source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ROTHENBERG, J. PER CURIAM. WELLS, Judge,

license: Public Domain

text:
    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, v. CITY OF MIAMI, a Florida municipal corporation; and Riverside Investments, LLC, a Florida limited liability corporation, Appellees.
    No. 3D06-2409.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Dec. 8, 2010.

      Andrew W.J. Diekman (Naples), for appellants.
    Greenberg Traurig and David C. Ash-burn (Tallahassee); Greenberg Traurig and Elliot H. Scherker and Lucia Dough-erty, Miami, 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, C.J., and CORTINAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ.
   On Riverside 22 Investments, LLC’s Motions for Rehearing

ROTHENBERG, J.

The City of Miami (“the City”) and Riverside 22 Investments, LLC (“Riverside”) filed Motions for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. The City subsequently withdrew its motions. Riverside’s Motion for Rehearing is denied. We, however, withdraw this Court’s opinion issued on August 29, 2007, and issue the following opinion in its stead to address the dissenting opinion to the denial of the Motion for Rehearing En Banc.

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 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-l Restricted Commercial, and a Major Use Special Permit (“MUSP”), thereby allowing Riverside to construct a multi-family development project with a maximum density of 150 units per acre 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. 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 following parties filed a petition with the Division of Administrative 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 composed 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, “the appellants”). After a hearing, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a Recommended Order, which was subsequently adopted by the State of 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 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 there from 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. 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 (citing with approval City of Jacksonville Beach v. Coastal Dev. of N. Fla., Inc., 730 So.2d 792, 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (emphasis added)).

In applying these standards, the City Commission recognized: the conflict in land use this Amendment would create (with Detroit Diesel to the west of the Riverside property and Antillean Marine, a shipping company on the other side of the Miami River); the problems with “sandwiching]” a residential complex between two industrial complexes with Industrial land use designations; the “battles” that will result and the “nightmare” it will create over these “incompatible uses;” and the need for long-term planning on the Miami River. Nevertheless, the City Commission approved this FLUM Amendment without addressing the fundamental policy considerations and ramifications of its decision, leaving consideration of these issues for another day.

After performing a careful and thorough review of the record, we conclude that because the ALJ: (1) 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 (2) made material findings that are unsupported by competent, substantial evidence, we must reverse. We additionally conclude that had the ALJ considered the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan and the Miami River Plan and have only relied on the evidence that was supported by competent, substantial evidence, it would have compelled a finding that the Riverside FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Miami River Master Plan.

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 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(l)(a)-(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). The Riverside FLUM Amendment was sought and was granted as a small scale development pursuant to section 163.3187, Fla. Stat. (2005).

In addition to the statutes regulating land use 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 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.
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 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 protected property within 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 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, flawed because he failed to consider critical goals, objectives, and policies found in the “Port of Miami River,” “Coastal Management,” and “Future Land Use” sections of the Comprehensive Plan in reaching this conclusion. We will address each of these sections of the Comprehensive Plan separately.

A. 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.” The appellants claim that the Riverside Amendment is inconsistent with this subelement.

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 this Court, despite our ruling in Payne v. City of Miami, 927 So.2d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“Payne II”). Because the parties continue to dispute the definition of the “Port of Miami River” and its relevance to the Riverside’ FLUM Amendment, we address it here briefly.

Riverside argues that the Port of Miami River subelement only relates to the fourteen commercial shipping companies that were located along the Miami River in 1989. This argument is premised on a footnote found 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.

This argument, however, is illogical; it was rejected by this Court in Payne IP, and rejected again by this Court in Payne v. City of Miami, 52 So.2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“Payne III” or the “the Balbino FLUM Amendment”). In Payne II we stated the following:

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.

Payne, 927 So.2d at 908 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

In Payne III (the Balbino FLUM Amendment) this Court reversed a State of Florida Department of Community Affairs Final Order finding another small scale development amendment on the Miami River in compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. In Payne III, we noted that Lourdes Slazyk, the Assistant Director of the City’s Planning Department (a witness heavily relied on by Balbino in Payne III, Riverside in the instant case, and the dissenting opinion issued by the members of this Court who voted to grant en banc review (“the dissent”) in both Payne III and the instant appeal) agreed with this Court’s definition of the Port of Miami in Payne II and rejected the narrow definition argued on appeal.

In rejecting Balbino’s argument in Payne III, that the objectives and policies in the Port of Miami River subelement of the Comprehensive Plan do not apply to the Balbino property because it is not located on one of the original shipping company sites, we made specific findings which we repeat and adopt in this appeal.

First, 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. Second, 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. Third, 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 Payne II and Payne III, 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; the name “Port of Miami River” was simply coined in 1986 to satisfy a U.S. Coast Guard regulation governing bilge pumpouts; and 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, 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 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 Riverside accepted that the term “Port of Miami River” includes the shipping terminals along the river wherever they are located and regardless of the name or ownership.

Our finding is further supported by the testimony of Jack Luft. Jack Luft, who testified for the appellants, was accepted by the ALJ as an expert land planner based upon a stipulation by the parties. 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, Bicentennial Park, and 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, 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, and as a result of that, the port 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 ah 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).

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. It is, therefore, the position of both Mr. Luft 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 conclusions that the Port of Miami River encompasses the water-dependent and water-related 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. Thus, the ALJ erred in concluding that because this particular property had not been used for shipping, the Port of Miami subelement was inapplicable.

This finding, however, is not dis-positive, because the ALJ concluded that even if the Riverside property fell within the definition of the property protected under the Port of Miami River subelement of the Comprehensive Plan, consideration of the objectives and policies contained in this subelement was not required because: (1) the Port of Miami River subelement is not a required element of the Comprehensive Plan; and (2) they do not apply to Riverside’s FLUM Amendment request. We disagree.

First, we disagree that section 163 does not require the inclusion of a port element to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and the Port of Miami River subelement is an “optional element.” Section 163.3177(6)(a) provides that the comprehensive plan shall include certain elements and specifies that “[f]or 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 ...” Because the City is a “coastal” city, the Port of Miami River subelement is a required element of its Comprehensive Plan. But, more importantly, whether the Port of Miami River subelement is a required or an optional element of the Comprehensive Plan is irrelevant. The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a port element and therefore, if an amendment application falls within its definitional parameters, the amendment must not be inconsistent with its goals, objectives and policies. Because Riverside’s FLUM Amendment submission falls within the definitional parameters of the Port of Miami River subelement, it must not be in conflict with it. Second, we disagree that Riverside’s FLUM Amendment need not be consistent with the Port of Miami River subelement because it only applies to land development, not land use.

Some of the objectives and policies found in the “Port of Miami River” subelement of the Comprehensive Plan that 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 those of ports facilities providers and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. 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.

Failure to consider these objectives and policies is material, as Riverside’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 non-water-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 Riverside’s small scale FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use designation from Industrial to Restricted Commercial, and also permitted this parcel of land, located directly on the Miami River, to be rezoned from SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial to Restricted Commercial, thereby allowing the construction of 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.

The ALJ refused to consider these policies and objectives because he concluded that the Port of Miami River subelement applies only to land development regulations (zoning), and not to land use, which is what the FLUM Amendment addresses. Thus, he found that regardless of how we define the Port of Miami River, Riverside’s FLUM Amendment need not be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Port of Miami River subelement. The dissent agrees with this finding and further claims that the only issue before the ALJ was “the City’s legislative decision to reformulate its policy ... regarding this change. Because no land development, that is, zoning issues were involved, the ALJ properly refused to consider those parts of this sub-element.” (emphasis added).

The dissent also argues that “Planning is not zoning and changing the Plan does not automatically result in changing the zoning ... zoning follows planning ... planning is not affected by zoning ... a new use designation does not mean that the rezoning request will or must be granted ... and the fact that this parcel of property is zoned SD-4.2, is wholly irrelevant as to whether changing the land use designation of this property from Industrial to Restricted Commercial is consistent with the Port of Miami River sub-element.” These arguments, however ignore the fact that Policy PA-3.3.1 does not address land development regulations and is clearly relevant when considering a land use amendment, and also disregards the record in this case.

The record reflects that the Riverside property was zoned SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial. Therefore, its land use designation was, by necessity, identified as Industrial. Industrial land use, coupled with the SD-4.2 land development classification, precludes any residential uses. The Industrial land use and the SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial land development classifications were 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 shipping industry by “encourage[ing] and maintaining] the water-dependent and water-related uses along the banks of the Miami River, and to discourage incompatible uses.” Policy PA-3.1.1. 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 dramatically changes the permitted land development uses, and eliminates a specially designated site reserved by the City to support the shipping industry on the Miami River.

While we agree with the dissent that land use planning and zoning are separate issues which generally must be considered separately, even when amendments to both are presented together, we conclude that because both requests were tied together, dependent on the other, and the zoning amendment was the driving force and was essential to obtaining the land use amendment, the zoning amendment cannot be ignored in this case.

The record reflects that Riverside’s applications to the City to change the Comprehensive Plan by amending the Future Land Use Map from Industrial and General Commercial to Restricted Commercial, and to change the zoning from SD-4, Waterfront Industrial to C-l Restricted Commercial, were presented together, dependent on the other for approval, and approved together.

Lourdes Salzyk (to the City Commission): PZs (Planning and zoning) 29, 30, and 81 are related items. PZ.29 and 30 are the land use and zoning change for the Coastal on the River project. This is located at approximately 2215 Northwest 14th Street. The request is from Industrial to restricted commercial, with the zoning change going to C-l ... PZ. 31 is the Major Use Special Permit. This is for — to construct [a] two-building residential development ranging in height from 110 to 120 feet. The project will have a total of 633 multifamily residential units....
Mr. Dickman: The proposed development requires this Commission to alter the City’s Comprehensive Neighborhood Master Plan future land use map, rezone the property and grant a special permit to build a high-density residential project [ ] on the property that is currently designated for marine/industrial uses on the Miami River.

Additionally, Ms. Slazyk testified before the AL J that the land use Amendment was filed with Riverside’s request for a zoning change and a major use special permit, and that the major use special permit is the “umbrella” under which the land use and land development changes are made:

[W]hen an applicant files a major use special permit which includes a request for a land use change and zoning change, they file it together in a three-ring binder with all of the required documents for the three requests that are going to the City Commission. The major use special permit is kind of seen as the umbrella that the other requests travel as companion items to, so the major use special permit book includes all of the applications and backup documentation and data and analysis for the project.

Ms. Slazyk also admitted that while the zoning classification is more specific than the land use designation, the two classifications must be consistent. Because this parcel of land is located in a special district, SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial, the land use must, by necessity, be Industrial. It would be inconsistent to amend the land use to Restricted Commercial and not also amend the Waterfront Industrial zoning classification, and impossible to change the zoning classification without also amending the land use map. Because this property is located in a special district the land use and land development classifications are dependent on each other.

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.

Riverside’s FLUM Amendment is clearly inconsistent with the following mandates found in the previously cited objectives and policies listed in the Port of Miami River subelement of the Comprehensive Plan and which the ALJ refused to consider: Objective PA-3.1, which requires the City to “protect the Port of Miami River from encroachment by non water-dependent or water-related land uses;” Policy PA-3.1.1, which requires the City 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, which requires the City to encourage the development and expansion of the Port of Miami River; Policy PA-3.1.3, which requires the City to “encourage development of compatible land uses in the vicinity of the Port of Miami River;” and Policy PA-3.3.1, which requires the City to “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.”

The FLUM Amendment is inconsistent with these objectives and policy decisions because of its location. The Riverside property, prior to being purchased by Riverside, was owned by Coastal Tug and Barge. Coastal Tug and Barge operates out of the Port of Miami and used this site to store its tugboats. The Riverside property also has a clear bulkhead with finger piers suitable for loading and unloading cargo from commercial vessels. Directly to the west of the Riverside property is Detroit Diesel. Detroit Diesel is an engine and gear repair facility for boats, buses, and trucks. The Detroit Diesel property also has a sizable bulkhead with several boat slips to enable it to perform work on sport fishing boats and small yachts. To the west of Detroit Diesel is the Florida Yacht Basin, used to tie up ships, casino boats, and other boats. On Riverside’s eastern boarder is a shipping terminal, River Marine Services, where cargo is loaded onto the ships transporting goods and materials to the Caribbean. And across the River is Antillean Marine, another shipping company and shipping terminal.

Jack Luft, Chief of the Urban Design Division when the City’s 1989-2000 Comprehensive Plan was created (and Lourdes Slazyk’s direct supervisor) testified that the Riverside property sits on the single greatest concentration of marine industries anywhere on the Miami River. The lineal bulkhead shoreline of the Riverside property and the Waterfront Industrial properties on either side of Riverside, constitutes over 3,000 lineal feet of consistent marine industrial shoreline, and the actual lineal feet of embayments of piers and slips is almost 6,000 lineal feet of shoreline, which is seventy percent of the size of the Port of Miami on Dodge Island. Mr. Luft testified that due to the ability to aggregate the Industrial uses and because it is such a significant area with compatible marine uses, it provides a unique opportunity for the marine industry to invest, develop, and grow and not face the incompatibility and encroachments by other uses that would be disruptive to the marine industry.

He also explained:

As a land planner one typically follows natural division of land use, natural clusters of use. You would not take a residential neighborhood and put an apartment in the middle of the block. You would not do that because it would completely break down the uses threatening the land use. When you take this property, you are effectively creating a spot map. A spot plan amendment. It stands alone and it creates a — an issue for the land planner to explain why that property was given this particular unique treatment as opposed to the properties on either side of it that share the same circumstance. And as a land planner I cannot explain why one property was singled out for that special treatment while the others were retained as industrial without having to explain why the others should not receive the same treatment.

Rather than encouraging the establishment and maintenance of water-dependent, water-related uses along the banks of the Miami River, discouraging encroachment by incompatible uses, encouraging development of compatible land uses, and supporting the functions of the Port of Miami River consistent with the future goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the City approved the Riverside FLUM Amendment, eliminated the ability of the marine industry to use this Waterfront Industrial site to expand and service the marine industry, and created an incompatible use, and, in fact, created a “spot plan amendment.” In fact the City, in approving this Amendment, recognized that its decision would create incompatible uses and conflict.

Commissioner Winton: Let me tell you what my initial concern was; just in looking at the aerial here. My initial concern was about the conflict in uses because, regardless of what they’re repairing at Detroit Diesel ... it’s still relatively heavy industrial use, and it’s noisy, and they work at night, and then you’ve got — Antillean across the — on the other side of the street?
Vice Chairman Gonzalez: Antillean is on the other side of the river.
Commissioner Winton: Yeah, and so I was looking at that use also, so you were going to — here is what I was concerned about. I was concerned that — because you’re going to have to deal with it. You build a residential complex there, sandwiched between two industrial complexes — and the battles are going to be wild.... Putting this residential component between two industrial uses is going to be a nightmare .... and industrial and residential are incompatible uses, terribly incompatible uses ... so if we’re going to convert that one, I’m simply saying, we need to be looking at a bigger picture and create a zone where you have compatibility.... I mean ... non-marine industrial use or a marine industrial use next to a residential use, those are incompatible uses, just from a long-term planning standpoint, so I’m just simply saying I think we ought to do one or two things. We should either not do this one, or we should require staff to look at and figure out how you link up the appropriate number and do a number so that you end up with a zone of compatible uses.... Either do three, or, four, or five of them, or do none.

