STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BECKY CLOSE, et al, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-2470

) CITY OF SARASOTA, and STATE OF ) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ) REGULATION, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in Bradenton, Florida on July 17, 1991, before Arnold H. Pollock, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Becky Close, pro se

1380 42nd Street

Sarasota, Florida 34234

William Hartman, pro se 1325 41st Street

Sarasota, Florida 34234

Robert Rhoades, pro se 1335 40th Street

Sarasota, Florida 34234

For Respondents: David M. Caldevilla, Esquire

de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. Post Office Box 172537 Tampa, Florida 33672-0537

Attorney for City of Sarasota

W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for consideration is whether the City of Sarasota should be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction of a dry line sewer system through the Petitioner's neighborhood.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Sometime in late March, 1991, Petitioner Becky Close received a copy of a Notice of Intent to Issue the permit in dispute here to the City of Sarasota. Ms. Close thereafter immediately delivered copies of the Department's Notice to other interested landowners in the affected neighborhood and by undated document, thereafter, along with certain of those affected neighbors, petitioned the Department for a formal hearing to protest the intended issuance of the subject permit.

On April 23, 1991, the Department forwarded the file to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer, and on July 1, 1991, after response by the parties to the Initial Order entered herein and substantial motion practice related to the sufficiency of the Petitioner's pleadings, the undersigned entered a Notice of Hearing setting the matter for hearing in Bradenton, Florida on July 17, 1991, at which time it was held as scheduled.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of several residents in the affected area and individuals who reside outside the area but are often there such as the mail carrier. They also presented the testimony of the Sarasota County Stormwater Management Division and the County Utility Plans Examiner and called as their witness Mr. Brown who had previously testified for the City. Petitioners also introduced Petitioners' Exhibits A through G.

The City presented the testimony of Joseph Brown, a registered professional engineer and an expert in engineering and sewer system design, construction and operation; and Edward Snipes, also a licensed professional engineer and an expert in sanitary engineering and sewer system design, permitting, construction and operation. It also introduced City Exhibits 1 through 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23 and 24. The Department called no witnesses of its own nor did it introduce any exhibits.

With the consent of all parties, the undersigned officially recognized Exhibit B to the City's Memorandum of Law; Sections 403.087, .21, and .081 and

381.031 and .261, Florida Statutes; Chapter 17-4 and 17-604, F.A.C.; and Secs. 42-1301 and 42-1437, U.S.C. The parties agreed that the area in question was located in the City of Sarasota and Sarasota County amd was bounded on the North by 45th Street, on the South by Myrtle Street, on the East by Central Avenue, and on the West by the drainage canal to Central Avenue.

A transcript of the proceedings was furnished and both the City and the Department submitted Proposed Findings of Fact which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order. The Petitioners did not submit formal Proposed Findings of Fact but did submit a letter in which their position was restated. This letter was thoroughly considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein the Petitioners, Becky Close, et al., were residents of the area in issue which is located both within and outside the boundaries of the City of Sarasota and in portions of Sarasota County contiguous thereto.

   
   

2. The City of Sarasota, (City), is a municipality in Sarasota County which has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation, (Department),

   for a permit to construct a sewage collection/transmission system in Sarasota County which Petitioners fear will adversely impact the safe, quiet enjoyment of their property. The Department is the state agency responsible for the permitting of sewage transmission, collection, treatment and disposal in this state.

   
   

3. The City currently owns and operates a domestic wastewater collection, transmission, treatment and disposal system, including a wastewater treatment plant, which serves approximately 96% of the City's residents and which is authorized by a Construction Permit and Amended Consent Order issued by the Department.

   
   

4. On or about November 30, 1990 the City applied to the Department for a permit to construct an additional collection and transmission system for wastewater. This permit, if issued, would provide for the City to construct several system extensions at various locations throughout the city and includes the construction of seven lift/pump stations and fourteen "tie-in" locations at which the existing system will be extended to the unserved areas. Upon completion, the system will serve approximately 99% of the City's residents.

