STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 78-2183

) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) REGULATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in the above captioned matter, after due notice, at Miami, Florida, on May 10-11, 1979, before the undersigned Hearing Officer.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: G. Miriam Maer, Esq.

Assistant City Attorney City of Miami

174 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33133

For Respondent: Randall Denker, Esq. and

Sheri Smallwood, Esq.

Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether Petitioner should be granted a permit and water quality certification to fill 2.06 acres of submerged land in Biscayne Bay.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In April, 1976, Petitioner City of Miami, Florida (hereinafter "City"), filed application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter DER), for a construction permit and water quality certification to fill submerged land which it owned in Biscayne Bay adjacent to the City's Bayfront Park. The proposed project, as finally developed, was described by DER as follows:

   
   

   The project would involve the filling of

   2.06 acres of submerged land, owned by the City of Miami, in Biscayne Bay. A

   dock, varying in width from 15 to 45 feet, would be constructed adjacent to the bulkhead to provide temporary berthing

   space for 5 to 6 boats. Riprap would be placed waterward at the bulkhead and an artificial reef constructed next to the bulkhead/riprap.

   
   

   The stated purpose of the project by Petitioner in its letter of April 2, 1976, transmitting the application, was for the "redevelopment and eastward expansion of the present Bayfront Park." The application enclosed approval of the proposed project by the City Commission of the City of Miami and a biological assessment of the proposed construction by the Department of Natural Resources. (Exhibit 15)

   
   

2. The project assessment by the Department of Natural Resources was set forth in a letter to the City, dated April 16, 1975, and was predicted upon an original proposal to fill some 6 acres of submerged land. The agency stated that the sparsely vegetated intertidal zone of the proposed fill area was of limited biological significance, but that filling open-water area would permanently remove it from the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, and that the cumulative effect of many such fill projects could have massive adverse biological effects on the preserve. It concluded that restoration of productive intertidal communities should be encouraged by the addition of sloping riprap along the face of the existing seawall. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission contributed its views to the DER by a letter, dated July 14, 1976.

   It agreed that the area had limited biological productivity, but that filling it would result in permanent removal of open-water habitat from the preserve and set a precedent for similar projects. It therefore recommended that a permit not be issued. The Director of the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management, by letter of July 12, 1978, also provided an evaluation of the application to DER. He and his staff found that the proposed construction represented the least amount of filling necessary to eliminate an existing shoreline configuration which served to trap a variety of floating debris, and would eliminate an aesthetically undesirable condition adjacent to the park by improving water circulation. It also stated that the low biological productivity of the area was due to the lack of a suitable habitat for the establishment of a viable benthic community, and that the proposed riprap and artificial reef should provide such a habitat and thus increase the productivity of the area. He stated that the proposed shoreline treatment would allow greater access to the Bay by the non-boating public and additional access to the park by boaters using the proposed dock area. Accordingly, that agency recommended approval of the permit subject to certain conditions as to the method of construction and the prevention of turbidity during the construction process. A further report of the Director, dated July 25, 1978, stated that an underwater survey of the proposed area showed a low diversity of benthic invertebrates and concluded that filling the area would not destroy a viable productive community, but would cover a sparsely populated, unproductive, barren mud bottom. (Exhibits 4-5, 12-13).

   
   

3. The DER staff evaluation of the project, as contained in a report of Doctor Thomas L. Hart, agreed that the sparsely vegetated area which supported only small populations of various marine life would improve by the placement of riprap and an artificial reef by providing a habitat for a variety of invertebrates and protective cover for small fish. This report further found that filling the cove area would not destroy a productive marine community or produce a significant adverse water quality condition if proper techniques were used in the fill operation. Dr. Hart therefore concluded that the project met the requirements for a permit under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes. However, he concluded that the project would not qualify for an exemption under

   Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. He found that placement of riprap for seawalls was required under that Act and any benefits derived from the construction of the artificial reef could not be used to justify filling the submerged land. He also stated in his report that elimination of the cove area to prevent the collection of debris was unnecessary since alternative means of removing the unsightly material could be developed.

   Dr. Hart therefore recommended that the permit application be denied. This recommendation was adopted by the DER in its Intent to Deny and Proposed Order of Denial issued to the City on October 27, 1978, which predicated its proposed denial on the inability of the City to demonstrate compliance with Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. (Exhibits 11, 17).