The dissent claims that the City made a legislative decision to reformulate its policy in approving the FLUM Amendment. The record reflects quite the contrary. Despite the concern of some of the Commissioners regarding the incompatibility and conflict their approval of the FLUM Amendment, zoning change and MUSP would create, and their expressed need for a comprehensive approach and a clear policy regarding the Miami River, the City approved Riverside’s applications without performing that review or making a legislative policy decision.

Mr. Dickman (attorney for the appellants): The Port of Miami River is the fourth largest port in Florida, and has been recognized by the City’s Comprehensive Plan as [] unique and vital to the City. As a matter of law, you must follow your policies that protect the port and encourage expansion of the port. That’s what your Comprehensive Plan says; yet month after month you have approved small-scale future land use amendments and piece by piece you are slowly dismantling the river industry. ... [U]nder the state growth management act, you’re required under comp, plan amendments to be looking at the cumulative impact. All of these things that you have approved in the last couple years, and the ones that are in the pipeline, you have to look at how much acreage is being lost. Is there a need or not for the industry locations? Is there a need for more residential housing on the river? You’re not doing that in a comprehensive planning way. You’re looking at these case by case. These case by case decisions are illegal, and they are, more importantly, improper long-range planning.... Let’s sit down and .... put a plan together so that my clients, the industry, can predict what’s coming down the road; can understand what the City’s and your vision is for the river.
Ms. Dougherty (representing Riverside): At one point, we had a conference, a required mediation conference in connection with Hurricane Cove [the Balbi-no small scale FLUM Amendment approved by the City across the Miami River, on property owned by the same developer as the Riverside property and the subject of a separate appeal, previously referred to in this opinion as Payne III] and I suggested we sit down and look at this comprehensively and decide where we’re going from a comprehensive standpoint. At that time it was rejected.

We 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. Based on the record, we also reject the notion that the City’s decision to grant the FLUM Amendment was made after legislatively reformulating its policy regarding the overall vision of the Miami River.

B. Coastal Management

The Comprehensive Plan also contains a section or subelement, titled “Coastal Management,” which addresses the coastal areas located within the City. One of the goals specified in this section is to “[pjrovide 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.”

Despite the stated goals, objectives, and policies regarding the coast of the Miami River, the City approved the Riverside FLUM Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, changing the land use designation from Industrial to Restricted Commercial and approved a change in the zoning from SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial to Restricted Commercial. These changes will pre-elude the very use the Comprehensive Plan 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 providing an adequate supply of land for water dependent uses, allowing 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 this land use change to enable it to eliminate the special Waterfront Industrial zoning and avoid the restriction against residential development. The result is an obvious net loss of acreage devoted to water-dependent use and decreases the available supply of land for water-dependent uses without conducting a study and determining whether an adequate supply of land for water-dependent uses still remains.

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 Comprehensive Plan. The ALJ, however, failed to address or even consider Coastal Management Goal CM-3 in his 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 this 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 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 water-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.

C. Future Land Use

As with the two preceding sections of the Comprehensive Plan, the ALJ made findings that were unsupported by competent evidence and he failed to consider important relevant goals contained in the Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan.

The Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan provides that one of its future land use goals 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 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 (1) because Durham Park, a residential community, abuts the Riverside property and 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[,]’ ” and therefore improve the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhoods, such as Durham Park. This finding is unsupported, and is, in fact, contrary to the evidence. Durham Park does not abut the Riverside property, it is several hundred feet from the Riverside property. More importantly, the Riverside property is zoned SD-4.2, Waterfront Industrial, it is located within four contiguous Waterfront Industrial uses, and collectively, these four properties represent the single greatest concentration of SD-4 Industrial land along the Miami River in the City. The bulkhead shoreline of these properties constitutes over 3,000 linear feet of marine industrial shoreline. As stated earlier, directly to the west of the Riverside property is Detroit Diesel, a repair facility for boats, buses, and trucks, and has a sizable bulkhead containing several boat slips where it repairs sport fishing boats and small yachts. 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 tie up, paint, and repair ships and yachts. On Riverside’s eastern border is River Marine Services, a shipping operation where cargo is loaded onto ships transporting goods and materials to the Caribbean, and Bri-sas, which previously operated as a repair and storage facility for private and commercial vessels. Thus, a 633-unit residential facility located in the middle of these marine operations is hardly consistent. Additionally, Durham Park objects to the proposed FLUM Amendment.

Durham Park, a community of single family homes and boat owners, objects to the proposed FLUM Amendment because it depletes marine uses along the river, and changes the land use designation to one which will permit a density of 150 dwelling units per acre with no height limitation, thereby allowing the proposed construction of 633 dwelling units on this 4.3-acre site, with an expected occupancy of approximately 1,600 new residents. A representative for Durham Park explained that these new residents will substantially strain the N.W. 22nd Avenue crossing over the Miami River which is already plagued by troublesome delays. Thus, the ALJ’s conclusory finding, that the proposed land use is consistent with Goal LU-1 of the Future Land use section of the Comprehensive Plan because it will protect and enhance the quality of life in that neighborhood, is not only unsupported by the evidence, but contrary to it.

The ALJ also failed to consider the effect this FLUM Amendment would have on the “quality of life” of the Riverside unit owners who will find themselves surrounded by industrial uses that do create noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, hazardous wastes, and negative visual impact. Gerry Cafiero holds a bachelor’s degree in marine engineering and marine transportation; is a certified chief engineer for the Department of Transportation; served as the Director of Operations for the Port of Miami for eight years, as the Facility Director for Solid Waste for ten years, and as Chief Engineer in the Merchant Marines for three years sailing on various vessels throughout ports all over the world; and is currently a consultant to the seaport industries regarding master planned land uses, terminal operations, security, and seaport infrastructure. Mr. Cafiero testified that the impact to the marine operations in close proximity to the Riverside residential units would be “very devastating.” He explained that the current shipping and cargo operations surrounding the Riverside property operate 24/7 and create noise, dust, pollution, lighting and security issues — that buffer zones are needed for these marine facilities. And as several Commissioners noted, by approving this FLUM Amendment, they would be creating an “incompatible use.” These Commissioners recognized that “putting this residential component between two industrial uses is going to be a nightmare ... industrial and residential are incompatible uses, terribly incompatible uses.”

The ALJ’s 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 also unsupported by the record and it is based upon a false premise that undermines all of the ALJ’s findings. The Riverside property is not located in Allapattah. While it is located in the Allapattah Planning District, it is not located in the Allapattah neighborhood. It is not even located on the same side of the Miami River as is the Allapattah neighborhood. Riverside’s property is located in 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 near Durham Park, a single-family residential neighborhood.

Goal LU-1(3) of the Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan provides as one of its future land use goals is to “[mjaintain a land use pattern that protects and facilitates economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the city.” The ALJ concluded that the FLUM Amendment is consistent with this goal because it will provide housing and employment opportunities for people who work in the nearby Civic Center area. He found that the appellants’ argument that it was inconsistent with this goal was disputed by the testimony of Herbert Payne, who owns a marine-related business. Mr. Payne testified the he hasn’t used the property for four or five years and he didn’t know how many marine job opportunities would be lost due to the Amendment. Again, the ALJ’s findings are unsupported and disputed by the record, and whether Mr. Payne has used property he does not own or have a business on, is irrelevant.

We begin with the ALJ’s premise that because the subject property is near the Civic Center, it will provide housing for the Civic Center workforce. There was no evidence presented that there is a need for additional housing to support the Civic Center or the City’s workforce. The City’s expert, Lourdes Slazyk, admitted that no needs analysis (for either industrial uses or housing) was performed because they believed none was required for a small scale amendment. Additionally, the evidence presented disputes a current need for additional housing in the City. At the time of the hearing, there were 95,000 units being built or to be built in the City, with a projected population increase of 229,000. That number is astounding considering that Ms. Slazyk testified that the City’s population at the time of the hearing was between 300,000 and 400,000 people.

There was no evidence presented that the City expects 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. And, while the property is in an “infill zone,” based on the City’s ordinance declaring the entire City an infill zone, and in recognition that the subject property is not in a community development target area, this argument carries little, if any, impact.

We next address the economic component of the ALJ’s findings — that the FLUM Amendment will protect and facilitate economic development as required by Goal LU-1(3) of the Comprehensive Plan. Jack Luft testified that the FLUM Amendment was inconsistent with this goal because rather than encouraging expansion of the marine industry which does provide jobs, it “undermines the economic viability of the remaining industrial land, invites speculation that make[s] it impossible for that industry to expand ... impacts an entire array of subsidiary and support industries that the plan seeks to protect ... and create[s] a circumstance where it is no longer economically viable to operate a marine industry on the river.”

Mr. Luft explained that because of the economic advantage of ensuring the viability and expansion of the marine industry on the Miami River, when he was a senior planner with the City’s Planning Department, he brought in an economic consultant to perform an economic analysis of the marine industries on the Miami River and to provide the City with a profile for changing the land uses along the River. No such study was performed by the City prior to its recent approvals of the small scale land use amendments on the Miami River. In fact, when it was suggested that the City sit down and look at the Miami River’s land uses comprehensively, rather than amending the uses in this haphazard manner, the City rejected the suggestion. Instead, as Mr. Dickman noted, the City has “month after month ... approved small-scale future land use amendments and piece by piece [the City is] slowly dismantling the river industry.”

Mr. Luft further explained that the genesis of the Miami River Master Plan, which will be addressed separately in this opinion, was to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan by preserving the marine-related industries on the Miami River. An entire section of the Miami River Master Plan deals with land values and explains the dynamic of how high density, high intensity uses work to displace and economically threaten the viability of the marine industries.

The Miami River’s economic benefit to the City is undisputed. Evidence presented at the hearing clearly establishes that fact. Florida’s maritime trade with twenty-nine nations and territories in the Caribbean Basin pass through the Miami River, providing nearly twenty percent of the nation’s $22.1 billion in trade with the Caribbean Basin. A study conducted in 2001 by the Miami River Commission, the Beacon Council, and the City, reflects that the Miami River serves approximately one hundred ports of call (up from sixty-two in 1991) generated $216 million in revenues for the marine related businesses on the Miami River, and that jobs along the River have tripled in the last ten years, amounting to a $35 million payroll. In 2005, with forty percent of the Miami River maintenance/dredging project completed, the industry already began to see further growth. Five marine industrial businesses opened on the Miami River in 2005 including two new international terminals and two new recreational boatyards, generating new local jobs and tax revenue. In April 2005, it was determined that waterborne commerce on the Miami River had generated $805 million in output, $406 million in income, 6,700 jobs, and $44 million in tax revenues.

The ALJ also failed to address LU-1(6), which requires the City to “[mjaintain a land use pattern that protects and conserves the city’s 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 passed 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 the City’s 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 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 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 Goal LU-1 of the Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan, the ALJ upheld Riverside’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, including the “River Corridor.” 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 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.
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).

We therefore find that the ALJ’s findings that Riverside’s FLUM Amendment is consistent with the Future Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan is unsupported by the evidence presented. We conclude, that based on the evidence actually presented, it is clearly inconsistent.

MIAMI RIVER MASTER PLAN

(“River Master Plan”)

The River Master Plan is the 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.” The River Master Plan provides a pattern of land use that encompasses this “vision” and was intended to offer certainty in the marine industry for potential expansion and investment. To accomplish these goals, the River Master Plan 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, Executive summary, at 0.2 (emphasis added).

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 landt[] 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:
163.3.1 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 at 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 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, at 1.12 (emphasis added). The River Master Plan further divides the SD-4 zoning classification into two categories: 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 the concurrent 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.

The City, Riverside, the ALJ, and the dissent all contend that, because the subject property is located in the “Mid-River” section where most of the existing housing is located along the Miami River, a change from an Industrial land-use, zoned SD-4.2, Waterfront Industrial, to a mixed-use residential Restricted Commercial designation, is consistent with the area’s land use. We disagree. First, it is questionable whether the Riverside property is located in the Mid-River. But, more importantly, whether the property is located in the Mid-River or the Upper River is not dis-positive, because although the River Master Plan, relied on by the City, Riverside, and the ALJ, recognizes the importance of housing opportunities in the Mid-River area, it specifically limits its application to land not reserved for water-dependent uses. The evidence is as follows.

The Miami River runs northwest to southwest for approximately five miles from the Miami International Airport to Biscayne Bay. For planning purposes, it has been divided into three sections: the Upper River, the Mid-River, and the Lower River. Because the ALJ concluded that the “best evidence” is that the Riverside property is located in the Mid-River section, and he based his findings on this conclusion, we will briefly address the issue.

The Riverside property is located at 2215 N.W. 14th Street. The witnesses disagree as to whether the property is located in the Mid-River or the Upper-River. Lourdes Slazyk testified that the City “considers” the Upper River as extending from N.W. 42nd Avenue to N.W. 27th Avenue. The City’s conclusion is based on the Miami River Master Plan’s demarcation of the boundaries of the three sections, and because it believes that the character of the river changes substantially from N.W. 27th Avenue to N.W. 42nd Avenue. Brett Bibeau, the Managing Director of the Miami River Commission disagrees. He testified that the Upper River ends at N.W. 22nd Avenue, not N.W. 27th Avenue. He relies on the Miami River Commissions’s own economic and market report, the Miami River Greenway Action Plan, and the Miami River Corridor Infill Plan, which all set the boundary at N.W. 22nd Avenue. Thus, the City places the Riverside property in the Upper River, and Brett Bibeau, the Managing Director of the Miami River Commission, places it within the Upper River.

The Miami River Commission was statutorily created by the Florida Legislature in 1998 to serve as the official coordinating clearinghouse for public policy and projects related to the Miami River. The enabling legislation created an eighteen-member Board. The members of the Commission are the South Water Management District, the Chair of the Marine Council, the Governor or a designee, a Florida State Representative, the County Mayor, the City Mayor, one City Commissioner, one County Commissioner, the State Attorney, a member at large appointed by the Governor, the Chair of the Miami River Marine Group, the Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority, a member of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, a neighborhood representative appointed by the City Commission, a neighborhood representative appointed by the County Commission, a member at large appointed from each the City and the County Commissions, a representative from the environmental or civic organization appointed by the Governor, and two ex-officio members.

One of the duties of the Miami River Commission is to make recommendations to the City and the County on any agenda item pertaining to the Miami River. The Miami River Commission considered Riverside’s FLUM Amendment request at a public hearing and did not approve it.

The Miami River Master Plan, which was adopted by the City in 1992, divides the upper River and the Mid-River at N.W. 27th Avenue, thereby placing the Riverside property in the Mid-River. On the other hand, the 2001 Miami River Economic and Market Report published by the Miami River Commission, identifies the Mid-River as running from the 5th Street bridge to the 22nd Avenue bridge, which puts the Riverside property in the Upper River. The Miami River Greenway Action Plan, which was also adopted by the City (and the County) also show the Mid-River as extending from the 5th Street bridge to the 22nd Avenue bridge. And, the Miami River Corridor Infill Plan, which was adopted by the County, and partially adopted by the City also draws the line between the Upper and Mid-River sections at the 22nd Avenue bridge.