   
   

5. Accompanying the application was a set of engineering plans and specifications for the proposed project which had been signed and sealed by the City's engineers. Sometime after the application was filed, the Department requested additional information relating, inter alia, to the design of the lift stations in regard to flood conditions. On January 8, 1991, the City provided the requested information which was based in part on a flood insurance map prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA).

   
   

6. Thereafter, by Notice dated March 26, 1991, the Department indicated its intention to grant the permit application. The proposed permit specifically notes that it is for the construction of the line only and before it can be placed in service, the City must secure separate approval. Specifically, the permit conditions state:

   
   

   2. This permit does not authorize the connection of these collection systems to the City of Sarasota WWTP [Wastewater Treatment Plant]. The permit shall not be construed to infer any assurance that the necessary authorization for connection shall be granted. Any such authorization shall be granted only when adequate treatment in accordance with rules, regulation, and issued permits of the Department is available for any flows transported by the systems.

   * * *

   5. Upon completion of the system and prior to use, the permittee ... shall submit to this Department a written request ... to obtain Department approval to place the system into service, ....

   
   

7. In addition to the terms of those specific conditions relating to the limited approval effect of this permit, the General Conditions provide:

   
   

   3. ... This permit is not a waiver of or approval of any other Department permit that

   may be required for other aspects of the total project which are not addressed in this permit.

   
   

8. It is clear from the language of the permit that as proposed, it does not include authorization to place the covered work into service or, for that matter, to even connect it to the existing plant.

   
   

9. The Petitioners live within an eight block area through which one of the proposed extensions, with its lift stations, will run. Many have lived in the area for decades and have experienced periodic flooding which, for the most part, results from the inability of the drainage flow to adequately handle the large amounts of rainwater which come with storms that routinely hit the area. In addition, increased paving as a part of commercial and residential development in the area has resulted in a reduction of absorption which has contributed to the flooding.

   
   

10. The flooding which occurs usually recedes within a couple of hours and leaves a residue. Many of the residents oppose the projected permit because they fear that if the system fails during a flood period, sewage would be ejected from the system, would mix with the flood waters, and spread across the area. When the waters receded, the residue would include waste as well.

    
    

11. William Hartman, a resident of the areas for 35 years, who is not an expert in any pertinent field, prepared a map of the area and the watershed which drains it. In doing so, he didn't consult with anyone nor can he state the total acreage or the number of impervious or pervious areas. He does not know how much rainfall there is in either a 100 year or a 25 year storm and he cannot say if any of the photographs of flooding introduced by the Petitioners depicted a 100 year storm, the last of which occurred in 1968. Nonetheless, he is still concerned.

    
    

12. Mr. Hartman tried to make this information available to City officials before the design of the system was started but they did not seem to be much interested in it. He also tried to present the information to the City Commission before the project was voted on, but, again, it was rejected.

    
    

13. Another resident, Mr. Williams, built a home in the area several years ago, but before he could do so, he was required to bring in fill to build up an area on which to build. Whenever it rains, the water runs off his land and onto his neighbors' and floods their houses. Since his house is built up, he does not suffer water damage, but when it floods, he has trouble getting into and out of his property.

    
    

14. Ms. Hartman, another neighbor, was caught outdoors in the 1971 flood which brought water up to her chest. In her opinion, if sewage were released into this kind of water, it would be revolting. The evidence of periodic flooding is also supported by Mr. Lawson, the mail carrier in the area for 10 years, whose vehicle has stalled in the high water, and Mr. Riddlemoser, a resident, who has, on occasion, been unable to drive into the area due to high water.

    
    

15. The manager of the County's Stormwater Management Division confirms there is a flooding problem in the area. Several alternatives have been proposed to deal with it. One is emergency evacuation of the residents and another is channel modification to drain the water away. Additional development in the area can be expected and any such development is required to be designed

    to minimize impact downstream. Nonetheless, some additional problems might be expected. The County plans to study all the reports and come up with proposed solutions to the flooding problem. Though he cannot judge whether the Corps of Engineers' report or the FEMA report has the better flood information, he would use the Corps' figures.

