Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Submittal-Santiago Echemendia
OUTLOOK MEDIA OF SOUTH FLORIDA APPEAL OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION Lll CITY COMMISSION E CD June 23, 2011 PRESENTATIONDi '0Co tit I. INTRODUCTION c a. SDE — Outlook Media of South Florida W Ii. MATTER BEING APPEALED a. Appealing Zoning Administrator decision from December 16, 2009: "The City declines to sign -off on the six FDOT Applications for Outdoor Advertisement Signs submitted by Carter." b. Denial of six of 7 FDOT applications for Outdoor Advertisement Signs submitted by Carter Pritchett Hodges. (79 Approval) c. Outlook has an agreement with Carter for the placement of outdoor advertising signs in the City of Miami. (in litigation). i. Attached to our appeal as Exhibit B a/V(v 512a - S b r-►-,, it z f — .5 v)iiago Cc he rlev)(ic: ii. Exhibit B of agreement: Gives Outlook rights to the subject sites, which were denied: d. Denial is not specific: only provides the following ambiguous and invalid grounds: i. No entitlement under the Zoning Ordinance ii. No entitlement under Carter's Settlement Agreement with the City iii. No entitlement under 1000 ft. pilot program e. Addressing the Zoning Administrator's general reasons for denial, decision should be reversed: i. Zoning Ordinance: Sec. 10.4.5 of the Zoning Code permits outdoor advertising signs pursuant to settlement agreement. Tab B. ii. Carter and the City have a settlement agreement from August 2003. The settlement agreement permits the relocation of outdoor advertising signs. Since 2003, the City has issued at least 5 relocation permits to Carter. Tab D of our appeal. iii. Pilot Program: Not adopted until after these applications were filed. Effective 10-5: See Exhibit S. The city does not have Zoning in Progress; therefore, the Pilot Program distance limitations were not in effect. Tab S. 2 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk iv. Estoppel: The City is estopped from denying the permits because it has previously approved at least five other outdoor advertising permits from Carter. The subject applications meet the applicable requirements, just as the 5 previously approved applications met the applicable requirements. III. CITY'S PROJECT MANAGER HAS PROVIDED RELEVANT TESTIMONY IN DEPOSITION FROM 5/10/10 THAT SUPPORTS GRANTING THIS APPEAL a. Testimony reveals justifications for the decision that are not contained in the written denial that is on appeal. b. Direct attn. to Deposition transcript, Ex. Q. c. Admission that the FDOT 1000 Foot Pilot Program is not applicable to these applications, and is therefore not a basis for denial. i. Applications not subject to pilot program. ii. Net reduction requirements not applicable to these applications. iii. Distance regulations are not applicable to these applications. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk iv. Admission: p.66 1. Q: Therefore, is it an error for the City to deny applications submitted by Carter on September 25, 2009, based on the city FDOT's 1000 foot pilot program? A: If yes. that was the only reason for the denial, d. So — at this point, we know: (i) The Zoning Ordinance allows billboards pursuant to settlement agreements; (ii) There is a settlement agreement; (iii) The pilot program does not apply. Those are the grounds listed for denial. But additional purported bases for denial were revealed: e. "Necessity": Starting at the Zoning Board hearing, we heard for the first time that necessity is a requirement. There is no definition of necessity, but Mr. Bockweg's interpretation is that there is necessity if a building is constructed to block a billboard, or if a lease cannot be renewed. P. 27. This is an unwritten rule. P. 28. i. These are the only applications that Mr. Bockweg ever rejected based on the "necessity" requirement, i.e. a building gets built in front of a billboard or a lease is expired that cannot be renewed. P. 40. 1. Did not use necessity requirement for CBS applications. (p. 33) 4 Submitted into the public record in connection with items P2.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2. Does not believe he reviewed Clear Channel applications pursuant to necessity requirement.. P. 35. 3. Doe not recall "ever approving an application submitted by Clear Channel or C B S where he has represented that it meets the necessity requirements. P. 36. ii, It is a due process violation to impose unwritten and arbitrary regulations on an applicant. iii. No base a denial. competent substantial evidence upon which to iv. By City's own admission — this standard is not defined. Pgs. 27-28 1. Q: Where did you get that understanding of necessity? A: Something that was discussed internally as far as the meaning of it becomes necessary. p. 28 Q: Tell me where is it written within the City of Miami what necessity means? A: I don't know. 5 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 an 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Q: Have you ever seen any document, any memo, any email where necessity is defined? A: Not that I recall. f. Relocation Standards: Also, for first time, at the Zoning Board meeting, relocation standards were raised as a reason to deny the applications. i. None are drafted. (4 l -42) 1. Q: Tell me what is your understanding of relocation standards to be adopted by the City. A: Well, we haven't adopted any. Q: Why not? A: I don't know. ii. As with the "necessity" standard, there are no standards here. g. This leaves the City with one last, unwritten justification for denial. City's position is that Paragraph 8 of the Carter settlement agreement requires the relocations to occur within the same zoning district. Mr. Bockweg has testified before the Zoning Board and also at deposition that when applications were presented, no zoning classifications were included — and that even with the City GIS system, he was unable to verify the correct zoning. P. 46 However, at his deposition, the zoning information 6 Submitted into the public record in connection with items P2.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk was provided to him for three of the six sites, obtained by us from the Miami GIS system: i. GT used trucks: Confirmed it was industrial. P. 50. Zoning requirement would be satisfied if sign coming from sane zoning classification. P. 51 ii. Brickell Village Land Co. —p. 52 I. Zoning info. Provided. -. 52 iii. Can Partners — p. 53 1. Zoning info provided — p. 53. iv. Submit that this is a red herring and not proper justification to deny an application, when the City is in the best position to confirm zoning. Especially when the City cannot use its own GIS system to do so — it is unfair to expect an applicant to find better results. v. Furthermore: We have obtained all of the zoning information for each site from the GIS system. Ex. T 1. Contemporary Contractors: C-1 2. GT Used Trucks: I 3. Brickell Village Land Co.: C-1 4. CanPartners Realty: C-1 5. Little Old Real Estate: I 6. Tanaka: C- l 7 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Three months to process application before denial — but City was unable to obtain this information from its own system. No impediment to approving the applications. IV. MOREOVER 6 ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS FILED BY CARTLR WERE APPROVLD BY THE CITY ON 6/29/10: QUESTIONS FOR PIETER BOCKWEG (or Vanessa): a. Will the City issue FDOT forms now that the 270 (280) days have lapsed. b. Isn't it true that Carter is about to sue the City on Warren's denial of their 826 site. c. Would the City approve these applications today? d. On 6/29, you approved signed off on five FDOT Forms 575-070-004 for Carter Pritchett, didn't you? e. These were for the following locations: i. 20' South of NW 60t1' Street? ii. 50' North of NW 59th St. & NW 6th Court? iii. 50' South of NW lath Street? iv. 300' South of NW 20'h Street? v. 300' South of NW 17th Street? f. You are not the zoning administrator, are you? g. But you have signed these forms as the Local Government Official? 8 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk h. Do you have anything documenting your delegated authority to making zoning determinations? i. For each of those signs, did you review compliance with the take -down provisions in the Carter settlement agreement? j. What signs were proposed to be removed in order to approve these 5 signs on 6/29? i. Did you review each of those signs pursuant to the same criteria as the signs you reviewed that are the subject of this appeal? ii. What criteria did you use? iii. What if anything is different from the 6/29 applications when compared to those that are the subject of this appeal? iv. Did you review the necessity requirement? 1. Was there a building erected in front of every sign that Carter proposed to remove, in order to get approval of the 6/29 permits? v. Did each of the applications contain GIS information for the sign to be removed, as well as for the replacement sign? V. [IF REQUIREDJADDITIONALLY — THERE ARE EQUITABLE REASONS TO GRANT THIS APPEAL. OUTLOOK MEDIA HAS IN GOOD FAITH DEALT Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 4 WITH THE CITY ON A NUMBER OF ISSUES — AND WAS NOT TREATED FAIRLY OR TN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS PRIOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY. a. Timeline i. September 29, 2009: Outlook filed an appeal of this Board's decision regarding the renewal of 10 different outdoor advertising signs that are not the subject of this appeal. See Ex. C in your packet. 1. On page 4 of the letter — Outlook specifically agreed to withdraw this appeal, subject to approval of the applications that are before you today. 2. This offer was followed up on with subsequent meetings with the City: a. 10/5/09: Carter representatives, City Manager, Pieter Bockweg, and the City Attorney's Office i. Outlook told that subject to CBS consent of the appeal withdrawal, the City would process the applications. iQ Submitted into the public record in connection with items P2.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ii. Applications were still not processed, resulting in Carter fling an appeal of a constructive denial on October 7, 2009 (Ex. D) i i i . On same date, Outlook submitted its withdrawal of the appeal, based on the City's prior representations (Ex. E). iv. 10/22/09: City acknowledged withdrawal of the9/29 appeal (Ex. G) v. 10/23/09: City deemed. Carter's appeal to be unripe (Ex. H) v i . But — as of 11 /24/09 — the City still had not processed the subject applications. Acknowledged in an email (Ex. I). vii. Finally denied on 12/16/09 — more than 3 months after applying and more than 2 months after withdrawing of the 9/29 appeal. b. Summary i. In a nut -shell, the City agreed with Outlook that in exchange for the withdrawal of a pre-existing appeal, it would process the subject applications. ii. But it didn't do that in a timely manner, and they ultimately denied the applications. 11 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk iii. Ambiguous reasons offered by the City for its denial do not make sense and are not legitimate grounds for denial. 1. The Zoning Ordinance allows outdoor advertising signs if they are pursuant to a settlement agreement with the City. 2. Carter City. has a settlement agreement with the Outlook has an agreement with Carter regarding these specific sites. (Subject of litigation) 4. Mr. Bockweg has confirmed that the pilot program does not apply applications. to these 5. Reasons now being proffered to justify the denial are unwritten a. No competent substantial evidence upon which to base the denial. b. Due process violation to base denial on arbitrary and capricious requirements. 6. Appeal should therefore be granted. 12 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk VI. SDE VII. RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL VIII.CONCLSION 13 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk n cu 0 u� 6'Zd sulal! N w iF+ STANDING/RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS (if required) i. "The question whether Outlook is an party is contingent upon the determination of whether it has a legally recognizable interest." aggrieved ii. [THIS MAY NO LONGER APPLY THEY DIDN'T RELY ON THE MEMO AT ZONING BOARD] Settlement Agreement in place until 2028 — not 2008. 1. Memo is incorrect by stating that the agreement is expired. 2. Assume that this objection will withdrawn. iii. City attorney memo inaccurately frames the issue. Standing issue is not resolved by looking at whether Carter's rights have been assigned. The Code simply says that anyone who is "aggrieved" may file an appeal. Section 1800: "appeals to the zoning board may be taken by any person aggrieved." iv. Much broader standard. 5. r.. v. Consistent with long line of caselaw on standing, including the seminal case — Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832. "An aggrieved or C � n 14 vi. adversely affected person having standing to sue is a person who has a legally recognizable interest which is or will be affected by the action of the zoning authority in question." Adverse decision on property that is the subject of Outlook's agreement with Carter certainly makes Outlook an aggrieved party. CITIZENS BILL OF RIGHTS: Tab K — Any interested person has the right (i) to be heard; (ii) to no unreasonable postponement; and (iii) the right to a public hearing. Any public official willfully violating this will forfeit his office. 15 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk OUTLOOK MEDIA OF SOUTH FLORIDA APPEAL OF ZONING ADMIMSTRATOR'S DECISION CITY COMMISSION October 28, 2010 Timeline of Relevant Events A Zoning Code Provisions Sec. 10.4.5 Sec. 1800 Sec. 2101 Sec. 2102 Sec. 2103 September 29, 2009 Appeal Letter References withdrawal subject to approval of Carter applications October 7, 2009 Appeal Letter from Carter & Filing Fee October 7, 2009 Withdrawal of September 29, 2009 Appeal October 20, 2009 Letter from Ruden McClosky/CBS October 22, 2009 City Confirmation of Withdrawal of Appeal October 23, 2009 Letter from City Deeming Carter Appeal Unripe November 24, 2009: Email From City Confirming Pending Status of Carter applications Public Records Summary Citizens Bill of Rights Ch. 163.3164: "Development Order" & "Development Permit" FDOT Denial of Jose Marti Site FDOT Denial of Carrillo Site Outlook Letter re GT Used Trucks 0 Zoning Board Transcript, March 22, 2010 Pieter Bockweg Deposition, May 10, 2010 Warren Bittner Deposition, May 11, 2010 Pilot Program Resolution & Minutes, September 24, 2009 Zoning Information for Subject Sites CBS Settlement Agreement: Necessity & Relocation Standards Clear Channel Settlement Agreement: Necessity & Relocation Standards V Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk A March 19, 2010 Status Update • September 24, 2009 City Commission passed Pilot program resolution • September 25, 2009 Carter submitted applications for the following locations CBS does not object: In CBS' October 20, 2009 letter to Pieter, CBS waived any objection to the City executing the Carter the FDOT form. See attached letter paragraph p Contemporary Contractors _ o Sevennine :signed "subject to relocation plan" o Tanaka On September 25, the City took the position that the City did not regulate spacing, so the City cannot cite spacing as a reason for denial of the September 25 applications o Little Old Real Estate (Austin Burke') CBS 1 FDOT forni-ConfliCts with an existing permitted Carter BB and has been denied by FDOT. The CBS site that the City signed a FDOT form for is within 1000 feet of an existing and permitted Carter BB (state tags — City building permit). CBS now objects to the City issuing Carter a form within 1000 feet of its unpermitted and FDOT denied application. See attached FDOT denial of Carillo site. o Brickell Village Land Co — Brickell Land is not within 1000 feet of CBS' site (Jcisi Marti) and Josi Marti has been denied by the FDOT. See attached FDOT denial of Josi Marti. o CanPartners Realty — CBS' Lummis application is void. The City violated its own rules when it signed the CBS FDOT application that CBS now claims in within 1000 feet of the CanPartners site. When the City signed CBS' FDOT application for the Lummis site on May 20, 2009, Outlook's CanPartners application (filed Feb 19, 2009) was on appeal to the Zoning Board. Therefore, the City violated City Code Article 1803 when it signed CBS' Lummis application (Outlook's Zoning Board Appeal stayed any action by the City) — therefore CBS' Lummis application is void and of no consequence. GT Auto — CBS is intentionally violating its agreement with Outlook by not withdrawing its GT Auto application. See attached email setting forth the CBS -Outlook agreement on withdraw, Outlook's demand for withdraw, and Outlook revocation of permission. September 29, 2009, Outlook appealed the denial of the renewal of the local government permission for the aforementioned locations, with following disclaimer Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk o If the City approves the applications for locations (a) through (g) as listed above, Outlook will hereby withdraw this appeal for those locations (a) through (g) and will waive all claims against the City related to the City's approval of the locations (a) through (g) for Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. as the applicant. City took the position that the applications could not be processed until after October 5, 2009, but signed two (2) applications for CBS Outdoor on September 29, 2009 October 5, 2009 Meeting with Carter representatives, City Manager, Pieter Bockweg, Veronica Xiques, and Warren Bittner o Withdrawal of September 29, 2009 appeal • Warren advised that the Carter applications couldn't be accepted until Outlook withdrew the September 29, 2009 appeal AND that he would not accept Outlook's withdrawal, but required CBS to consent to Outlook's withdrawal of the appeal • Note that the appeal was filed 4 days after the applications were submitted CBS is not a party to the appeal, and has appeared in opposition to the appeals at every stage • City Manager proposed solution that Outlook withdraw appeal, and give CBS 10 days to object to the withdrawal. During that time, no outdoor advertising applications would be accepted. On October 7, 2009, Outlook gave notice of withdrawal which would be effective 10 days later if no CBS objection to the withdrawal o Relocation standards • Warren asserts the City Commission needs to adopt relocation standards before the Carter applications can be approved, despite the fact that the City has approved several applications for Carter in the 6 years since the Carter agreement was approved ▪ City manager proposed that relocation standards be adopted as soon as possible, and without prejudice to any party • As of this date, there is no draft of an ordinance or resolution regarding relocation standards October 7, 2009 appeal by Carter Outdoor o Carter appealed the constructive denial of the September 25, 2009 applications, based on City's failure to process and statements at the October 5, 2009 meeting that the applications were denied o As of this date, applications are still not being processed October 19, 2009 CBS sent the City a letter stating CBS did not consent to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeals, despite the fact that CBS has fervently opposed the appeals previously o CBS further stated it had no objection or comment with regard to applications for Contemporary Contractors, Tanaka, or Sevennine • October 7, 2009 Carter appeal was returned Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk As of this date, the City continues to refuse to process any of the September 25 Applications o City refuses to process Contemporary Contractors, Tanaka without explanation o Sevennine was signed "subject to relocation plan" o September 29 Appeals are withdrawn and are not being scheduled for hearing o No explanation given for the refusal to process the September 25 Applications o Maria Chiaro, Deputy City Attorney, has opined that the applications should be processed as follows: o September 25 applications should be approved or denied in writing o Pilot program resolution cannot be a basis for a denial because the applications were submitted on September 25, 2009 and the City does not have a zoning in progress ordinance o The September 29, 2009 appeal for the Renewal Locations has been withdrawn, and CBS' consent to the withdrawal is not necessary because CBS is not a party to the appeal December 16, 2009: City Denies September 25 Applications. December 29, 2009: Outlook Appeals Zoning Administrator Denial of September 25 Applications. January 19, 2010: Outlook files lawsuit against Carter: Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, v. Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc., Case No. 10-03089 CA 30 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk B ARTICLE 10. SIGN REGULATIONS Page 1 of 1 10.4.5. Outdoor advertising signs; new signs of outdoor advertising prohibited. For the purposes of this section, "Outdoor advertising signs" are signs used in the conduct of the outdoor advertising business; an outdoor advertising business, for the purpose of this section, is defined as the business of receiving or paying money for displaying signs where the sign copy does not pertain to the use of the property, a product sold, or the sale or lease of the property on which the sign is displayed and which does not identify the place of business as purveyor of the merchandise or services advertised on the sign. Except as otherwise provided in Articles 4 and 10 and/or the City Code, or, pursuant to this subsection, no new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs," as defined above shall be allowed. With respect to existing outdoor advertising signs, Section 926.15 "Outdoor advertising signs" of Ordinance 11000 adopted in 1990, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, and dealing with "Outdoor advertising signs," is hereby repealed to the extent it is inconsistent with any provision contained in this Article. Nothing, however, in this Article shall affect those provisions of Section 926.15 requiring the termination and removal of freestanding outdoor advertising signs from the premises on which they were located not later than five (5) years following the date they became nonconforming as a result of the passage of Ordinance No. 11000 in 1990, and such provisions shall continue to be operative and given full force and effect. Moreover, nothing in this Article shall affect any legal proceedings begun and all legal proceedings that might have been begun under these provisions of Ordinance No. 11000, as adopted in 1990, and such proceedings shall be given full force and effect. Notwithstanding any provision of this Zoning Ordinance to the contrary, permits for outdoor advertising signs may be issued pursuant to a Settlement Agreement authorized by Resolution passed by the City Commission, in conjunction with the settlement of related litigation, which expressly authorizes issuance of such permits for said outdoor advertising signs, and then only under the terms and conditions of settlement agreements that result in a net reduction in the party to the settlement's number of outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami. Illumination of such outdoor advertising signs may only be approved as expressly provided for in each such settlement agreement. This includes internal illumination, external illumination and electronic illuminated changeable copy areas (the areas on the face of a sign, where the text or static images may be changed manually, electronically, or remotely) within such signs, including but not limited to LED signs. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk http://library8.municode.com/default-test/DocView/11251/1/5/17 6/22/2010 ARTICLE 18. APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND ... Page 1 of 2 .0 c o . CU 0 74114 0 .0 7, ▪ a) 0 ARTICLE 18. APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND • c • c c 0 DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING 0 -0 U .▪ in 79 CL Sec. 1800. Generally. 1.• • a) Appeals to the zoning board may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, board, or agency of the city affected by: (1) Any decision of the zoning administrator including, but not limited to, decisions involving interpretation of this zoning ordinance and decisions on Class I Special Permits; or (2) Any decision of the director of the department of planning, building and zoning including, but not limited to, decisions involving Class II Special Permits. Sec. 1801. Status of administrative decision; time limits on appeal; filing of appeal. Decisions of the zoning administrator or the director of the department of planning, building and zoning shall be deemed final, unless a notice of appeal is filed within not more than fifteen (15) calendar days of the date such decision was rendered. Such notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof, shall be filed with an officer or agent designated by the city manager. Sec. 1802. Transmittal of notice and record. The officer or agent designated by the city manager shall promptly transmit the notice of appeal to the zoning administrator or the director of the department of planning, building and zoning, as the case may be. The officer from whom the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the zoning board all the materials constituting the record upon which the decision appealed from was taken. Sec. 1803. Stay of proceedings. An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the zoning board, after the officer has received the notice of appeal, that, by reasons of facts stated by such officer, a stay would, in the officer's opinion, cause imminent peril to life and property. In such case, proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order issued by the zoning board or by a court of competent jurisdiction, on notice to the officer from whom the appeal is taken and on due cause shown. Sec. 1804. Setting hearing dates; notice. The officer or agent designated by the city manager shall set a date for the hearing of the appeal, which shall not be more than forty-five (45) calendar days from the date the notice of appeal was filed; provided, the time limitation herein set out shall not apply during the thirty-one (31) days of the month of August. Notice of such date shall be given to the appellant by certified mail. Notice by mail at least fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the hearing shall be given to any persons who, at any stage .in the proceedings including that time prior to decision by the administrative official, have in writing indicated their desire to be notified. http://library8.municode.com/default-tes oeView/11251/1/3/22 3/19/2010 /ki�//k~�o�/.euJ"m//w1oIm��//uuN,Lr~��� | �ubnn�t�dintm�he�w�D�DFhNAd~[— Fuge1ot 3 i record inconnection with . items PZ.9 on 06'23'11 ! Priscilla A.Thompson City Clerk _ Sec. 2101. Zoning administrator responsible for administration an-d enforcement. 2101.1. Generally. Azoning odnniniatrmtor, appointed by and responsible to the city nnonoger, aho|| be responsible for administration and enforcement of this zoning ordinonoe, except as otherwise provided herein, with such assistance as the city nlanmga[ may direct. It mho|| be the duty of all employees of the o|tv, and especially of all officers and inspectors of the department of p|anninQ, building and zoning, the fire and rescue department, and the police department, to report to the zoning administrator any seeming 21OY.2.Limitation onpowers 0fzoning administrator /nadministration and enforcement. The zoning administrator shall be guided and limited in findings and determinations, in the issuance or denial of permits or oerUfioateo, in the attachment ofany conditions and aafeQuapdo, or in other actions relating to administration and enforcement of this zoning ordinance by the tarrns, provisions, and requirements set out herein and shall not have the power towaive, vary, or,[nodifvsuch terrns, prgviaiona, or requirements except where specifically authorized to do so by this zoning ordinance and within |irni1odonm established by such authorization. Sec'2102' Zoning requirements, procedures, limitations, and actions on building permits. The zoning administrator shall be responsible for determining whether applications for building permits as required by the building code are in accord with the requirements of this zoning u[dinanoe, and no building permit shall be issued without certification that plans and applications conform to applicable zoning regulations. No license or permit shall be issued by any department, agency. or official of the oih/ for the use of any premises or the operation of any business, anterprise, occupaUon, trade, profession, oractivity which would, |nany manner, constitute aviolation ofthis zoning ordinance. 2YO2.Y.Plans 87be submitted with applications. All applications for building permits as required herein or by the building code shall be accompanied by plans in number of copies as necessary to meet the needs and requirements for decision on the action nequeated, drawn to sca|e, showing as appropriate to the circumstances of the case the actual shape and dimensions of the lot to be built upon; the exact size and location on the lot of the building or buildings and accessory buildings and other structures existing or to be erected or altered; the lines within which the building or structure is proposed to be altered or erected; the existing and intended use of each building or structure as proposed to be altered or erected; the existing and intended use of each building or part of a building; the number of dwelling or lodging units the building is designed to accommodate; square feet of floor area by type of use as required by determinations; the location and dimensions ofaooeomvvays` parking and loading araas, and the number ofparking spaces; where more than one (1) lot and/or parts of lots are combined for o building site, an instrument evidencing unity of title; and such other information regarding the lot and building or bui|dingo, and neighboring lots and structures and uses thereon, aa may be reasonably necessary tn make required determinations and provide for the enforcement of this zoning ordinance. Where necessary for making such determinations and enforoonnen1, the zoning administrator may require that all dimensions on such plans relating to.location and size of the lot and buildings or portions ofbuildings thereon shall be based on o registered land surveyor's certified aurvey, reflecting current conditions. 2YO2.2.Processing applications; issuance ordenial ofpermit. ',,.The zoningd i 1to the administrator's officially at | agent ' shall examine the hthp.mnoicodeew/ll25l/l/3/25 3/19/2010 ARTICLE 21. ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, VIOLATIONS, AND PENALT... Page 2 of 3 plans and application to determine whether they are fully in accord with zoning requirements. Upon an affirmative finding, certification of zoning compliance shall be entered on the plans and on the building permit, and, if otherwise lawful, the permit shall be issued to the applicant, together with one (1) copy of the approved plan. If the application and plan are not in full accord with zoning regulations, the application shall be denied and the applicant notified in writing of the reasons for such denial. Sec. 2103. Zoning requirements, procedures, limitations, andactions on certificates of use. 2103.1. For new or altered structures and uses. No person shall use or permit the use of any structure and/or premises hereafter created, erected, changed, converted, enlarged or moved, wholly or partly, in use or in structure, until a certificate of use reflecting use, extent, location, and other matters related to this zoning ordinance shall have been issued to the owner or tenant. Where a building permit is involved, provision for such certificate shall be part of the building permit; in other cases, application shall be made to the zoning administrator on forms provided therefor. Such certificate shall show that the structure or use, or both, or the affected part thereof, are in conformity with the provisions of this zoning ordinance. It shall be the duty of the zoning administrator to issue such certificate (or to approve its issuance where final responsibility for issuance lies with other officers or agencies) if he finds that all the requirements of this ordinance have been met, and to withhold such certificate (or to prohibit its issuance) unless he finds that all of the requirements of this zoning ordinance have been met. 2103.2. Temporary certificates of use. A temporary certificate of use may be similarly applied for, issued, or approved for issuance, or denied in accordance with general rules or regulations concerning such temporary certificates. Such certificates may be issued for all or part of a building or premises, may establish duration of occupancy, and may establish such conditions and safeguards as are necessary in the circumstances of the class of cases or particular case to protect the safety of occupants and the general public. Where a building permit is involved, provision for such certificate shall be part of the building permit; in other cases, application shall be made to the zoning administrator on forms provided. 2103.3. Annual certificates of use for home occupations in residential districts. In connection with home occupations in residential districts, as defined in article 9, section 906.5, annual certificates of use shall be required. Applications for such certificates, on forms provided, shall be made to the zoning administrator. Such certificates shall cover the period from January 1 through December 31 and shall be renewed annually. 2103.4, 2103.5. Reserved. 2103.6. Certificates of use for other existing uses. Any owner or tenant engaged in existing use of structures or premises (other than nonconforming use) may, but shall not be required to, apply on forms provided for a certificate of use certifying that such use is lawful under existing zoning regulations. Upon such application, and after inspection to determine the facts in the case if such inspection is reasonably necessary, it shall be the duty of the zoning administrator to issue such certificate if the administrator finds the use lawful, or to withhold the certificate and take such remedial action as is appropriate in the circumstances of the case if the administrator finds otherwise. 2103.7. Certificates of use for buildings accessory to dwellings. Where buildings or other structures accessory_todwellinas .are completed under the same Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 http://library8.municodeico de au - est/DocVin Priscilla A. Thompson 3/19/2010 City rlprk ARTICLE 21. ADMINISTRATION, ENFORCEMENT, VIOLATIONS, AND PENALT... Page 3 of 3 building permit as the dwelling and are to be used for purposes normally accessory to dwelling use, no separate certificate of use shall be required. Where buildings or other structures accessory to dwellings are completed under different building permits from the permit for the dwelling, a separate certificate of use shall be required. (Ord. No. 10863, § 1, 3-28-91) /— Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk http://library8.municode.com/default-test/DocView/11251/1/3/25 3/19/2010 TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TEW° CARDENAS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MIAMI • TALLAHABEIRR • WABHINOTON DO AMANDA L. QuiRKE IY0rrE0,5 DIRECT LINE: 305.536.8216 AQ@tewlaw.com September 29, 2009 Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of the Hearing Boards 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Re: Appeal of September 14, 2009 Zoning Board Decision Dear Ms. Fernandez: FOUR SEASONS TOWER 15TH FLOOR 1441 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-3407 T 305.536.1112 F 305.636.1116 WWW,TEWLAW.0 OM In accordance with Article 20 of the City zoning code, please consider this a notice of appeal of the zoning board's decision on September 14, 20091 denying the appeal of the zoning administrator's determination dated February 19, 2009 (the "February 19 Determination," attached as Exhibit A) that the request for renewal of outdoor advertising signs by Outlook Media of South Florida ("Outlook") is not authorized. On February 24, 2009, Outlook appealed the February 19th Determination. See Exhibit B. The CBS Letters Are in Direct Contravention of the Letter of Understanding between Outlook and CBS and Have No Legal Effect In support of the determination that Outlook's request for renewal is not authorized, the zoning administrator refers to the following documents: 1. February 18, 2009 letter from CBS Outdoor to the City of Miami, stating that "CBS has not authorized OM to present the Renewal Applications to the City." 2. August 26, 2008 letter from CBS Outdoor to the City of Miami, allegedly withdrawing the "blanket letter of consent dated May 2, 2008 authorizing the City to approve FDOT application fonus by Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC on our behalf." The City of Miami is aware of a Letter of Understanding executed on or about May 1, 2008 between CBS and Outlook, attached as Exhibit C. In accordance with the Outlook has repeatedly requested copies of the Zoning Board Resolution, but the City has refused to provide the Resolution as of this date. Therefore, Outlook reserves the right to supplement this appeal, _ . Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards September 29, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk May 1, 2008 Letter of Understanding, CBS sent a letter dated May 2, 2008 (the May 2 Authorization, attached as Exhibit D), stating that "in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, CBS Outdoor, Inc. consents to Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on our behalf." Outlook submitted applications for the following sites, in reliance on the Letter of Understanding and the May 2 Authorization: a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucks - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-035-0360 d) e) f) Brickell Village Land Company - Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 Sevennine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 CanPartners Realty - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 h) Bakehouse - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-020-0630 i) Elks Lodge - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-001-0340 Gibson Park - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3136-058-0010 Furthermore, the above referenced applications were submitted prior to the August 26, 2008 CBS letter, which is cited as a basis for the February 19 Determination. Since Outlook acted in reliance on the Letter of Understanding and the May 2 Authorization, CBS is estopped from attempting to revoke any authorizations or prior approvals of the above referenced applications. The effect, if any, of the February 18, 2009 and August 26, 2008 letters from CBS on the Letter of Understanding and the May 2 Authorization is a matter of contract interpretation between CBS and Outlook. It is not within the City's purview to interpret or determine the effect of the CBS letters dated August 26, 2008 and February 18, 2009. Revocation is governed by the principals of contract law, and is clearly not within the Thw CARDENAS LLP Pour Seasons Tower, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Mk' mi, Florida 33131-3407 • 305-536-1112 1 Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards September 29, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk scope of the zoning administrator's duties which are limited by the "terms, provisions, and requirements" of the zoning ordinance, (City Zoning Code Section 2101,2). The Authorizations Have Been Extended for Two Years By Operation of Law On June 16, 2009, Outlook gave notice to the City of Miami that Outlook was exercising the two year extension of authorizations in accordance with Section 14 of SB 360 (attached as Exhibit E), Section 14 of SB 360 provides that any local government issued development order or building permit that has an expiration date of September 1, 2008 through January 1, 2012, is extended and renewed for a period of 2 years following its date of expiration, Therefore, the following authorizations are extended by operation of SB 360: SITE Folio Number Local Government Permission FOOT 180 Day Expiration 2Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration Original 280 Day Expiration 2year extension of City of Miami Expiration Bakehouse 01-3125-020-0630 05/12/08 11/08/08 11/08/10 02/16/09 02/16/11 Contemporary Contractors 01-3124-003-1440 05/12/08 11/08/08 11/08/10 02/16/09 02/16/11 GT Used Trucks 01-3125-035-0360 05/12/08 11/08/08 11/08/10 02/16/09 02/16/11 Can Partners 01-4137-036-0020 05/22/08 11/18/08 11/18/10 02/26/09 02/26/11 Elks Lodpe 01-3124-001-0340 05/2 /GB 11/18/08 11/18/10 02/26/09 02/28/11 Mary Mays 01-3136-036-0020 06/09/08 12/06/08 12/06/10 03/16/09 03/16/11 Seoennine 01-4138-001-2070 06/26/08 12/23/08 12/23/10 04/02/09 04/02/11 Gibson Park 01-3136-058-0010 07/01/08 12128/08 12/28/10 04/07/09 04/07/11 Since the aforementioned authorizations have not expired, the City cannot authorize another outdoor advertising sign within 1500 feet of another outdoor advertising structure on the same side of the limited access highway in accordance with Section 926.15.2.1(a) of the City Code. For the Brickell Village location, Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205-000-1131, an application was stamped received on April 29, 2008 (See Exhibit F). However, for an unknown reason, it may have been misplaced by the City. Therefore, an extension of the Brickell Village application is included in this appeal. Please accept this notice of appeal, in accordance with Article 20 of the zoning code. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 18, all actions are stayed pending resolution of this appeal. The February 13, 2009 letter requested that the attached applications be stamped received by the City on that date. Therefore, no applications should be accepted or approved within 1500 feet of the locations proposed for renewal, Tsw CARDENAS LLP Four Seasons Tbwer, 15lli Fioor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 • 30 6.1112 ' Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards September 29, 2009 Page 4 of 5 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk pending the outcome of this appeal of the zoning board's September 14, 2009 denial of the zoning administrator's determination that the February 13, 2009 request is not authorized. Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. will be submitting FDOT Forms 575-070-04 for the following locations: a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucks - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-035-0360 c) Brickell Village Land Company - Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 d) Sevennine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 e) CanPartners Realty - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 f) The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 If the City approves the applications for locations (a) through. (g) as listed above, Outlook will hereby withdraw this appeal for those locations (a) through (g) and will waive all claims against the City related to the City's approval of the locations (a) through (g) for Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. as the applicant. However, Outlook will not waive any claims against the City for any applications approved for any entity other than Carter - Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. for the Renewal Locations or any locations within 1500 feet of the Renewal Locations, Please contact me if you have any questions with regard to this appeal. ALQ: Enclosure Amanda L. Quirke - TEW CARDENAS LLP Pour Senous Tuwer, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 • 305-536-1112 Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards September 29, 2009 Page 5 of 5 cc: Santiago D. Echemendia, Esq. Joe Little Glenn Smith, Esq. Harkley Thornton Warren Bittner City Clerk Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TEw CARDENAS LLP Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickcll Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 •305-536-1112 TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk D October 7, 2009 Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of the Hearing Boards 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 D PC- 01143U 0 CO 9 Re: Notice of Appeal Regarding Outdoor Advertising Forms Submitted September 25, 2009 Dear Ms. Fernandez: On Friday, September 25, 2009, Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. ("Carter") submitted FDOT Forms 575-070-04 for the following locations (collectively, the "September 25 Locations"): a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucks - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-035-0360 c) Brickell Village Land Company - Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 d) Sevennine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 e) CanPartners Realty - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 f) The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 However, the applications have not been stamped or signed by the City of Miami. At a meeting on October 6, 2009, Carter was advised that (1) the applications for the September 25 Locations were not accepted by the City; and (2) the applications for the September 25 Locations were denied by the City (the "October 6 Determination"). In accordance with Article 18 of the City zoning code, please consider this a Notice of Appeal of the October 6 Determination. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards February 24, 2009 Page 2 of 5 Resolution 09-01061 Does Not Apply to the September 25 Locations First, the City took the position that the City cannot approve the aforementioned applications because the resolution approving the pilot program for 1000' spacing, Resolution 09-01061, does not go into effect until Monday, October 5, 2009. The City concedes that the Resolution did not go into effect until October 5, 2009. Furthermore, the City has taken the position that prior to the effective date of October 5, 2009, the City did not regulate the spacing of outdoor advertising sign. In fact, on September 29, 2009, the City approved two applications for CBS Outdoor, Inc. One is immediately adjacent to an existing Carter Outdoor Inc. sign. Carter has an existing sign on Miami Dade County Folio # 01-3124-002-0920 ("Carter Sign #1"). On September 29, 2009, the City approved a sign for CBS Outdoor, Inc. on Miami Dade County Folio # 01-3124-002-0940 (attached as Exhibit A), which location is within 100 feet of Carter Sign #1. On September 29, 2009, the City approved a sign for CBS Outdoor, Inc. on Miami Dade County Folio # 01-3132-000-0090(attached as Exhibit B). In addition, the City recently approved a sign for CBS Outdoor, Inc. on 591 NW 29th Street, which location is within 100 feet of Carter Sign #2 located at 2921 NW 6th Avenue. The City approved the two aforementioned applications for CBS Outdoor, Inc. on September 29, 2009, one within 100 feet of the existing Carter Signs #1 and the other recent approval, based upon the premise that the City did not regulate the spacing of outdoor advertising signs prior to October 5, 2009. On the contrary, the City declined to process the applications for the September 25 Locations submitted by Carter Outdoor because the pilot program ordinance had not gone into effect. This is a circular argument- the City asserts it can approve the CBS Outdoor signs on September 29, 2009 and the other recently approved within 100 feet of the existing Carter Signs #1 and #2 because the City didn't regulate spacing on September 29, 2009. However, the City could not process the applications for the September 25 Locations for Carter Outdoor because the City did not regulate spacing prior to October 5, 2009. The basis for denying the processing of the applications for the September 25 Locations is fatally flawed and cannot be used to unfairly discriminate against the Carter applications for the September 25 Locations. Since the City has consistently taken the position that the City did not regulate spacing prior to October 5, 2009, the applications for the September 25 Locations should have been processed and approved without further delay. No Further Action is Required to Implement the Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards February 24, 2009 Page 3 of 5 Relocation of Outdoor Advertising Signs Apparently, the City is now taking the position that the City has to adopt a resolution for the relocation or removal of outdoor advertising signs as a prerequisite to the approval of the applications for the September 25 Locations. This is not a requirement of Florida Statutes Section 479.07(9)(c) nor a requirement of the City's resolution implementing the pilot program. In fact, the requirement set forth in the statute is that the "local government has adopted a plan, program, resolution, ordinance or other policy encouraging the voluntary removal of signs..." The City has consistently taken the position that the resolutions approving settlement agreements for CBS Outdoor, Clear Channel Outdoor, and Carter Outdoor are the "plan, program, resolution, ordinance, or other policy encouraging the voluntary removal of signs..." Carter Outdoor has already agreed to the plan for the voluntary removal of signs in accordance with the terms and conditions of its settlement agreement (attached as Exhibit C). Therefore, there is already a plan for the voluntary removal of signs, and the City does not need to adopt any additional legislation to implement a plan or program for the voluntary removal or signs or to otherwise satisfy the requirements of the pilot program ordinance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Carter has already removed five (5) signs and proposes the voluntary removal of two (2) additional signs, as listed on the attached chart. The removal of the seven (7) signs listed on the attached chart satisfies the removal requirements for the construction of seven (7) new outdoor advertising signs, as provided for in the Carter Outdoor settlement agreement. Therefore, the removal of the seven signs listed on the attached chart satisfies the removal requirement for the September 25 Locations. The City has also taken the position that a relocation program is required under the Carter Outdoor Settlement Agreement. However, the Carter Settlement Agreement was approved in 2003, and the City has issued at least five (5) relocation permits without raising an issue with regard to the formal adoption of a relocation program. Therefore, consistent with the previous interpretation of the Carter Outdoor Settlement Agreement and the issuance of the previous relocation permits to Carter Outdoor, the applications for the September 25 Locations should be processed and approved without further delay. The September 29 Appeal Has Been Withdrawn The City also asserted that there was a pending appeal to the City Commission regarding the September 25 Locations, and thus the applications could not be approved. On September 29, 2009, Outlook Media of South Florida LLC submitted an appeal to the City Commission (the "Septernber 29 Appeal") for the renewal of outdoor advertising Submitted into thr. public record in connec4.on with items PZ.9 on c4-23-11 Priscilla A. vi-hompson City Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards February 24, 2009 Page 4 of 5 applications, including the September 25 Locations. First, the September 29 Appeal was not filed until four (4) days after the applications for the September 25 Locations were submitted by Carter. Therefore, the City cannot assert that the September 29 Appeal was a basis for the refusal to process the applications for the September 25 Locations when they were submitted on September 25, 2009. Furthermore, the September 29, Appeal has been withdrawn (see attached Exhibit D). Therefore, the September 29 Appeal is not pending, and the City cannot assert this is a basis to deny the processing and approval of the outdoor advertising applications. Lastly, the City has on at least two occasions, approved applications within 1000' feet of other previously approved applications based upon the premise that the City does not regulate the spacing of outdoor advertising signs. First, the City approved FDOT Form 575-070-04 for Lummus Park on May 20, 20091 (Miami Dade County Folio # 01- 0110-090-1070), while an appeal was pending for a location within 1000' feet- the Can Partners location (Miarni Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020) (see attached Exhibit E). The City also approved FDOT Form 575-070-04 for an outdoor advertising sign located at 650 NW 50 Street (Miami Dade County Folio # 01-3124-001-0290) while an appeal was pending for a location within 1000'- Elks Lodge2 (Miami Dade County Folio # 01-3124-001-0340) (see attached Exhibit F). On September 25, 2009, when the applications for the September 25 Locations were submitted, the City asserted it did not regulate spacing of outdoor advertising signs. The City has previously interpreted the Carter Outdoor Settlement Agreement and issued at least five (5) permits for the relocation of outdoor advertising signs without further action by the City Commission. Finally, the September 29 Appeal was not pending when the applications were submitted on September 25, 2009, and has since been withdrawn. For these reasons, there is no basis for the City's refusal to process and approve the applications for the September 25 Locations. Therefore, please stamp received and approve the FDOT Forms 575-070-04 for the September 25, 2009 Locations without further delay. The approval of the outdoor advertising sign at Lummus Park has been appealed to the City Commission. 2 The renewal of Elks Lodge has also been appealed to the City Commission. However, as noted in the September 29, 2009 appeal, Outlook will withdraw its appeals of the September 25 Locations if the September 25 Locations are approved for Carter -Pritchett -Hodges Inc. as submitted on September 25, 2009. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards February 24, 2009 Page 5 of 5 If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (786)218-7635. cc: Pedro Hernandez Warren Bittner Orlando Toledo Veronica Xiques Pieter Bockweg Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ENZ ,;Q A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE; Application for outdoor advertising sign perm!' To be completed by applicant: Name of Applicant or Company. Sign Is; ❑ existing County: Highway Name ti Number: Sign location description: Section: Parcel IDT: C�3-5 Ok_mon"? t rroposed Munlclpallty, If epplleable: 3 ?co A/ �► Townshlp: Retitle: 013r2.L1 002. CD Nt To be completed by appropriate zoning official: Designation of parcel on the Future Lend Use Map: The allowable land uses under this designation are (list all): Current zoning of peranl.