Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Eagle Outdoor Advertising, Petitioner, was the applicant for a sign permit to be located on Interstate 595, seven- tenths of a mile South of Interstate 95 in Broward County, Florida. Edward A. Bolter is President of Petitioner and, in that capacity, has represented Petitioner throughout the application process. On December 7, 1988, Mr. Bolter met with Ms. Delores Kinsler, Right-of- Way Specialist for the Department of Transportation, Respondent, and filed an application for an Outdoor Advertising Sign Permit with Respondent's district office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Eagle Application). During the meeting Mr. Bolter and Ms. Kinsler visited the site of the proposed sign to measure the distances required for the Eagle Application and to make Respondent aware of the location. Then, in the presence of Ms. Kinsler, Mr. Bolter completed the Eagle Application, and Ms. Kinsler notarized it. On January 5, 1989, Ms. Kinsler denied the Eagle Application and noted her decision on the Eagle Application form. It was Respondent's procedure that after the notation of action on an application form by a Right-of-Way Specialist, the form was reviewed by a District Outdoor Advertising Administrator who completed a memorandum of returned application to inform an applicant of a denial decision on an application. In the instant case, however, due to an administrative reorganization, the memorandum of returned application (memorandum) was not mailed until February 1, 1989, and not received by Mr. Bolter until February 3 or 4, 1989. The District Outdoor Advertising Administrator who reviewed the Eagle Application application was Mr. Fred Harper. Although Mr. Harper did not execute the Memorandum on January 5, 1989, and does not remember when he did execute it, he postdated the memorandum to January 5, 1989. Four reasons for denial were stated on the memorandum: the application contained incorrect or incomplete information; the application did not meet the "harmony of regulations" requirement; the application did not contain a location sketch of the sign site; and the proposed sign site did not meet the required spacing requirement since the proposed sign site conflicted with the site of an existing permitted sign. Consistent with existing law, if an application contain knowingly false information, it is Respondent's policy that, an applicant has thirty days from the receipt of notice of an intended denial, here, February 3 or 4, 1989, to cure the defect in his application. Included on the Eagle Application was a representation that the proposed sign was to be located in a "city limits." Mr. Bolter knew at the time he completed the Eagle Application that the property on which the sign was to be located was in an unincorporated area of Broward County. Yet, he was also aware that the owner of the property intended to offer the subject property to be voluntarily annexed by the City of Dania, Florida. Mr. Bolter relayed this information to Ms. Kinsler on the day of the Eagle Application was filed. However, even without knowledge of the action on the Eagle Application, Mr. Bolter, on January 11, 1989, hand-delivered a letter to Mr. Harper from the City of Dania representing that the City would comply with any permit issued to Petitioner as if the City had issued it and that the property was annexed into the City on January 10, 1989. The letter was similar to other letters which Mr. Harper had received on prior permit applications in satisfaction of the "harmony of regulations" requirement. In fact, Mr. Harper agreed that the letter received on January 11, 1989, would meet the "harmony of regulations" requirement. Further, consistent with existing law, it is Respondent's policy that if an application contains errors or omissions, Respondent will notify the applicant of such errors or omissions within thirty days from the receipt of the application. If Respondent fails to notify the applicant of an error or omission in a timely manner, such error or omission shall not form the basis of the denial. Here, Petitioner omitted a location sketch from his application; however, Respondent failed to notify Petitioner of the omission until February 1, 1989. The untimely notification occurred almost two months after the receipt of the application. The sign conflict related to a sign owned by Golden Communications, Inc., with permit number AX870-35 (Golden's Application). Permit number AX870- 35 did not exist on January 5, 1989, when the Eagle Application was denied. In fact, Golden's Application for permit number AX870-35 was not received by Respondent until January 5, 1989. Golden's Application was approved on January 6, 1989. The Eagle Application was in conformity with the "harmony of regulations requirement" even before receipt of the memorandum, and the untimely notification of the reasons for denial prevents Respondent from denying the Eagle Application on the basis of Petitioner's omission of a location sketch. Further, the allegedly conflicting sign did not exist on the date of denial and could not form the basis of the denial. Accordingly, Petitioner's application should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order providing that the subject sign application be approved. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of September, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 25th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, IN CASE NO. 89-11257T Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follow Subordinate to the result reached. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraphs 4. Addressed, in part, in paragraph 8; in part, irrelevant. Addressed in paragraph 7. In part, subordinate to the result reached; in part, addressed in paragraph 6. Addressed in paragraph 6. Subordinate to result reached. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Addressed in paragraphs 6. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follow Irrelevant. Irrelevant. In part, addressed in paragraph 1; in part, subordinate to the result reached. Irrelevant. In part, addressed in paragraph 2; in part, irrelevant. Subordinate to result reached. Subordinate to result reached. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 3. Addressed, in part, in paragraphs 3 and 4. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 4. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Addressed in paragraph 8. Subordinate to the result reached. Addressed in paragraphs 4 and 5. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Not supported by competent and substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles C. Papy, III, Esquire 201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 502 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, P.E., Interim Secretary Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Gerretson is the owner of Lot 2, Block 2, Sea View Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. 