    
    

16. The County's utilities plans examiner, Mr. Cole, has visited the area and attended a residents' meeting about the flooding problem. His study of the problem generates two questions. The first is what caused the flooding, and the second is that given the existence of flooding, why allow the system to be built there? He determined that the problem is caused by the fact that the City's ditches are not cleaned out and the County's are. The solution to that is to clean the ditches. Mr. Cole reviewed the application and consulted with the Department about it. Based on the information he received, he recommended the permit be issued since the plans for the design of the system are within the guidelines established by the County Code. Therefore, the County has no objection to the line being constructed.

    
    

17. Turning to the project proposed, those portions of the system extension which will relate to the eight block area inhabited by the Petitioners are identified in the permit application as tie in extension areas C and D, and include lift stations 75 and 76, neither of which will serve any residents outside the eight block area in question. Station 75 is to be placed to the east of Central Avenue near 42nd Street and Station 76 is to be placed east of Central Avenue near 38th Street.

    
    

18. Petitioners are concerned that in the event of flooding as a result of heavy rains or for some other reason, the sewage line as designed is incapable of protecting them against a back-up of sewage and escape of that sewage into the flood waters in the area.

    
    

19. Evidence presented by the City indicates that at the present time, the City's existing system wastewater treatment and disposal plant capacity is 13 million gallons per day, (MGD), and average existing wastewater flow received there is only 6.467 mgd. Even with the increase in flow created by the extension of the system to existing homes, the plant is well equipped to handle the additional flow as well as that additional flow anticipated as a result of future wastewater flow when the areas to be served by the extension are fully built up. It is clear then, that the available capacity of the plant is more than sufficient to properly treat and dispose of any additional waste water flows created when and if the proposed sewer extension is approved and placed into service even after accounting for increased residential building in the area.

    
    

20. From a technical standpoint, the proposed system must be designed and constructed according to the technical standards contained in Water Pollution Control Federation's Manual of Practice No. 9, Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. The evidence of record clearly indicates that the proposal here, as evidenced by the plans and specifications drawn therefor, is in compliance with those technical standards and criteria.

    
    

21. Further, the technical standards and criteria established by the Great Lakes/Upper Mississippi River Board of State Sanitary Engineers' 1987 edition of Recommended Standard Sewage Works, also applies. The evidence of record indicates that the proposed system is in compliance with those standards as well.

22. There is some concern as to whether privately owned property will be used for the construction of this project and the evidence indicates that this project extension for the eight block area in question will be located only on public rights of way, land owned by the City, or easements granted to the City.

    
    

23. The evidence also demonstrates that the extension here is designed to insure the safety of the surrounding area as it pertains to runoff and other possible pollutants. In fact, the system is designed to preclude the deliberate introduction of stormwater runoff or certain other pollution such as condensate from air conditioning systems, closed system cooling water, and other sources of waste water.

    
    

24. Specifically, both lift stations are designed to be equipped with standard receptacles for connecting portable power generating equipment to provide lift pumping capability in the event that commercial power to the area is interrupted. Both stations are also designed to discharge through the smallest possible pipes, (less than 6" in diameter), and both are designed to be equipped with risers and appropriate coupling devices at the discharge pipe so that portable pumps may be connected in the event that becomes necessary.

    
    

25. The stations in question are designed so as to be protected from lightning and abnormal voltage surges through the affixation of lightning arresters and surge capacitors. They are designed to be equipped with phase protection and will incorporate a stand-by pumping capability to be utilized with off line power generation so that they will continue to operate even in the event of a shutdown of commercial power.

    
    

26. The stations are equipped with locking components and barriers designed to discourage the intrusion into the station by unauthorized people or by animals, and are enclosed and designed so as to eliminate, as much as possible, any odor which might be offensive or harmful to the residents in the area.

    
    

27. In addition, the stations are designed so as to minimize noise through the incorporation of submersible pumps. What is more, recognizing the fact that the locations of the stations have a high water table, the stations were designed so as to remain in place even when empty. In that regard, the bottom slab is designed to be broader than the overlying body of the station so that the weight of the dirt above the slab will hold the station in place.