(from Land development Regulallonsp The allowable land uses under this designation are (Ilsl aIQ:, NOTE: Copies of the applicable pages of the land use documents may submitted In lieu of listing all allowable uses abOVe. Is location within city Nona: JD 'es1 No If yes, name of city: l i 17-11 Please provide the name and telephone number of the person the Departtnentmay contact If additional Ihforrnation Is required: ['% Name: L B Urdea s /Ca7 x Telephone Qr t%6a—/Ve I certify that the above Information reflects the designation of the parcel as It Is shown on the ourrant comprehensive, plan adopted pursuant to chapter 1631 Florida Statutes, and that I um authorized to sign this form on behalf of the county/mun}Ipalltynamed above 1 °Z 9% /Date Z r1 ►11 j 7447trn /3761-131:747d NOTE: Form must be completed not mare than six (6) menthe prior to receipt of the completed outdoor advertising permit application by the Department Local Government Perrnisalon: Please complete the items below. You may submit another form of written statement Indicating That the sign complies with alllocal governmental requirements. Fora proposed sign location, a oopy of the building permit Issued by the local government may be submitted. The outdoor advertising elgn Identified in this application; Qis�mpl1anee YAM elf duly adopted local ordinances and hes been or wUl be Issued the necessary permits, Ells not In compliance with local ordinances, but le legally exfstlng es a non -conforming sign. Ells not In compliance wllh local ordinances and Is/would be considered to be an Illegally maintained structure. I certify That I represent the govemm ial entity within whose Jurisdiction the sign described herein Is located and that the determinen reflected In thls sect; I made under my delegated authority. ,460' �� 94491 0 y r Local Government Oft{vial Date vrr 2.S Oa n r+n dmrr7r3*.c `/-cgj^ I Printed Name and "Title NOTE: Form must be completed not more than six (6) months prior to receipt of the completed outdoor advertising pennil application by the Department. sr6•oyo-Of nlwfT of WAY 000- 10100 Submitted into the pu'. sic record in connection t�ith items PZ.9 on 06-23 1 Priscilla A. Thom;son City tierk RULE 1410.061. FAG FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RE: Application for outdoor advertising sign,permit To be completed by applicant: Name of Applicant or Company: COS- S- U-TWO'l� Sign Is: ❑ existing If oposed County: %n I Prf 4i V 049 E Municipality, if BppllcabI Highway Name 8, Number. S7 Sign location description: nl Z -5 3 C. Parcel ID#: t 3 i 3 —4. ©60©a q t2 Icwr,. ..^,u(Mrr�'FF,, B7 U7OAd SEP 2 8 Zuirtrtlt, To be completed by appropriate zoning official: Designation of parcel on the Future Land Use Map: Current zoning of parcel (from Lend Development Regulations): Copies of the applicable pages from the land use documents showing all allowable uses under the designations listed above must be submitted with this application. Is location within oily limits: Erles ❑ No if yes, Hartle of olty; Please provide the name and telephone number of tho person the Department may contact if additional Information la required: Nance: I 'u&©f fL4tyk' 'Telephone t9: yf6— I certify that the above Information reflects the designation of the parcel ae It Is shown on the current comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and that I am authorized to sit n this form on behalf of the countyhnuntoJp llty named above: l44 .,?/1 Ailp/t. 4,�/ 0? SlttEzatur�,cff`Coi al Govemm= ' �u olal Date O v w€f Jig2 y/l! F[9Nd Nq !—rvar�✓trcylJii� o2 n e ame and Title 1 NOTE; Form muat be completed not more than six (8) months prior to receipt of the completed outdoor advertlaing permit application by the Department Local Government Permission: Please complete the Items below, You may submit another form of written statement Indicating that the sign oompltes with all local governmental requirements. For a proposed sign location, e copy of the building permit lasued by the local government maybe submitted. The outdoor advertising sign Identified In this application: Jn compliance with all duly adopted local ordinances and has been or will be Issued the necessary permits. s not In compliance with local ordinances, but Is legally existing as a non -conforming sign. L.Jts not in compliance with local ordlnancos and is/would be constdered to be an Illegally maintained structure. I certify that I represent the governmental entity within whose Jurisdiction the sign desoribed herein Is located and that the deterrnik = ion reflected In this .e'tlon la made under my delegated authority. b)ai f ci L Printed Name end Ttile Date �orv'trtai v+-.q.4IS e. -t1p2 NOTE: Form must be completed not more than six (6) months prior to receipt of the completed outdoor advertising permit application by the Department. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Stait. c, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Submitted into th( public record in connec'cin with items PZ.9 on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk This Settlement Agreement is made and entered into this day o by and between the City of Miami (the "City"), a Florida -municipality, and Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc., d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Carter"), a Florida corporation. RECITALS A. The City has adopted ordinances that, among other things, regulate the size, height, appearance, lighting, and landscaping requirements for outdoor advertising structures ("Signs"). City ordinances have also prohibited Signs in certait' zoning districts, B. As of April 2001, Carter owned 20 Signs in the City. Since April 2001, disputes have erisen between Carter and the City regarding the legality of City ordinances regulating Signs, the applicability of certain City ordinances to Signs owned by Carter, and the effect of Stale laws on City ordinances and on the enforcement of such ordinances. These disputes have resulted in enforcement actions and litigation now pending in the Appellate Division of the llib Circuit Court in and for Miami -Dade County: Mary E. Bolton, Vicnel, Ine. & Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Miami, Appellate Case No. 02-302-AP. C. The City and Carter desire to resolve all such disputes and the Pending litigation : - between them in this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"): L NOW, THEREFOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings set forth in this • Agreement and .other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged., the City and Carter agree as follows: A GREEMENT 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The. above recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, Widl4IMOIM.MS00 2.d tas5cvssea au JaqaeD .4.400s eGO:OI 90 ZT %op* 2. Submitted into the public record in connection with ' items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Inventory and Removal of Sins. +Carter owns all Signs listed on Exhibits A through C, and there are no other Signs within the City that are currently awned by Carter or any other of its subsidiaries or affiliated corporations or entities. Carter represents that (a) the information set forth in the attached Exhibits A'him gh C accurately describe all of Carter's 0 gns within the City; and (b) Exhibits A through C identify each Carter Sign witlxin a C-1 or more restrictive district of the City. Carter has already voluntarily removed a total Qof two Signs, The City of Miami will issue any permits or approvals which may be required so that Carter can remove or relocate the Signs described herein: a, Set forth on attached Exhibit A is a list of Signs That Carter has already voluntarily removed. b. Set forth on attached Exhibit B is t of all Carter Signs located in a C-1 ict. Carter will remove all Signs listed on Exhibit B no later than December 31, 2023, provided the City takes no action to compel either the removal of such Signs or their compliance with City ordinances prior to the voluntary removal deadline set forth herei._ylith respect to each of the Signs and Sigr►►faces listed on Exhibit B, Carter hereby expressly waives any right to receive fivrn the City just compensation or any other relief therefor, whether such claim for just compensation is predicated on Section 70.001, 70.20(9) or 479.15(2), Florida Statutes; Article X, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution; Amendments V and XIV of the United States Constitution; or any other authority under stale or federal law. Upon payment- of a $20,000 per Sigh relocation fee, the City will permit Carter to relocate any Sign structure listed on Exhibit B that is voluntarily relocated no later than December 31, 2008 to an allowed geographical location within a C-2 or less restrictive district, Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to pennit the relocation, construction, or insta]lation of a Sign without the consent of the owner of -2- �tNl l • SNau41W • $6.141 i6 6' d t:1v9 SSE �u� E S .+a .ae Cog e5D ID T SD ET 10D Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk the real property where it will be located, Carter and the City:acknowledge that Carter bears the sole risk of finding, securing and maintain the sites for its Signs, including any.relocated Sias, and that its failure to find and secure suitable sites or to take advantage of the relocation tight granted herein by December 31, 2008 shall not give rise to any claim for compensation Or other relief from the City, and Carter expressly waives any such claim. Carter's obligation to remove its Signs as provided herein is not dependent in my way on its ability to find or secure sites for relocated Signs. ' c, Carter has no roof top Signs located within the City limits. d. Carter hereby expressly agrees that it will pay the City a liquidated penalty of $10,000 per day per Sign for any Sign it does not remove in accordance with the terms set forth herein. To secure its performance of these obligations, Carter shall, on December 31, 2022, post a performance bond equal to the_total value of eackSign listed on Exhibit B that still remains in a C-1 district in the event Carter fails to perform its obligations under this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to the remedies of specific performance and injunctive relie rr` e. Nothing contained in this Paragraph 2 shall .prevent the City from reasonably enfarcing its police powers and safety regul ati ons. . 3, Status of Remainina Siena. Listed on Exhibit C are all of Carter's Signs that will remain in the City of Miami following the removal of the Signs listed on Exhibits A and 11, Unless prohibited by law, the City of Miami shall allow these Signs to remain in their existing locations subject to the payment of annual permit renewal fees as set forth below: a. Carter has provided the City with copies of all permits in its possession for the Signs that are listed in Exhibits B and C. 'Thereafter, the City will provide to Carter copies of 1%1,11 ; Itcrin OM • 56.4t3 TESBN*SGEB suS38 ..ip4JEr3 qq.00s R90101 SO ET q00 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk perinits in its possession for all other Signs listed on Exhibits El and C. The City will issue -replacement permits for any Signs for which neither the City DDT Carter is able to locate a copy of theoriginal City permit. For each sueh replacement permit issued, Carter will pay the City of Mianai a permit replacement fee of $5,000,00, Carter has three missing permits representing $15,000,00 in replacement fees, due upon the effective date of this Agreement, Any replacement permit for Signs listed on Exhibits B and C shall be specifically limited to the terms Bet forth above, Upon completion of the exchange of permits and the issuance of replacement permits, the City of Miami shall not require Carter to obtain any further permits or approvals from the City for any of its Signe listed on Exhibits B and C other than the renewal fees specified herein; provided however, nothing herein shall exempt Carter from its obligation to obtain required permits to repair its Signs, b. Sorne of the Signs listed an Exhibits B and C do not conform with current City ordinances that regulate the height, distance requirements, or orientation of Signs. In the ..futurertheCity.rnay adopt additional.ordinanoes regulating Signs, As of the effective date °Obis Agreement, all Signs listedln Exhibits B and C shall have the legal status designated in Exhibits B and C The City will permit any Signs listed on Exhibits B and C to obtain variances at no additional costs relating to ..h.Fight, orientation and distance so that they may remain as nonconforming uses or nonconforming characteristios of Use for the terms specified above, provided that such Signs comply with all other regulations regarding Signs including applicable landscaping requinernents. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from reasonably enforcing its police powers and safety regulations. Carter's rights to maintain and repair its Signs under the terms of this Agreement shall expire and terminate on December 31, 2028. Any City Sign law promulgated prior to this date shall not be applied retroactively to Carter. . • /1407/063 rd -4- TeBSCi,SBEE su2Ts aa4Jeo 4quos eS0:01 SO El WO Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 4. Acquired Payment. Carter will, within 10 days following the effective date of this Agreement, pay the arnetun of money necessary to: (a) satisfy existing nes, (b)satisfy and extinguish any existing liens on properties that have he -en imposed as a result of enibreement proceedings against Carter's Sign (c) satisfy any and all fees, permitting and renesval, from January 1, 2000 to the effective date of this Agreement; and (d) reimburse the. City for all expenses incurred as a result of the City's enforcement proceedings against Carter's Signs (the "Payment"), The Payment required of Carter pursuant to this Paragraph shall be $350,000. 5. permit R ,,,n11 Fees. In addition to the payment of any one-time perrnit replacement fees, Carter shall pay the City annual permit renewal £ees as follows: a. For the Signs listed on Exhibits B and C, Carter will, annually, pay the City annual renewal fee of $1,500 per Sign structure, beginning one year from the effective date of this Agreement, b. Annual renewal fees shall be increased beginning in 2006 and each year thereafter by the CPJ cost of living index. 6. IZetrofirtinst of Sians Eligible to Remain. Except for those Signe that are -Under 20 feet in height, all Signs in Exhibit C that are currently supported by multiple I-besms„ shall be replaced with monopole- structures on a one structure per month basis, commencing January 1, 2004 until all multiple I-beam support structures have been replaced. 7. Oveateight Sig, The State of Florida has built and is currently building sound walls along certain highways. These sound walls obstruct or will obstruct visual access to .cerlain lawfully erected Signs in the City, For those Signs to which visual access is or becomes obstructed by State-consinicted sound walls, Carter may raise their elevation to .such height necessary to restore visual access so long es any such elevation complies with applicable State tsmgPWI 4lArs TE99Ei$5622 -5- su2Ts qeoes e9D“:17 SD 27 WO Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk and county building codes, and provided that the top of the Sign shall under no circumstances exceed 65-feet above the crown of the adjoining highway, The City will issue to Carter any perrnits or authorizations which may be required to effectuate the purposes of this paragraph, 8. P.ep/acernent and Relocation of Signs, In the event it becomes neoessary for Carter to replace any Sign listed on Exhibit C, the City will authorize Carter to replace such sigh on the same site or to relocate such Sign within an allowed geographical location in the same zoning district according to relocation standards to be adopted by the City consistent with this Agreement, This right to maintain, replace and relocate the Signs listed on Exhibit C shell expire and terminate on December 31, 2028. Any City Sign law promulgated prior to thia date shall not be applied retroactively to Carter. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to permit the relocation, reconstruction, or installation of a Sign without the consent of the owner of the real property where it will be located. Caner and the City acknowledge that Carter bears the sole risk of finding, securing and maintaining the sites for its Signs, including any replacement Signs e and that its failure•to End.and secure suitable sites or to take advantage ate replacement right granted herein shall net give rise to any claim for compensation or -other relief from the City, and Carter expressly waives .any such claim, Carter's obligation to remove its 'Signs as provided herein is not dependent,in any way on its ability to find or secure sites for replacement signs, 9. public Service Project. Carter will provide outdoor advertising space to the City to publicize City events and related activities. The City shall be responsible for providing Carter with any sign copy it would like displayed, and will pay for the cost of installing the sign copy. For each year between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2024, Carter will, as space is available, provide outdoor advertising space to the City within the City and within other major media markets nw.ligum.soco 4' -6- ICBSN,S6Ea su:Ts Jea—mo Tqops R90:01 SO 81 1.DO Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk throughout the State of Florida for the display of City -prepared advertising materials. 10, Pending Cases; Vacating of Liens. Within 30 days following Carter's delivery of the Payment to the City, the City shall move to vacate and set aside the Final Administrative Enforcement Orders which are attached hereto as composite Exhibit p, and take appropriate action to satisfy and set aside any liens imposed against property owners who have been the subject of enforcement proceedings as a result of Carter's Signs, The documents vacating and setting aside the enfomement'orders and any liens shall be in a recordable form satisfactory to Carter and the property owner. The parties will also dismiss, with prejudive, all •code enforcement notices of violation, code enforcement orders, court cases, and appeals regarding the Signs listed in Exhibits A, B, and C. parties acknowledge that this Agreement is a compromise resolution of disputed laims and agree that it shall never be treated as an admission or evidence of liability by either of them for any purpose whatsoever. Nothing in this Agreement shall bar the City from initiating procedures or adopting ordinances to cernpel the removal of any lawfully erected Sign. Except as expressly provided in Paragraph 2 herein, nothing in this Agreemenit affects Carter's right to receive just compensation frorn•the City if the City elects to remove any lawfully erected Sign belonging to Carter. Nothing in this Agreement shall affect in any way the City's right to condemn a Sign in accordance with applicable law andior to take action against any Sign structure determined by the City to be unsafe. Any sucb action by the City shall not be used by Carter as grounds to invalidate this Agreement 12. Property Owners Protected. So long as Carter complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City will take no action to enforce its Sign ordinances against WM1• IMMO: • 14-M2 CI 1E99EiP56E2 -7- . stays ewseen el.00s e90:0T GO ET '4,00 Submitted into the public record in connectir,,i with items PZ.9 on 06. 