1/ On January 11, 1984, Gerretson applied to Monroe County for a land clearing permit. The permit, as requested, would have permitted him to clear his lot of vegetation in the area proposed for his house, driveway and septic tank. 2/ Gerretson's application was denied, as was his appeal to the Monroe County Board of Adjustment; however, on October 16, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County (Monroe County), by resolution, reversed the decision of the Board of Adjustment. The Department, pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, filed a timely appeal with the Adjudicatory Commission. The subject property The Sea View Subdivision is sparsely developed, and its lands are in a natural state except for the existence of two roads. The subdivision is bounded on the north by Port Pine Heights, an established subdivision; on the east and south by lands belonging to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as part of the National Key Deer Refuge; and on the west by Pine Channel. The Sea View Subdivision is itself within the boundaries of the Key Deer Refuge. Gerretson's lot is located at the southern extreme of the subdivision; abutting the lands belonging to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Government) and the northern limit of Watson Hammock, a unique natural area containing endemic, rare and endangered plant and animal species. Separating the Government's property from Gerretson's, is an unnamed 25' wide platted, but non-existent road. 3/ Currently, the closest vehicular access to Gerretson's property is by a fire break on the Government's land. This fire break is separated from Gerretson's lot by an area of natural vegetation approximately 70' in width. To access Gerretson's property from the subdivision would require that the lands dedicated for "no name road" be cleared of native vegetation a distance of 100'- 200' to the closest existing road. There are no plans, however, to construct "no name road." 4/ Gerretson's property is typical of the surrounding area, and characteristic of an old and well established pineland community. Vegetation includes endangered, threatened, and protected species such as South Florida Slash Pine, Key Cassia, Ladder Brake Fern, Thatch Palm, Cabbage Palm, and Silver Palm. Applicable development regulations Gerretsons' property is located in that portion of Monroe County designated as an area of critical state concern. Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes. As such, development must be consistent with Chapters 27F-8 and 27F- 9, Florida Administrative Code, as well as Monroe County's comprehensive plan. Pertinent to these proceedings are Rule 27F-8.03(5), Florida Administrative Code, the coastal zone protection and conservation element of Monroe County's comprehensive plan, and Sections 18-16 through 18-25 of the Monroe County Code. 5/ Rule 27F-8.03(5), Florida Administrative Code provides: Third Objective: Protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife and their habitat. Guidelines: * * * 5. Prohibit any significant disturbance, including but not limited to land clearing and excavation, of established habitats for documented resident populations of endangered species . . . Monroe County's comprehensive plan, the coastal zone protection and conservation element, dealing with natural vegetative resources and terrestrial wildlife resources provides: NATURAL VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICIES In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible, the County will direct its land use and development regulations to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape. Guidelines and performance standards designed to protect natural vegetation from development will be developed and enforced. Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled. Land clearing will be restricted to site area being prepared for immediate construction. If the construction cannot begin within reasonable time, the cleared area will be replanted with ground cover. In areas where temporary removal of vegetation is necessary during construction, replanting of ground cover will be carried out as soon as possible. The unique and endangered status of the hardwood hammock community; and the critical role of the pineland in providing the only living habitat for the Key Deer will be recognized add given due consideration in developing future land use regulations. Development in and adjacent to hardwood hammock and pineland areas will be carefully regulated so as to maintain normal drainage patterns and the ecological balance of the entire area. Outstanding, rare, and unique communities of hardwood hammock and pineland will be preserved to the greatest extent possible. * * * The existing county ordinances designed to protect and conserve natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced, and/or amended when necessary. The County will seek assistance from and cooperate with the appropriate State and Federal agencies in developing and enforcing regulations designed to protect rare, threatened and/or endangered plant species from development, vandalism, tree poaching, and plant thefts. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT POLICIES In order to conserve and wisely manage the Keys' wildlife resources, the County will conscientiously direct its efforts toward the protection and improvement of wildlife habitats throughout the Keys. Development activities which may degrade, destroy, or severely impact productive areas for wildlife will be required to assess possible means and, to the extent practicable, adopt protective measures for abating these impacts on wildlife populations and habitat. Recognizing that each wildlife group has its own requirements and tolerances, the adequacy of protective measures will be evaluated for each individual species occupying the habitat. Improvement of habitat through encouragement of native vegetation which would give desirable species the best chance to flourish will be supported and encouraged. Planning, design, siting, and construction of public capital improvements and facilities such as roads, solid waste disposal sites, and utility lines and structures will be carefully regulated to minimize impact on wildlife habitat and movement patterns. The County will exert special protective efforts regarding the preservation of rare, endemic, endangered, or threatened species as identified by Federal and State agencies and the habitat required to support these species in the coastal zone. Intensive development will be directed away from the habitat of rare, endemic, endangered, or threatened species. * * * 7. Introduction as pets of those exotic animal species which may represent a potential danger to the native wildlife will be discouraged. Pertinent to this proceeding, the Monroe County Code (Code) provides: Section 18-18 Land clearing permit . . . It shall be unlawful and an offense against the county for any person . . . to clear . . . any land located within the unincorporated areas of the county without having first applied for and obtained a land clearing permit from the building department . . . * * * (c) Review and approval of development site plans which results in the issuance of a development order shall constitute compliance with the requirements of this section. In such cases the land clearing permit will be issued in conjunction with the building permit. * * * Section 18-19 Same-Application . . . Any person requesting a land clearing permit shall file an application with the county building department on a form provided by such department. Such application shall contain the following information: * * * A map of the natural vegetative communities found on and adjacent to the site, prepared by a qualified biologist, naturalist, landscape architect or other professional with a working knowledge of the native vegetation of the Florida Keys . . . With projects that are five (5) acres or more in size, the vegetation map does not have to identify the location of individual trees An overall site plan of the land for which the permit is requested, indicating the shape and dimensions of said land, the purposes for which clearing is requested, and the steps taken to minimize effects of clearing on surrounding vegetation and water bodies. A site plan