While it would appear that the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Riverside property is located in the Upper River, rather than the Mid-River as the ALJ concluded, we find that whether the property is in the Upper or Mid-River section is not dispositive. The ALJ’s finding that the Riverside FLUM Amendment is consistent with the area’s land use because the subject property is located in the Mid-River section, where most of the existing housing opportunities are located along the Miami River, completely ignores the very document that it relies on in deciding what section of the River it is in — the Miami River Master Plan. While the Miami River Master Plan recognizes the importance of housing opportunities in the Mid-River area, it specifically limits its application to land not reserved for water-dependent, water-related 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, at 4.20. (emphasis added). Riverside’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.

Additionally, because the Riverside property is surrounded by Waterfront Industrial land uses (which precludes residential uses), a land use change to Restricted Commercial, which would allow residential, is incompatible with the surrounding land uses. As Jack Luft stated: the Industrial land use classification does not allow residential use because it is considered incompatible. Mr. Luft testified that even if the Riverside property was deemed to be located in the Mid-River quadrant, and certain locations in the Mid-River are appropriate for Restricted Commercial, this is not one of them. Mr. Luft explained that there is property much closer and within walking distance to the Civic Center, along largely vacant or undeveloped Industrial shoreline (primarily on the North Shore), that would be excellent locations for development, and particularly for high-density residential development. In contrast, the Riverside property is located along the working waterfront, and it is not within walking distance to the Civic Center nor to mass transit.

Lastly, the River Master Plan recognizes that higher land values and the concomitant increase in property taxes would 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:
163.3.1 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, at 1.9. Riverside’s FLUM Amendment, changing the land use designation from Industrial to Restricted Commercial, is clearly inconsistent with the objectives and policy considerations relating to property values. Riverside’s 633-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.

Inexplicably, the dissent and the ALJ ignore the River Master Plan despite its adoption by the City in 1992 and the fact that the parties referenced its provisions throughout the proceedings. Perhaps this oversight is due to the clear language contained in the River Master Plan that requires the City to protect the “working waterfront,” preserve the waterfront locations reserved for the maritime industry, and prevent encroachment upon the limited amount of land available along the Miami River for growth of maritime activities on and along the River.

MISCELLANEOUS

Concurrency:

Section 163.3180(l)(a) provides that concurrency requirements regarding sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and transportation facilities be met. Additionally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a) provides that “[a]ll goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions ... within plan amendments and their support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and the analyses applicable to each element.” While Rule 9J-5.005 does not require the City or Planning Department to personally compile the original data and perform its own original analysis, it does require review of the applicable data and that it be provided by acceptable existing sources. Rule 9J-5(2)(a) further specifies that “[a]ll tables, charts, graphs, maps, figures and data sources, and their limitations, shall be clearly described where such data occur in the above documents,” and that the Department must determine whether the data was “collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner.”

The only record evidence relating to concurrency is a one-page “analysis” submitted by the Department addressing the impact of the Riverside FLUM Amendment on recreation and open space, potable water, sanitary sewer transmission, storm sewer capacity, solid waste collection, and traffic. This one-page document, however, performs no analysis and reflects that the conclusions reached were, instead, based on “assumptions.” The recreation/open space concurrency, by the Department’s own admission, was assumed. Sanitary sewer transmission, by the Department’s own admission, was assumed, and the Department admits that the capacity to service 1,658 new residents is “currently not known.” The availability of potable water was not even analyzed. The conclusions reached regarding these elements are not supported by any data.

The ALJ recognizes that the City did not conduct a housing or an industrial needs assessment before adopting the FLUM Amendment, but contends that these assessments were not needed because the Riverside property “is located within the City’s urban infill area.” This finding ignores the fact that the City considers all of the City as an infill area. The historical evidence of the City’s attempt to bypass performing a needs assessment by simply declaring the entire City an infill area is worth mentioning.

In 1998, in recognition of the importance of the Miami River Corridor and the need for an official coordinating clearinghouse for all public policy and projects related to and affecting the Miami River, the Florida Legislature created the Miami River Commission. The Legislature specifically authorized and directed the Miami River Commission to consolidate existing plans and projects into a coordinated strategy plan for the improvement of the Miami River and the surrounding areas. The following year, the Legislature enacted the Growth Policy Act, including sections 163.2511 through 163.2526, Florida Statutes, authorizing local governments to designate urban infill and redevelopment areas and adopt plans to revitalize these areas. In 2000, the Legislature enacted the Miami River Improvement Act authorizing the City, Miami-Dade County (“the County”), and the Miami River Commission to develop and adopt an urban infill and redevelopment plan for the Miami River.

In recognition of the vital economic, environmental, and geophysical resources of the Miami River Corridor and under the authority of the Miami River Improvement Act, the City and the County entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for the Miami River Corridor for the purpose of designating an urban infill and redevelopment area for the entire Miami River, and they appointed the Miami River Commission to prepare the plan and to insure broad community input and participation. It was the intent of the City and the County that upon adoption by the Miami River Commission of an urban infill plan, both local governments would amend their future land use maps in their comprehensive plans accordingly and implement the plan.

The planning process began with the data collection phase, where information from the City, the County, and the field was gathered regarding all properties within one block of the Miami River, and a comprehensive photographic database was established. The next phase involved a publicly noticed “brainstorming” session, attended by representatives of the marine industry, neighborhood groups, local government, the environment, the real estate community, the development community, and others. At this session the participants identified the opportunities and constraints that needed to be addressed in forming a comprehensive plan for the Miami River Corridor. During the third phase, numerous public workshops were held. In discussing the future of the Miami River, it became clear that issues of incompatible zoning, lack of parking, protection of the working River and the threat of major transportation projects to the quality of life along the Miami River were major concerns.

Ultimately three overarching visions for the Miami River Corridor developed and were presented for discussion. The plan that evolved was built upon earlier plans for the Miami River, including the Miami River Greenway Action Plan, Miami River Master Plan, Miami River Study Commission Report, the Miami River Commission’s Water Quality Improvement Action Plan (approved by both the City and the County), and the consensus reached by the public after discussing and debating the various visions for the Miami River. On September 9, 2002, the Miami River Commission adopted the Miami River Corridor Infill Plan (“Infill Plan”) created to address the long-term future land use and strategic plan for the Miami River.

The County immediately adopted the Infill Plan and amended its Comprehensive Plan to implement it. Inexplicably, the City, after agreeing that a comprehensive plan for urban infill and redevelopment for the entire Miami River Corridor was needed, and after paying for and participating in the creation of the Infill Plan, failed to adopt the Plan, and instead, by ordinance, declared the entire City an urban infill site. Thus, by not adopting the Infill Plan and declaring the entire City as an urban infill site and doing so by ordinance, the City is able to bypass obtaining State approval and State oversight for all small scale amendments to its Future Land Use Map, and also avoid doing a needs assessment before approving small scale FLUM Amendments.

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. 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 subelement of the Comprehensive Plan; failing to consider the Port of Miami River subelement of the Comprehensive Plan and critical areas of the Coastal Management and Future Land Use sections of the Comprehensive Plan; failing to consider critical sections of the River Master Plan; and making findings that were unsupported by the evidence. We find that had the ALJ considered these areas of the Comprehensive Plan and the River Master Plan, he could not have concluded that Riverside’s FLUM Amendment was consistent with either. We therefore reverse.

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.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and GERSTEN, WELLS, SHEPHERD, SUAREZ, CORTIÑAS, ROTHENBERG, LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

PER CURIAM.

The motion for rehearing en banc is denied.

RAMIREZ, C.J., and CORTINAS, ROTHENBERG, LAGOA and SALTER, JJ., concur.

WELLS, Judge,

dissenting from denial of Rehearing En Banc.

I would grant rehearing en banc, withdraw the majority opinion, and affirm the order of the Department of Community Affairs which adopted the recommended order of the administrative law judge (ALJ), finding the small scale amendment at issue consistent with the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. I would do so for the following reasons.

First, the opinion improperly reweighs the evidence in direct contravention of section 120.68(7)(b) of the Florida Statutes which, as pertinent here, expressly provides that although a court may set aside agency action when it finds that “agency action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record” a court may not “substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact.”

Second, the opinion ignores controlling precedent which establishes that land use planning and zoning are two distinct exercises of sovereign power which must be considered separately. That is, the opinion improperly relies on zoning laws and regulations to support reversal of the underlying administrative orders, in direct contravention of:

• Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629, 631 (Fla. 3d DCA1987):
Land use planning and zoning are different exercises of sovereign power, ... therefore, a proper analysis, for review purposes, requires that they be considered separately.
(Citations omitted);
• Martin County v. Yusem, 690 So.2d 1288, 1294 (Fla.1997), holding that an amendment to a comprehensive plan even though combined with a rezoning application, must be considered separate and apart from the rezoning request:
[W]e expressly conclude that amendments to comprehensive land use plans are legislative decisions. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that the amendments to comprehensive land use plans are being sought as part of a rezoning application in respect to only one piece of property.
(Footnote omitted);
• Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469, 475 (Fla.1993), confirming that zoning follows planning, not the other way around:
[A] comprehensive plan only establishes a long-range maximum limit on the possible intensity of land use; a plan does not simultaneously establish an immediate minimum limit on the possible intensity of land use. The present use of land may, by zoning ordinance, continue to be more limited than the future use contemplated by the comprehensive plan.
(quoting Marracci v. City of Scappoose, 26 Or.App. 131, 552 P.2d 552, 553 (1976)).

Here, as in Coastal Development of N. Fla., Inc. v. Jacksonville Beach, 788 So.2d 204 (Fla.2001), a landowner applied for a section 163.3187 small scale development amendment to a future land use map (FLUM).' § 163.3187(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). That landowner also sought to rezone its property. The City of Miami, as it was authorized to do, decided to reformulate its policy regarding this property to change its designation on the FLUM from Industrial to Restricted Commercial, based, in significant part, on the analysis of the City’s professional staff. See Coastal Dev., 788 So.2d at 209 (concluding “[b]y its very nature, a proposed amendment to the FLUM, as an element of the comprehensive plan, requires policy reformulation because the amendment seeks a change to the FLUM”).

Petitioners claimed that this amendment was inconsistent with virtually the entire Plan. Following an evidentiary hearing, an ALJ rejected the Petitioners’ claims of inconsistencies as unsupported by the evidence and after considering the testimony of City officials as well as neighboring property owners, concluded that the City’s decision was “fairly debatable” and approved the City’s reformulation of its Plan for this property. The Department of Community Affairs agreed with the ALJ’s assessment and concluded the amendment was “in compliance.”

With competent substantial evidence supporting the Department’s decision and the City’s legislative reformulation of its Plan being fairly debatable, and with Petitioners having failed to demonstrate any inconsistency between that reformulation and the remainder of the Plan, the Department’s determination should have been affirmed.

FACTS

Riverside is the owner of a 4.3 acre parcel of property located on the southern side of the Miami River at 14th Street and Northwest 22nd Avenue. This property is located in the City of Miami and is bounded on the north by the Miami River, on the south by commercial and medium density multi-family residential property, on the west by industrial property, and on the east by 22nd Avenue and the 22nd Avenue bridge which crosses the Miami River. At one time this property was used by Coastal Tug and Barge Company; however, it was not being used by that entity or for marine purposes at the time it was purchased by Riverside.

Riverside sought a section 163.3187 small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) component of the City’s Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) to change this parcel’s Industrial designation to Restricted Commercial for the purpose of constructing two twelve story condominium buildings with a total of 633 units.

UNDERLYING PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings Before the City Commission

At hearings in July of 2005 and January of 2006, the City Commission considered Riverside’s request to change the FLUM and the property’s zoning. The meeting agendas for each of those hearings reflected the approval of the proposed changes by both the City’s Planning Advisory Board and its Planning Department. As the petition which followed reflected, the City’s planning staff report recommended approval of the FLUM amendment based on the following findings:

• It is found that the proposed Land Use amendment was reviewed in conjunction with an application for a Major Use Special Permit and that the proposed project (as demonstrated in the findings of the companion item) has been found to be in compliance with the applicable design review criteria, subject to meeting the conditions in the project’s development order.
• It is found that Goal LU-1(3) promotes and facilitates economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the City.
• It is found that Policy LU-1.3.6 states that the City will continue to encourage a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants through strategic and comprehensive marketing and promotion efforts so that the local economy is buffered from national and international cycles. Particular emphasis is on, but not limited to, Southeast Over-town/Park West, Latin Quarter, Little Haiti, Little River Industrial District, River Corridor, the Garment District and the Omni area.
• It is found that Objective LU-1.3 requires that the City encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial, office and industrial areas; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activities in areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum standards for Level of Service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE).
• It is found that the Industrial category allows 0-units per acre, and the Restrict Commercial category allows up to 150-units per acre; and the attached Concurrency Management Analysis pertaining to concurrency demonstrates that no level of service would be reduced below minimum levels by this change.

The petition further reflects that the City’s staff ultimately concluded:

These findings support the position that the existing land use pattern in this neighborhood should be changed.

The Miami River Commission, a statutorily created advisory board, in a 5/5 tie vote, recommended against the amendment finding it inconsistent with the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan — a plan expressly not adopted by the City.

The amendment to the FLUM was approved by the City Commission in January 2006. On March 2, 2006, Durham Park (an abutting single family neighborhood), the Miami River Marine Group, Inc. (a trade association representing businesses on the Miami River), and Captain Herbert Payne (the owner of P & L Towing and Transport) petitioned the Division of Administrative Hearings for review, claiming that the amendment did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes or with the Florida Administrative Code, and that the amendment was internally inconsistent with other provisions of the City’s plan:

1. The City of Miami’s small scale future land use map (“FLUM”) amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted by Ordinance No. 12761 is not in compliance with §§ 163.3184(l)(b), 163.3177(2), 163.3187(2), and 163.3177(6), and Rule 9J-5.005(1), 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005(5), 9J-5.005(6), 9J-5.0055, 9J-5.006, and 9J-11.007, F.A.C. Furthermore, the FLUM amendment is internally inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive plan goals objectives and policies related to:
I. Preserving the City’s limited waterfront for water-dependent and water-related commerce, and protecting an essential economic industry in the Miami River corridor known as the “Port of Miami River”;
II. Preventing incompatible future land use patterns;
III. Preventing a future land use pattern resulting in “downtown sprawl” by locating high density residential uses in or near the city center and mass public transit;
IV. Protecting human life and preventing property damage by hurricanes;
V. Protecting native wildlife and habitat; and
VI. Ensuring availability of potable water supply, sanitary sewer capacity and essential infrastructure levels of service.