3-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk the owners of the property on Which CalieT15 Signs are located. 13. Term and Bxpiratien. This Ageement, and all rights and obligations of the parties, and specifically including any and all vested rights, shall terminate andexpire on December 31, 2028, Any City Sign law promulgated prior to this date shall not be applied retroactively to Carter, 14. Purthar, Assurances and Cooneration. The parties recognize that it will be necessary to amend the zoning ordinances and Coale of the City of Miami in order to effectuate the purpose of this Agreement. The parties will work cooperatively to draft any necessary Code amendments and ordinance revisions necessary to 'effectuate this Agreement. Carter and the City agree to prepare and execute such additional documents, resolutions, ordinances, and ether actions as may be necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement. Carter covenants not to sue the Clity, or to provide financial or in -kind support to others who sue the City regarding the City's Sign regulations. The City onably cooperate to resolve issues,.if any, raised by rninDadc_County regarding the Signs permitted pursuantto this Agreement... „ . 15, Most FavoreeNation, In the event the City shall reach a settlement with any other billboard owner, Carter may elect to begovern by all ten; conditions,. covenants, and restrictions -contained. in that settlement agreement_ If Carter so elects to be governed, it shall give written notification of its election to the City Attorney or his /her designee within 60 days of the notification of National of such agreement. The ,c1ection shall be effective as of the date of the election and shall not be retroactive. 16. Notice. Ali notices or other comrrtimications required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the persons listed below: As to Carter: Mr, Richard Pritchett ?resident walig003 6.510 B d TESSEivSEEE su2 Jalatto 4goos et.O 3E31 SO ET '4131) with a copy to: To the City of Miami: with a copy to: 17, Jvisce11aneous. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc.. 6601 Bayshore Road N, Ft. Myers, FL 33918 Telephone: (239) 543-1110 Fax: (239) 543-2122 George F. Knox Douglas M. Seaton THE KNOX FIRM 1-50 S.E. 2rd Avenue Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone; (305) 577-3775 Facsimile: (305) 577-4887 Mayor tvianual A. Diaz City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone; (305) 250-5300 Alejandro Vilarello City Attorney City of Miami 444 S.W. 2rd Avenue. Suite 945 Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone: (305) 416-1800 a. Dispute Resolution: Mediation; Arbitration; Attorneys disputes among the parties, except those involving the City's police axed safety powers, shail be resolved as follows: In the event disputes arise among the parties regarding the terns of this Agreement, the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve their own disputes; if they cannot resolve their differences, either parry may then request mediation, which mediation shall be attended by hot parties with a certified mediator chosen by the parties. If themediator declares an impasse, either party may then demand binding arbitration. If arbitration is instituted between Utld . I I 40)1M) • ;MG AS 0 1 CI Is9set,ssea -9- suOTS aeqae0 1.400s BLAr4OT SO ET 4W] Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk . the parties with respect to this Agreement, the prevailing party therein shsil be entitled to reeover, in addition to all other relief obtained, all reasonable costs, expenses and fees (including reasonable attorneys.' ibes, paraprofessional fees and expert witness fees),incurred in such arbitration or appeal and in any post -arbitration proceedings, The partieparties acknowledge and agree that except as to issues arising from the City's police and safety powers, they are agreeing to mediate / arbitrate their disputes, and are expressly waiving their right to litigate their disputes in Cotut b. Construction. This Agreement has been executed and delivered in, and shall be interpreted, construed, and enforced pursuant to and in accordance with, the laws of the State of Florida. c. Counterparts. If multiple counterparts of this Agreement are executed, eaoh shall be deemed an original, but all counterparts together shall constitute one and the same instrument. ._11„_,Headings. _Th.e_seetiern._ and paragraph headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. e. ntlre •Ageernent. This Agreement sets forth all the promises, agreements, conditions and understandings among the parties hereto as to the subject matters referenced herein, and supersede al] prior and contemporaneous agreements, understandings inducements or conditions expressed or implied, oral or written, except as herein contained. f. Binding Nature. This Agreethent will be binding upon and will inure to the benefit of any successor or permitted assigns of the parties hereto, Carter agrees not to transfer or convey any ownership in any Carter Sign identified in Exhibits A through C unless •4141•814010:121, 74541 r8 TI'd TC99E.0.56EB, -3 0- snal;s 4aq-Jeo 44ops e40:07 an OD Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk • the transferee shall execute and deliver to the City an agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Carter hereby represents and Warrants that it; (a) is a corporation in good standing under the laws of the State of Fl orida; (b)is 'duly authorized to transact business in the State of Florida; and (c) has taken a3l corporate actions necessary to authorize execution and performance of this Agreement, The City hereby represents and warrants that: (a) it is empowered to enter into this Agreement; and (b) this Agreement has been duly authorized by the Board of City Commissioners 4a f the City of Miami pursuant to the requirements of Florida law. g. Amendments, This_Agreernent constitutes the entire agreement between the parties respecting the subject matter hereof. No oral statement or prior written Trattoria] related to the subject matters hereof and not specifically mentioned herein shall be of any force or effect. No change in or addition to this Agreement shall be enforceable unless evidenced by a writing executed by the parties. Any such enforceable arnendment(s) shall become effective on the date stipulated therein, h. Release and Waiver. Any condition to a party's obligation hereunder may be waived by that party, pr6ided such waiver is in writing. However, the waiver by any party of a breach or violation of any provision of this Agreement shall not operate as,, or be oonstrued to be, a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision hereof. The failure by any party to timely enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver thereof. The City hereby releases arid forever discharges Carter, its agents and employees, from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, damages and costs arising from violations, alleged or actual, of the City's Sign regulations, which have been or might have been, brought as of the effective date of this Agreement. *m.iMWM.PSOW zvel TESSEi,SBEZ sLaTs as24.4e0 q400s eLDt01 VI Z1 4u0 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk (ii) Carter hereby releases and forever discharges the City, its agents and employees and elected officials, from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, damages and costs arising out of the City's Sign regulations, or enforcernent thereof, and without limiting the , generality of the foregoing, Carter specifically waives the right to challenge the validity, constitutionality or enforceability of the City's Sign regulations and the right, if any, to reimbursement of any fees and costs incurred by Carter in its defense of enforcement proceedings. Neither Carl BT nor the City shall be deemed to have waived any right fo bring an action to enforce the terms, conditions and limitations of this Agreement. Indernnitcatione Compliance With Electrical eed Structural Codes. Carter acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement does not in any way alleviate Carter's responsibilities to comply with all applicable safety and/or construction requirements in removing, relocating, maintaining, repairing or in reconfiguring any Sign fact or Slgn structure, and Carter shall not be ex ed from complying with the requirement s of any electrical and structural building codes 'and rules and regulations general application in effect at the time a building or electrical permit application is filed in conneetion with reconstruction of an existing Sign. Carter agrees to indemnify; defend and hold the City harmless from and against all claims asserted by any person seeking to challenge the efficacy, validity or constitutionality of this Settlement Agreement, or any ordinance or resolution enacted to adopt this Settlement Agreement, including claims by lessors of Carter that result directly or indirectly from this Settlement Agreement. Carter will also indemnify and hold the City harmless for any injury, either to person or property, that results from a Carter Sign structure or associated Sign face. MU. lic/100:1• 36341 61.1 TESSEt.S6Ea -12- su:TS JeWRO 4400S entOT SO ET 400 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk j, Invalidity. If any section, phrase, or portion el this Agreement is for reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof, ln the event this Agreement is invalidated by a third party, then the parties hereto shall be returned to their respective legal positions as such existed on the date one day prior to the effective date of this Agreement. k. Integated Aveernent. Each party's obligations hereunder are dependant upon performance of the material obligations of the other party, 1. Bffective Date, This Agreement I all become effective as of the date it is approved by the Board of Commissioners for the City of Miami and is signed by both parties. By: Da A Cterk1 Dated: 0 ,2903. 1/4910300.3 • MSC vi d . IESSEVSBEE -13- suRTs v400s eBD:OT SO El '400 1 • 1 •••• IMMO 1,1,1.. 01,,, Ph slue Exhibit A dress of Berard 4.4,90 4i/4 0M4V VoJtary Removed . 4248 NW 14th Street. 2 VolunlarRy Removed 1400 NW 42nd Ave JE99Ei75663 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 3 aa4,4e0 4400s ETOtOT SO ET 400 1 1 Exhibit B Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk B ard Number PhysTcai Address of oard H&ght DistanceDistnce As ofJtin�2003' . 5 2 .56WW 22 42 NA Legel 2' 5408 52 W. P1.AGLER 43. NA ' Legal 03- 775 9i'd TEbBeisSeSe waTs 4elaso vG0t0I-50 1 • CAMENI Ij Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk oard Number PhyElca?Addr55 ct Bord Hht Dt�tancoA5 Gf Jiino. 200 " 1 1 5111 35148.D00EKIGHWAY 1 44,6 .Nft..1. 2 6217 3580 �)R0AD 42 P4A Legal 3 5242 454 NW 22 AVE 44 NA Legat .. , AVE 28.4 1p. . AVENUE 01.5WA Legal • 5289 IlOON, MIAMSAVENUE 22 2 66 NW 36 $TRUT 24.7 • 188 .tal ...., NW 4 .4 24 7036 NW AV .4 325 .420NW37 STREET 303Legal NW 14 STREET (WALL) NA NA gil 2 5346 1311 NW MIAMt CT.. 30 205 .6968 SS2SNW2AVENUE, .178.. 501 NW se STREET 37.8 . 000E HtG4WAY 37.2 NA Legal Legal 6 STREET 27 NA IE3SE8•SEEZ.. eu2;9 .4eq...4e0 4%oos Y.{ tA•12 VOry 775 PRO zOI SO a I '40o 11 $ e' •wo 1,11,.$14 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk art OF 11.110ZI ma, Araritterrr OF PLOWING & ZONING. LNG 730.ARDS ninsior; • COID2 VO'ORCEICIatr BOARD . • . • CITY OF MIA,11,11 Mary E Elelteo dad Vleoel rad. Rierpoodeatr Cate f208oI3 Case No.: 1;204056 • The Itfanca- ram.' ea behead at a finalises:in& on IvileY 29 2002, cost viefationo eltc City of Muni Cock; end beet= of the Zemin Ordhatnare. tan Special Manta having tested all kateziftterd parties, reviewed the record, awl the City of Mlarni Co, the City dlySanai Asting CreeliaaSmerr, anud otherwise fully advised ba ete Fe-asi.'ses, funds as fallow: • 1. The subject sip is !mama in a Cl zoning rIlsrsice. Article.; of alio City of br.taral Zips:ling Code ?rabbits outdoor advertising signs, sua as the subjrct sign, hiC zoiiicrustije-4. Therefore. Respondcnt; Nary E.. Boit= Dud vic,ziel,. ort 1.12 violation, of the City ofMertsi Coax tuxd tne reby fnund 41# ay of said tiolalion: r•- . • 2. Ortfirr4; 1100D, Aiic1i 11 Section, 1107.2,2 provided thrd a.nyiesn, billtoard, ca=aerctil adv=tsing suitne Cons incotonformiag clsaranaerisalo dune 42111 cosoploteiy rcaservet firsza the ptemises vdriairiffve (5) ysws ('aniOrtizaLlon period") ix= the datc It bee:am neneessforzni4. 3. The afeedye date of Ottatanee 11000 was Si-ptignaba 4, 1990. The Are (5) year sznaret=clen period wired on 5cptanber 4.15'.95. 4 nAp1, 2 002, the Maud City Commission adopted ardinzsCe 1245 whieo 'repealed Artkie 1, Section 1107.2.2. S, The Notice arViolotion Sesded for these preiceerikag,s cantatas lasagalLsc mfm-zia:Ig i0 Artic.le 11 a well as kuguagn advising the viol4w(s) of the status or lhth—Yioletimitszazordars= 04* er provis. ions cd the City of Miszni Code. The Rake is prapstr. 5. The arnurization lxciod connitrird ilt3 Article 11, Scotio 7 ,(190) =fazed OD Sep/ ercribCt 4, 1995 end therefore a savings clause is not requirad to "rove *is Artlelc, The satire 4,1 besca=te Rneel rod Jul-DT-Ms inn, F nal 055174567 IESSEtYS6Ea To-HottAli ItAirrsDN,L.L. • 03- 775 Faso Ot9 su2;s 1.qoos RSO:OT SD Z1 'apt) does DONE AND ORDERED hi Mlatai, M3uni!TharlVt C Copies Fersushed to Carol Liebe, Esgthe, Speei chr vfA%Beni George /Com Esquirs, (,morsel forhiary E. Bch= Hied Vice !, in . 1oc1 4itt c 1, Ezquirc. DcPM arYA 1arney Received Jut-01.303 IT:Z7 Prad-aattlTM! 61 •d Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk The fur tbii' Article; 11, sae tlez 3nrcana riziripteDese erf dsi6 good t a da 11,See= ii07.2.21na0j7 legal rigs. is ADJUDGED AND ORDERS.D fo]tows: 1. The subject rigors ure IL1cgal old must 1e rztrno 3 withia 9D ceay's c of s Order. 2. Jt'iziil slips Qrnvs resaorcd wi:tlIst t'hr 9© days,violate= w?l1 each pay a o#'jwo hunted and fifty' er°ettlars (S250.DD) pe: dey +mtii complicaoe with this Order. gay aCJune, 200'4 ' T7-140UN i HAMT50N,l.l.. Pare DDa 43- 775 suRig uae.�e3 ga00S 060e0Z SO 31 1.00 TEW. CAR.DENAS LLP ATTORNE Y 8 AT LAW • TALLA/116611/•E • WASHINGTON DO MilANI/A L. (jinx !lira:yr .rmt: .105.536.8116 AQ0J4c*1 Iw.coull October 7, 2009 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND FACSIMILE Mr. Pedro G. Hernandez City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan An ierican Drive Miami, Florikla 33133 Re: September 29, 2009 Appeal to City Commission Dear Mr. Hernandez: OUR SEASONS TOWER 157u FLOOR 1441 ORICKE(.L AVENUE "MIAMI, FLORIDA 3 3131-34G7 1' 308.536.1112 F 305.636.1116 WWW.TPWLkW.CCM On Friday, September 25, 2009, Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. submitted FDOT Forms 575-070-04 for the following locations (collectively, the "September 25 Locations"): a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucics - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-035-0360 c) Bricl•ell Village Land Company - Miarni Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 d) Seve mine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 e) CanPartners Realty - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 1) The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 On September 29, 2009, Outlook Media of South Florida LLC ("Outlook") filed an appeal to the City Commission (the "September 29 Appeal," attached as Exhibit A) of the zoning 1)oard's decision on September 14, 2009 denying the appeal of the zoning administrators determination dated February 19, 2009 (the "February 19 Determination," attached as Exhibit B) that the request for renewal of outdoor advertising signs by Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Pedro Hemantiez October 7, 201)9 Page 2 of 3 Subritted into the public recci d in connection with iten ; PZ.9 on 06-23-11 - riscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Outlook is not authorized. Outlook specifically statedin the September 29 Appeal that "[i]f .the City approves the applications [the September 25 Locations], Outlook will hereby withdraw [the September 29 Appeal] for [the September 25 Locations] and will waive all claims against the City related to the City's approval of the [September 25 Locations] for Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. as the applicant." Notwi thstanding the foregoing agreement by Outlook, at a meeting on October 6, 2009, the City attorney's office took the position that the September 25 Locations could not be appro' ed until the September 29 Appeal was withdrawn by Outlook. However, at the same October 6, 2009 meeting, the City attorney opined that Outlook could not withdraw the September 29 Appeal without the consent of CBS Outdoor, Inc. Outlook disagrees that the consent of CBS Outdoor, Inc. is necessary to withdraw the September 29 Appeal because CBS Outdoor, Inc. is not a party to the appeal- the appellant is Outlook and Outlook has the unilateral right to withdraw the appeal. At tht: October 6, 2009 meeting, the City advised that if Outlook provided notice of the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal and CBS did not object to the withdrawal within ten (10) days, CBS would be deemed to have no objection to the withdrawal of the September 20 Appeal. Furthermore, the City agreed that during this ten (10) day period, the City would not accept or approve any outdoor advertising applications for CBS. A copy of the notification to CBS is attached. In accordance with the aforementioned request by the City, Outlook hereby withdraws the September 29 Appeal, which withdrawal will become effective (1) upon receipt of CBS' notification of no objection to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal; or (2) ten (10) days after receipt of this letter if the. City has not received a notice of objection by CBS to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal. In the event that CBS objects to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal, the September 29 Appeal shall not be withdrawn and the September 29 Appeal shall proceed lu hearing before the City Commis:sion in accordance with Article 20 of the City Zoning Code. The only other reason raised by the City at the October 6, 2009 meeting for refusing to process and approve the applications for the September 25 Locations is that << relocation plan_ must be adopted by the City Commission for the relocation of outdoor advertising t:igns. It was agreed that the City is in the process of adopting a relocation plait which will (1) not he prejudicial to any of the three (3) outdoor advertising companies that stave settlement agreements with the City; and (2) will proceed to hearing bcfbrc the t:ity Commission without delay. Therefore, there should .be no additional obstacles to the •processing fund approval of Lhe applications for the September 25 Locations. if there are any additional hurdles prior to the processing and approval of the applications ror the Septetuhti 2.5 and/or this letter is noL an accurate representation of the understanding res hed at October 6, 2009 meeting. please advise by Friday, October. 