    
    

28. Taken together, then, the evidence indicates, and it is so found, that the proposed system extension has been designed consistent with sound engineering practices so that it will accomplish its purpose in an environmentally sound manner.

    
    

29. A primary concern of the residents is that the City has failed to account for flooding conditions which occur in the eight block area. In support of their concerns, Petitioners introduced several photographs purporting to show flooding into evidence, yet the photographs were not specifically identified as to which flood and under what conditions the scenes represented thereon took place.

    
    

30. The City presented expert testimony based on varying sources of information including FEMA and the Corps of Engineers. Both are sources that engineers would rely upon to determine flood elevations in the course of designing a sewer system. This evidence indicates that both lift stations would

    not be located in those areas depicted in the flooding photographs presented by the Petitioners.

    
    

31. By way of background, floods are categorized in year configurations. For example, a "25 year flood", is one in which the water level is likely to occur at least once over a 25 year period. By the same token, a "100 year flood" is one in which the water level is likely to occur at least once over a

    100 year period. A 25 year or 100 year flood incorporates conditions caused by "flash flooding", a term used to depict a very rapidly occurring flood which arises without warning.

    
    

32. Use of the two flood elevation maps, that by FEMA and that by the Corps of Engineers, creates a discrepancy, however. The FEMA map indicates the stations are not located within either the 25 or 100 year flood zones. On the other hand, the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance report indicates they are.

    
    

33. The Corps of Engineers report indicates that the 25 year flood elevation at station 75 is approximately 15.2 feet above sea level, and the 100 year elevation at that site is approximately 15.9 feet above sea level. The Mobilife engineering report, which describes actual water levels at particular locations in the eight block area during the 1962 flood, recognized as a 100 year flood, (and which considers stations 75 and 76 to be within the 100 year flood zone), shows the 100 year flood water at station 75 reached approximately

    16.2 feet, the same as at station 76.

    
    

34. Regardless of which flood level is considered accurate, however, the City's evidence shows that the electrical components in both stations, those components sensitive to water, are contained within a control panel which is sealed for protection from the weather. Further, it must be noted that the bottom of the electrical control panel is at an elevation of 18.3 feet at station 75 and at 17.7 feet at station 76. Consequently, whether one uses the FEMA/COE figures for water level or the Mobilife figures for a 100 year flood, the fact remains that the sensitive electrical components would be well above high water in either case.

    
    

35. It is clear, then, that the design of both lift stations sufficiently addresses the potential for damage or interruption of operation because of flooding. The system is designed so that those components sensitive to flooding will be placed above the expected high water marks, and the mechanical components are designed for submerged use and are not generally affected by flood conditions. The lift stations are designed so that they will be protected from damage by wind or water and should remain fully accessible and operational during either a 25 or a 100 year flood. This evidence presented by the City was neither contradicted or rebutted by any evidence submitted by Petitioners.

    
    

36. Even if, however, there should be a flood elevation higher than those predicted by either FEMA or the Corps or Engineers, it would be relatively easy and inexpensive, to raise the control panels even higher at those lift stations to correct any problem that might arise.

    
    

37. There are, in addition, safeguards designed into the system which will alert the population to problems occurring in the pump function. Visual alarms are installed which will alert passersby or staff from the utility to the fact that the pumps are not operating properly. In addition, the design of both stations incorporates a reserve capacity which is sufficient to provide the City with sufficient time to correct any failures, electrical or mechanical, which might occur before damage can take place.

38. Specifically, the design at station 75 will provide additional capacity of approximately 24 hours at maximum build-out before a back-up can be expected to occur. At station 76, this reserve capacity will permit 2.26 days of additional operation before a problem takes place and this also assumes maximum build-out. Under those circumstances, if a failure should occur at either station, there would be ample time for the City to utilize temporary electrical or pumping activities to prevent a back-up from occurring.

    
    

39. The City contends that if flood conditions were to occur at either station that were not corrected and which resulted in the unlikely backup of sewage, the impact of such backup on residents in the area would be minimal.