Proceedings Before the Administrative Law Judge

Prior to hearing, the ALJ struck all reference to Chapter 9J-11 of the Florida Administrative Code as well as a number of claims relating to some thirteen parts (two goals, three objectives and eight policies) of the City’s Plan having no bearing on the requested amendment." The ALJ refused to strike allegations regarding Plan provisions relating to land use development — that is, zoning orders, leaving Petitioners’ claims regarding the following goals, objectives and policies for consideration: Goal LU-1, Policy LU-1.1.1, Policy LU-1.1.2, Policy LU-1.1.10, Objective LU-1.2, Objective LU-1.3, Policy LU-1.3.6, Objective LU-1.4, Objective LU-1.5, Objective LU-1.6, Policy LU-1.6.1, Policy LU-1.6.4, Goal PA-3, Objective PA-3.1, Policy PA-3.1.1, Policy PA-3.1.2, Policy PA-3.1.3, Objective PA-3.3, Policy HO-1.1.9, Policy HO-2.1.4, Goal TR-1, Policy TR-1.1.1, Policy TR-1.5.10, Objective NRI.3, Objective NR-3.2, Policy NR-3.2.1, Policy NR-3.2.2, Policy NR-3.2.3, Goal CM-4, Objective CM-4.1, Policy CM-4.1.6, Objective PW-1.2, Policy PW-1.2.1, Policy CI-1.2.3.iU

The testimony regarding Petitioners’ claims came from seven witnesses, six of whom were called by Petitioners, one of whom was called by both Petitioners and the City. Lourdes Slazyk, a twenty-three-year employee of the City’s Planning Department and the assistant director of that department for the past eleven years (the witness called by both parties), testified that the approved small scale amendment complied with the goals, objectives and policies of, and therefore was consistent with, the City’s Plan. Specifically, Ms. Sla-zyk testified that in 2002 the entire City, with the exception of Watson Island and Virginia Key, was designated as an urban infill area, a designation that facilitates Eastward Ho!, a plan to reduce sprawl beyond the City’s central hub, to decrease the expense of infrastructure expansion where none currently exists, and to halt infringement on the Everglades by bringing people back into the City which is the central part of the County. According to Ms. Slazyk, the instant small scale amendment advances these goals by encouraging high density development in a blighted and underdeveloped area where infrastructure, such as mass transportation systems and utilities, already exist. Ms. Slazyk also confirmed that the amendment encourages redevelopment in the Allapatah Planning District, a declining district located proximate to the Civic Center/Jackson Memorial Hospital University of Miami Medical School complex and makes affordable housing available to the thousands of individuals who are employed there.

Ms. Slazyk also testified that this amendment was consistent with: the Miami River Master Plan, which places this property in the mid-river portion of the Miami River, a transitional area comprised of industrial, commercial (offices and restaurants), and existing residential uses; the FLUM; the City’s urban infill ordinance; and the housing and transportation objectives of the Plan.

Ms. Slazyk also confirmed that the City’s various departments, as well as appropriate county and state agencies (including DERM), analyzed this application and conducted both an investigation and on site analysis of this request. A traffic analysis was also performed regarding this project. With the exception of approval regarding availability of sewer and potable water, which is controlled by the County and the South Florida Water Management District and which must be met prior to permitting as authorized by state law, this amendment satisfied all concurrency requirements.

With regard to the Port of Miami River (POMR) sub-element of the Plan, Ms. Sla-zyk’s testimony was that the Planning Department considered this sub-element and found no inconsistency between the amendment and either this sub-element or the Miami River Master Plan which provides that new housing should be encouraged on lands not reserved for water dependent uses. She further noted that the POMR sub-element is not a statutorily mandated part of the Plan, but was included in the Plan at the City’s option to provide consistency with the County’s master plan. That plan, in turn, simply made provision for existing industrial uses located almost exclusively in the upper river lying west of the 27th Avenue bridge. That, according to Slazyk, is precisely why for the past twenty years the City has interpreted the term “Port of Miami River” as used in this sub-element as applying to the industrial uses located in the upper river rather than to the remaining two thirds of the river comprised mostly of commercial and single and multiple-family residential uses. Ms. Slazyk additionally confirmed that the “Industrial” designation obligates no river-front property owner to use river-front property for industrial purposes — a factor that remains unaltered by changing designations from Industrial to Restricted Commercial and which makes the statement in the Miami River Master Plan that new housing should not be encouraged on lands reserved for water-dependent uses, irrelevant.

By contrast, Jack Luft, a former Director of Planning for the City, was of the opinion that this amendment is inconsistent with the Plan because it does not preserve and encourage expansion of marine industries on the river which, according to him, is required by both the POMR sub-element of the Plan and the Miami River Master Plan. This opinion was premised: (1) on Luft’s interpretation of the term “Port of Miami River” as encompassing not just a collection of shipping industries located on the Miami River, but all shippers as well as any other water-related business, such as tug boat operators, repair and maintenance facilities, parts distributors, and freight forwarders; and (2) on Luft’s conclusion that by permitting “spot amendments” that allow other uses, land values will increase, making it more difficult for this industry to thrive and expand as contemplated by the Plan and the Miami River Master Plan.

This testimony was, however, undermined by Luft’s admission that during his tenure as the Planning Director for the City of Miami, he had never interpreted this term so expansively, and by the fact that many non-water-related and non-water-dependent uses have always existed on that portion of the river involved here. He also admitted that a Restricted Commercial designation, like an Industrial designation, would permit all of the water-related and water-dependent uses that he said were so important to support the shipping industry and that this property is in the Allapattah Planning District, a redevelopment area proximate to thousands of workers who could be served by the high density uses that are to be encouraged in this urban infill area — uses that promote new urbanism, Eastward Ho! and “Smart Growth” which are designed to halt urban sprawl and alleviate pressure on the Everglades by bringing people back to the City.

None of the other witnesses provided any meaningful testimony regarding consistency. Stuart Aguirre, director of the Durham Park Neighborhood Association, testified only about traffic on nearby roadways. Mr. Payne, while admitting that the river was not just a working river but a river of residences as well, opined that allowing this project would hurt future expansion of marine industry; that companies needed a long term reason to invest in the river; and that changing the designation would result in a loss of land for future industrial development. Brett Be-beau, Managing Director of the Miami River Commission testified that the Miami River Commission in a 5 to 5 tie vote found this amendment inconsistent not with the Plan, but with the Miami River Corridor Urban Infill Plan, a plan expressly not adopted by the City. Fran Bohnsack, Executive Director of the Miami River Marine Group, Inc., acknowledged that she could offer no opinion on consistency and even admitted that an Industrial designation on the FLUM did not require marine use. And, Gary Cañero, a marine engineer and seaport consultant, who admitted that he could render no opinions with regard to consistency, testified regarding his experiences with the residents of Fisher Island who complained about the lights, noise, and pollution from the Port of Miami’s cargo gantries.

Based on the extensive testimony and record before him, the ALJ made the following findings:

• For planning purposes, the Miami River has been divided into three sections, the upper, middle, and lower river as demarcated in the Miami River Master Plan adopted in 1992;
• The middle river extends from the 5th Avenue bridge west to the 27th Avenue bridge as shown on the Miami River Master Plan. The upper river extends westerly from the 27th Avenue bridge;
• Riverside’s property is located in the middle river;
• The Miami River Master Plan states that this area contains most of the existing housing located along the Miami River consisting of a wide variety of dwelling types ranging from single family homes to high-rise apartment/condominium buildings, mostly occupied by middle — income households important to the City to support the local economy and tax base; that opportunities remain for development of new housing by building on vacant lots or by increasing the density of existing developed lots; and while new housing should be encouraged, in the proposed SD-4.1 waterfront commercial zoning district residential development should be permitted as an accessory use to a marina;
• This property is located in the proposed — but never enacted — SD-4.1 waterfront commercial zoning district;
• The strategy for the Miami River Master Plan for the middle river is to bring neighborhoods back to the river whereas the plan for the upper river was for a “working river” that was to be protected from displacement by non-water-dependent uses;
• The uses surrounding this property, which is in the middle river, is industrial (a bus and boat engine repair facility), single-family residential, general commercial, duplex residential, medium-density multi-family residential, recreational, public, restricted commercial and high-density multifamily residential;
• This property is located in the Allapat-tah neighborhood development zone which is one of the City’s poorest neighborhoods, a community development target area in need of revitalization;
• One of the goals of the Plan is to revitalize declining areas of the City; revitalizing this area will provide affordable housing for thousands of employees at the Civic Center and the downtown area who want to live near where they work;
• The City has been designated an urban infill area by ordinance to promote Eastward Ho! to make efficient use of utilities, infrastructure and transportation systems;
• The urban infill ordinance adopted ten years after the Miami River Master Plan adds significance to designating the middle river as a transition area for mixed use development which will reverse urban sprawl which takes place at the western edges of the municipality resulting in inefficient use of infrastructure and harms the Everglades;
• The City’s Restricted Commercial designation is consistent with the City’s urban infill designation and the Plan because it includes office, retail and residential uses that curtail vehicle use; because it increases the flexibility for development consistent with the Plan; and
• Public transportation is located near the property which is also served by buses with links to Metrorail and public parking.

The ALJ also found that Petitioners had failed to satisfy their burden of proving that the FLUM amendment was inconsistent with more than twenty other provisions of the Plan, as claimed. Specifically, the ALJ rejected Petitioners’ claim that the requested change was inconsistent with plan Goal LU-l(l), Goal LU-1(3) and Goal LU-1(4).

Goal LU-1, in its entirety states:

Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and 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; (4) fosters the growth and development of downtown as a regional center of domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment; (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conñicts; and (6) protects and conserves the city’s natural and coastal resources.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Goal LU-1.

The ALJ rejected the notion that changing the designation of this property from Industrial to Restricted Commercial thereby eliminating the “excessive ... noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, [and] negative visual impact[s]” permitted in Industrial areas is inconsistent with the Goal LU-l(l) to protect and enhance the quality of life in Durham Park, a single-family neighborhood that abuts Riverside’s property. In fact, the only inconsistency noted by the ALJ with regard to this goal was Petitioners’ argument that while industrial uses are incompatible with residential uses, an Industrial designation better protects the quality of life for a residential neighborhood than does a Restricted Commercial designation.

The ALJ also found no testimony to support a conclusion that this small scale amendment is inconsistent with Goal LU-1(3), which is to promote economic development and growth of job opportunities in the City. There was no testimony as to how many people were employed at this property before it was re-designated, much less how many will be employed there once the property is redeveloped. Rather, as the ALJ found, because this property is located close to the Civic Center and may provide housing or commercial support for those employed there, changing its designation to permit some use other than its current vacant state cannot be deemed inconsistent with encouraging economic development and growth of job opportunities.

The ALJ similarly found no evidence regarding, and thus no inconsistency with, Goal LU-1(4) dealing with downtown development.

The ALJ found no evidence to support a conclusion that the instant amendment was inconsistent with either Policy LU-1.1.1 or Policy LU-1.1.2:

Policy LU-1.1.1: Development orders [zoning orders] authorizing new development or redevelopment that results in an increase in the density or intensity of land use shall be contingent upon the availability of public facilities and services that meet or exceed the minimum LOS standards adopted in the CIE.
Policy LU-1.1.2: The City’s Planning Department, with the assistance of various City departments and agencies, shall be responsible for monitoring the current and projected LOS provided by public facilities. The Planning Department shall perform the required concurrency review of proposed development for submittal to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required by Florida statutes and administrative rules.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy LU-1.1.1, Policy LU-1.1.2.

Policy LU-1.1.1, as the ALJ noted, relates to zoning and is irrelevant, and, as the ALJ found, no testimony was adduced to show either that this amendment would result in a failure to meet or exceed applicable levels of service or that concurrency requirements had not been met. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy LU-1.1.1.

The ALJ concluded that Petitioners failed to prove that this amendment was inconsistent with Objective LU-1.2 to “[pjromote the redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened residential, commercial and industrial areas.” Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective LU-1.2. To the contrary, the ALJ noted that the evidence was that this property is located in the Allapattah Planning District, a declining area which, when redeveloped, will make affordable housing available to the thousands who work nearby at the Civic Center. Additionally, the ALJ noted that because this site is designated as a Brownfield clean up site, redevelopment is encouraged by the Plan.

The ALJ also found that no inconsistency with Objective LU-1.3 had been demonstrated because the amendment permits both commercial and office uses, uses encouraged by this objective:

The City will continue to encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial, office and industrial areas; increase the utilization and enhance the physical character and appearance of existing buildings; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activity in areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum standards for Level of Service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE).

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective LU-1.3. Because, as the ALJ found, the concurrency analysis performed by the City confirms that the amendment will not result in a failure of existing public facilities to meet or exceed applicable LOS minimum standards, no inconsistency with the objective was demonstrated.

The ALJ similarly found that Petitioners failed to demonstrate any inconsistency between the amendment and the policy stated in LU-1.3.6 of continuing “to encourage a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants through strategic and comprehensive marketing and promotion efforts so that the local economy is buffered from national and international cycles” with particular emphasis on the “River Corridor,” among other areas. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy 1.3.6 (emphasis added). The ALJ noted that the amendment permitted greater flexibility in developing this property thereby complying with this policy.

Objective LU-1.5 stating that “[l]and development regulations will protect the city’s unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural heritage,” was found by the ALJ to be irrelevant because it deals with land development regulations — zoning—and because no evidence whatsoever was adduced as to this objective. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective LU-1.5. Policy HO-2.1.4 similarly was deemed irrelevant because it too relates to zoning, providing only for the City to “continue to promote development of new, high quality, dense urban neighborhoods along the Miami River ... through Special District (SD) zoning.” Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy HO-2.1.4 (emphasis added).

The ALJ found that the testimony confirming that Policy LU-1.6.4 had been met was uncontradicted. That Policy requires a concurrency review confirming that a proposed amendment to the FLUM will not result in a LOS that falls below the adopted minimum standards. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy LU-1.6.4. For the same reason, he found that Goal TR-1 regarding maintenance of an- effective and efficient traffic circulation network had been met. The City’s concurrency analysis, which included a transportation study, determined that the amendment would not result in unacceptable levels of service with respect to traffic circulation. This testimony was not rebutted by any competent substantial evidence.

The ALJ also found no evidence to support a conclusion that the amendment was inconsistent with Policy TR-1.1.1 requiring maintenance of transportation levels of service within designated urban infill areas. Rather, he found Mr. Luft’s testimony that high density development is important to revitalization and the aim of “Smart Growth [of] encouraging people to park and walk or take public transportation” to support a determination of consistency with this policy. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy TR-1.1.1.

While the ALJ found Policy TR-1.5.10, requiring land development regulations— that is, zoning regulations — to encourage development near large employment centers to minimize commutes, to be irrelevant, he nonetheless noted that the City’s analysis did consider the proximity of this property to the Civic Center with its thousands of employees. Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan, Volume I, Policy TR-1.5.10.