9. 2009 so we may address any diScr—ztper nCie . Tr.v: CAnDENAs Ll_P r �. •r:.^!^r, i;,, 3A.,n� 1Jd 1 ArirL..11 a !.a:.„,,: r7lnridn 31 r t_3dr17. 1115.59r,- i i 17 Pedro Hernandez October 7, 201 /9 Page 3 of 3 531686.1 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, AniandaL,Quirke Pieter Bockweg Veronica Xiques Warren Bittner Herm inio San Roman Glenn Smith Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TEw CARDENAS LLP 1•our ScusnnA Thwer, 15th Floor, 1441 Briakell Avernie, Miwnl, Flarida 331'31-3407 • 3115-536-1112 Submitted into thu_public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk CgrfN ".417t4ja" FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION • Application for outdoor advertising sign permit To be aompleted 1y applicant: N9mBofAPPIaflIOICQflPaTy.. Out). ook Media of Ern th Flsrida LLC' Sign le: d existing proposed county; l..51 nil -1-)A e , Municipality, If applicable:, C.1 ty of Mj.imi Highway Name & Number 1-95 Sign location description; FE corner of W. nagl er &FR N. 14v r Driye (328- 34 Flagler) Section; Township: Range: ParoallOft; 01-4137-03S-0020. Tobe completed by appropriate zoning official; • Designation of perce I on the Future Land Use Map. The allowat,la land uses under ttile designation Bre (IIB currant zoning of parcel (from Land Development Regulations): The ellowelita land uses under this desIgnatIOn are pit 1 NOTE; Copies of thi-r applicable pages of the land use documents above. Is loonlion whin city limits: .Yes CI No If yea, name af or y be aubmItted In 01 (am ble uses pleaBe provide the mime and telephone number of the person the Department may contact If.additlanal information Is raqUinad: Name; L ell et; -7-e•11 Telephone #: 3 clic, V<6 -01 / I certify that the above Information reflects the designation of the parcel ae It Is shown on the current oomprahenelva plan adopted pursuant to chapter 103, Florida Blatutee, and that I am Ruthorized to-sIgn this form on behalf of the oounty/munlolpaflly rwpd above; Sig Pitied Nine end Ti NOTE: Form must be completed not more thiin six (8) months prior to raoatpL of the completed outdoor advertising permit applloaUon by the Mipariment, . Local Government Permission: Please oomp late the Remo below, You may submit another form of written atatement Indicating that Ile stun complies with ell looal governmental requirements, For a proposed sign tooatlon, a oopy of (he building permit Issued eY the 'owl government maybesubmitted, The outdoor advartemg sign -Identified In thle application: nt Official Date In oomplranoa with all dLy adopted local ordinanoes and has been or will be Issued the neoeseery permits. I& not inctompliance with loon] ordinences, but la legally existing es a non-oonformIng sign. IUMIla not In r.lompllence with !owl ordinances and le/would be caneldered to be en Illegally maintained strUcture, I °Dairy that I represont the governmental entity within whoseJuriadlotion the sign desoribed herein la looatrad and that the deterrninatio lad In this saotion Is ado under my delegated authority, iNOTEI Form must IA completed,not more than six (5) months prior to receipt orthe completed outdoor advertising permit :,epplloation by the I)ipartrnent. Amanda Quirt° - 650 •NW 50th Street Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk From: Amanda Quirke To: ectimeg, Plater; Echemendla, Santiago; Quirke, Amanda; 'Thornton, Harkley; vxiques@tmlernIgov.com Pate: 6/17/2009 12102 PM Subject: 65D NW 50L1i Street Attachments: AR-M.317_20090617_111,123_0CR.pcif Pieter, The 650 NW 50th Sireat conflicts with the Elks Lodge application, which Is the subject of a pending zoning board appeal. The zoning board continued the huaringon that appeal until September 2009. Sec. 1803, *Stay of Proceedings - An appeal stays all proceedings In furtherance of the action appealed from..., Therefore, the City.cannot sign applications that are In conflict With the renewal applications that are the subject of the pending appeal. Is this just a clerical error? Amanda Quirke Associate TEW CARDENAS 1.1.13 Fouf Soasono 'Tower, 15th Fluor 1442 BrIcieJI AVenue MINA, Pl. 33231-3407 WWI 305.636,8236 Cal 3013,733.2600 Fax. 308.536.1116 RID DZI4-6131 Thisolootrurdu moll money: maim CONIIIDRITrIA1.h,Th rnUm wleah Is(a) ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVIL=31) COMIYILINICATION, WORK PRDDUCT, PROPRIETARY fl NATUR11, OR OTHERWISS PRIT(13CTEPIrly WPKOM .013CLO8US11,end (b),Inlondud only Ibr tbo usc or Ihu Addrooseu(s) named Nomln.lryou AM not on Aare:moo, ur Pio Talon responsible ibr dollocrIng INN in on .vtdres000, yoe arc hereby noti hod MP reodlingcopying, ur cllotributIng thla moishoo isprohlbitod,lr you hove rooelyud•thin olocironle moll rocsooso In error, plane reply to the sonder entl toku tho-siups ncoossory In doloto Pio motwogo completely horn yule oontputor Rya lom. RS CRICULAR UD DISCLOSUIR: Unhts plinuesly skied nilionytno, any U.S, l'orloral Ias aria conlolnael InelPs o-mn11, Inelueling ausclunonu, Is not II:tondo:I or mitten by Tow Cardona 1.1.r to be um!, end any suoli Ix •Idylco nnut bo usod, Air ilio prposo ornsoldrogreenoldos !hot rimy be Imps/by the Intonml Sorona Serricv. a» "Bockweg, Pieter <pbockweggirniamigov,com> 5/17/2009 1121 AM >a> «AR-M317_20090517_111123_0CR.pclf> a Amanda, Attached are the latest FPOT forms that have we have received and approved. Pleasa let me know If there Is anything else. Thank you, Pieter A, Bockweg Project Manager City of Miami 114 SW 2nd Ave Miami, Ft 331.30 ploockweg@miamlgov,com Ph, 505 916-1,155 Fax 305 116-1490 ----Original Message -- From: Snyder, Teresa Sent Wednesday, June 17, 200911:23 AM To: Bockweg, Plater Subject: Emafling: AR-M317_20090617_111423_OCR Your message Is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: AR-M317_20090617_1114232)CR Note; To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of the attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. Submitted into the.public record in connee.ion with items PZ.9 on 0-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TO REORDER CALL 954 8 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TEW. CARDENAS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MIAMI • TALLA.HASS/E • WASHINGTON DC ANTANDAL QUIRK WRITER'S Difmc-r 305.536S216 E-MALL: AQ(ktcw1,1w. CO n October 7, 2009 VIA ELEC1'RONIC MAIL AND FACSIMILE Mr. Pedro G. Hernandez City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan An terican Drive Miami, FloriLia 33133 Re: September 29, 2009 Appeal to City Commission Dear Mr. Hernandez: FOUR SEASONS TOWER I5TH FLOOR 1441 BRTCKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-3407 T 305.536.1112 F 305.536.1116 WWW.TEWLAW,OOM On Friday, September 25, 2009, Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. submitted FDOT Forms 575-070-04 for the following locations (collectively, the "September 25 Locations"): a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucks - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-035-0360 c) Brie], ell Village Land Company - Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 d) Seve 'mine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 e) Canl'artners Realty - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 f) The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 On September 29, 2009, Outlook Media of South Florida LLC ("Outlook") filed an appeal to the City Commission (the "September 29 Appeal," attached as Exhibit A) of the zoning board's decision on September 14, 2009 denying the appeal of the zoning administrator's determination dated February 19, 2009 (the "February 19 Determination," attached as Exhibit B) that the request for renewal of outdoor advertising signs by Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Pedro Hernandez October 7, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Submitted into 1 le public record in connei :ion with items PZ.9 on 0 ,23-11 Priscilla A. 1 lompson ( _ty Clerk Outlook is not authorized. Outlook specifically stated in the September 29 Appeal that "[i]f the City approves the applications [the September 25 Locations], Outlook will hereby withdraw [the September 29 Appeal] for [the September 25 Locations] and will waive all claims against the City related to the Citys approval of the [September 25 Locations] for Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. as the applicant." Notwi thstanding the foregoing agreement by Outlook, at a meeting on October 6, 2009, the Cit y attorney's office took the position that the September 25 Locations could not be appro\ ed until the September 29 Appeal was withdrawn by Outlook. However, at the same October 6, 2009 meeting, the City attorney opined that Outlook could not withdraw the September 29 Appeal without the consent of CBS Outdoor, Inc. Outlook disagrees that the consent of CBS Outdoor, Inc. is necessary to withdraw the September 29 Appeal because CBS Outdoor, Inc. is not a party to the appeal- the appellant is Outlook and Outlook has the unilateral right to withdraw the appeal. At thi.: October 6, 2009 meeting, the City advised that if Outlook provided notice of the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal arid CBS did not object to the withdrawal within ten (10) days, CBS would be deemed to have no objection to the withdrawal of the September 2') Appeal. Furthermore, the City agreed that during this ten (10) day period, the City would not accept or approve any outdoor advertising applications for CBS. A copy of the notification to CBS is attached. In accordance with the aforementioned request by the City, Outlook hereby withdraws the September 29 Appeal, which withdrawal will become effective (1) upon receipt of CBSnotification of no objection to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal; or (2) ten (10) days after receipt of this letter if the City has not received a notice of objection by CBS to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal. In the event that CBS objects to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal, the September 29 Appeal shall not be withdrawn and the September 29 Appeal shall proceed to hearing before the City Commission in accordance with Article 20 of the City Zoning Code. The only other reason raised by the City at the October 6, 2009 meeting for refusing to process and approve the applications for the September 25 Locations is that a relocation plan must be adopted by the City Commission for the relocation of outdoor advertising i.igns. It was agreed that the City is in the process of adopting a relocation plan which will (1) not be prejudicial to any of the three (3) outdoor advertising companies tl tat have settlement agreements with the City; and (2) will proceed to hearing before the City Commission without delay. Therofore, there should be no additional obstacles to the processing and approval of the applications for the September 25 Locations. If there are any additional hurdles prior to the processing and approval of the applications for the September 25 Locations and/or this letter is not an accurate representation of the understanding reached at the October 6, 2009 meeting, please advise by Friday, October, 9, 2009 so we may address any discrepancies. TEW CARDENAS LLP lour Seasons Tower, 15M Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 • 305-536- 1112 1 ' Pedro Hernandez October 7, 2009 ' Page 3 of 3 1 1 cc: Pieter Bockweg Veronica Xiques 1 Warren Bittner Herm info San Roman Glenn Smith 531686.1 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Amanda L. Quirke Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TEw CARDENAS LLP i •our Seasons Tower, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 • 305-536-1112 TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into;the public record in connt tion with items PZ.9 on (1i-23-11 Priscilla A. 1 nompson G :y Clerk F li Roden ky Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail Mr. Pieter Bockweg City of Miami City Manager's Office 444 SW ?nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk October 20, 2009 200 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD SUITE 1500 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA'33301 POST OFFICE BOX 1900 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 31302 I9541 527-246E FAX: (9541333-4066 OLE N N.SFATTHOR U DEN .COM Re: Outdoor Advertising Forms Submitted September 25, 2009 ("Carter Applications") by Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. ("Carter"); Letter dated October 1, 2009, froin the Attorneys for Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC ("Outlook"); Letter dated October 19, 2009, from the Attorneys for Outlook to the City Manager and You Dear Mr. Bockweg: As you are aware, this firrn represents CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS"). This letter is in response to the Carter Applications and to the October 1, 2009 and October 19, 2009, letters from the attorneys for Outlook. In both letters, Outlook seeks to create new procedures and deadlines not set forth in the City Code. None of Outlook's demands or pronouncements can have any effect on CBS' rights and positions on the Carter Applications and the matters set forth in Outlook's letters. You, of course, are aware of the recent meeting between CBS and City representatives in which CBS notified the City that CBS does not consent to the withdrawal of the September 29, 2009 appeal or consent to the Carter Applications. Nor can Outlook dictate what applications the City should accept and consider under the CBS Settlement Agreement or the City Code. CBS' coin/tents/objections as to the Carter Applications and the September 29, 2009 Appeal are, without limitation, as follows: 1.. As to the following sites, CBS has no comment or objection, assuming that FDOT applications and building permits can be legally issued by the City: Contemporary Contractors, Sevennines and Tanaka. 2. CBS objects to the City's execution of the 1-DOT application for the GT Used Trucks Site, because an FDOT application was previously executed by the City for CBS, with the authority and approval of Outlook_ 3. CBS objects to the City'S execution of the FDOT application for the following sites, because: said sites do not meet the State spacing requirements due to previously executed FDOT applications issued to CBS: Brickell Village Land Co., CanPartners Realty, and the Little Ole Real Estate. RM68449135:2 RUDEN, McCLOSKY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. BOCA RATON • FT. LAUDERDALE • MAAR • NAPLES • ORLANDO • PORT ST. LUCIE • SARASOTA • ST, PETERSBURG • TA.UAKASSEE • TAMPA • WEST PALM REACH Page 2 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 4: As you know, all seven sites which are the subject of the Carter Applications, are also the subject of FDOT applications submitted by Outlook "on behalf of CBS" and are now the subject of the September 29, 2009 Appeal by Outlook of the Septenibex 24, 2009Zoning Board decision. The applications and building permits issued to Carter cannot be issued on the authority of the CBS Settlement Agreement with the City, nor based upon any appliCations made by Outlook. 5. CBS is asked to "consent" to Chulook's dismissal of its appeals, in order to legitimize what Carter Anil Outlook are trying to accomplish. CBS was not asked to consent to the filing of the appeals, and will not consent to the dismissal of same to aid Carter/Outlook in their goals, because of the other matters discussed herein. CBS makes one further comment. Under the City Code, permits for signs on the expressways can only be issued in accordance with a settlement agreement between a sign company and the City. The Settlement Agreement between Carter and the City does not authorize the construction of signs on the expressways at the sites that are the subject of the Carter Applications. Further, the Carter Applications are not .authorized by the City Code, particularly Section 10.4.5 thereof. Finally, the Carter Applications are not consistent with the City's Pilot Program issued under recent State legislation. Therefore, it appears that the Carter Applications are improper. If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Glenn N. Smith GNS:lad CC: Warren R. Shiner, Esq. (via e-mail only) Mr. Orlando Toledo (via e-mail only). Veronica Xiques, Esq. (via e-mail only) Mr. Joe Little(via e-mail only) David Posy, Esq. (via e-mail only) Mr. J. C. Clements (via e-mail only) Mr. Art Martinez (via e-mail only) Mr. Billy Long (via e-mail only) Mr. Ed Scherer (via e-mail only) Terrence Russell, Esq. (via e-mail only) John R. Keller, Esq. (via e-mail only) Amanda Quir' ke, Esq. (via e-mail only) Santiago Echemendia, Esq. (viae-mail only) Pedro G. Hernandez, City Manager (via e-mail only) Riv1:684498 5:2 RUDEN, IvicC 0 KY, SMITH, SCHUSTER & RUSSELL, P.A. BOLA exrox • Fl. LAUDERDALE • MIAMI • NAPLES • ORLANDO • POT T. LUCIE • SARASOTA • ST. PETERSBURG • TALLAHASSEE • TAMPA • WEST PALM ScArt4 TO REORDER CAI,L 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page 1 of 2 Elizabeth Bernardo - FW: September 25, 2009 — Outdoor Advertising Application From: "Rodriguez, Anel" <AxRodriguez@miamigov.com> To: "SDE@tewlaw.com" <SDE@tewlaw.com> Date: 10/22/2009 11:23 AM Subject: FW: September 25, 2009 -- Outdoor Advertising Application CC: Amanda Quirke <aq@tewlaw.com>, "eb@tewlaw.com" <eb@tewlaw.com>, "Chiaro,Maria J" <NUChiaro@miamigov.com>, "Bockweg, Pieter" <pbockweg@miamigov.com> Attachments: sharp_printer@tewlaw.com_20091019_152833.pdf Santiago, based on the attached letter whereby Ms. Quirke withdraws the appeal, and on the conversation you and I had earlier today regarding both items, I will withdraw both City Commission items. Please let me know otherwise at your earliest convenience. Thank you. 1) 09-00213za - Zoning Administrator Interpretation Appeal: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL BY AMANDA L. QUIRKE, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY UPHOLDING OR REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR INTERPRETATION DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2009, REGARDING A PROVISION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. 