    Its rationalization is based on the supposition that if flood conditions causing such a back-up were to occur, they would result in the Petitioners evacuating the area, and therefore, they would not be impacted. This would relate, of course, only to the impact on personal safety, but not to potential impacts such as loss of property or secondary safety consideration. This argument, which is not significant, is not considered pertinent and is rejected.

    
    

40. Were a failure to occur at lift station 75 that resulted in sewage back-up, that back-up would occur at the lowest point in the system, the manhole at 40th Street. If a similar failure resulted in a backup in system 76, the back-up would be at 39th Street. In either case, the City claims, the back-up would not reach customers' homes. This argument, too, though not rebutted by the Petitioners, appears not to consider all the potential impacts such as odor, appearance, and the like which, while not necessarily accompanied by sewage entering the home, is, nonetheless, adverse in impact if located in the immediate area of those homes.

    
    

41. Other factors are also pertinent to a study of the safety and propriety of the project include the fact that the system extension is designed in such a fashion as to adequately address the forces of water movement. It is also noted that the system does not include any intersection with force mains; it does not include any stub-outs on existing force mains since it is designed to accommodate the service area at full build-out. The City does not anticipate that the system will involve any sewage pipes intersections with water mains, but if such mains are encountered, the project plans contain instructions to the contractor to afford appropriate protection.

    
    

42. The program does not envision any intersection between sewer lines, storm mains or water mains, and the project has been designed so that manhole settling and pipe settling should be minimized. In the event there is settling, however, the project proposes the use of flexible pipe and pipe connectors to minimize any damage that might result therefrom. In that regard, the project calls for the use of flexible, water-tight, wall-to-pipe joints which would compensate for any remaining differential or stress. Normal operation and maintenance will be enhanced by the use of standard size manholes in the system.

    
    

43. Since the proposed system is not designed to cross any waterways or canals subject to maintenance dredging, there should be no damage by virtue of those activities. In addition, there is little likelihood that any part of the system could be damaged by boat anchors or by interface with underwater sewage lines.

    
    

44. Taken together, the system appears to be well designed and compatible with accepted engineering standards. All foreseeable contingencies appear to

    have been provided for and the risk of back-up and resultant damage to the property or safety of residents in the area has been minimized.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

45. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding, Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

46. Petitioners, residents of the area purportedly impacted by the project, oppose the intention of the Department to approve and issue a permit for a dry line sanitary sewer and collection system in the City of Sarasota. The permit is proposed for issue under the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, which, at Section 403.087, states:

    
    

    1. No stationary installation which will reasonably be a source of air or water pollution shall be operated, maintained, constructed, expanded, or modified without an appropriate and currently valid permit issued by the department, unless exempted by department rule.

    2. The department shall adopt, amend, or repeal rules, regulations, and standards for the issuance, denial, and revocation of permits.

    3. The department shall issue permits on such conditions as are necessary to effect the intent and purpose of this section.

    4. The department shall issue permits to construct, maintain, expand, or modify any installation which may reasonably be expected to be a source of pollution only when it determined that the installation is provided or equipped with pollution control facilities that will abate or prevent pollution to the degree that will comply with the standards of the department, except as provided in s. 403.088...

       
       

47. Section 403.0881, Florida Statutes, provides:

    
    

    The department may issue construction permits for sewage systems, treatment works, or disposal systems based upon review of a preliminary design report, application forms and other required information, all of which shall be formulated by department rule. ...

    
    

48. Consistent with the statutes, the Department has promulgated Section 17-604, F.A.C., its rule regarding projects of the nature in issue here which contains the criteria for their design and construction. At Section 17-604.400, the Department provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. New collection/transmission systems ...

       for which construction permits are required by the department shall be designed:

       * * *

       (c) to preclude the deliberate introduction of stormwater runoff ... and sources of uncontaminated wastewater.

       
       

49. At subparagraph (2), the rule provides that in addition to the above:

    
    

    ... the following criteria shall also be incorporated, where applicable, in the design of new systems ...

    1. Pump stations and lift stations discharging through pipes 6 inches in diameter, or smaller, shall be designed with a standard receptacle for connecting portable power generating equipment and a riser, with appropriate coupling device and valving ....