The ALJ found that Petitioners presented no evidence whatsoever on Goal CM^l to ensure “public safetg and protection of property within the coastal zone from the threat of hurricanes Objective CM-4.1, to minimize “the potential for loss of human life and the destruction of property from hurricanes”; and Policy CM-4.1.5 requiring “land use and land development regulation change[s] within the Coastal High Hazard area ... [to undergo] an analysis of its potential impact on evacuation times and shelter needs in the event of a hurricane,” and that they, therefore, had failed to carry their burden on these points. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Goal CM-4, Objective CM-4.1, Policy CM-4.1.5. The ALJ similarly found that Petitioners had failed to adduce any testimony whatsoever on Objective NR-1.3 regarding maintenance and enhancement of “the status of native species of fauna and flora”; Objective NR-3.2 to prevent “the degradation of ambient air quality within the city”; and Policy NR-3.2.1 to establish “vehicular transportation patterns that reduce the concentration of pollutants in areas known to have ambient air quality problems.” Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective NR-1.3, Objective NR-3.2, Policy NR-3.2.1. Rather, the ALJ noted that the evidence was that the amendment will eliminate uses involving “excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes ... [and] hazardous wastes,” that are permitted in Industrial areas, and would, therefore, be fully consistent with these objectives and policies.

With regard to Policy NR-3.2.2 to encourage “the use of Metrorail and Metrom-over by directing high density new development or redevelopment first to areas nearest Metrorail and Metromover stations, and those land use policies that do not foster proliferation of employment centers in the suburban areas of the county,” the ALJ found no proof of inconsistency because the property is only one mile from Metrorail and Metromover stations to which it is linked by bus service. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy NR-3.2.2. Moreover, the amendment serves the policy of encouraging redevelopment that does not foster proliferation of employment centers in suburban areas.

The ALJ found Policy NR-3.2.3, providing that the City “[w]ork with the County transportation planning agencies to continue to increase the quality of mass transit services within the city,” to be irrelevant. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy NR-3.2.3.

The ALJ found no evidence to show that the amendment was inconsistent with the objective stated in Objective PW-1.2: to “[e]nsure adequate levels of safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the city,” or with Policy PW-1.2.1 to “[e]n-sure potable water supplies meet the established level of services standards for transmission capacity of 200 gallons per capita per day (GPCD).” Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective PW-1.2, Policy PW-1.2.1. The un-rebutted testimony was that potable water is provided to the City by Miami-Dade County and that the City relies on the County to determine whether sufficient potable water is available. The City, according to expert testimony, enforces compliance with the County’s determination at the permitting stage. Because there was no testimony that this amendment will result in a shortage of potable water or that this objective does not permit the City to rely on the County’s analysis regarding this criterion, the ALJ concluded that no inconsistency had been demonstrated.

The ALJ also found no evidence to demonstrate that Policy CI-1.2.3 requiring acceptable levels of service for recreation and open space, potable water transmission capacity, sanitary sewer transmission capacity, storm sewer capacity, solid waste collection capacity, and traffic circulation, had not been met. Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy CI-1.2.3. Rather, the ALJ found that the City’s concurrency analysis satisfied this policy and had not been rebutted by any evidence.

Finally, the ALJ found no evidence of an inconsistency between the POMR sub-element and this amendment. First, the ALJ noted that this optional sub-element expressly defines the term “Port of Miami River” as fourteen independent, privately owned shipping companies:

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.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Port of Miami River sub-element, n. 1.

The testimony was that, based on this definition, the City historically considered this element as applying to only the original fourteen shipping companies listed in Volume II of the Plan. While acknowledging Petitioners’ argument that Objective PA-3.1 and its Policy PA-3.1.2 contemplate that the number of shippers would increase beyond the original fourteen shippers, the ALJ rejected the notion that the City had to consider this sub-element in this case because (1) this property was neither one of the original fourteen “independent, privately-owned shipping companies” nor had it ever been used by any subsequent “independent, privately-owned shipping companfy]”; (2) no other shipping company was located in the vicinity of this property on the same side of the river; and (3) there is no evidence that these provisions were intended to apply to anything other than shippers, that is to all marine industrial uses and to the entire SD^l zoning district on the river including “facilities for construction, maintenance, service, repair, supply or storage of vessels, bases for marine dredging, salvage, towing; marine construction offices and yards; sales, charter or rental of vessels, marine supplies and equipment, marine sporting goods and supplies; and commercial marinas.”

However, the ALJ also concluded that even if this sub-element did apply, no inconsistency between it and the instant amendment had been demonstrated. First, the ALJ determined that no inconsistency between the amendment and Objective PA-3.1 and its three policies could be demonstrated because this objective and its policies all deal with the purpose and scope of land development regulations, that is zoning, issues not relevant to a plan amendment:

Objective PA-3.1: The City of Miami, through its Land development regulations [zoning 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 [zoning 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 [zoning 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 [zoning 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.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective PA-3.1, Policy PA-3.1.1, Policy PA-3.1.2, Policy PA-3.1.3 (some emphasis added).

Second, he determined that no inconsistency between the amendment and Objective PA-3.2 and Policy PA-3.2.1 had been demonstrated because no issue regarding coordination of surface transportation to the Miami River with the traffic and mass transit systems shown on the traffic circulation map had been presented:

Objective PA-3.2: The City of Miami shall coordinate the surface transportation access to the Port of Miami River with the traffic and mass transit system shown on the traffic circulation map series.
Policy PA-3.2.1: The City of Miami shall, through the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, coordinate intermodal surface and water transportation access serving the Port of Miami River.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective PA-3.2, Policy PA-3.2.1.

Third, he found no inconsistency between the amendment and Objective PA-3 and Policy PA-3.3.1 because Petitioners had failed to adduce any evidence that the City did not coordinate Port of Miami River planning with other port facilities and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, and Miami-Dade County’s Port of Miami:

Objective PA-3.3: The City of Miami shall coordinate its Port of Miami River planning activities with those of ports facilities providers and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. 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 the 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 the maritime industry that complements, and often competes with, the Port of Miami River.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective PA-3.3, Policy PA-3.3.1.

In fact, the evidence with regard to this objective was that pursuant to state law and City ordinance, the City submitted this amendment to the Miami River Commission, which took testimony, considered the application, and made a recommendation to the City Commission. While the River Commission in a tied vote recommended against this amendment, there is no requirement in this objective or otherwise that the City follow the Commission’s recommendation.

Fourth, noting that no studies or analy-ses were introduced into evidence to show either the number of individuals currently holding Port of Miami River jobs or whether such job opportunities had increased or decreased since the Plan was adopted in 1989, the ALJ concluded that the amendment was not inconsistent with Goal PA-3, which states that 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.” Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Goal PA-3. While the testimony was that at least one established boat yard on the river was undergoing a substantial expansion on its existing property and that Captain Payne’s tug boat business was expanding, neither he nor any other marine business had attempted to purchase the property at issue here. As the ALJ noted, neither the City nor its Plan has a “land banking” policy and, by granting the instant amendment, the City did not act contrary to the goal stated in Goal PA-3.

The ALJ also rejected Petitioners’ claim that the amendment was not based on the best available, professionally accepted data and analysis because there was no evidence as to what, if any, more recent or better information and data than that used by the City was available.

Based on these findings and the evidence supporting them, the ALJ concluded that: (1) the Durham Park Neighborhood Association lacked standing because it neither owns nor operates a business within the City; (2) Captain Payne had standing; and (3) Petitioners had failed to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the amendment was either inconsistent with the Plan or that it was not supported by adequate data and analysis. The ALJ recommended that the Department of Community Affairs, the state agency charged with oversight of all municipal comprehensive plans, enter an order approving the small scale amendment granted by the City. See § 163.3164(20), Fla. Stat. (2005) (defining the term “state land planning agency” as the Department of Community Affairs).

Proceedings before the Department of Community Affairs

Petitioners filed extensive exceptions to the ALJ’s recommendations with the Department of Community Affairs complaining about virtually each, if not each, of the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, in essence rearguing their entire case. Following review of the entire record, the Department adopted the ALJ’s recommendations with minor exceptions not at issue here.

OUR REVIEW

Proceedings in This Court

Petitioners, Appellants here, appealed from the final order entered by the Department of Community Affairs finding the small scale plan amendment adopted by the City to be “in compliance.” Appellants argue, as they did before the Department: (1) that the Durham Park Neighborhood Association has standing to bring this action; (2) that the City could not rely on Miami-Dade County’s assessment regarding availability of potable water in determining concurrency; (3) that there is no evidence that the instant small scale amendment is compatible with Goal CM-4 governing hurricane preparedness; and (4) that the ALJ’s decision was based on the faulty conclusion that the Port of Miami River sub-element does not apply to preclude the instant small scale amendment.

Not one of these claims supports reversal of the Department’s order.

1.Standing:

First, while I agree that the ALJ erred in concluding that the Durham Park Neighborhood Association did not have standing to prosecute this matter, see Southwest Ranches Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Broward County, 502 So.2d 931, 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), I find this error to be neither dispositive nor relevant in light of the fact that: (1) there is no dispute that the other Appellants who prosecuted this matter had standing; (2) Durham Park and the remaining parties were all represented by the same counsel; (3) Durham Park’s president testified; and (4) Durham Park points to no evidence that it would have adduced but was precluded from adducing as a consequence of this error.

2. Concurrency:

Second, the record confirms that concurrency requirements regarding potable water were met. Section 163.3180(2)(a) governing concurrency expressly authorizes local governments to “consult with the applicable water supplier to determine whether adequate water supplies” will be available and gives these governments until issuance of “a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent” to confirm availability. § 163.3180(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005). The City may, therefore, by law rely on Miami-Dade County’s assessment regarding availability of potable water in determining concurrency and has a substantial amount of time beyond the date of the enactment of a Plan amendment to obtain such an assessment. That is precisely what the testimony shows that the City is doing in this case.

3. Hurricane preparedness:

Third, Appellants adduced no evidence whatsoever that Riverside’s property is located in a “Coastal High Hazard” area of the City so as to implicate Goal CM-4, Objective CM-4.1, and Policy CM-4.1.5 regarding the potential impact on evacuation times and shelter needs and the potential for loss of human life and destruction of property in the event of a hurricane:

Goal CM-4: Ensure public safety and the protection of property within the coastal zone from the threat of hurricanes.
Objective CM-4.1: Minimize the potential for loss of human life and the destruction of property from hurricanes.
Policy CM-4.1.5: Each proposed future land use map change within the Coastal High Hazard area of the city will require an analysis of its potential impact on evacuation times and shelter needs in the event of a hurricane.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Goal CM-4, Objective CM-4.1, Policy CM-4.1.5.

Therefore, no inconsistency between the instant small scale amendment and this goal, objective, and policy was demonstrated. See § 16S.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005) (“In the proceeding, the local government’s determination that the small scale development amendment is in compliance is presumed to be correct. The local government’s determination shall be sustained unless it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the amendment is not in compliance with the requirements of this act.”).

4. The Port of Miami River sub-element:

Fourth, no matter how the “Port of Miami River” is defined, the ALJ was correct in concluding that no inconsistency between this sub-element and the instant amendment had been demonstrated.

This sub-element, in pertinent part, provides:

Port of Miami River1
Goal PA-3: The Port of Miami River, a group of privately owned and operated commercial shipping companies located at specific sites along the Miami River, shall be encouraged to continue operation as a valued and economical-Ig viable component of the city’s maritime industrial base.
[1 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.]
Objective PA-3.1: The City of Miami, through its Land development regulations [zoning 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 [zoning 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 [zoning 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 [zoning 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-3.2: The City of Miami shall coordinate the surface transportation access to the Port of Miami River with the traffic and mass transit system shown on the traffic circulation map series.
Policy PA-3.2.1: The City of Miami shall, through the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, coordinate intermodal surface and water transportation access serving the Port of Miami River.
Objective PA-3.3: The City of Miami shall coordinate its Port of Miami River planning activities with those of ports facilities providers and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. 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 the 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 the maritime industry that complements, and often competes with, the Port of Miami River.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Goal PA-3, Objective PA-3.1, Policy PA-3.1.1, Policy PA-3.1.2, Policy PA-3.1.3, Objective PA-3.2, Policy PA-3.2.1, Objective PA-3.3, Policy PA-3.3.1 (some emphasis added).

1 The stated purpose of this entire sub-element is to “encourage[ ] ... continued operation” of the commercial marine entities which operate on the Miami River. This purpose is to be achieved in three ways: first, by adoption and application of the City’s “Land development regulations” — that is, by its zoning ordinances; second, by coordinating surface transportation; and third, by coordinating POMR planning activities with those of other ports and regulators.

Of these three, only the fust, relating to enactment of zoning regulations to help protect the POMR from encroachment by non water-dependent or water-related land uses, arguably has any application. However, as the ALJ recognized, and as both Machado and Yusem make clear, consideration of zoning ordinances as part of a Plan amendment request is wholly inappropriate.

Appellants also adduced no evidence regarding coordination of surface transportation access to the Miami River with the traffic and transit system shown on the traffic circulation map, and the unrebutted testimony was that the City submitted this amendment to the Miami River Commission, the entity that serves as a clearinghouse for all interests on the river. Thus, based on the record before him, the ALJ correctly concluded that the City’s legislative determination was supported by the record and fairly debatable. That determination, approved as it was by the Department of Community Affairs, should have been affirmed.

This Court’s Opinion and Reconsideration on Rehearing en banc

Although the claims actually raised by Appellants have no merit, this court concluded that the ALJ erred: (1) in refusing to follow this court’s Payne IPs definition of Port of Miami River; (2) in failing to consider inconsistencies between the requested amendment and (a) the POMR sub-element and (b) the Future Land Use and Coastal Management elements of the City’s Plan; (3) in failing to consider critical sections of the Miami River Master Plan; and (4) in making findings unsupported by the evidence. Payne v. City of Miami, 06-2409, substituted opinion (“Riverside”). The opinion also “note[s]” 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.” Id. These determinations ignore both controlling law and the record.

1. No consideration of the cumulative effect of other small scale amendments is appropriate in this case.

There can be no doubt that the driving force behind the instant opinion is the conclusion, stated in the last paragraph, that the instant small scale amendment, when viewed with other pending amendments, improperly changes the character of the Miami River waterfront:

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.

Id.

This conclusion stems from the faulty characterization, made many paragraphs earlier, that section 163.3187, which governs this action, does no more than “limit[] amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.” Section 163.3187(l)(c), however, is not so restricted. While section 163.3187(1) does generally limit amendments to comprehensive plans to no more than two per year, section 163.3187(l)(c) expands amendment rights by authorizing an unlimited number of such amendments “without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration,” where as here, they do not exceed a stated cumulative acreage limit:

(1) Amendments to comprehensive plans adopted pursuant to this part may be made not more than two times during any calendar year, except:
(c) Any local government comprehensive plan amendments directly related to proposed small scale development activities may be approved without regard to statutory limits on the frequency ... [when]:
1. The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer and: a. The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small scale development amendments adopted by the local government shall not exceed:
(I) A maximum of 120 acres in a local government that contains areas specifically designated in the local comprehensive plan for urban infill, urban redevelopment, or downtown revitalization as defined in s. 163.3164, 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); however, amendments under this paragraph may be applied to no more than 60 acres annually of property outside the designated areas listed in this sub-sub-sub-paragraph. Amendments adopted pursuant to paragraph (k) shall not be counted toward the acreage limitations for small scale amendments under this paragraph.
(II) A maximum of 80 acres in a local government that does not contain any of the designated areas set forth in sub-sub-subparagraph (I).
(III) A maximum of 120 acres in a county established pursuant to s. 9, Art. VIII of the State Constitution.

