial to Restricted Commercial, thereby allowing a mixed -use project, which is neither water -dependent nor water -related, to be built on the site, thereby limiting future expansion of the Port of Miami River. Riverside and the City additionally argue that the Port of Miami River Subelement applies to land development regulations (zoning), not to land use, which is what the FLUM Amendment addresses. Riverside and the City, therefore, argue that regardless of how we define the Port of Miami River, the AU did not err in refusing to consider whether Riverside's FLUM Amendment was consistent with the objectives and policies of the Port of Miami River Subelement. We disagree. Submitted into the public 23 record for item(s) PZ.S, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk The Riverside property was zoned SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial. Therefore, its land use designation was, by necessity, identified as Industrial. The SD-4.2 classification precludes any residential uses. The SD-4.2 land development regulation was placed on this property to reserve and preserve it as a water - dependent or water -related industrial use that could not be used for residential purposes. The Port of Miami River Subelement was enacted to specifically protect the Miami River from encroachment by non -water -dependent or non -water -related uses that have no relevance to and do not support the shipping industry. By changing the land use from Industrial to Restricted Commercial, the only water - related or water -dependent use permitted in that classification would be for a marina. More importantly, the FLUM Amendment will permit residential use, a land use specifically precluded by the SD-4 land development classification. Thus, by changing the land use, the FLUM Amendment by exclusion, dramatically changes the land development uses. We are also unwilling to pretend ignorance or engage in willful blindness. The City agreed to amend the land use from Industrial to Restricted Commercial, granted Riverside's petition to change the land development classification from SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial to Restricted Commercial, and granted Riverside's MUSP, thus permitting Riverside to build two multi -family residential twelve - story buildings, which are in no way related to the shipping industry and which are Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 24 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk completely inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This parcel of land has always been used for marine industrial purposes. Prior to Riverside's purchase of the land, it was owned and used by Coastal Tug and Barge. Riverside's purchase of the land was contingent upon a successful change in its land use and zoning, and in obtaining a MUSP. Therefore, the land use change is clearly tied to the zoning change and MUSP. We, therefore, conclude that the ALJ erred in refusing to consider the Port of Miami River Subelement, and find that had he done so, the inescapable legal conclusion would have been that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Coastal Management The Comprehensive Plan also contains a section, titled "Coastal Management," which addresses the coastal areas located within the City. One of the goals specified in this section is to "[p]rovide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses." Goal CM-3. In order to accomplish this goal, Objective CM-3.1 provides: "Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami." (emphasis added). Policy CM- 3.1.1 states: "Future land use and development regulations will encourage water dependent uses along the shoreline." Despite the stated goals, objectives, and policies regarding the coast of the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 25 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Miami River, the City approved the Riverside FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Flan, changing the land use designation from Industrial to Restricted Commercial and approved a change in the zoning from SD4-2 Waterfront Industrial to Restricted Commercial. These changes will preclude the very use the Comprehensive Flan specifies should be protected and it is obviously a net loss of acreage devoted to water -dependent use, thereby conflicting with Coastal Management Goal CM-3. Instead of "[p]rovid[ing] an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses[,] ... [a]llow[ing] no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami," and using its land use regulations to "encourage water dependent uses along the shoreline," the City approved a land use change from Industrial to Restricted Commercial of a specifically zoned parcel of land on the banks of the Miami River, zoned SD-4.2, Waterfront Industrial, a designation reserved for shipping terminals, marine contractors, commercial shipyards, towing, and salvage, and which specifically excludes residential use. The FLUM Amendment and zoning changes to Restricted Commercial, with the concurrent approval by the City to allow Riverside to construct two twelve -- story multi -family residential buildings with 633 residential units that are neither water -dependent nor water -related, is clearly inconsistent with the goals, objectives, and stated policies of the Coastal Management section of the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 26 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Comprehensive Plan. The ALJ, however, failed to address or even consider Coastal Management Goal CM-3 in its