   
   

4. The project will eliminate a cove created by the construction of Miamarina which is adjacent to the project area. The cove is bounded on its northern side by a 300 foot riprap revetment, on the western side by vertical sheet steel bulkhead fronting Bayfront Park, and on the eastern side by Biscayne Bay. A 1977 study of hydrodynamic factors affecting the area by an expert in oceanography and tide hydraulics showed that the cove was a "dead pocket" that, together with the adjacent riprap, collected floating debris in an eddy from lack of water circulation. He found that the debris, such as paper cups, old tires, and dead animals, and the like, was moved to the cove area by wind and that there was insufficient tidal action to flush it out of the area. He concluded that by redefining the shore to provide a straight line and extension of the outer bulkhead of the Miamarina to where it would meet the existing Bayfront Park bulkhead would provide maximum current velocity to move debris along the new bulkhead and eventually carry it into the Atlantic Ocean. He is of the opinion that any area of fill less than the 2.6 acres created by such a bulkhead would not sufficiently eliminate the existing problem of water circulation. Biological studies of the site by experts in the field show that it is a low area of biological productivity which is primarily attributable to turbidity of the waters and the silt-clay bottom which is anaerobic and receives stagnant material, thus providing degraded water quality and a poor habitat for the growth of plant and animal life. The proposed placement of riprap and the outside artificial reef below the low tide mark will provide places for attachment of marine organisms and an excellent refuge for a greatly increased variety of marine species. The marine organisms presently found in the area are much sparser than those in a normal area of the Bay. They are found mainly in the dredged mud bottom which is not considered to be a natural shoreline area. The collected debris at the site presents a serious maintenance problem for the City and engenders complaints from the public. Although greater than normal efforts are made to keep the area free of such litter, it is a continuing maintenance problem and detracts from the aesthetic value of the park and Biscayne Bay. (Testimony of Michel, Morrisey, Voss, Howard, Exhibits 1-3, 7-10, 14, 16).

   
   

5. The proposed project is part of a comprehensive plan to enlarge and restore Bayfront Park to integrate its facilities in the environment, improve the appearance of the area, and increase use of the Bay. It is planned that an amphitheater, restaurant, and promenade will be constructed at the filled site sometime in the future. (Testimony of Ambruster)

   
   

6. DER staff personnel who testified at the hearing agreed with the City's experts that the project site is not a natural condition and that conditions there are not conducive to the support of a large benthic population. They also agreed that the proposed construction has the potential for increasing biological productivity of the area. However, they were of the opinion that the project was unnecessary, would result in a loss of a portion of the Bay, and

   therefore was contrary to the intent of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. (Testimony of Jones, McWilliams, Hart)

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. Although Petitioner seeks a permit pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and a water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of Public Law 92-500, no issues concerning its entitlement to a permit under those provisions of law were raised by the parties. The sole question presented by the parties for determination is whether or not Petitioner's construction project is authorized under Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. Additionally, no question has been raised by the parties as to the City's ownership of the submerged lands in question.

   
   

8. The stated purpose of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act is set forth in Section 258.165(1) which states:

   
   

   It is the intent of the legislature that Biscayne Bay be preserved in an essentially natural condition so that its biological and aesthetic values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations.

   
   

   Subsection 258.165(3) provides pertinently as follows:

   
   

   (3) AUTHORITY OF TRUSTEES.--

   The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is authorized and directed to maintain the aquatic preserve hereby created pursuant and subject to the following provisions:

   * * *

   1. No further dredging or filling of submerged lands of the preserve shall be approved or tolerated by the Board of Trustees except:

      1. Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may be authorized for public navigation projects or for such

         minimum dredging and spoiling as may be constituted as a public necessity or for preservation of the bay according to the expressed intent of this section.

      2. Such other alteration of physical conditions as may be necessary to enhance the quality or utility of

         the preserve.

      3. Such minimum dredging and filling as may be authorized for the creation and maintenance of marinas, piers, and docks and their attendant navigation channels and access roads. Such projects may only be authorized upon

         a specific finding by the Board of Trustees that there is assurance that the project will not adversely affect

         the water quality of the preserve. This paragraph shall not approve the connection of upland canals to the waters of the preserve.

      4. Such dredging as is necessary for the purpose of eliminating conditions hazardous to the public health or for the purpose of eliminating stagnant waters, unsightly mud flats, islands, and spoil banks, the dredging of

   which would enhance the aesthetic quality and utility of the preserve and be clearly in the public interest

   as determined by the Board of Trustees.

   
   

   Any dredging or filling under this subsection or improvements under subsection (5) shall be approved only after public notice and hearings in the area affected, pursuant to Chapter 120.