§ 163.3187(l)(c)l.a.(I)-(III), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added).

By virtue of these provisions, the Florida Legislature has determined that “piecemeal” changes to a Plan such as the change at issue here, which do not individually or collectively exceed the cumulative acreage identified in the statute, do not change the character of an area or neighborhood so as to require any “long range planning,” or input from any agencies, departments, or groups as the opinion suggests. Moreover, and as the opinion correctly notes, Appellants do not claim that, whether considered alone or in combination with any others, this amendment exceeds the cumulative acreage limitations set by section 163.3187. Thus, notwithstanding this court’s conclusion that such changes are “ill-advised” or “haphazard,” they are, as even Appellants recognized, nonetheless exactly what the law authorizes.

Moreover, this amendment meets all of the criteria set forth in this provision. This amendment involves fewer than 10 acres and therefore satisfies section 163.3187(l)(c)l. Appellants do not claim, and there is no evidence, that the cumulative annual effect of all small scale amendments will exceed statutory limits as a consequence of this amendment. It therefore satisfies section 163.3187(l)(c)l .a. Appellants do not claim, and there is no evidence, that the proposed amendment involves the same property granted a change within the past 12 months or the same owner’s property within 200 feet of the property at issue, thereby satisfying sections 163.3187(l)(c)l.b. and l.c. The proposed amendment involves no text change to the comprehensive plan, but proposes only a land use change to the future land use map, thereby satisfying section 163.3187(l)(c)l.d. The property at issue is not located in an area of critical state concern and therefore satisfies section 163.3187(l)(c)l.e. See § 380.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2005) (authorizing the State Administration Commission to adopt a rule designating an area as one of critical state concern); § 380.05(21), Fla. Stat. (2005) (requiring the state land planning agency to record a legal description of the boundaries of any area designated as an area of critical concern “in the public records of the county ... in which the area ... is located)”; see also § 380.055, Fla. Stat. (2005) (titled the “Big Cypress Conservation Act of 1973,” designating the “Big Cypress Area” as an area of critical state concern); § 380.0551, Fla. Stat. (2005) (designating the “Green Swamp Area” as an area of critical state concern); § 380.0552, Fla. Stat. (2005) (cited in section 163.3187(l)(c)l.e., titled the “Florida Keys Area Protection Act,” designating “the Florida Keys Area as an area of critical state concern”); § 380.0555, Fla. Stat. (2005) (titled the “Apalachicola Bay Area Protection Act,” designating the “Apalachicola Bay Area” as an area of critical state concern). Finally, the proposed amendment involves a residential use in an urban infill area and therefore satisfies section 163.S187(l)(c)l.f. See Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Policy LU-1.1.11 (“The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay ... as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami-Dade County’s designation of an Urban Infill Area”); Policy TR-1.1.1 (“The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay ... as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami-Dade County’s designation of an Urban Infill Area”).

Because this amendment satisfies each and every one of these provisions — the only provisions that apply — there was no need for “long range planning” or input from any agencies, departments, or groups as the opinion suggests. This court should, therefore, have confined its consideration to whether the instant small scale amendment was consistent with the remainder of the Plan and supported by the evidence.

2. There is no inconsistency between the Port of Miami River sub-element and this small scale amendment no matter how the term “Port of Miami River” is defined.

The ALJ did not err in determining that there is no inconsistency between the POMR sub-element and the instant small scale amendment.

Section 163.3187 provides that comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the “internal consistency” of the Plan. § 163.3187(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). Riverside sought to amend only the future land use map element of the City’s plan to change the Industrial designation of this particular property to Restricted Commercial. This change created no inconsistency with the POMR sub-element of the Plan.

First, the record confirms that the ALJ in this case took extensive testimony on the meaning and application of this sub-element. Ms. Slazyk, the current planning director’s representative, testified that she was employed by the City’s planning department when this optional sub-element was adopted. According to Ms. Slazyk, this element was included in the City’s Plan to make it compatible with the County’s Plan which made provision for the heavy industrial uses located in that portion of the river located in the County. The County’s portion of the river, which extends inland or westward from 27th avenue, is known as the upper-river and is where most of the shipping terminals and heavy industrial uses on the river are located. The property at issue here, as Ms. Slazyk confirmed, is located in the mid-river, an area of mixed uses including industrial, commercial, residential, and office uses. In fact, at least two single family residential neighborhoods — one of which is an Appellant here — are located in this section of the river and are in the same neighborhood.

According to Ms. Slazyk, from the time the POMR sub-element was adopted in 1992 through the date of the current applications, this element has consistently been interpreted by the City as applying only to those shipping terminals expressly referred to in the sub-element:

Q. The question was: At the time that the 14 shipping companies were identified by the county, to the best of your knowledge is that a complete list of the shipping companies?
A. To the best of my knowledge, this was the best data available at that time.
Q. Okay. And in terms of the [C]ity’s interpretation of that list, am I correct that the goals, objectives and policies under the Port of Miami Sub-Element only to those 14 shipping companies?
A. The interpretation has been that these are the ones that were identified by definition in the Comprehensive Plan and since it is a defined term, that they apply to that defined term.

Also, Mr. Luft, Appellants’ expert, admitted that during his tenure as Director of Planning for the City, he never interpreted the term “Port of Miami River” as a collection of shipping industries supported by a variety of marine water-related activities rather than as 14 shipping companies as this sub-element expressly states.

On this testimony, the ALJ correctly concluded that the POMR sub-element was limited in application to shipping companies and therefore did not apply to this property. The ALJ rested this determination in part on an analysis of this court’s decision in Payne v. City of Miami, 927 So.2d 904, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) {Payne II), which reversed dismissal of a circuit court action challenging a zoning determination for lack of standing. Noting that this reversal was predicated on a bare record, the ALJ concluded that on the full evidentiary record before him, this property was not part of the POMR to which this sub-element applied.

This determination notwithstanding, the ALJ still considered this sub-element and concluded no matter how the term “Port of Miami River” is defined (that is, as either “a legal name used to identify some 14 independent privately owned small shipping companies located along the Miami River,” as expressly stated in the footnote to this element or as any other “use” on the banks of the river as stated in Payne II), this change to the land use map creates no internal inconsistency with this part of the Plan.

Second, the ALJ was correct because this limited change to the Plan is not in any manner inconsistent with either the stated purpose or the goals of this sub-element. The single stated goal of this sub-element is to “encourage” continued operation of the POMR, not to ensure its existence at the expense of other property owners on the Miami River:

PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES
Goal PA-3: The Port of Miami River, a group of privately owned and operated commercial shipping companies located at specific sites along the Miami River, shall be encouraged to continue operation as a valued and economically viable component of the city’s maritime industrial base.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Goal PA-3, (emphasis added).

The manner in which this goal is to be achieved is not through designations on the FLUM, but by enactment of land development regulations, that is, by enactment of zoning ordinances:

Objective PA-3.1: The City of Miami, through its Land development regulations [zoning 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 [zoning 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 [zoning 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 [zoning 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.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective PA-3.1, Policy PA-3.1.1,Policy PA-3.1.2, Policy PA-3.1.3. (Some emphasis added).

The instant land use designation change on the FLUM from Industrial to Restricted Commercial cannot, therefore, be incompatible with this objective and its policies for the simple reason that planning is not zoning and changing the Plan does not automatically result in a change in zoning. Snyder, 627 So.2d at 475 (observing “[t]he present use of land may, by zoning ordinance, continue to be more limited than the future use contemplated by the comprehensive plan”).

Third, this change in designation gives rise to no inconsistency with the remainder of the sub-element. The second Objective to this sub-element, Objective PA-3.2, and its single Policy deal with coordinating surface transportation access to the POMR with the mass transit system shown on the traffic circulation map:

Objective PA-3.2: The City of Miami shall coordinate the surface transportation access to the Port of Miami River with the traffic and mass transit system shown on the traffic circulation map series.
Policy PA-3.2.1: The City of Miami shall, through the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, coordinate intermodal surface and water transportation access serving the Port of Miami River.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective PA-3.2, Policy PA-3.2.1.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this Objective and its Policy apply to the instant amendment much less that the amendment is inconsistent with it.

The third Objective, PA-3.3, states only that the City of Miami will “coordinate its Port of Miami River planning activities with those of ports facilities providers and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and Miami-Dade County’s Port of Miami.” Its single Policy, PA-3.3.1, states that the City, “through its Intergovernmental Coordination Policies,” will support the functions of the Port of Miami River. See Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Objective PA-3.3, Policy PA-3.3.1. As to this Objective and Policy, the testimony was that this application was submitted to the Miami River Commission, the clearinghouse for all interests on the Miami River, which made a recommendation. This element requires only coordination with such an entity; it does not bind the City to its recommendations. The requirements of this Objective and Policy were met.

In sum, this small scale amendment to the FLUM to change the designation of Riverside’s property from Industrial to Restricted Commercial is not inconsistent with this sub-element.

Despite the fact that no inconsistency could be, nor was, demonstrated to exist between the POMR sub-element and the FLUM by virtue of this small scale amendment, the opinion focuses on Objective PA-3.1 of this sub-element and its policy regarding land development regulations — that is zoning ordinances — to conclude that the ALJ erred in not coming to the “inescapable legal conclusion ... that the FLUM amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” The opinion proceeds to observe:

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 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.

Payne, 06-2409, substituted opinion (additional emphasis added).

This conclusion and the analysis by which it is reached directly conflict with the determination made by both the Florida Supreme Court and this court that zoning ordinances must be consistent with a comprehensive plan, not the other way around. Specifically, the conclusion that because “the Riverside property was, for the most part, zoned SD-4.2 Waterfront Industrial ... its land use designation was by necessity, identified as Industrial,” Payne, 06-2409, substituted opinion, is directly contrary to the determination in Snyder that “[t]he local plan must be implemented through the adoption of land development regulations [zoning ordinances] that are consistent with the plan.” Snyder, 627 So.2d at 473, 474 (citation omitted) (“Because an order granting or denying rezoning constitutes a development order and development orders must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, it is clear that orders on rezoning applications must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.”); see also Coastal Development, 788 So.2d at 209 (stating that “a proposed zoning change ... must be consistent with the FLUM”); Machado, 519 So.2d at 632 (observing “local comprehensive plans ... are not zoning laws. [Chapter 163] require[s] that all zoning action conform to [the] approved land use plan”). As these decisions confirm, zoning follows planning; planning is not affected by zoning. Thus, the statement that because this property was zoned SD^4.2 it necessarily had to be designated as Industrial is wholly inimical to controlling law.

Likewise missing the point is the suggestion the instant amendment should be found inconsistent with the Plan because “the FLUM Amendment will permit residential use, a land use specifically precluded by the SD-4.2 land development classification ... Thus, by changing the land use, the FLUM Amendment by exclusion, dramatically changes the land development uses.” Payne, 06-2409, substituted opinion.

As the Supreme Court in Snyder confirmed, just because the land use designation changes does not mean a rezoning request will or must be granted:

Further, we cannot accept the proposition that once the landowner demonstrates that the proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plan, he is presumptively entitled to the use.... We do not believe that a property owner is necessárily entitled to relief by proving consistency when the board action is also consistent with the plan.

Snyder, 627 So.2d at 475.

A change in a land use designation does not, therefore, necessarily equate with a change in zoning.

In short, the fact that this parcel of property is zoned SD-4.2, is wholly irrelevant as to whether changing the land use designation of this property from Industrial to Restricted Commercial is consistent with the POMR sub-element. Moreover, because the POMR, as pertinent here, relates to land development orders — that is zoning — it too is wholly irrelevant and can give rise to no conflict with the instant amendment. Thus, I find that this court’s conclusion that the Department’s final order approving the ALJ’s determination had to be reversed because the ALJ failed to take into consideration “the goal, objectives, and policies of the Port of Miami River subelement [which relates to zoning],” is contrary to both the record and controlling law.

3. There is no inconsistency between this amendment and the Future Land Use element of the Plan.

The Future Land Use element sets forth broad goals for the City’s plan as a whole:

FUTURE LAND USE
Goal LU-1: Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and enhances the quality of life in the city’s residential neiyhborhoods; (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; (4) fosters the growth and development of downtown as a regional center of domestic and international commerce, culture and entertainment; (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts; and (6) protects and conserves the city’s significant natural and coastal resources.
Objective LU-1.2: Promote the redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened residential, commercial and industrial areas.
Objective LU-1.5: Land development regulations will protect the city’s unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural heritage.
Objective LU-1.6: Regulate the development or redevelopment of real property within the city to insure consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, Volume I, Goal LU-1, Objective LU-1.2, Objective LU-1.5, Objective LU-1.6. Changing the designation for this particular property on the FLUM creates no inconsistency with this element internally or otherwise.

The uncontradicted testimony from Ms. Slayzk, the assistant director of Planning for the City, was that this property and a number of others around it are vacant and derelict. According to this witness, this property is located in the mid-River, the section of the river where a mixture of industrial, commercial, office and residential uses currently exist. Both this expert and Appellants’ expert testified that for FLUM purposes, this parcel of property is included in the “Allapattah Planning District” and that the entire City has been designated as an urban infill area.

Concededly as part of the Allapattah Planning District and an urban infill area, this property is subject to both the “Smart Growth” and “Eastward Ho!” programs. The purpose of these programs — as both the City’s and the Appellants’ experts confirmed — is to encourage high density development in the City’s center, thereby halting sprawl and decreasing pressure on infrastructure and natural resources (the Everglades).

Changing the designation of this property, as Ms. Slazyk confirmed, furthers these goals. It also does so, again as confirmed by both experts, by providing inner city housing for some of the 20,000 to 30,000 people, over half of whom do not live in the City, and who work nearby in the Civic Center/Jackson Memorial/Veterans Administration/Cedars Hospital complex. It also results in revitalization of a crime ridden, declining area.

This testimony fully supports the ALJ’s determination that the instant small scale amendment to the FLUM to change the designation of this property from Industrial to Restricted Commercial will satisfy the LU-1 goals of (1) enhancing the “quality of life in the city’s residential neighborhoods”; (2) fostering “redevelopment and revitalization of blighted or declining areas”; (3) promoting and facilitating “economic development and the growth of job opportunities in the city”; (4) promoting the “efficient use of land”; and (5) conserving the City’s natural resources.

Rather than focusing on this testimony which fully supports the ALJ’s determination that the instant change in designation is consistent with this goal, the opinion reweighs the evidence to substitute its judgment for that of the City and the Department of Community Affairs. Specifically, the opinion concludes that that the ALJ’s conclusion 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 (1) not supported by the record and (2) based upon a false premise that the Riverside property is located in Allapattah.