analysis prepared by a qualified individual, as described above . . . shall be included. Prior to the issuance of a land clearing permit, the building department shall field check the proposed clearing site and shall verify on the application that the facts contained therein, relative to the location and description of vegetation, are factually correct. * * * Section 18-21. Same - Approval. After an application for a land clearing permit has been filed and verified, the building department and the planning and zoning department shall review and consider what effects such removal of vegetation will have upon the natural resources, scenic amenities and water quality on and adjacent to the proposed site. Upon finding that such removal of natural vegetation will not adversely affect the natural resources, scenic amenities and water quality adjacent to the proposed site, the permit shall be approved, approved subject to modification or specified conditions, or denied . . . Areas of concern Gerretson's property and the surrounding refuge area are prime habitat for the Key Deer. 6/ The Key Deer is listed as a threatened species by the State of Florida and endangered by the Federal Government. 7/ Currently, the Key Deer population is on the decline from a once stable population of about 400 to a current population of about 250. 8/ This decline is directly attributable to loss of habitat and the consequent adverse impacts of human presence, such as increased automobile traffic, large domesticated dogs, and loss of wildness in the deer. While the proposed clearing of Gerretson's lot would, in and of itself, probably not significantly impact the Key Deer or its habitat, the fact that he has no road access to his property will require the continuous crossing of adjacent natural habitat and significantly expand the sphere of human impact on the deer. Additionally, the purpose of Gerretson's lot clearing cannot be ignored in analyzing the ultimate impacts of his proposal. The purpose of Gerretson's permit is to allow the construction of a single family residence on his lot. Gerretson's lot is located at the southern extreme of Sea View Subdivision, and his home would be the first built in the area. The construction of this house alone, with its consequent human presence, would adversely impact the Key Deer and its habitat. Considering the precedential nature of Gerretsons' construction, the cumulative impact from the project on the deer would be significantly greater. 9/ Notwithstanding the evident adverse impacts, Gerretson failed to offer any plan to mitigate the impacts of the proposed land clearing and construction on the Key Deer population. Gerretsons' proposal would also displace endemic, protected, threatened and endangered plant species in the area of the proposed house, driveway and septic tank. To support his application, Gerretson submitted a vegetation survey by a "qualified person." The survey does not, however, "map" the natural vegetation by locating individual species but, rather, divides Gerretson's lot into four quadrants and lists the vegetation found in each quadrant. While there is no dispute that the survey accurately lists the vegetation to be found in each quadrant, the survey is of little or no value in identifying the significant vegetation that will be displaced by construction, analyzing the site to determine the least disruptive site layout, or developing an adequate transplanting or revegetation scheme. In sum, Gerretson's vegetation survey fails to comply with the letter or spirit of the Monroe County Code. 10/ At hearing, Gerretson averred that he would transplant any endangered or threatened species, and would limit his fill activity to that required for the septic tank system. 11/ He failed, however, to identify the species that would be impacted or offer any plan for transplantation or revegetation that could be evaluated for its likelihood of success. In sum, Gerretson failed to offer any viable plan to mitigate the impacts of his proposal on endemic, protected, threatened and endangered plant species. The Department also asserts that the subject permit should not issue because Gerretson's property does not abut an existing road. Section 19-135, Monroe County Code, provides: No building or structure shall be erected on a parcel of land which does not abut a public or private road having a minimum width of fifteen (15) feet. The fact that "no name road" does not exist would preclude Gerretson, absent variance from the Monroe County Code, from securing a building permit to construct his residence. While the subject permit is a land clearing permit and not a building permit, there is no rational basis to grant a clearing permit to construct a house if the house cannot be built. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to condition the issuance of a land clearing permit on the issuance of a building permit.
Findings Of Fact The Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Petitioner) is authorized and charged with the responsibility to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, and the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. At all times pertinent hereto, First Eagle, Inc. was a foreign corporation with its principal place of business located in Englewood, Colorado, and was registered with Petitioner as a securities broker/dealer in the State of Florida. First Eagle had two branch offices in Florida, one at Boca Raton and the other at Longwood. These two branch offices were supervised by the First Eagle home office. Each branch office had a branch manager. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent Baum was the branch manager of First Eagle's Boca Raton branch office and Respondent Canouse was the branch manager of its Longwood office. Respondent Baum was registered with Petitioner as an agent with First Eagle between August 13, 1989, and September 4, 1990. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent Baum was not registered with Petitioner. Respondent Canouse was registered with Petitioner as an agent with First Eagle between March 21, 1989, and May 31, 1990. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent Canouse was not registered with Petitioner. On January 1, 1990, Rule 3E-600.012, Florida Administrative Code, referred to as Florida's Cold Call Rule, and its federal counterpart went into effect. Both rules pertain to the sale of designated securities (generally referred to as "penny stocks") and both require that certain information be taken from certain customers and that certain disclosures be made to those customers. Both rules require that a determination be made as to the customer's suitability to trade in designated securities, and that a written agreement evidencing the terms and conditions of the trade be received before the transaction is consummated. Florida's Cold Call Rule does not specify what person or officer within the selling organization is to make the suitability determination, nor does it set forth the criteria by which the determination is to be made. The following is required by the Rule 3E-600.012(5), Florida Administrative Code, before any dealer or associated person may sell or effect the purchase of the type transactions pertinent to this proceeding: (5) It shall be unlawful and a violation of Section 517.301(1), F.S. for any dealer or associated person to sell any equity security or to effect the purchase of such security unless ... prior to the transaction the seller has approved the customer's account for such transaction in accordance with the procedures set forth in subparagraph (5)(b) and has received from the customer a written