   
   

   It is considered that the only exception pertinent to this case is the one set forth in Section 258.165(3)(b)2, since the others deal either with dredging or with filling specifically for the creation and maintenance of marinas, piers, and docks.

   
   

9. The City contends that filling the submerged lands in question to provide additional upland for the expansion of Bayfront Park with additional park facilities will improve Biscayne Bay's biological and aesthetic qualities, and enhance the quality and utility of the preserve. The City further claims that its construction will result in the creation of a more natural shoreline to replace the existing man-made vertical bulkhead. DER, however, contends that the City has failed to show that the project is necessary to enhance the quality or utility of the preserve as required by the statutory exception, and that the City could achieve its purposes by alternative methods.

   
   

10. The facts of this case are similar to those presented to the First District Court of Appeal in Berkley v. State Department of Environmental Regulation, 347 So.2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). There, an applicant sought to fill about two acres of submerged land in Biscayne Bay which had not previously been bulkheaded. His experts testified at the hearing that the bay bottom in the vicinity was anaerobic and the water quality poor and unproductive. They further testified that recessed areas on the property collected debris and trash since the property was not subject to normal flushing action of the Bay's waters. In their opinion filling and bulkheading by riprap construction, together with mangrove planting would encourage aquatic growth and facilitate the flow of water along the shore. The Court found that the evidence presented by the applicant required a finding that the project would enhance quality or utility of the preserve. In the instant case, the configuration of the present shoreline has also produced a cove or recessed area in which debris is collected. As in the Berkley case, the Bay bottom at that location is anerobic, debris is collected and the tidal flow is insufficient to eliminate the unsanitary and unsightly problem that exists. The evidence establishes that it is a very poor, unproductive plant and animal life community which can be significantly improved by the method of construction proposed by the City. In short, in order to enhance the quality and usefulness of the Bay at this

    particular site, it is necessary to fill the land to the extent requested in the application. Expert testimony was to the effect that any lesser fill area than that proposed would not accomplish the intended purposes. The fact that the city is also desirous of extending and enlarging Bayfront Park to enhance its usefulness and to provide a more aesthetic setting in which the public might enjoy the Bay does not negate or even lessen the justification for the project. Indeed, it is clearly in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act to upgrade and restore it to as natural a condition as possible in order that "its biological and aesthetic values may endure for the enjoyment of "future generations." It is therefore concluded that, although a small portion of the Bay will be eliminated, the proposed alteration of the present physical conditions in the area as proposed by the applicant are necessary to improve the quality and utility of the preserve, thus warranting approval of the application pursuant to subsection 258.165(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes.

    
    

11. The Proposed Recommended Orders submitted by the parties have been fully considered and those portions not incorporated herein are considered to be inapplicable or unwarranted in fact or law.

RECOMMENDATION

That the application of the City of Miami, Florida for the requested permit be approved, subject to standard and customary conditions attached to the issuance of such a permit.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this day of 14th day of August, 1979.

THOMAS C. OLDHAM

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

101 Collins Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Randall E. Denker, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental

Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301

G. Miriam Maer, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Miami

174 East Flagleer Street Miami, FL 33131

Jacob Varn, Secretary Department of Environmental

Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 78-2183

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, ET AL.,

Respondent.

/

BY THE DEPARTMENT:

FINAL ORDER

I INTRODUCTION

On August 14, 1979, the duly-appointed Hearing Officer submitted to the Department and all parties a Recommended Order in this matter, consisting of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a Recommendation. A copy of said Recommended Order is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".

Pursuant to Section 17-1.68(1), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 120.57(1)(b)(8), Florida Statutes, the parties were allowed ten (10) days in which to submit written exceptions to the Recommended Order. The Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, filed written Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order and requested oral argument on the exceptions, pursuant to Section 17-1.68(3), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner did not file exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order.

On September 26, 1979, I heard oral argument on the exceptions to the Recommended Order. G. Miriam Maer represented the Petitioner, City of Miami, and Randall E. Denker represented the Department of Environmental Regulation. At that time, I granted a Petition to Intervene filed by Friends of the Everglades, Tropical Audubon Society, Inc., and Sierra Club, upon the condition

that they accepted the record in the proceeding as it then existed and heard arguments by their attorney, James R. Brindell.

Arguments regarding a number of other motions filed by the Petitioner were heard on the same day and thereafter, the Recommended Order and exceptions came before me, as head of the Department, for final agency action in this matter, after consideration of the entire record, all pleadings and motions and the oral arguments of counsel for the Petitioners, the Department, and the Intervenors.