       All pump station and lift station reliability design features shall be compatible with the available temporary service power generating and pumping equipment of the authority responsible for operation ...

    2. Pumping stations shall be protected from lightning and transient voltage surges...

    3. New pumping stations shall be designed and located on the site so as to minimize adverse effects resulting from odors, noise and lightning ...

    (e) In areas with high water tables, the pump station shall be designed to include measures to withstand flotation forces when empty. The potential for damage or interruption of operation because of flooding shall be considered by the permittee when siting new pump stations at inland or coastal locations. The electrical and mechanical equipment shall be protected from physical damage by the 100 year flood. The pumping station shall be designed to remain fully operational and accessible during the 25 year flood. Design considerations, (water surface elevations, forces arising from water movement, etc.), shall be addressed in the engineering report and shall be based on available information; where site-specific information is unavailable, sound engineering practices shall be used in siting and design of pump station facilities.

    
    

50. The remaining paragraphs of this subsection, (f) through (j) deal with such other items as maintenance shut down valves, crossing under and over water mains, intersection of sewer and water lines, lines crossing canals and other waterways, and other specific requirements.

    
    

51. A thorough review of the evidence presented by the City, uncontradicted by any substantial specific evidence in opposition, establishes clearly that the criteria outlined in Section 17-604.400 F.A.C., relating to the design and performance considerations of this project have been met.

    Specifically, the lift stations in issue here are clearly designed to preclude the introduction of storm water runoff and other sources of waste water.

    
    

52. Recognizing that the area in question is a high water table area, the stations were designed to withstand flotation forces when empty by the physical design characteristics of the station and the placement of the earth around it in such a manner as to prevent its rising up out of the ground water. In addition, the design of the facility has taken into consideration the potential for flooding not only in the 25 year flood, but also the 100 year flood since the controls and electrical junction boxes necessary for the operation of the facility are located well above the 100 year flood mark. It is highly unlikely that any storm and its resultant flash flooding would cause water accumulations sufficient to reach the electrical controls. In any case, the design is such that if it appears that such is possible, the controls can be moved with reasonable dispatch so as to get them out of harm's way and the reserve capacity of the system will give sufficient time to take any necessary corrective action.

53 In addition, the evidence also establishes that the design of the system is such as to prevent any potential problems as a result of the intersection of sewer mains with water mains; such manholes as are required are consistent with the conditions and specifications in the rule; the water-tight pipe joints are capable of accommodating any foreseeable stress; and the fact that the lines do not cross canals or other water ways makes the potential for damage from dredging or water craft anchorage remote.

1. The pipe material that is intended for use here meets the criteria in the specifications and the size of the pipe, as well as pipe fitting and junctions, is appropriate to the use intended.

   
   

2. No doubt Petitioners' concerns herein are sincere and based on their bona fide experience with flash flooding in the area. The Department has, however, clearly established that the design of the system as proposed adequately addresses all foreseeable potential impact from the flooding which has and is likely to occur.

   
   

3. It is clear that the project is designed consistent with appropriate engineering standards and should create no problems for Petitioners if constructed consisted with the design. In any case, however, Rule 17-604.550, F.A.C., requires the permittee to notify the Department within 24 hours of any breakdown or malfunction resulting in the discharge of any inadequately treated waste. Thereafter, the permittee has a limited time in which to identify the problem and take corrective steps designed to prevent this problem from happening again. While this may be of scant comfort to Petitioners, it will provide for problem correction in the event one develops.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered issuing Permit No. CS 58-189732, for the dry line construction of an expansion to the City's existing domestic wastewater collection/transmission system, as outlined in the Department's Notice of Intent dated March 27, 1991.

RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 26th day of September, 1991.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2470

The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case.

FOR THE PETITIONERS: None submitted FOR THE CITY:

FOR THE DEPARTMENT:

COPIES FURNISHED:

Becky Close

David M. Caldevilla, Esquire de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A.

P.O. Box 172537

Tampa, Florida 33672-0537

W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental

Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Carol Browner Secretary

Department of Environmental Regulation

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should consult with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case concerning its rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency which will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-002470

Orders for Case No: 91-002470