agreement to the transaction setting forth the identity and quantity of the securities covered by this paragraph. * * * (b) In order to approve a customer's account for any transaction covered by this section, the seller shall: Obtain information from the customer concerning the customer's financial situation, investment experience, and investment objectives; Reasonably determine, based upon the information required in subparagraph (5)(b), and upon any other information known by the seller that the transaction in the security covered by paragraph (5) is suitable for the customer and that the customer (or the customer's independent adviser in the transaction) has sufficient knowledge and experience in financial matters that the customer (or the customer's independent adviser in the transaction) may reasonably be expected to be capable of evaluating the risks of the transaction covered by this section. Deliver to the customer a written statement setting forth: the basis on which the seller made the determination required by subparagraph (5)(b)2.; stating in highlighted format that it is unlawful for the seller to effect a transaction in such security unless the seller has received, prior to the transaction, a written agreement to the transaction from the customer; stating in highlighted format immediately preceding the customer signature line that the seller is required by law to provide the customer with the written statement and that the customer should not sign and return the written statement to the seller if it does not accurately reflect the customer's financial situation, investment experience, and investment objectives; and Obtain from the customer a manually signed and dated copy of the written statement required by subparagraph (5)(b)3. Failure to comply with Florida's Cold Call Rule is, pursuant to Rule 3E-600.012(5), Florida Administrative Code, a violation of Section 517.301(1), Florida Statutes. 3/ The suitability form and the procedures to be followed by First Eagle offices in attempting to comply with the Florida and federal Cold Call Rules were prepared at the corporate level. Respondent Baum was not an officer of First Eagle, and he had no control or authority over policies or procedures adopted at the corporate level. Respondent Canouse was not an officer of First Eagle, and he had no control or authority over policies or procedures adopted at the corporate level. Neither Respondent Baum or Respondent Canouse participated in developing the forms and the procedures used by First Eagle to comply with Florida's Cold Call Rule. Robert Valerius was the corporate officer at the home office of First Eagle who had the responsibility for ensuring that the Boca Raton and the Longwood branch offices complied with Florida's Cold Call Rule. The suitability form used by First Eagle and its branch offices requested that the customer give information by checking the appropriate response and provided, in pertinent part, as follows: If the information below is true and correct, First Eagle, Inc. deems you suitable to purchase designated securities. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES: Income Growth Safety of Principal Speculation Tax exempt income Other PREVIOUS FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE: Yes No Name of broker/dealer Type of experience FINANCIAL SITUATION: Estimated annual income Estimated net worth I have sufficient knowledge and experience to evaluate the risk in purchasing designated securities. I am purchasing approximately shares of stock, ( ) Common, ( ) Units, ( ) Warrants. Both the Florida Cold Call Rule and its federal counterpart were enacted to protect investors and to prevent fraud that could be occasioned because of the high risks associated with dealing in these type transactions and because of the limited information about these type securities available to investors. The testimony of William F. Reilly, Jr., clearly establishes that the Petitioner considers a branch manager responsible for ensuring that transactions occurring under his supervision in the branch office comply with Florida's Cold Call Rule, as well as all other Florida laws and rules pertaining to the buying and selling of securities. Mr. Reilly testified that Petitioner relies on Article III, Section 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice adopted by the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) that regulate the conduct of its members, 4/ as its authority for imposing this responsibility on branch managers. Petitioner has pointed to no rule or statute that impose this duty on a branch manager. The duties and responsibilities separately imposed by First Eagle on Respondent Baum and Respondent Canouse as to the Florida Cold Call Rule were not established. 5/ The documentation required by Florida's Cold Call Rule must be obtained prior to the sale. Similarly, the suitability determination required by Florida's Cold Call Rule must be made prior to the sale. The form adopted by First Eagle and used by the Boca Raton branch office and the Longwood branch office did not provide for an independent suitability determination that the individual customer could appropriately deal in designated securities. Instead, the form permitted the customer to make his or her own determination. On March 19, 1990, a surprise examination was made by Petitioner at First Eagle's Boca Raton office. This examination was conducted by Jerome Jordan, an experienced investigator employed by Petitioner. On March 22, 1990, an unannounced examination was made by Petitioner at First Eagle's Longwood office. This examination was conducted by Michael Blaker, an experienced investigator employed by Petitioner. Both examinations were conducted in cooperation with other regulatory agencies as part of a nationwide investigation to determine the level of compliance with the SEC Cold Call Rule and Florida's counterpart. Between January 1, 1990, and March 19, 1990, persons working in the Boca Raton office under Respondent Baum's supervision offered for sale, sold, and effected the purchase of designated securities to individual customers in 18 transactions prior to obtaining the documentation required by the Cold Call Rule and without making a proper suitability determination. Respondent Baum caused order tickets to be forwarded to First Eagle headquarters, which was a necessary step in the completion of the purchase of these designated securities. There was no evidence that a suitability determination was made for these transactions as required by Florida's Cold Call Rule by Mr. Baum, by Mr. Valerius, or by any other person associated with First Eagle. Between January 1, 1990, and March 22, 1990, persons working in the Longwood office under Respondent Canouse's supervision offered for sale, sold, and effected the purchase of designated securities to individual customers in 26 transactions prior to obtaining the documentation required by the Cold Call Rule and without making a proper suitability determination. Respondent Canouse caused order tickets to be forwarded to First Eagle headquarters, which was a necessary step in the completion of the purchase of these designated securities. There was no evidence that a suitability determination was made for these transactions as required by Florida's Cold Call Rule by Mr. Canouse, by Mr. Valerius, or by any other person associated with First Eagle.