II MOTIONS

As stated previously, the Petition of Friends of the Everglades, Tropical Audubon Society, Inc., and the Sierra Club was granted, allowing those organizations to intervene on the condition that they accept the record in the proceeding as it presently existed. As a result, the Motion to Intervene previously filed by Friends of the Everglades is treated as having been merged into the Petition to Intervene and, effectively granted. Naturally, the Petitioner's motion opposing the Petition to Intervene is denied.

The Petitioner's Motion to Correct Record is hereby granted and it is duly noted that the Petitioner, City of Miami, filed no exceptions to the Hearing Officer's report. Petitioner's Motion To Strike Or In The Alternative, Motion For Entry Of Order In Conformance With Recommended Order Submitted By DOAH Hearing Officer Without Necessity Of Oral Argument On Exception Filed By Counsel For DER is denied.

III

Discussions of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact

No exceptions were filed to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and, accordingly, the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are hereby adopted in toto. However, for the purposes of discussion here, and without disturbing or altering them, it appears to be appropriate to summarize and highlight certain of the Findings of Fact.

The City of Miami desires to fill certain submerged lands covered by the waters of Biscayne Bay. The lands are owned by the City and are adjacent to the City's Bayfront Park. The 2.06 acres of submerged lands which the City proposes to fill are not, of themselves, very productive biologically and the work proposed by the City would be expected to increase productivity in the area. At least in part because of previous construction in areas adjacent to the submerged lands in question, the submerged lands under consideration here are no longer in their natural state and the construction proposed by the Petitioner would eliminate what has become a trap for debris and garbage emanating from various sources.

It is noteworthy that the Hearing Officer apparently found that the major objection to continuation of the status quo was that the lands in question formed the submerged portion of a cove which effectively removed debris and garbage from the bulk of Biscayne Bay. When the accumulated flotsam was unremoved, it could raise objections from users of Bayfront Park from an esthetic standpoint. No finding was made, however, to the effect that the

cove's action in collecting debris and garbage has an active, adverse effect on the bay itself, from an environmental standpoint.

IV

Discussion of the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law

No issue was raised in the proceedings below with respect to compliance of the proposed project with the requirements of Chapter 253 or 403, Florida Statutes. The proposed project is, therefore, deemed to be in compliance with such requirements.

The sole issue raised in the exceptions filed by the Department, by which the Intervenors are bound, is the question of whether the fourth Conclusion of Law submitted by the Hearing Officer is correct. After comparing the instant case with Berkley vs. State Department of Environmental Regulation, 358 So.2d

552 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the Hearing Officer concluded that the facts in the instant case complied with one of the limited exceptions to the general prohibition of further dredging or filling in the submerged lands of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, as set forth in Subparagraph 258.165(3)(b)2., Florida Statutes:

(b) No further dredging or filling of submerged lands of the preserve shall be approved or tolerated by the Board of Trustees except:

* * * * *

2. such other alteration of physical conditions as may be necessary to enhance the quality or utility of the preserve . . .

In Berkley, the First District court of Appeal found that the permit applicant's property had been excluded form the operation of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act (Section 258.165, Florida Statutes) by virtue of the operation of Subsection 258.40(1), Florida Statutes, which was adopted as part of the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act in Chapter 75-172, Laws of Florida, the year following the adoption of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act.

The Berkley Court focused on the second sentence of Subsection 258.40(1), Florida Statutes, dealing with privately owned lands or water bottoms. The first sentence of that subsection limits aquatic preserves established under the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act to lands or water bottoms owned by the State as set forth in Section 253.03, Florida Statutes, and specifically excludes submerged lands owned by other governmental agencies, except in the event that they are specifically authorized for inclusion by an appropriate written instrument from the agency involved.

Admittedly, the situation here is not identical. Publicly-owned submerged lands are not mentioned as being excluded in the introductory language of Section 258.39, Florida Statutes. In addition, Subsection (27) of Section 258.39, Florida Statutes, was amended by Section 76-0109, Laws of Florida, 1976, to require that the stronger of the provisions in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act (Section 258.165) and the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975 (Sections 258.35-258.46, Florida Statutes) be applied. It is also arguable that the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, having been established by Section 258.165 [see also the language contained in Subsection 258.39(27), Florida Statutes],

was meant to be excluded by the language of Subsection 258.40 (1) which says "[t]he aquatic preserve established under this act" [emphasis supplied], thus making the limitation of Subsection 258.40(1) inapplicable to the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve.