With all due respect to the majority herein, the unrebutted testimony from both the City’s and Appellants’ experts was that this property is located in the “Allapattah Planning District,” and as per the comprehensive plan is in an urban infill area, and as such, is properly designated for revitalization. In addition to the testimony from the City’s expert that a large portion of the Allapattah Planning District is in decline and in need of revitalization, Appellants’ expert testified: (1) property on the river is in need of revitalization; (2) high density development is appropriate in areas designated for urban infill; (3) high density development brings people back to the City thereby fulfilling the goals of decreasing urban sprawl and preserving natural resources such as the Everglades; (4) the City should try to relocate people to properties (such as this) which are close to public transportation thereby decreasing traffic pressures; and (5) it is entirely proper to place a residential area next to an industrial site:

Q. You agree, do you not, that there are properties on the river that are in need of revitalization?
A. [by Appellants’ expert] Yes.
Q. And you agree that the Coastal site is in the Allapattah Planning District, correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And in fact, the city of Miami has basically been designated as an Urban Infill Area?
A. Yes, it has.
Q. You would agree, would you not, that high density is not a — that high density is a reasonable designation or use in an Urban Infill Area?
A. Yes, it’s one of them. It would depend entirely on exactly where, but certainly an important part of what Urban Infill is about.
Q. And in fact, would you agree with me that one of the major problems that cities are having right now is traffic congestion?
A. That’s an understatement, yes.
Q. ... In fact, in the greater Miami area, would you agree that there’s an average of close to three cars per family?
A. Yeah, in Miami-Dade County.
Q. Yes. And in fact, one of the ways of dealing with traffic congestion is — would you agree that there is a term called urbanism or the new urbanism?
A. Yes.
Q. And that among other things is that you should not be afraid of high density development in the Urban Infill Area, correct?
A. Yes. I mean, everybody — as I said, it definitely has a proper place. And even though some people are not comfortable with it, it definitely is an important part of revitalizing a city.
Q. Because one of the things you want to do as a planner is to halt the suburban sprawl with various subdivisions that would go into the Everglades, west into the Everglades or endanger the Everglades, correct?
A. Yes, that’s Eastward Ho and Urban Infill.
Q. That’s to bring people back from the western regions so to speak of the city and the county?
A. Correct. Or not let them go there in the first place.
Q. You would agree, would you not that it would be proper to permit an industrial site to be maintained and operate next to a residential area?
A. It can be done, yes. It depends on whether there’s shared access and the nature of the residential and whether there are buffers and performance standards applied. It can be done.
Q. Well, do you recall your deposition in the Royal Atlantic case?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. June 80, 2004, tried before Judge Stampelos?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you recall page 58?
“Q. Therefore, in your opinion it would be a proper plan to permit a industrial site, an activity next to a residential area?”
“A. I have no problem with that.”
“Q. None at all?”
“A. None at all.”
Do you recall being asked those questions and giving those answers?
A. Uh-hum.
Q. Yes, sir?
A. Yes, sir.

The ALJ’s conclusion that this property is located in Allapattah, even if imprecise, is, therefore, not only correct but also fully supported by the evidence. So too is his conclusion that it is located in an urban infill area.

Of course, a neighbor’s testimony that traffic will increase if additional uses are permitted in a neighborhood is not competent, substantial evidence on this subject as the opinion apparently concludes. See DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla.1957) (stating that competent substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion); City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Found., Inc., 857 So.2d 202, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (observing that “generalized statements in opposition to a land use proposal, even those from an expert, should be disregarded”). Again, we need look no further than Appellants’ own expert, who although having acted as the City’s director of planning for three years, testified that not even he was qualified to testify on the subject. Since there is no other evidence on the subject of traffic congestion, the opinion’s conclusion that strain on traffic makes this change inconsistent with this element, cannot stand.

There is also no testimony as to how this amendment is inconsistent with LU-1(6) which states that the City shall maintain a land use pattern that protects “the city’s significant natural and coastal resources.” (Emphasis added). As for protecting natural resources, the only testimony was that bringing people back to the City center will preserve the Everglades (and thus the City’s water supply) from increasing urban sprawl. There is no testimony as to what the term “coastal resources” encompasses, much less that this change will not protect them. The fact that fifty percent of the properties on the Miami River formerly used by marine industries no longer enjoy such use does not equate with a determination that coastal resources — whatever that means — in the entire City are not being protected.

In the absence of any testimony regarding coastal resources in the City, the opinion discerns an inconsistency between this Plan amendment and this element by castigating “piecemeal” small scale amendments such as this, which according to the opinion have resulted since 2000, in a fifty percent decline in the number of properties “designated for marine industrial water-related and water dependent uses along the banks of the Miami river.” Payne, 06-2409, substituted opinion. “Piecemeal” changes are, however, precisely what section 163.3187 authorizes, and a decline in the number of properties designated for marine industrial water related or water dependent uses cannot be equated with a destruction of coastal resources. The coast as a resource still exists, in this case only the manner in which it will be used will change.

No inconsistency between this small scale amendment and this element was demonstrated to exist.

4. There is no inconsistency between this amendment and the Coastal Management element of the Plan.

The instant change also creates no inconsistency with the Coastal Management Element of the Plan. This element states that the City will provide an “adequate” supply of land for water dependent uses by allowing no net loss of acreage devoted to water dependent uses in the “coastal area of the City

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, Volume I, Goal CM-3, Objective CM-3.1.

Appellants presented no testimony whatsoever as to the “net” number of acres devoted to “water dependent” uses in the coastal area of the City. Nor did they present evidence as to whether this amendment will result in a “net” loss of acreage devoted to such uses in the “coastal area of the City.” More to the point, changing the FLUM designation of this property from Industrial to Restricted Commercial — the change of which is all that is involved in this amendment — implicates no change in water use, dependent or otherwise:

Industrial: The areas designated as “industrial” allow manufacturing, assembly and storage activities. The “Industrial” designation generally includes activities that would otherwise generate excessive amounts of noise, smoke, fumes, illumination, traffic, hazardous wastes, or negative visual impact unless properly controlled. Stockyards, rendering works, smelting and refining plants and similar activities are excluded. Residential uses are not permitted in the “industrial” designation, except for rescue missions, and live-aboards in commercial marinas.

Miami Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan, Vol. I. Interpretation of the Future Land Use Map, p. 18, paragraph 3.

Changing the land use designation of this property to Restricted Commercial, which like the Industrial designation, mandates no water uses at all, cannot, therefore, create an internal inconsistency with this element of the Plan. To get around this result, the opinion falls back on zoning regulations recommended in the Miami River Master Plan:

[Wjhile diversification and mixed-use classifications may be desirable in certain locations along the Miami River, 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.
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.

Payne, 06-2409, substituted opinion.

This reliance on zoning ordinances as provided for in the Miami River Master Plan is unavailing for two reasons. First, and as already stated, zoning regulations and orders are not relevant to a complian-cy determination:

[L]and development regulations are not relevant to a plan or plan amendment compliance determination. Land development regulations must be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, not the other way around. The comprehensive plan is implemented by appropriate land development regulations.

Robbins v. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs, 1997 WL 1432207, at *7 (DOAH Dec. 9, 1997) (citations omitted); Smith v. Panama City, 2005 WL 2484796, 20 (DOAH Oct. 6, 2005) (“ ‘[Cjonsistency with land development regulations is not a compliance criterion,’ because it is not required by the definition of ‘in compliance’ with Subsection 163.3184(l)(b).” (quoting Brevard County v. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs & City of Palm Bay, Case Nos. 00-1956GM and 02-0391GM, 2002 WL 31846455, at *11 (DOAH Dec. 16, 2002; DCA Feb. 25, 2003))); see also Machada, 519 So.2d at 632.

Second, the Miami River Master Plan, on which this portion of the opinion relies, supports rather than undermines the instant amendment. The Miami River Master Plan is a report that was adopted in principle by the City in 1992. This report or plan has never become, by amendment or otherwise, part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and cannot, therefore, give rise to any inconsistency with the instant amendment.

Moreover, this plan, devised some thirty years after the studies relied on by the majority, confirms that the economic significance of water dependent and water related uses along the Miami River have been and are in decline:

Problems Facing Small Boatyards and Marinas
While there are a number of boat repair facilities that have a growing business, many of the marinas and small boatyards (under 10 employees) on the Miami River have experienced a contraction in business activity since 1985. In fact, four of the 26 small boatyards and marinas identified in 1985 by the draft Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan, are no longer in business nor have they been replaced by a marine business.
One factor affecting this decline has been the rapid expansion of competing facilities in Broward County.... The problems for marinas and small boatyards have been deepened by the recessionary climate.... Further, the reputation of the river as a hurricane sanctuary was undermined as a result of statements by the South Florida Water Management District (later retracted) regarding the potential of a wall of flood water being released into the Miami River from the Everglades....
[The Seafood Industry]
There have been significant changes in the character of the fishing industry during the last several decades resulting from the level of catch available domestically, competitiveness of U.S. fishing vessels, and the economics of the processing and distribution end of the business.
The current level of direct employment in both processing and wholesale activity by Miami River fisheries is 150. In the survey of businesses on the river, comments from the owners of these fish establishments indicated that much of the seafood arrived by truck, and that the Keys and the airport were important sources. Although for many, location on the waterfront is no longer critical to their operation, the Miami River area does provide good access to major arte-rials and the proximity to the ah* and sea ports.

Miami River Master Plan at 1.8,1.10.

While anticipating that the marine shipping industry would likely expand to displace marinas and boatyards, the Miami River Master Plan also recognizes that it would be inappropriate to permit such uses with its “heavy truck traffic ... and unsightly outdoor storage of cargo or construction materials and equipment” to be located in residential neighborhoods, especially since there was room for that industry to grow on parcels already devoted to such use, and because placing such uses in residential neighborhoods was inappropriate:

Ironically, it is ... [the] marine industry — the shipping terminals — that are most likely during the next 5 years to displace the marinas, boatyards, etc.

Miami River Master Plan at 1.12.

Although much of the anticipated growth in the shipping industry can be accommodated by more efficient use of existing terminals and cargo vessels, there will inevitably be new entrepreneurs seeking to open additional shipping terminals along the Miami River. There are approximately 8 acres of vacant or undeveloped land along the river that could be converted to terminal use without a change of zoning. Roughly 38 additional acres could be obtained by displacement of existing marginal businesses. However some of this land is not appropriate for shipping terminals and other industrial uses because it is adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

Miami River Master Plan at 1.7 (emphasis added).

The solution devised by this report was to impose two zoning categories along the river: SD^Ll, Waterfront Commercial, which would permit marinas, boatyards, fisheries, boat sales and service, and mixed use (limited restaurant or residential with water-dependent use), and SD-4.2, Waterfront Industrial, which would permit shipping terminals, marine contractors, commercial shipyards, towing and salvage, and all SD4L1 uses other than residential. See Miami River Master Plan at 1.12. Recognizing that “[i]n certain situations, there needs to be flexibility to incorporate non-water-dependent uses with marine commercial uses to create an economically viable mixed-use waterfront development” to include “the addition of some residential units or a restaurant could help a distressed marina,” the suggested zoning category for this property was SD-4.1, Waterfront Commercial. See Miami River Master Plan at 1.12 — .13.

Thus, even if it were appropriate to consider this report, it would not support a result different from that reached. First, there is no evidence that any of the conditions anticipated by the report, and on which its recommendations were based, have been realized. Second, the report anticipates the necessity encompassed in this amendment. Third, because the report never became part of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, it could not properly be considered in this Plan amendment proceeding. See § 163.3187(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (“Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan”) (emphasis added); see also § 163.3177(2), Fla. Stat. (2005) (providing that the “several elements of the [local] comprehensive plan shall be consistent”). And, finally, consideration of the zoning regulations recommended by this report is wholly inappropriate here. Again, no inconsistency between this amendment and this element has been demonstrated.

CONCLUSION

The City of Miami made a legislative decision to grant a property owner’s application for a small scale amendment to the future land use element of the City’s Plan as expressly permitted by law. When challenged, on administrative review, the ALJ hearing the matter found the City’s decision to be supported by the evidence and “fairly debatable.” The Department of Community Affairs agreed with that determination and found the amendment to be in compliance. Because this decision is fully supported by both the evidence and applicable controlling law, it should have been affirmed. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated herein, I would grant rehearing en banc, withdraw the current opinion and affirm.

GERSTEN, SHEPHERD, and SUAREZ, JJ., concur.

Endnotes

'By law a local comprehensive land use plan must include a number of elements, one of which is a future land use element. The future land use map (FLUM) is a component of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. See § 163.3177(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005).

A comprehensive plan is composed of several elements. One element of the comprehensive plan is the future land use element. The future land use element designates “proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public buildings and grounds, other public facilities, and other categories of the public and privates uses of land.” The future land use map (FLUM) is a component of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. See Yusem, 690 So.2d at 1292. The FLUM is a pictorial depiction of the future land use element and is supplemented by written “goals, policies, and measurable objectives.”

Coastal Dev. of N. Fla., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So.2d at 207-08 (footnotes omitted); see also § 163.3177, Fla. Stat. (2006) (delineating the mandatory and optional elements of comprehensive plans).

" Policy LU-1.5.1: Development orders in the city will be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Natural Resource Conservation and Coastal Management elements of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.

Policy LU-1.6.5: The City will continue to use special district designations as a land development regulation instrument for the purpose of accomplishing specific development objectives in particular areas of the city.

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 the 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 the maritime industry that complements, and often competes with, the Port of Miami River.

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. Policy CM-3.1.1: Future land use and development regulations will encourage water dependent uses along the shoreline.

Objective LU-1.4: Continue the growth of Downtown Miami, expand its role as a center of domestic and international commerce, further its development as a regional center for the performing arts and other cultural and entertainment activities and develop an urban residential base.

Goal HO-2: Achieve a livable city center with a variety of urban housiny types for persons of all incomes.

Objective HO-2.1: Achieve a livable downtown with a variety of urban housing types for persons of all income levels.

Policy TR-1.5.11: Through enforcement of applicable provisions of Section 14-182 “Transportation Control Measures” of the City Code, the City will seek to require new large-scale development to adopt and enforce measures that will reduce the generation of new single-occupant passenger car trips in areas of high-density development, and encourage the use of multiple-occupant vehicles, including public transit, for home-based work trips. The City will coordinate with the Downtown TMI and South Florida Commuter Services to provide support for transportation demand initiatives undertaken by new developments.

Policy NR-1.1.5: Regulate development on Virginia Key to ensure that there will be no net loss of functional wetlands; that beaches and dune systems on the island will not be degraded or disrupted; and that wildlife habitats and native species of fauna and flora will be protected.

Policy SS-1.3.3: Since the sanitary sewer network is an interconnected, county-wide system, the departments of Public Works and Planning will cooperate with Miami-Dade County WASA Department to jointly develop methodologies and procedures for biannually updating estimates of system demand and capacity.

Policy PW-1.1.1: Since the potable water network is an interconnected, countywide system, the City departments of Public Works and Planning will cooperate with Miami-Dade County WASA Department to jointly develop methodologies and procedures for biannually updating estimates of system demand and capacity, and ensure that sufficient capacity to serve development exists. (See Natural Resource Conservation Policy NR-2.1.4.)

iH Goal LU-1: Maintain a land use pattern that (1) protects and 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; ... (5) promotes the efficient use of land and minimizes land use conflicts....