Recommended Order, focusing solely upon Goal CM-4, which relates to safety issues regarding hurricanes. Had the ALJ properly considered Goal CM-3, the inescapable conclusion would have been that the FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan's goals, objectives, and policy considerations regarding coastal areas, and specifically those coastal areas along the Miami River, are in recognition of how important the shipping industry and other water - dependent uses are to the City's economy. In view of the importance to the local economy, the limited available areas suitable for high intensity water dependent uses, and strong population pressures of the 1960's, the City created in the mid 1960's a zoning classification entitled Waterfront Industrial. This. zoning classification strictly prohibits uses that are not directly related to waterfront activities. Since any new water dependent or related facilities would involve redevelopment of existing waterfront properties, these zoning ordinances are considered sufficient to insure that adequate land area for water -dependent or related uses is protected. Along the Miami River, an economic study in 1986 reported that the firms located in the study area ... have a significant impact on the Miami economy. They employ an estimated 7,000 workers on a full time basis and over 600 part time. Total sales are estimated at $613 million, or about $87,000 for a full time worker. An additional Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 27 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk indirect impact of $1.2 billion of business activity in the Miami area is created by firms in the study area. Many of the firms located in the study area are marine related businesses in part composed of water dependent and water related activities. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, Volume II, Data and Analysis, Coastal Management Element (emphasis added). The ALJ, however, failed to consider the importance of the marine industry to the City's economy or to appreciate that the Industrial land use designation and Waterfront Industrial SD-4 zoning classification was created to protect those uses and to ensure that there will be adequate land area for water -dependent and related uses. Because there was no evidence presented, nor was a study performed, to evaluate the sufficiency of the remaining SD-4 zoned land along the Miami River, in light of the recent and expected future increases in shipping and other related marine services along the river due to the dredging of the Miami River, the ALJ had insufficient evidence to conclude that the FLUM Amendment for this parcel of land is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and would be beneficial to the community. Future Land Use The Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan also provides that a future land use goal is to "[m] aintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city's residential neighborhoods; (2) fosters Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 28 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas; . . . and (6) protects and conserves the city's significant natural and coastal resources. Goal LU-1. The AU found that, because the "FLUM Amendment will eliminate the potential for development of industrial uses that may generate `excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact[," it will improve the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhoods, such as Durham Park, and, therefore, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. What the AU failed to consider, however, is that Riverside's property is zoned SD-4.2, Waterfront Industrial, it is located within four contiguous Waterfront Industrial uses, and that collectively, these four properties are the single greatest concentration of SD-4 land along the Miami River in the City. The bulkhead shoreline of these properties constitutes over 3,000 linear feet of marine industrial shoreline. Directly to the west of the Riverside property is Detroit Diesel, a repair facility for private and commercial vessels, and to the east of the Riverside property is Brisas, which previously operated as a repair and storage facility for private and commercial vessels, and River Marine Services, a shipping operation. Additionally, to the west of Detroit Diesel is the Florida Yacht Basin, which was used to store ships during the hurricane season and is currently being used to paint and repair ships and yachts. Thus, a 633-unit residential facility located in the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 29 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk middle of these marine operations is hardly consistent. Additionally, Durham Park is a single-family marine oriented community located several hundred feet east of the Riverside property. Durham Park objects to the proposed FLUM Amendment, which depletes marine uses along the river and a land use designation which permits a density of 150 dwelling units per acre with no height limitation, thereby allowing the construction of 633 dwelling units on this 4.3-acre site, which will be occupied by approximately 1,600 new residents. These residents will substantially strain the N.W. 22nd Avenue crossing over the Miami River which is already plagued by troublesome delays. We, therefore, find that the ALFs conclusory finding, that the proposed land use would protect and enhance the quality of life in that neighborhood, is unsupported by the evidence. The ALFs. finding that "the Allapattah neighborhood, in which the