Conclusions Having ruled on all the exceptions filed by the parties, and having reviewed the complete record of this proceeding and all Exhibits thereto, it is accordingly ORDERED: The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are adopted except as modified or rejected herein; The Respondents William J. Baum and Joseph C. Canouse are hereby ordered to cease and desist from violating the provisions of Rule 3E-600.012(5), Florida Administrative Code; That Respondents William J. Baum and Joseph C. Canouse are herein REPRIMANDED for their violations of Rule 3E-600.12(5), Florida Administrative Code; DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of June, 1992. GERALD LEWIS, as Comptroller and Head of the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities COPIES FURNISHED: Don Saxon, Director Division Securities and Investor Protection R. Beth Atchision Assistant General Counsel
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent Baum and Respondent Canouse violated the provisions of Rule 3E-600.012(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code, and which issues a letter of reprimand to each of them for such violation. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 March, 1992.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this consolidated proceeding are (1) whether the Petitioners have demonstrated standing under section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2018), and (2) whether the Okeechobee Business District Comprehensive Plan Amendment (OBD Amendment) adopted on August 13, 2018, by the Respondent by Ordinance No. 4783-18 (Ordinance) is "in compliance" under section 163.3184(1)(b).
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Standing Lakeview is a Delaware limited liability company, registered with the State of Florida. Lakeview owns Esperanté, a 20-story office tower at 222 Lakeview Avenue within the boundaries of the OBD. Lakeview submitted oral and written objections to the City during the process leading to adoption of the OBD Amendment. Lakeview's concerns included impact to views of the Intracoastal Waterway by potential development of a 25-story office tower to the east of Esperanté at the location referred to as the "church site," as well as increased traffic congestion on Lakeview Avenue. Lakeview is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The Town is a Florida municipal corporation and a home rule charter municipality. The Town owns property within the City, including its public works facility in close proximity to the OBD. The Town submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The Town is an adjoining local government to the City. The Town was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure by increasing the cost of traffic signalization on Okeechobee Boulevard and Lakeview Avenue in the OBD. The Town is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and a home rule charter county. The County owns property within the jurisdiction of the City, including its convention center and parking garage, which are located on Okeechobee Boulevard in close proximity to the OBD. The County was concerned that the OBD Amendment would produce substantial impacts on the increased need for publicly funded infrastructure in the form of increased cost for traffic signalization and other active traffic management measures on Okeechobee Boulevard and on increased cost of providing bus services. The County submitted oral and written comments, recommendations, and objections to the City during the adoption process for the OBD Amendment. The County is an affected person under section 163.3184(1)(a). The City is a Florida municipal corporation located in the County and is responsible for adopting a comprehensive plan and plan amendments. The City adopted the OBD Amendment under the state expedited review process in section 163.3184(3). The City also owns a parcel within the OBD referred to throughout this proceeding as the "tent site." Background The OBD includes all the properties located between Okeechobee Boulevard, Lakeview Avenue, Rosemary Avenue, and Flagler Drive in the City's downtown. It is a five-block area with the church site as its easternmost parcel. The OBD is a new district within the area defined in the Downtown Master Plan (DMP) Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Comp Plan). The DMP Element is an optional element of the City Comp Plan that was adopted in 1995. The DMP's vision includes promoting a place of sustainable and efficient transportation systems that promote greater connectivity for pedestrians, cyclist, and transit riders. The OBD Amendment is a small component of the City's large and comprehensive strategy to encourage mode shift within the DMP area. The DMP currently sets forth 13 districts that are described in Policy 1.1.1 and whose boundaries are depicted on the Downtown District Map in the City Comp Plan. DMP Policy 3.1.1 directs the City to maintain the DMP Zoning Atlas showing the districts from DMP Policy 1.1.1, the planning areas and the subdistricts. The OBD is also located within the Downtown Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) established in Objective 2.3.5 of the Transportation Element in the City Comp Plan. The Downtown TCEA is also adopted in the County's Comprehensive Plan (County Comp Plan), and the TCEA boundaries are coterminous with the DMP area. The City entered into an agreement with the County and FDOT in 1998 regarding the TCEA. Adoption of the TCEA meant that the City, the County, and FDOT acknowledged that in order for desired development and redevelopment to occur in the City's downtown area, it would be difficult for certain roadways to continue to meet the adopted level of service standards. Thus, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. A Florida Standard Urban Transportation Modeling System (FSUTMS) traffic analysis of the area that was done prior to adoption of the TCEA ultimately established the required residential and nonresidential development ratios described in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(h). The development ratios required the City to have both residential and nonresidential space in the downtown area. The City achieved the projection for residential units set forth in Transportation Element Policy 2.3.5(g), but has approximately five million square feet more of nonresidential space available to reach the stated projection for nonresidential space. The OBD Amendment On April 30, 2018, Gabe Klein, a consultant for the City, presented the Downtown Mobility Plan to the mayor and city commission. The workshop was open to the public and televised on the City's website. At this workshop, the Mayor initiated the process for pursuing the OBD Amendment. The City then timely sent its executive summary of the proposed OBD Amendment to the Interlocal Plan Amendment Review Committee (IPARC) Clearinghouse on May 3, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Clearinghouse provided notice (IPARC Notice) of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement that established the IPARC. On May 21, 2018, by Resolution No. 134-18, the City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan, along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study, and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Counsel for Lakeview presented oral comments regarding the OBD Amendment at the City's Planning Board meeting on May 15, 2018; at the Downtown Action Committee (DAC) meeting on June 13, 2018; at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018; and at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. County representatives made oral comments at the transmittal hearing on June 18, 2018, and the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. A Town representative made oral comments at the adoption hearing on August 13, 2018. The Ordinance reflected the City's