Policy LU-1.1.1: Development orders authorizing new development or redevelopment that results in an increase in the density or intensity of land use shall be contingent upon the availability of public facilities and services that meet or exceed the minimum LOS standards adopted in the CIE.

Policy LU-1.1.2: The City’s Planning Department, with the assistance of various City departments and agencies, shall be responsible for monitoring the current and projected LOS provided by public facilities. The Planning Department shall perform the required concurrency review of proposed development for submittal to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as required by Florida statutes and administrative rules.

Policy LU-1.1.10: The City’s land development regulations will encourage high-density residential development and redevelopment in close proximity to Metrorail and Metromover stations, consistent with the Station Area Design and Development Plan for each station. (See Transportation Policy TR-1.5.2 and Housing Policy HO-1.1.9.)

Objective LU-1.2: Promote the redevelopment and revitalization of blighted, declining or threatened residential, commercial and industrial areas.

Objective LU-1.3: The City will continue to encourage commercial, office and industrial development within existing commercial, office and industrial areas; increase the utilization and enhance the physical character and appearance of existing buildings; and concentrate new commercial and industrial activity in areas where the capacity of existing public facilities can meet or exceed the minimum standards for Level of Service (LOS) adopted in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE).

Policy LU-1.3.6: The City will continue to encourage a diversification in the mix of industrial and commercial activities and tenants through strategic and comprehensive marketing and promotion efforts so that the local economy is buffered from national and international cycles. Particular emphasis is on, but not limited to, Southeast Overtown/Park West, Latin Quarter, Little Haiti, Little River Industrial District, River Corridor, the Garment District and the Omni area.

Objective LU-1.4: Continue the growth of Downtown Miami, expand its role as a center of domestic and international commerce, further its development as a regional center for the performing arts and other cultural and entertainment activities and develop an urban residential base.

Objective LU-1.5: Land development regulations will protect the city’s unique natural and coastal resources, and its historic and cultural heritage.

Objective LU-1.6: Regulate the development or redevelopment of real property within the city to insure consistency with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

Policy LU-1.6.1: The “Interpretation of the Future Land Use Plan Map” section of this element, which follows these land use goals, objectives and policies, establishes the activities and facilities allowed within each land use category appearing on the Future Land Use Plan Map, and the City’s land development regulations shall be consistent with this section of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan.

Policy LU-1.6.4: Any proposal to amend the City’s zoning ordinance that has been deemed to require an amendment to the Future Land Use Plan Map by the Planning Department, shall require a concurrency review and a finding from the Planning Department that the proposed amendment will not result in a LOS that falls below the adopted minimum standards, and will not be in conflict with any element of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan. Based on its evaluation, and on other relevant planning considerations, the Planning Department will forward a recommended action on said amendment to the Planning Advisory Board, which will then forward its recommendation to the City Commission.

Goal PA-3: The Port of Miami River, a group of privately owned and operated commercial shipping companies located at specific sites along the Miami River, shall be encouraged to continue operation as a valued and economically viable component of the city’s maritime industrial base.

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. [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].

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 those of ports facilities providers and regulators including the U.S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and Miami-Dade County’s Port of Miami.

Policy HO-1.1.9: The City’s land development regulations will encourage high-density residential development and redevelopment in close proximity to Metrorail and Metromover stations, consistent with the Station Area Design and Development Plan for each station. (See Land Use Policy LU-1.1.10 and Transportation Policy TR-1.5.2.)

Policy HO-2.1.4: The City will continue to promote development of new, high quality, dense urban neighborhoods along the Miami River, in Central Brickell and in Southeast Overtown/Park West through Special District (SD) zoning.

Goal TR-1: Maintain an effective and cost efficient traffic circulation network within the City of Miami that provides transportation for all persons and facilitates commercial activity, and which is consistent with, and furthers, neiyhbor-hood plans, supports economic development, conserves eneryy, and protects and enhances the natural environment.

Policy TR-1.1.1: The City hereby adopts designation of the City, excluding Virginia Key, Watson Island and the uninhabited islands of Biscayne Bay that have a land use and zoning classification of Conservation, as an Urban Infill Area pursuant to Miami-Dade County’s designation of an Urban Infill Area lying generally east of the Palmetto Expressway and including all of the City of Miami. Within this area, the concentration and intensification of development around centers of activity shall be emphasized with the goals of enhancing the livability of residential neighborhoods and the viability of commercial areas. Priority will be given to infill development on vacant parcels, adaptive reuse of under utilized land and structures, and the redevelopment of substandard sites. Maintenance of transportation levels of service within this designated Urban Infill Transportation Concurrency Exception Area shall be in accordance with the adopted Transportation Corridors level of service standards set forth in Policies TR-1.1.2 and TR-1.1.3 of the Transportation Element of the MCNP. (See Land Use Policy LU-1.1.11.)

Policy TR-1.5.10: Through application of the provisions of its land development regulations, the City shall encourage residential development near large employment centers in order to minimize Commutes within the City and near the large employment centers. The City shall continue to update the land development regulations, as necessary, to ensure the regulations promote residential development near large employment centers and investigate opportunities for mixed-use developments.

Objective NR-1.3: Maintain and enhance the status of native species of fauna and flora.

Objective NR-3.2: Prevent the degradation of ambient air quality within the city.

Policy NR-3.2.1: Establish vehicular transportation patterns that reduce the concentration of pollutants in areas known to have ambient air quality problems.

Policy NR-3.2.2: Support those elements of the Miami-Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan that encourage the use of Metrorail and Metromover by directing high density new development or redevelopment first to areas nearest Me-trorail and Metromover stations, and those land use policies that do not foster the proliferation of employment centers in the suburban areas of the county. (See Transportation Objective TR-1.5 and associated policies.)

Policy NR-3.2.3: Work with the County transportation planning agencies to continue to increase the quality of mass transit services within the city.

Goal CM-4: Ensure public safety and the protection of property within the coastal zone from the threat of hurricanes.

Objective CM-4.1: Minimize the potential for loss of human life and the destruction of property from hurricanes.

Policy CM-4.1.5: Each proposed future land use map change within the Coastal High Hazard area of the city will require an analysis of its potential impact on evacuation times and shelter needs in the event of a hurricane.

Objective PW-1.2: Ensure adequate levels of safe potable water are available to meet the needs of the city. (See Natural Resource Conservation Objective NR-2.1.)

Policy PW-1.2.1: Ensure potable water supplies meet the established level of service standards for transmission capacity of 200 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). (See Natural Resource Conservation Policy NR-2.1.5 and Capital Improvements Policy CI-1.2.3.)

Policy CI-1.2.3: Acceptable Level of Service Standards for public facilities in the City of Miami are: a) Recreation and Open Space — 1.3 acres of public park space per 1000 residents, b) Potable Water Transmission Capacity — 200 gallons/resident/day. (See Potable Water Policy PW-1.2.1 and Natural Resource Conservation Policy NR-2.1.5.). c) Sanitary Sewer Transmission Capacity — 100 gallons/resi-denVday. d) Storm Sewer Capacity — Issuance of any development permit shall require compliance with a drainage level of service standard of a one-in-five-year storm event. For the storm drainage system as a whole, 20 percent of the existing system will be brought to a standard of a one-in-five-year storm event by 2000. e) Solid Waste Collection Capacity — 1.28 tons/resident/year, f) Traffic Circulation— The minimum level of service standard on limited access, arterial, and collector roadways that are not within designated Transportation Corridors is LOS E, with allowable exceptions and justifications therefore, with LOS measured by conventional Y/C methodology. Within designated Transportation Corridors, which include approximately 95% of the roadway mileage within the City of Miami, a minimum LOS E is also maintained, but the measurement methodology is based on peak-hour person-trips wherein the capacities of all modes, including mass transit, are used in calculating the LOS. Specific levels of service by location and mode are set out in Policies 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 of the Transportation Policies in the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000.

      . Ordinance Number 12761.

      . The first reading was on July 28, 2005, and the ordinance was ultimately passed by the City on January 26, 2006. Because the FLUM Amendment was sought as a small scale development pursuant to section 163.3187, Fla. Stat. (2005), the City approved the Amendment under the 2005 version of the statute, and the ALJ applied the 2005 version of the statute in performing his analysis, we will confine our review to the 2005 statutory provisions.

      . Merrill Stevens is a long-standing marine business on the Miami River. Dr. Bohnsack testified that Merrill Stevens recently completed a large expansion of its operation, it is doing quite well, and it is going to be able to service larger yachts.

      . Brisas was recently granted a FLUM Amendment. This Court has also reversed that decision. See Durham Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. City of Miami, 32 Fla. L. Weekly D2538,-So.3d-(Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 24, 2007).

      . The River Master Plan was adopted in 1992. Thus, the data is reflective of available water-dependent land at that time.

      . See City Resolution 0030 requesting the Miami River Commission to make recommendations on any item that impacts the Miami River.

      . The opinion which follows contains both footnotes, as indicated by Arabic numerals (1, etc.), and endnotes, as indicated by Roman numerals (i, etc.).

      . The fairly debatable standard of review that is to be applied to the instant section 163.3187 small scale amendment is a "highly deferential” standard which mandates approval of such a FLUM amendment where, for any reason, it can be said that such a legislative decision is open to dispute on grounds that make sense:
      The fairly debatable standard of review is a highly deferential standard requiring approval of a planning action if reasonable persons could differ as to its propriety. In other words, an ordinance may be said to be fairly debatable when for any reason it is open to dispute or controversy on grounds that make sense or point to a logical deduction that in no way involves its constitutional validity.

        Yusem, 690 So.2d at 1295 (citations and initial quotation marks removed); Coastal Development, 788 So.2d at 205 n. 1.

      . The parties relied on the August 2004 version of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan, which is quoted extensively herein, with emphasis as in original.

      . While the ALJ did permit claims addressing those provisions relating to land use development orders, he ultimately concluded that those provisions were inapplicable to this compliancy determination.

      . There are, in fact, two residential neighborhoods abutting the river in this area, Spring Garden and Durham Park. Additionally, at least one condominium development and some rental apartments, which also abut the river, are located in this mid-river area.

      . Jack Luft, who conceded that he had no expertise in this subject, testified generally about the City’s traffic congestion. Herbert Payne, a tugboat captain, testified that more traffic on the 22nd Avenue bridge would make it more difficult for the bridge to be opened for ships to pass through. And Mr. Aguirre, president of the Durham Park Neighborhood Association, testified about the delays Durham Park residents endure when the 22nd Avenue bridge is open. Such testimony is not competent substantial evidence as to whether level of service requirements will be met. See DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla.1957) (stating that competent substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion); City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Found., Inc., 857 So.2d 202, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (observing that “generalized statements in opposition to a land use proposal, even those from an expert, should be disregarded”).

      . Section 163.3180(2)(a) of the Florida Statutes, governing concurrency, expressly authorizes local governments to “consult with the applicable water supplier to determine whether adequate water supplies” will be available and has until issuance of "a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent” to do so.

      . Objective PA-3.1: The City of Miami, through its Land development regulations [zoning ordinances], 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. (Some emphasis added).

      . Policy PA-3.1.2: The City shall, through its land development regulations [zoning ordinances], 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. (Some emphasis added).

      . See § 163.3187(3)(b) 1-2, Fla. Stat. (2005) ("If the administrative law judge recommends that the small scale development amendment be found in compliance, the administrative law judge shall submit the recommended order to the state land planning agency.... If the state land planning agency determines that the plan amendment is in compliance, the agency shall enter a final order within 30 days following its receipt of the recommended order.”).

      . As explained later in this opinion, in Payne v. City of Miami, 927 So.2d 904, 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (Payne II), this court interpreted the term "Port of Miami River” as encompassing more than just the fourteen shipping companies referenced in the Comprehensive Plan to include other "uses along the banks of the Miami River.”

      . That footnote provides:
      Port of Miami River1
      1 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.

      . This testimony from the individual charged in the comprehensive plan with determining concurrency and consistency with the comprehensive plan, is competent substantial evidence. See City of Hialeah Gardens v. Miami-Dade Charter Found., Inc., 857 So.2d 202, 205 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (confirming that the testimony of professional staff, when based on "professional experiences and personal observations, as well as [information contained in an] application, site plan, and traffic study” constitutes competent substantial evidence); Palm Beach County v. Allen Morris Co., 547 So.2d 690, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (confirming that professional staff reports analyzing a proposed use constituted competent substantial evidence); Metro. Dade County v. Fuller, 515 So.2d 1312, 1314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (stating that staff recommendations constituted evidence); Dade County v. United Res., Inc., 374 So.2d 1046, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (confirming that the recommendation of professional staff "is probative”).

      . Needless to say this is contrary to the law and a substantial body of case law. See, e.g., § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005) (stating that "the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact”); Roche Sur. and Cas. Co., Inc. v. Dep't of Fin. Servs., Office of Ins. Regulation, 895 So.2d 1139, 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("On appellate review of the agency order, the issue for the appellate court is whether the record contains evidence sufficient to support the original finding of fact by the ALJ.”); Yaeger v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 786 So.2d 48, 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (concluding that generally speaking, this court may not reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of the referee); Graham v. Estuary Props., Inc., 399 So.2d 1374, 1380 n. 10 (Fla.1981) ("The reviewing court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the agency on a finding of fact or the weight thereof.”); Lenard v. A.L.P.H.A. "A Beginning" Inc., 945 So.2d 618, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (observing that "[wjhen reviewing the findings and conclusions of a government agency, this court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the agency if competent, substantial evidence supports the agency's factual findings and the agency correctly applied the applicable statutory criteria. § 120.68(7), (8), Fla. Stat. (2005)”); Young v. Dep't of Educ., Div. of Vocational Rehab., 943 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) ("[I]t is the responsibility of the administrative law judge to evaluate and weigh the testimony and other evidence submitted at the hearing to resolve factual conflicts, and to arrive at findings of fact. It is not the role of the appellate court to reweigh the evidence anew.”); Mullins v. Dep’t of Law Enforcement, 942 So.2d 998, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) ("When factual findings are reviewed, the court must not substitute its judgment for that of the agency in assessing the weight of the evidence or resolving disputed issues of fact.”); Knight v. Winn, 910 So.2d 310, 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ("[Tjhis court may not ‘substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact.’ ” (quoting § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat.)); Quevedo v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 762 So.2d 982, 988 (Fla.4th DCA 2000) ("This court is 'prohibited from substituting [its] judgment for that of the agency in assessing the weight of the evidence resolving disputed factual issues.’ ” (quoting Perdue v. TJ Palm Assocs., Ltd., 755 So.2d 660, 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))); Pershing Indus., Inc. v. Dep't of Banking & Fin., 591 So.2d 991, 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("If an agency’s interpretation is one of several permissible interpretations, it must be upheld despite the existence of reasonable alternatives.”); Gershanik v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 458 So.2d 302, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (”[T]his court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to disputed findings of fact or as to weight of the evidence.”); Bd. of Regents v. Budjan, 242 So.2d 163, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970) ("It is well settled that the Commission is a fact-finding body and that this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.”); Pauline v. Lee, 147 So.2d 359, 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) (A reviewing court should not "substitute its judgment for that of the administrative fact finder who heard the testimony and was in a position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses.”).