subject property is located, is an area in decline and mixed -use projects that include work forces and affordable housing will help stabilize the area by providing housing opportunities for employees at the Civic Center and in downtown who want to live near where they work," is not only unsupported by the record, it is based upon a false premise that undermines all of the ALFs findings. The Riverside property is not located in Allapattah. It is not even located on the same side of the Miami River as is the Allapattah neighborhood 30 Riverside's property is located in Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Grapeland Heights, which is in a stable middle -income area, not a blighted area or an area that is in decline. It is located within a working waterfront quadrant, near a shipping company and next to a marine -related business and Durham Park, a single-family residential neighborhood. The ALJ also failed to consider the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan, which specifically notes the "troubled land use situation" in the Durham Park/West Little Havana quadrant, the net loss of Waterfront Industrial property, and the "circulation impediments related to the south fork of the River." The Miami River Corridor Urban Infill plan strongly recommends that a study be conducted and that the City work with the property owners and residents in the area. The ALJ also failed to address LU-1(6), which requires the City to protect and conserve its "significant natural and coastal resources." Since 2000, fifty percent of the properties designated for marine industrial water -related and water -dependent uses along the banks of the Miami River have been lost due to the multiple small scale land use amendments to make way for residential high-rises. These small scale amendments do not require the scrutiny that is normally required to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, developers, with City approval, have been compromising the marine industry and in effect, changing the Comprehensive Plan piecemeal, rather than performing a comprehensive review with appropriate public and governmental input and Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 31 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk oversight. The Riverside FLUM Amendment is an example of this piecemeal alteration of the City's coastal resources, and when viewed in conjunction with the other small scale amendments, dramatically affects the stated goals and objectives to preserve the Miami River as a working river, to protect the marine industries along the river, and to reserve a sufficient amount of waterfront industrial land for expansion of water -dependent and water -related uses. Despite the FLUM Amendment's conflict with the overall goals, objectives, and policies specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the River Master Plan, the ALJ upheld Riverside's FLUM Amendment because it was not inconsistent with the City's position to encourage "diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants" in certain areas, including the "River Corridor." Policy LU-1.3.6. The ALJ, however, precluded testimony by the appellants regarding this issue. Additionally, while diversification and mixed -use classifications may be desirable in certain locations along the Miami River, the Comprehensive Plan and the River Master Plan mare it clear that these goals only apply to appropriately zoned areas, not to land reserved for waterfront industrial purposes: Goal CM-3: Provide an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses. Objective CM-3.1: Allow no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the coastal area of the City of Miami. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.S, 32 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000, Volume II, Data and Analysis, Coastal Management Element: In view of the importance to the local economy, the limited available areas suitable for high intensity water dependent uses, and strong population pressures of the 1960's, the City created in the mid 1960's a zoning classification entitled Waterfront Industrial. This zoning classification strictly prohibits uses that are not directly related to waterfront activities. River Master Plan, 0.2: The function of the Miami River as a "working waterfront" should be preserved. Scarce waterfront land should be reserved, wherever possible, for use by businesses that are dependent on a waterfront location or are essentially related to the maritime economy of the area. River Master Plan, Urban Design 4.20: New housing construction should be encouraged, except on lands reserved for water - dependent uses. River Master Plan, Urban Design 4.20, Objective 4.8: Encourage residential development on appropriately zoned lands in the Mid - River area. (Emphasis added). Additionally, there was no evidence presented to support the ALFs finding that the Riverside project will provide affordable housing opportunities for employees at the Civic Center and the downtown area. No evidence was presented that there is a need for such housing, or that these units will be "affordable." In fact, the evidence presented is just the opposite. Lourdes Slazyk, the Assistant Director for the City of Miami's Planning Department, admitted that there are currently between 300,000 and 400,000 people living in the City and that there are currently 95,000 new units being built or to be built in the City. The City Submitted into the public record for item(s) P 33 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk calculates that each unit will house between 2.6 and 4.0 residents, thus providing for a population increase of 229,000 to 380,000. Riverside's FLUM Amendment would increase the projected population by at least another 1,658 people. There was no evidence presented, however, that the City is expecting to nearly double its population or that the 95,000 units already being built would not sufficiently provide the housing needs of the Civic Center and downtown areas. MIAMI RIVER MASTER PLAN ("River Master Plan") The River Master Plan is .as a result of a planning study undertaken by the City of Miami Department of Planning, Building and Zoning, to provide a long- range and a short-range vision of the Miami River as a "working waterfront." 