Nevertheless, the logic of the First District Court of Appeal in Berkley compels the conclusion that the provisions of Section 258.40, Florida Statutes, which restricts the scope of the aquatic preserves, do apply to the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Therefore, the submerged lands which are the subject of this proceeding and which are owned by the City of Miami are excluded from operation of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act, there being no evidence to show that these lands have been specifically authorized for inclusion in the Preserve.

Accordingly, it is concluded as a matter of law that the City of Miami's property is not within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve and that the provisions of Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, are not applicable to the subject property.

However, assuming arguendo that Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, is applicable to the City's property, I find and conclude that the City's proposed fill is not being made for the primary purpose of enhancing the quality or utility of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. As stated in Subsection 1 of Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, it was the Legislature's intent that the Biscayne Bay be preserved in an essentially natural condition and for that reason, dredge and fill activities were generally prohibited under Subsection 3 of the Act. Further, Subsection 4 of the Act required that rules be adopted to provide additional criteria for management of the Preserve and for regulation of human activity "in such a manner as not to interfere unreasonably with lawful traditional public uses of the Preserve, such as fishing . . . boating, and swimming." No such rules having been adopted, this agency is deprived of that potential source of guidance as to the kinds of activities which would be permitted or would be compatible with the Preserve. In the absence of such rules, and in light of the general prohibition of dredging and filling contained in Paragraph 258.165(3)(b), any permits granted for dredge and fill activities should clearly fall within the exceptions provided.

Such is not the case here. Although the area was found to be trap for debris or garbage (undoubtedly supplied by human activity), the Hearing Officer did not find that the area involved was a detriment to the Preserve. Thus, the necessity for its elimination is, at the least, unclear. Even assuming that the area to be filled was detracting from the utility or quality of the Preserve itself, the Hearing Officer indicates no evidence regarding alternative methods of reducing the ill effect other than varying the amount of fill, such as removal of the structures which created the offending debris trap.

Thus, as a matter of law and assuming the area to be within the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, it is concluded that the facts adduced by the City of Miami and found by the Hearing Officer show that the Preserve itself would be diminished; that traditional uses, such as boating, would be precluded in the area filled; that the activities involved will not clearly improve the quality or utility of the Preserve itself; and, further, that the necessity of the activities involved is in doubt.

Human nature being what it is, the temptation to tinker with nature in hopes of "improving" it is always present. But whether the filling proposed by the City here will improve things is not the question presented. In establishing the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, the Legislature stated its intent that the Bay be preserved and that dredging and filing be prohibited,

except in limited and extraordinary circumstances. Those limited exceptions should be strictly construed and applied, else a series of intended "improvements" could destroy substantial portions of the water body the legislation is designed to protect.

Most people would demand assurances that surgical removal of a portion of their body was essential to prevent injury to welfare of the remainder. In light of the statutory standards applicable to the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, no less a standard would be applicable here, were the area of concern included within its boundaries. The statute simply does not contemplate removal of a portion of the Preserve for cosmetic purposes.

V

Conclusion and Order

Having considered the Recommended Order, including Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the record in this matter, and the oral arguments of counsel, together with the Exceptions filed by the Department and various memoranda and Recommended Orders filed by the Petitioner, the Department, and the Intervenor, it is concluded that the applicant has met the requirements of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and, Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, not being applicable, the application of the City of Miami for the requested permit must be approved, subject to standard and customary conditions, and it is, therefore,

ORDERED by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, that the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are adopted in toto; Conclusion of Law No. 4 is altered in conformance herewith; and, the recommendation of the Hearing Officer, for the reasons set forth above, is adopted as final action of this agency and incorporated herein, and it is further

ORDERED that the Recommended Final Orders and the supporting memoranda submitted by the parties, having been fully considered, those portions not incorporated herein are considered to be inapplicable and unwarranted in fact or law.

DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

JACOB D. VARN

Secretary

Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301

FILED with the Department Clerk, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged this 28th day of September, 1979.

LINDA BEVARD

Department Clerk

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing "Final Order" has been furnished by first class mail to G. Miriam Maer, Esquire, Assistant City Attorney, City of Miami, 174 East Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33131; and to James R. Brindell, Esquire, Post Office Box 3103, Tallahassee, Florida 32303, this 1st day of October, 1979.

RANDALL E. DENKER

Assistant General Counsel

Docket for Case No: 78-002183

Orders for Case No: 78-002183