continuing policy of seeking to attract high-intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The Ordinance further allowed for the creation of incentives to permit building heights to increase from five stories to 25 stories in the OBD 5 subdistrict without increasing the permitted floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.75. The Ordinance amended the City Comp Plan's DMP Element to identify the location, development capacity, and height allowed within the OBD. DMP Policy 1.1.1 was amended to create the OBD. DMP Policy 3.1.3 was amended to show maximum development capacity, subdistrict boundaries and incentive areas for the OBD. The text added to DMP Policy 1.1.1 stated: N. Okeechobee Business District: The Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located. The focus of the Okeechobee business district should be towards attracting high intensity office uses to consolidate the area as an economic center of downtown, with innovative high-rise buildings and an active pedestrian environment. The district shall function as a connection between the north and south portions of the City, with enhanced pedestrian crossings and a large percentage of public open spaces. Intensity and Density The OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. In fact, the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the Okeechobee Corridor. The evidence established that the FAR of 2.75 on the church site remained the same with the OBD Amendment. Ms. Aponte is in charge of overseeing the development and implementation of the DMP. She testified that prior to adoption of the OBD Amendment, the FAR on the church site was 2.75 and that the church site property could have been developed to accommodate approximately 300,000 square feet of usable office space and provide parking on site. With the same FAR of 2.75 after adoption of the OBD Amendment, the church site's development capacity remained the same. Ms. Aponte also concluded that from a planning perspective, since the development capacity at the church site remained the same before and after the OBD Amendment, and the use did not change, there would not be additional traffic impacts. Mr. Greene explained that the OBD Amendment would actually reduce the development capacity on the tent site and that all other blocks in the OBD would retain the same development capacity as before the OBD Amendment. Since there was a reduction in the actual development capacity within the OBD, there was not an increase in intensity. Mr. Greene and/or his staff explained the reduction in development capacity in the OBD at all four public hearings and in many telephone conversations with staff from the County and the Town. The tent site is located within the City Place Development of Regional Impact (DRI) that holds certain development rights. Sites located within the DRI may use the DRI's development rights on a "first come, first serve" basis until they are exhausted. Reducing capacity on the tent site would allow another site within the DRI to use those development rights. This would shift development away from the Okeechobee Corridor in the OBD to another site within the DRI. The City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. The City credibly established that the OBD Amendment reduced the allowable development within the OBD. Petitioners' Objections The Petitioners jointly presented their cases during the hearing. They argued that the OBD Amendment was not "in compliance" because it created internal inconsistencies within the City Comp Plan, it was not supported by relevant and appropriate data and analysis, it was not properly coordinated with the neighboring local governments, it was not coordinated with the comprehensive plans of the Town and the County, and it was a de facto future land use plan amendment. Each argument is generally addressed below. However, the major underlying premise of the Petitioners' challenge was that the OBD Amendment would allow more intense development and that the City had not evaluated potential impacts to traffic and parking. As found above, the City proved that the OBD Amendment did not increase development intensity or density. Thus, the City did not need to evaluate the traffic impacts of the OBD. In addition, the City was exempted from meeting transportation concurrency requirements and traffic performance standards in the TCEA. Internal Consistency The Town and County identified elements in the City Comp Plan in order to argue internal inconsistency. Those were the Coastal Management Element, Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and Transportation Element. The Town and County also claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Lakeview claimed the OBD Amendment was inconsistent with the entire City Comp Plan generally, and specifically inconsistent with the vision of the DMP Element, DMP Policies 3.1.3, 1.1.1.H, and 1.1.1.M; Future Land Use Policy 1.1.7; Transportation Element Policy 2.3.1(a), Objective 2.3.4, Policies 2.3.5(a) and 2.3.5(h); and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4, Policies 1.3.1, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, and 1.5.3. The Petitioners argued that "high-rise Class A" buildings must be built in the Quadrille Business District (QBD) described in DMP Policy 1.1.1.H. However, the DMP Element does not limit tall buildings to the QBD. For example, a maximum height of 30 stories is allowed in the Quadrille Garden District, 25 stories in the QBD, and 15 stories in the Transit Oriented District and Flagler Waterfront District. During the hearing, Mr. Greene narrated drone footage that showed high-rise buildings are located throughout the downtown area, including in and near the OBD in the Okeechobee Corridor. Two residential towers that are 32 stories in height are also located along the waterfront in the Flagler Waterfront District. The evidence supported the description in the OBD that "[t]he Okeechobee corridor is the traditional business district of downtown, around which office buildings have historically located." The evidence also established that the tallest buildings in the downtown are not located in the QBD. The City Comp Plan does not prohibit high-rise buildings in districts other than the QBD. Lakeview's witness, Ms. Ward, opined that creation of the OBD conflicted with the intention of the Flagler Waterfront District to preserve waterfront views and its function as a transition from more intense development in the urban core of downtown. The evidence showed that these intentions can be realized with creation of the OBD. The OBD's implementing regulations adopted at the same time as the OBD Amendment as changes to the DMP Urban Regulations required that any development be set back 400 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway and that open space be increased. This would maintain an open space promenade along Flagler Drive. The County argued that the OBD Amendment conflicted with Policy 1.2-m of its Transportation Element, which provides in part: "Based on the results of the traffic monitoring report, the City will pursue strategies including, but not limited to . . . develop a centrally-managed system of strategically located parking facilities." The same language is found in the Transportation Element of the City Comp Plan in Policy 2.3.5(a). Contrary to the County's argument, the OBD Amendment in no way prohibited or directed the location of centrally-managed parking garages. The OBD Amendment complemented the many strategies referenced in Policy 1.2-m and Policy 2.3.5(a) by promoting public transit services, encouraging transportation mode options, and implementing employer-based Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities. The evidence established that parking requirements for any developments within the DMP, including the new OBD, complied with the provisions of DMP Element Objective 4.3 and the implementing DMP Urban Regulations. DMP Objective 4.3 states that "[t]he City shall develop strategies to manage the downtown parking supply and demand." Lakeview argued that Exhibit 3 to the Ordinance showed two Okeechobee Business subdistricts but did not list the other subdistricts that were created under the OBD, specifically OBD-12CP. Mr. Hansen explained that OBD-12CP is contained within the City Place DRI, which was amended by the adoption of a separate Ordinance No. 4782-18 and is not subject to review in a comprehensive plan challenge. At the hearing, the County and Town withdrew their claim relating to conflict with the Coastal Management Element. In an abundance of caution, the City presented evidence and established that the OBD is not in a coastal high hazard area. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Treasure Coast) is the regional planning council that reviewed the City's OBD Amendment. Treasure Coast's review and comments were limited to any adverse effects on regional resources or facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and any extra- jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the region. Based on the City's staff report for the OBD Amendment, Treasure Coast found that the maximum development potential of property, as expressed by FAR, did not increase as a result of the creation of the OBD. Treasure Coast found no adverse effects on regional resources or facilities and no extra-jurisdictional impacts resulting from creation of the OBD. The Petitioners did not present any evidence that would establish the OBD Amendment was not consistent with the requirements of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment conflicted with the policies, goals, and objectives of the City Comp Plan or the County Comp Plan. Data and Analysis The City Commission adopted the Downtown Mobility Plan (Mobility Plan), along with the Okeechobee Corridor Study, Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study and the Citywide Bicycle Master Plan. The various studies that make up the Mobility Plan included data relating to mode shift, walkability, mobility, circulation on Okeechobee Boulevard, economic growth in the downtown, and TDM initiatives. The Mobility Plan created a vision of desired outcomes, goals, a mode hierarchy, a mode-shift goal, and a series of proposed projects and strategies to improve mobility, not only along the Okeechobee Corridor, but also the entire downtown. The plan estimated needs in 2040 based on jobs and population rates and provided specific proposed projects that could be implemented to manage future growth in the entire downtown. The study specifically included streets within the OBD and was, therefore, relevant data and analysis that supported the OBD Amendment. The Okeechobee Corridor Study looked at the needs, capacity, and characteristics along Okeechobee Boulevard, all of which are related to the OBD. The Downtown Parking and Transportation Demand Management Study provided an audit of the parking in the downtown area. The study supported adoption of the OBD Amendment since the OBD is an area included within the overall parking demand study. The Citywide Bicycle Master Plan included an analysis of bike facilities and bike lanes along and accessing the OBD. It discussed the existing transit network in the Okeechobee corridor, obstacles, and the need for modification to some of the street systems to achieve the Bicycle Master Plan's long-term goals of producing a connected series of trails. The City also relied upon traffic count data for Okeechobee Boulevard produced by the County. In addition to the County's traffic count data, the City relied on an FDOT analysis dated June 7, 2018, which showed existing conditions before and after the Brightline train service began and which revealed that there were no intersections on the relevant portions of Okeechobee Boulevard that were failing. The City Commission also reviewed data concerning trolley ridership and skybike ridership. There were numerous other data and analyses that existed at the time of adoption of the OBD Amendment that supported the City's action in adopting the amendment including: The Economic Impact Analysis of the OBD by Fishkind & Associates, which found that the City's Class-A office market is underserved, that the City's market has a vacancy rate far below average for business districts in Florida or the United States, that a new Class-A office building in the OBD is likely to have a beneficial impact on the City's office market, that the OBD could create 1,000 new high-wage jobs and create additional demand for residential housing, that a new Class-A office building would likely generate $1 million in tax revenue for the City, and that approval of the OBD would not have a detrimental impact on surrounding Class-A offices. The West Palm Beach Downtown Walkability Analysis specifically stated that certain streets, most notably the state- owned Okeechobee Boulevard and Quadrille Avenue, are considered "downright hazardous" to pedestrians. Dr. Depew explained that the study was relevant to the OBD Amendment because it explained how the City could get people out of their personal automobiles and move them into an urban environment in different modes of transportation, which is consistent with the TCEA's aim to have more people living and working downtown. The City has adopted the walkability study in the Transportation Element Policy 2.4.4(a) of the City Comp Plan. The FDOT District 4 Road Safety Audit Report was intended to look at the performance of existing or future road intersections, including the intersection of Okeechobee Boulevard and Florida Avenue and Rosemary Avenue, to determine how the area itself could be made safer for pedestrians, provide alternative means of transportation, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles in the area. The Transit Choices Report + Sketch Alternatives contained data related to population and employment trends in the downtown area and alternatives for transit in the downtown area. It provided options, alternatives, and recommendations that included a portion of the OBD area. The report contained a map related to the mobility plan and shifting transit services to a new downtown site as a potential for future consideration within the OBD. It also referenced the Okeechobee Boulevard Corridor Study. The West Palm Beach Economic Development Study by Avalanche evaluated economic and demographic data, assessed the City's business climate, analyzed visitor trends, analyzed real estate trends, and reviewed economic development assets and programs in the City. With regard to infrastructure and real estate, the study found that Class A office space was in high demand, that office vacancy rates have been falling since 2011, and that the potential OBD would allow the City to increase in-demand Class A office product in a prime downtown location. The appraiser report by Aucamp, Dellenback and Whitney concluded that the proposed OBD would not have an adverse effect on property values for the downtown-at-large, no adverse effect on property values for nearby residential buildings, and no adverse effect on property values for nearby office buildings. The Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan included growth forecasts regarding population and employment (population growth at 35 percent and employment growth at 56 percent by 2040), which Dr. Depew looked at to confirm that the materials in other reports he reviewed were accurate. The City did not perform a site-specific traffic impact study because it was exempt under the TCEA, and there was a reduction of development intensity within the Okeechobee Corridor. Dr. Depew opined that the proposed OBD Amendment did not require a traffic impact study. The Petitioners argued that the various surveys, studies, and reports did not expressly refer to the OBD and the OBD Amendment. However, section 163.3177(1)(f) does not require creation of a plan amendment prior to conducting studies and gathering data to support it. In fact, a plan amendment is usually the reaction to surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data. The data and analyses relied on by the City were prepared by recognized professionals using professionally accepted methodologies and sources. The City's reaction to the data and analyses was appropriate. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the OBD Amendment was not supported by relevant data and analysis or that the City did not react appropriately to the data and analysis. Intergovernmental Coordination The County, Town, and City entered into the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Coordinated Review Interlocal Agreement, dated October 1, 1993 (Interlocal Agreement), to comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of chapter 163. The Interlocal Agreement established a countywide coordinated review process designed to provide cooperation between affected local governments and opportunities to resolve potential disputes within the plan amendment process with the least amount of infringement upon existing processes. The Interlocal Agreement established the IPARC Clearinghouse. Local governments are obligated to provide the Clearinghouse with an executive summary and hearing information. The City timely sent its executive summary to the Clearinghouse, and the Clearinghouse provided notice of the OBD Amendment to the Town and the County. The Interlocal Agreement provided that a written notice of intent to object may be filed by a participating local government and must be filed no later than 15 days before the transmittal hearing. Once filed, a meeting is required between the jurisdictions, a fact-finding panel is established, an opinion letter is issued, and conflict resolution is available as provided under Article X. The Town signed the Interlocal Agreement. It also adopted Policy 1.1.3 in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (ICE) of its Comprehensive Plan requiring it to cooperate with all other local governments in a voluntary dispute resolution process for the purpose of facilitating intergovernmental coordination. The County also signed the Interlocal Agreement. In the County's ICE, it too recognized the intergovernmental review process established under the Interlocal Agreement. The County and Town did not present any evidence that they filed notices of intent to object to the OBD Amendment 15 days prior to the transmittal hearing as required by the Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the IPARC Notice, the City provided notice to both the County and Lakeview by mail and published required notices in the newspaper. Mr. Greene and Ms. Aponte spoke with John Lingren from the Town about the OBD Amendment. During that conversation, the purpose of the amendment was clarified, development capacity was discussed, and it was explained that the amendment did not increase development capacity on the corridors and did not change the uses. Ms. Aponte and Mr. Hansen also spoke with Mr. Mohyuddin, a principal planner from the County, and clarified that the City was not modifying development capacity and that there was no effect on traffic in the corridor. Mr. Hansen also spoke to Jorge Perez, a senior urban designer with the County, regarding the plan amendments. The FDOT sent a findings letter to the City after reviewing the OBD Amendment. Following receipt of the letter, Mr. Greene communicated with Larry Hymowitz, the FDOT transportation planner who prepared the letter. After reviewing information provided by Mr. Greene, Mr. Hymowitz testified that he no longer believed that there were adverse impacts to transportation facilities and no longer had concerns about the data and analysis used to support the OBD Amendment. Mr. Hymowitz stated that he considered this type of communication to be intergovernmental coordination. The City also received letters from the Petitioners and heard public comment made by the Petitioners' representatives at the public hearings before making its final decision to adopt the OBD Amendment. The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the City did not comply with the intergovernmental coordination requirements of the Comp Plans of the County, Town, or City, or of chapter 163. De Facto Future Land Use Plan Amendment The Petitioners argued that the OBD Amendment conflicts with the Future Land Use (FLU) Element and is a de facto future land use plan amendment. On its face, the Ordinance amended the City's DMP Element, not the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The only FLU designation for the entire DMP area is the Urban Central Business District. The OBD Amendment did not change the FLUM since the designation remains Urban Central Business District. DMP Element Policy 3.1.3 stated that the City would establish zoning designations, and specifically indicated that Table DMP-1 identified the maximum FAR and maximum height allowed within each zoning subdistrict by right and with incentives. The City's illustrative zoning maps included in the DMP Element were reviewed in the past by the state land planning agency and were accepted as part of the DMP Element, not as a part of the FLU Element or FLUM. The Petitioners' argument is an attempt to challenge the status quo by claiming that the OBD Amendment is part of a change to or in conflict with the FLU Element when no change to the FLUM has occurred. The City's interpretation of its Comp Plan is reasonable. Ultimate Findings The Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance. All other contentions not specifically discussed have been considered and rejected. The City's determination that the Ordinance is in compliance is fairly debatable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a final order finding the OBD Amendment adopted by the City by Ordinance No. 4783-18 "in compliance," as defined by section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2018). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of December, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan E. Nason, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 3001 PGA Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (eServed) John Kenneth Rice, Esquire Nason, Yeager, Gerson, White & Lioce, P.A. 750 Park of Commerce Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33487 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law, Company 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Kimberly L. Rothenburg, Esquire K. Denise Haire, Esquire City of West Palm Beach 401 Clematis Street, 5th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Peter Penrod, General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building, MSC 110 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Cissy Proctor, Executive Director Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed) Stephanie Webster, Agency Clerk Department of Economic Opportunity Caldwell Building 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128 (eServed)