1t specifically provides that: The function of the Miami River as a "working waterfront" should be preserved. Scarce waterfront land should be reserved, wherever possible, for use by businesses that are dependent on a waterfront location or are essentially related to the maritime economy of the area. The river should grow as a shallow draft seaport — a lifeline to the Caribbean Basin — providing good -paying jobs for city residents. New shipping terminals should be located where they will not be detrimental to residential neighborhoods. The river's role in the regional market for repair, sales and service of boats and marine equipment should be maintained and strengthened. The marine character embodied by the fishing industry on the Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 34 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk intrusion by non -water -dependent or related uses. In the City of Miami, marine industries along the Miami River and its tributaries are protected by a special zoning designation from intrusion by other uses that are not dependent on a waterfront location. This special zoning is called "SD-4, Waterfront Industrial Special District." It is intended for application in areas appropriately located for marine activities, to limit principal and accessory uses to those reasonably requiring waterfront locations, and to exclude residential, general commercial, service, office or manufacturing uses not primarily related to waterfront activities. River Master Plan, The Working Waterfront, Waterfront Industrial Zoning 1.12 (emphasis added). The River Master Plan further divides the SD-4 zoning classification into SD-4.1, Waterfront Commercial, and SD-4.2, Waterfront Industrial. Waterfront Commercial SD-4.1 includes marinas, boatyards, fisheries, boat sales and service, mixed use, and limited restaurant or residential with water dependent use. Waterfront Industrial SD-4.2 includes shipping terminals, marine contractors, commercial shipyards, towing, and salvage, and all SD-4.1 uses, except residential. This waterfront zoning classification was recommended by City planners in 1956, was adopted by the City in 1961, and generally remained intact until recent years when the City began approving small scale amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and resultant zoning changes. Riverside's property is zoned SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial property, and therefore, is reserved for waterfront industrial purposes and specifically excludes any residential use. 36 residential development as an accessory use to a marina. Lastly, the River Master Plan recognizes that higher land values and the concomitant increase in property taxes result in the displacement of marine businesses and that the SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial zoning was created, in part, to protect the maritime industry along the Miami River from being priced out of the location. It, therefore, provides for specific objectives and policies to protect these marine businesses from displacement by higher land values. Land Values One issue which directly affects the continued viability of marinas and small boatyards, as well as other businesses along the Miami River, is that of increasing land values and the concomitant increase in property taxes. Clearly this has been the case in the Downtown portion of the river and has resulted in the displacement of marine businesses with office buildings.... RECOMMENDATIONS Objective: 1.3 Preserve the marine repair, service, equipment and related industries along the Miami River that are vital to the shipping industry or the recreational boating industry. Policies: 1.3.1 Protect boatyards and related marine businesses from displacement by higher land values uses by adopting separate "marine industrial" and "marine commercial" zoning district classifications. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, 38 on 06-11-2020, City Clerk Riverside's FLUM Amendment was consistent with either. We further note that these "small scale" amendments, when viewed together as a whole, are changing the character of the Miami River waterfront without proper long range planning or input from appropriate agencies, departments, and citizen groups. Because the Miami River is such an important asset to the City, County, and State, such piecemeal, haphazard changes are not only ill-advised, they are contrary to the goals and objectives of those who worked together, debated, and determined how the Miami River waterfront should be developed. If the City's vision for the Miami River has changed, then that change should be clearly reflected in its Comprehensive Plan to provide industries and land owners along the Miami River with fair notice. Reversed. Submitted into the public record for item(s) PZ.5, on 06-11-2020, City Clerk