2) 09-00616za - Zoning Administrator Interpretation Appeal: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), DENYING OR GRANTING THE APPEAL BY AMANDA L. QUIRKE, AFFIRMING OR REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD, THEREBY UPHOLDING OR REVERSING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR INTERPRETATION DATED MAY 20, 2009, REGARDING A PROVISION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 10 OF ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA. Mr. Anel Rodriguez - Administrative Assistant II - City of Miami Hearing Boards - 305.416.2037 - 305.416.2035 - axrodrigue rjymi mi_g_ov.eom From: Bockweg, Pieter Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 10:57 AM To: Rodriguez, Anel Subject: FW: September 25, 2009 -- Outdoor Advertising Application FYI Thank you, Pieter A. Bockweg Project Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Ave Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk file://CADocuments and Settings\eb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4AE04096WPBHo... 10/22/2009 Page 2 of 2 Miami, Fl 33130 pbockweg@miamigov.com Ph. 305 416-1455 Fax 305 416-1490 From: Elizabeth Bernardo [mailto:eb@tewlaw.com] Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 3:33 PM To: Bockweg, Pieter; pgh@mianaidade.gov Cc: Echemendia, Santiago; Glenn.Smith@ruden.com; godoy, Yanet; Quirke, Amanda Subject: September 25, 2009 -- Outdoor Advertising Application Dear Messrs. Hernandez and Bockweg, At Amanda Quirke's request, please see attached. Sincerely, Elizabeth Bernardo Legal Assistant to Amanda L. Quirke Elizabeth Bernardo Legal Assistant TEW CARDENAS LLP Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131-3407 Main: 305.536.1112 Direct: 305.539.2482 Fax: 305.536.1116 et wlaw.c m WEB This electronic mail message contains CONFIDENTIAL information which is (a) ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, WORK PRODUCT, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECI ED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) named herein. If you are not an Addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an Addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or wrinen by Tew Cardenas LLP to be used, and any such tax advice cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk file://CADocuments and Settings\eb\Local Settings\TempaPgrpwiseVIAE04096WPBHo... 10/22/2009 TEW • CARDENAS LLP AT TOR NE Y S AT LAW AMANDA L. QU1RKE WRITER'S DIRECT Luse: 305.536.8216 nqgtevelaw.com October 19, 2009 VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE Pedro G. Hernandez City Manager City Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Dear Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Bockweg: FOUR SEASONS TOWER. 15TH FLOOR 1441 DRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI. FLORIDA 33131-3407 T 306.536.1112 F 305.636.11/6 WWW,TEW1AW.COM Pieter A. Bockweg Project Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 On October 6, 2009, Outlook Media of South Florida LLC transmitted the attached letter to CBS Outdoor, Inc. In accordance with the City's direction at the meeting on October 5, 2009, the letter advised CBS to provide written notice of its objection, if any, to the withdrawal of the September 29, 2009 appeal filed by Outlook. As of this date, Outlook Media of South Florida LLC has not received any notice that CBS objects to the withdrawal of the September 29, 2009 appeal. Therefore, in accordance with the attached letter, CBS is deemed to have no objection to the withdrawal of the September 29, 2009 appeal, and the September 29, 2009 for the Renewal Locations appeal has been withdrawn. Therefore, the City should not accept any applications within 1,000 feet of the applications submitted by Carter Outdoor, Inc. on September 25, 2009, pending review and approval of the Carter Outdoor, Inc. applications. Thank you for your attention and consideration in this matter. ALQ: Enclosures cc: Santiago D. Echemendia Glenn N. Smith Sincerely, Amanda L Quirl e Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TEW. CARDENAS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MIAmI • TALLABABBER • WASE1ROSON DO AMANDA L, QUIRKII 'WRITER'S D;rtsri- 305-1315.6116 IOW.; AQ®towlaw.tom October 7, 2009 VIA ELECTRONIC MAII AND FACSIMILE Mr. Pedro G. Hernandez City Manager City of Miami. 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Glenn N. Smith Ruden McCloskey 200 East Broward Boulevard P.O. Box 1900 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33302 Dear Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Smith: FOUR SEASONS TOWER 107ii FLOOR 1441 BRIOKFLL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131-3407 T 305.536.1112 F 305.5313.111S WiNW.TEWLAWOOM On September 29, 2009, Outlook Media of South Florida LLC ("Outlook") filed an appeal to the City Commission (the "September 29 Appeal," attached as Exhibit A) of the zoning board's decision on September 14, 2009 denying the appeal of the zoning administrator's determination dated February 19, 2009 (the "February 19 Determination," attached as Exhibit B) that the request for renewal of outdoor advertising signs by Outlook is not authorized. Enclosed is a letter to Mr. Hernandez specifically withdrawing the September 29 Appeal under the terms and conditions set forth in the attached letter, attached as Exhibit C. As you are aware, CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS") is not a party to the September 29 Appeal and CBS appeared in opposition. to Outlook at the zoning board on September 14, 2009. Since CBS has fervently opposed the appeal of the February 19, 2009 Determination on the record on multiple occasions, it is presumed that CBS will not object to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal. However, the City has requested that CBS notify the City in writing within ten (10) days if CBS objects to the withdrawal oflhe September 29 Appeal, stating the reasons for the objection to the withdrawal. If oo notice is received by the City and Outlook within ten (10) days of this letter, CBS is deemed to have no objection to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal.. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Mr. Pedro G. Hemandez Glenn N. Smith October 7, 2009 Page 2 The City has flirther agreed that no applications for outdoor advertising signs will be stamped received or approved during the ten (10) day period in which CBS may notify the City of the objection to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Amanda L. Quirke Enclosure 531685.1 Pieter Bockweg Veronica Xiques Warren Bittner Herrninio San Roman Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Taw CARDENAS 1LLF Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Rork% 33131-3407 305-536-1112 TEW. CARDENAS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW MIAMI •TALLAHASSEE WASHINGTON DO AMANDA L. QUIRNit penyrom's DuacTLval 305.536.8216 E-MAUAQ®tewitrw.ea in October 7, 2009 VIAELECTRONIC MAIL AND FACSIMILE Mr. Pedro G. Hernandez City Manager City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: September 29, 2009 Appeal to City Commission Dear Mr. Hernandez: FOUR SEAsoN9 TOWER 16TH FLOOR 1441 BRIOICELL AVENUE FLORIDAMIAMI, 33151-5407 T Abs.636.1112 F 305.836.1116 WWWTEWLAWOOM On Friday, September 25, 2009, Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. submitted FDOT Forms 575-070-04 for the following locations (collectively, the "September 25 Locations"): a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucks - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-035-0360 c) Brickell Village Land Company - Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 d) Sevennine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 e) CanPartners Realty -1s,fiami Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 f) The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 On September 29, 2009, Outlook Media of South Florida LLC ("Outlook") filed an appeal to the City Commission (the "September 29 Appeal," attached as Exhibit A) of the zoning board's decision on September 14, 2009 denying the appeal of the zoning KaminifitratOr'S determination dated February 19, 2009 (the "February 19 Determination," attached as Exhibit B) that the request for renewal of outdoor advertising signs by Pedro Hernandez October 7, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Outlook is not authorized. . Outlook specifically stated in the September 29 Appeal that "[i]f the City approves the applications [the September 25 Locations], Outlook will hereby withdraw [the September 29 Appeal] for [the September 25 Locations] and will waive all claims against the City related to the City's approval of the [September 25 Locations] for Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. as the applicant." Notwithstanding the foregoing agreement by Outlook, at a meeting on October 6, 2009, the City attorney's office took the position that the September 25 Locations could not be approved until the September 29 Appeal was withdrawn by Outlook, However, at the same October 6, 2009 meeting, the City attorney opined that Outlook could not withdraw the September 29 Appeal without the consent of CBS Outdoor, Inc. Outlook disagrees that the consent of CBS Outdoor, Inc. is necessary to withdraw the September 29 Appeal because CBS Outdoor, Inc. is not a party to the appeal- the appellant is Outlook and Outlook has the unilateral right to withdraw the appeal. At the October 6, 2009 meeting, the City advised that if Outlook provided notice of the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal and CBS did not object to the withdrawal within ten (10) days, CBS would be deemed to have no objection to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal. Furthermore, the City agreed that during this ten (10) day period, the City would not accept or approve any outdoor advertising applications for CE3S. A copy of the notification to CBS is attached as Exhibit C. In accordance with the aforementioned request by the City, Outlook hereby withdraws the September 29 Appeal, which withdrawal will become effective (1) upon receipt of CBS' notification of no objection to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal; or (2) ten (10) days after receipt of this letter if the City has not received a notice of objection by CBS to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal. In the event that CBS objects to the withdrawal of the September 29 Appeal, the September 29 Appeal shall not be withdrawn and the September 29 Appeal shall proceed to hearing before the City Commission in accordance with Article 20 of the City Zoning Code. The only other reason raised by the City at the October 6, 2009 meeting for refusing to process and approve the applications for the September 25 Locations is that a relocation plan must be adopted by the City Commission for the relocation of outdoor advertising signs. It was agreed that the City is in the process of adopting a relocation plan which will (1) not be prejudicial to any of the three (3) outdoor advertising companies that have settlement agreements with the City; and (2) will proceed to hearing before the City Commission without delay, Therefore, there should be no additional obstacles to the processing and approval of the applications for the September 25 Locations. If there are any additional hurdles prior to the processing and approval of the applications for the September 25 Locations and/or this letter is not an accurate representation of the understanding reached at the October 6, 2009 meeting, please advise by Friday, October, 9, 2009 so we may address any discrepancies. Taw CARDENAS LLP Four Spasms Thwer, 15th Floor, 144113rickoll Avelino, Mj,im11 Floridn 33131-3407 • 305-536-1112 Pedro Hernandez October 7, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Thank you for your consideration in this matter, cc: Pieter Bockweg Veronica Xiques Warren Bittner Herminio San Roman Glenn Smith 531686,1 Sincerely, Amanda L. Quirke Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Taw CARDaNAS LLP - - Four Season Thwor, 15th Ploor,1441 Brickell Avanue, Miami, Florida 33131.3497 •305-536-1112 - TEW° CARDEN.AS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW NIA,MI • TALLAHASSEE . WASHINGTON DO AMANDA L QUIRKS WRIT&R'S DIRECT UM, 305.536.8216 31-141,41.1AQ6trwlaw,coin September 29, 2009 Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clark of the Hearing Boards 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130-1910 Re: Appeal of September 14, 2009 Zoning Board Decision Dear M. Fernandez: FOUR SEMI:NEI TOWER. 1E3TE FLOOR 14 41 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 3 3131— 540 7 T 306.538.1112 V 305.535.1116 VAirel,TEIVLAW.001.1 In accordance with Article 20 of the City zoning code, please consider this a notice of appeal of the zoning board's decision on September 14, 20091 denying the appeal of the zoning administrator's determination dated February 19, 2009 (the "February 19 Determination," attached as Exhibit A) that the request for renewal of outdoor advertising signs by Outlook Media of South Florida ("Outlook") is not authorized. On February 24, 2009, Outlook appealed the February 19th Determination, See Exhibit B. The CBS Letters Are in Direct Contravention of the Letter of Understanding between Outlook and CBS and Have No Legal Effect In support of the determination that Outlook's request for renewal is • not authorized, the zoning administrator refers to the following documents: 1. February 18, 2009 letter from CBS Outdoor to the City of Miami, stating that "CBS has not authorized OM to present the Renewal Applications to the City." 2. August 26, 2008 letter fromCBS Outdoor to the City of Miami, allegedly withdrawing the "blanket letter of consent dated May 2, 2008 authorizing the City to approve FDOT application forms by Outlook Media of South Florida., LLC on our behalf." The City of Miami is aware of a Letter of Understanding executed an or about May 1, 2008 between CBS and Outlook, attached as Exhibit C. In accordance with the outlook has repeatedly requested copies of the Zoning Board Resolution, but the City has refused to provide the Resolution as of this date. Therefore, Outlook reserves the right to supplement this appeal. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards September 29, 2009 Page 2 of 5 May 1, 2008 Letter of Understanding, CBS sent a letter dated May 2, 2008 (the May 2 Authorization, attached as Exhibit D), stating that "in accordanoe with the terms of the Agreement, CBS Outdoor, Inc. consents to Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC filing Applications for Outdoor Advertising Permits with the Florida Department of Transportation on our behalf." Outlook submitted applications for the following sites, in reliance on the Letter of Understanding and the May 2 Authorization: a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucks - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-035-0360 c) Brickell Village Land Company - Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 d) Sevennine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 e) CanP artners Realty - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 f) The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 h) Bakehouse Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-020-0630 i) Elks Lodge - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-001-0340 j) Gibson Park - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3136-058-0010 Furthermore, the above referenced applications were submitted prior to the August 26, 2008 CBS letter, which is cited as a basis for the February 19 Determination, Since Outlook acted in reliance on the Letter of Understanding and the May 2 Authorization, CBS is estopped from attempting to revoke any authorizations or prior approvals of the above referenced applications. The effect, if any, of the February 18, 2009 and August 26, 2008 letters from CBS on the Letter of Understanding and the May 2 Authorization is a matter of contract interpretation between CBS and Outlook It is not within the City's purview to interpret or determine the effect of the CBS letters dated August 26, 2008 and February 18, 2009. Revocation is governed by the principals of contract law, and is clearly not within the Taw CAMLLP Four Seasons Thwer, 15th Floor, 1 441 Brickoll Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-5401 • 305-536,1112 0 u c c 0 me ems PZ.9 on 06-23-11 c 0 a. E 0 .c ci t t Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clerk of Hearing Boards September 29, 2009 Page 3of5 scope of the zoning administrator's duties which are limited by the "terms, provisions, and requirements" of the zoning ordinance. (City Zoning Code Section 2101.2). The Authorizations Have Been Extended for Two Years By Operation of Law On June 16, 2009, Outlook gave notice to the City of Miami that Outlook was exercising the two year extension of authorizations in accordance with Section 14 of SB 360 {attached as Exhibit B), Section 14 of SB 360 provides that any local government issued development order or building permit that has an expiration date of September 1, 2008 through January 1, 2012, is extended and renewed for a period of 2 years following its date of expiration, Therefore, the following authorizations are extended by operation of SB 360: BITE Folio Number Local Government Permission FOOT 180 Day Expiration 2Year Extension of FDOT 180 Day Expiration , 11/08/10 Original 280 Day Expiration 02/16/09 2year extension of City of Miami Expiration 02/16/11 ?bakehouse 01-3125-020-0630 06/12108 11t08108 Contemporary Contractors 01-3124-003-1440 06/12/08 11/08/08 11/08/10 02/18/09 02/18/11 GT Used Trunks 01-3125-035-0360 06/12/08 11/08/08 11/08/10 02/18/09 02/16/11 Can Partners 01-4137-036-0020 06/22/08 11/18/08 11/18/10 02/28/09 02/28/11 Elks Lodge 01-3124-001-0340 06/22/08 11/18/08 11/18/10 02/26/09 02/20/11 Mary Maya 01-3136-036-0020 08/09/08 12/06/08 12/08/10 03/16/09 03/16/11 Severmin° 01-4138-001-2070 06/26/08 12/23/08 12/23/10 04/02/09 04/02/11 Gibson Park 01-3136-058-0010 07/01/08 12/28/08 12)28/10 04/07/09 04/07/11 Since the aforementioned authorizations have not expired, the City cannot authorize another outdoor advertising sign within 1500 feet of another outdoor advertising structure on the same side of the limited access highway in accordance with ' Section 926.15.2.1(a) of the City Code. For the Brickell Village location, Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205-000-1131, an application was stamped received on April 29, 2008 (See Exhibit F). However, for an unknown reason, it may have been misplaced by the City. Therefore, an extension of the Brickell Village application is included in this appeal. Please accept this notice of appeal, in accordance with Article 20 of the zoning code. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 18, all actions are stayed pending resolution of this appeal. The February 13, 2009 letter requested that the attached applications be stamped received by the City on that date. Therefore, no applications should be accepted or approved within 1500 feet of the locations proposed for renewal, T1ew CA1tDENAs 1.L1' 1 Brlcke0 Avenue, lvfami, Florida 33131.340'1 • 305.536-1112 M 0 Ms. Teresita Fernandez City of Miami Clark of Hearing Boards September 29, 2009 Page 4 of 5 pending the outcome of this appeal of the zoning board's September 14, 2009 denial of the zoning administrator's determination that the February 13, 2009 request is not authorized. Carter -Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. will be submitting FDOT Forms 575-070-04 for the following locations: a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucks - Miami Dade Calmly Folio 01-3125-035-0360 c) Bridkell Village Land Company - Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 d) Sevennine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 e) CanPartners Realty - Miami. Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 f) The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 If the City approves the applications for locations (a) through (g) as listed above, Outlook will hereby withdraw this appeal for those locations (a) through. (g) and will waive all claims against the City related to the City's approval of the locations (a) through (g) for Carter-Pritclaett-Hodges, Inc. a,s the applicant, However, Outlook will not waive any chlims against the City for any applications approved for any entity other than Carter - Pritchett -Hodges, Inc. for the Renewal Locations or any locations within 1500 feet of the Renewal Locations. Please contact me if you have any questions with regard to this appeal. ALQ: Enclosure . , Four Seasons To Amanda L, Quirke Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-Z3-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Taw CARDIMS LLP Mow, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miarni, Floride. 33131-3407 • S05-536-1112. - Ms. Teresita Fernandez City ofMiami Clerk of Hearing Boards September 29, 2009 Page 5 of 5 cc: Santiago D. Eohemendia, Esq. Toe Little Glenn Stnith, Esq. liarkley Thornton Warren Bittner CityClerk Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TEW CARDENAS LLP ?Om &mamas ToWar, 15th Floor, 1441 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131-3407 • 305-536-1112 5 City of gat 42 PITIRCI INIZP I :I 4 February 201 WOO Amanda L, Cluirke Tew Carderiss,I.I.P Pout Seasons Tower, 2514 Floor Miami, Florida 5323% Renewal of Outdoor Advertising Applications Ueat Ms. Quirk am in receipt of s fined -letter With hack up from your office dazed February 23, da modified, dated r rugry 28,2008 requesting ranowsl of certain Ot4d0Or adverts am informing you theti per the attached letters from US, and their representatives, th ravel; authorized. Sincerely, CC: Orlando TOlthio,pnlgrnirectnr of Pinning, Etullding and Zoning Werrell litttner, Aas164 nt city Atiormy Vortmion Klquits, Aialstant Chy Attomny Motor Bookvietc, Avalitant to Senior Dirattot nf Planning, 111111ding anri Znr Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 01,1PARThti ()I?()ININ(1 .,„ 1 IAN tII..MUi1 TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Titg af October 23, 2009 Herminio San Roman 55 N Hibiscus Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 RE: File ID 09-01144za Dear Mr. San Roman: nt The appeal referenced above concerning an "Appeal of Sept. 29, 2009 Zoning Administrator Determination" received on October 8, 2009 (letter dated October 7, 2009) is not valid. The $500.00 appeal fee will be refunded accordingly. Based on the applicable law, this is not a matter subject to appeal. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call me at 305-416-2030. Sincer ly, Anl Rodriguez C: Maria J. Chiaro, Office of the City Attorney Lourdes Y. Slazyk, Office of Zoning Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk DEPARTMENT OF HEARING BOARDS 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 7th Floor, Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 416-2030 Telecopier: (305) 416-2035 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 REORDER CALL Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk rage i ot:z Santiago Echemendia - RE: Status of applications From: "Bockweg, Pieter" <pbockweggmiamigov.com> To: Amanda Quirke <aq@tewlaw.com>, "Echemendia, Santiago" <SDE@tewlaw.com>, "Bittner, Warren" <WRBittner@miamigov.com> Date: 11/24/2009 4:11 PM Subject: RE: Status of applications Amanda, At this time they are pending. Thank you, Pieter A . Bockweg Project Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Ave Miami, Fl 33130 pbockweg@miamigov.com Ph. 305 416-1455 Fax 305 416-1490 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk • From: Amanda Quirke [mailto:aq@tewlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 3:42 PM To: Bockweg, Pieter; Echemendia, Santiago; Quirke, Amanda; Bittner, Warren Subject: Status of applications Please advise whether the applications for outdoor advertising signs at the following locations have been approved, denied, or remain pending as of this date: a) Contemporary Contractors - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3124-003-1440 b) GT Used Trucks - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-035-0360 c) Brickell Village Land Company - Miami Dade County Folio 01-0205- 000- 1131 d) Sevennine - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4138-001-2070 +711P•iir•\rinrcrirri•arti-c eartrl nni-,ncr-w-rs MTITT 1 1 1'SffNIN Fage 2 Or e) CanPartners Realty - Miami Dade County Folio 01-4137-036-0020 f) The Little Old Real Estate - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3125-025-0280 g) Tanaka - Miami Dade County Folio 01-3113-025-0041 Amanda Quirke Associate TEW CARDENAS LLP Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33 131-3407 Direct: 305.536.8216 Cell: 305.733.2800 Fax: 305.536.1116 ewlawcom This electronic mail message contains CONFIDENTIAL information which is (a) ATTORNEY - CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION, WORK PRODUCT, PROPRIETARY IN NATURE, OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED BY LAW FROM DISCLOSURE, and (b) intended only for the use of the Addressee (s) named herein. If you are not an Addressee, or the person responsible for delivering this to an Addressee, you are hereby notified that reading, copying, or distributing this message is prohibited. If you have received this electronic mail message in error, please reply to the sender and take the steps necessary to delete the message completely from your computer system. IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Unless expressly stated otherwise, any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this e-mail, including attachments, is not intended or written by Tew Cardenas LLP to be used, and any such tax advice cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk file•//C•1111nrumentc Rnri RettinaQ\cdpIr 1 1 /1111,-%nnel TO REORD Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk DATE October 21, 2009 October 13, 2009 October 7, 2009 October 7, 2009 October 5, 2009 October 2, 2009 October 2, 2009 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST DESCRIPTION From Glenn Smith to Warren Bittner attaching the subpoenas issued to Glenn Smith and Warren Bittner From Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith attaching the October 7, 2009 Carter appeal to the Zoning Board From Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. "Glenn here is another self-serving letter from Outlook dated October 7,2009. This one actually addressed to you concerning Outlook's offer to withdriival one of its pending appeals. Let's discuss." "Glenn, please find the attached latest letter from Outlook's attorney considering Carter's FDOT applicatbin dated September 25, 2009, which Outlook states you are copied. How does CBS feel about this — let's discuss." Extensive public records request from CBS to the City of any public records requests done by Outlook. Documents in response including anything related to the Carter aPplication. From Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. e n, please see attached partienlarly footnote 2, since Outlook extensively acted Upon the authority of CBS in submitting the original applications, and now is appealing the denial of the renewal of those applications, I am interested in knowing CBS's view of Outlook's offer to withdraw the appeal in footnote 2. Let's discuss." From Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. "Glenn, I would like to diScusswith you these Notices of Appeal to the City Commission of the Zoning Board's decision. When you get a chance. I know that Amanda Quirke copied you". Referring to the renewal locations and Lummus appeals. October 1, 2009 From Warren Bittner to Veronica Xigues and Glenn Smith discussing the tax implications of the Brickell Park. 534E55.1 E-mail from Joe Little to Pieter Bockweg and Warren Bittner. "Peter and Warren earlier asked Glenn that we resend the letter under my signature attaching a letter stating that CBS will accelerate its payments to the City and clarifying the Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk implications of the opt out ordinance, and also referring to the Parks agenda items, as companion items, they will assist CBS in the implementation of the settlement agreement" September 17, 2009 E-mail forwarding Santiago Echemendia's communications with Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. September 14, 2009 E-mail from Glenn Smith to Warren Bittner including four case citations. September 10, 2009 E-mail from Joe Little to Warren Bittner and Pieter Bockweg acknowledging that the City may revoke its approval of any of the below FDOT applications when it has issued seven initial amended permits to CBS. This includes Mary Mays, Jose Mart, FDOT, Lummus, Fujimo, Overtown Plaza, Black History Musuem and Devecht September 9, 2009 Referring to a conference call between CBS and the City. September 4, 2009 September 3, 2009 August 31, 2009 534855,1 E-mailfrom Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. "Hypothetically, if CBS were to relocate its proposal., Lummus signed from its current to a position somewhere within the actual park, would then Moot the CanPartners issue. Please let us know as soon as you can." poise from Joe Little to Warren Bittner. The Parks site vull continue to conflict with CanPartners as the Lummus site does, there would be no benefit. There could be the added - - complication that Litnnitts has been under contract first with CBS and Clear Channel and now with CBS again. If we were to jump across the property line to City property the owner of Lummus might well feel offended. From Ines to Warren Bittner attaching an amendment to the settlement agreement and accompanying City resolution for the 1,000 foot issue. While CBS outlook disagrees with the City's interpenetration and desire to have the 1,000 foot approvals made II a -case by Case in the spirit of moving things forward we have revised the document so that the 1,000 foot interpretation will be limited solely to the amended permits governed by the CBS settlement agreement. E-mail from Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. "Glenn, here is the legislation we have prepared for the September 10th which will take care of the 1,000 spacing issue, we believe it requires a 2 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk simple amendment to the settlement agreement, also attached. Please let me know if these are okay with you." From Glenn Smith to Warren Bittner. "We do not understand the need to amend the settlement, the City Code has no spacing requirements. The spacing is based on state requirements which have now been changed to 1,000 feet plus the settlement would now be based on 1,000 feet as a matter of law. I thought you were going to inform the Board that the spacing is 1,000 feet and get their approval to send a letter to FDOT confirming. Also, we do not think CBS should be limited to three signs at a 1,000 feet, there will be more, GT Used Truck say that it has already been subrnitted. CBS is working on others. Ensure that the legislation is not acceptable to CBS. August 31, 009 Between Warren Bittner and Glenn Smith where Warren Bittner is saying there is going to be a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to intervene in the administrative proceeding concerning the Parks properties. Glenn replies with citing tag numbers 57545 and 57546, Black History Musuern. And the numbers for Jose Marti and Overtown Plaza, August 31, 2009 August 21, 2009 June 17, 2009 June 16, 2009 From Glenn Smith to Warren Bittner. "Dear Warren, CBS has to date submitted the following sites to the City with a 1,000 foot spacing, Fujimo, Overtown Plaza, GT Used Trucks and City of Miami Black History Museum for 33 NW 19th Street. There may be other sites developed and submitted. E-mails indicating there was a meeting on August 24, 2009 at the MRC Building between Glenn Smith, Joe Little, Orlando Toledo, Pieter Bockweg and Veronica Xigues. E-mails from Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. "Glenn, here is a copy of the Order Denying Outlook Media's Writ of Mandamus for your review. Response by Ines "Congratulations." E-mail on Glenn Smith sending Warren Bittner case law. Pm finding some good cases for the argument that there is no clear legal right whether there is a factual issue disputed such ownership or entitlement or interpretation of the Code. June 12, 2009 E-mail from Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith attaching a transcript for the hearing in January. 534855.1 3 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk June 11, 2009 June 11,2009 June 17 20 E-mail from Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. "Glenn, I think this is potentially a huge mistake on Outlook Media's part If Outlook fails to appeal the Circuit Court Appellate Division then denial of the permits the matter will be res judicata. If he does appeal, outlook will have a very difficult standard review in its effort to obtain a reversal, he must know all of this and is now apparently trying to get a second bit of the apple before he has to file his writ of cert. I think we should simply move to' dismiss the litigation. He has gotten all the relief he is entitled to out of the administrative process. I will need to amend my motion to dismiss to assert the availability of administrative remedies as a basis for dismissal. Then rethinking Warren Bittner sends an e-mail to Glenn Smith — I'm thinking that maybe we should just let the petition be heard on the merits and mention as part of our argument that because of the administrative process the petition should simply be dismissed that way we preserve the issue on appeal should the Court rule adversely to us and erroneously issues the writ of mandamus. E-mail from Warren Bittner to Lourdes Slazyk, Orlando Toledo, Pieter Bockweg and Glenn Smith. "See the attached notice of hearing for June 176 on the Writ of Mandamus. At this time I do not recommend that either Orlando or Pieter attend. If you are present you could be called upon to give testimony which will just make the hearing longer or interject irrelevant issues. E-mail from Steve Helfman to Warren Bittner. "I just spoke to Amanda and she said she is going on the Zoning Board. Then Warren Bittner's response to Steven "Thanks for the tip,,, May 18, 2009 From Glenn Smith to Warren Bittner providing an indemnification for the City's signature of the Lummus site. May 8, 2009 May 534R55.I 9 There was a conference call referred to in the May 11, 2009 e- mails between Glenn Smith and Pieter Bockweg. E-mail between Warren Bittner and Glenn Smith referring to a conference call on that date. E-mail from Warren Bittner and Glenn Smith on the continuance for the May 11, 2009 Zoning Board hearing. "Glenn, do we have any objection to this? See Amanda Quirke's e-mail below." A Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk April 15, 2009 E-mail from Glenn Smith to Warren Bittner. "Attached hereto is a copy of letter from Ed Scherer of CBS Outdoor to Lourdes Slazyk to which is attaching au FDOT application for a sign at the Oppenheim site. Also attached is a copy of the cancellation certification for removal of the DACRA sign. March 11, 2009 E-mail from Glenn Smith to Pieter Bockweg and Warren Bittner. "This it to certify that CBS has now removed all signs on Exhibit B, please confirm this issue will be removed from the Commission agenda." March 3, 2009 February 5, 2009 E-mail regarding Mary Mays. "Glenn, I reviewed the letter Ms. Quirke copied me on she is suggesting that the City issue a building pemit jointly in the name of CBS and outlook Media. I'm not aware of the provision the settlement agreement that permits that." Glenn responds "Warren, I -believe this to -be a moot issue because CBS is not interested in such an arrangement. See my e-mail to Amanda Quirke yesterday which I copied you." E-mail from Warren Bittner to Maria Chiaro copying Glenn Smith. "Maria, Glenn Smith representing CBS wants to send you some case law so I'm providing him your e-mail address." February 5, 2009 E-mails - "Are you ready for the conference call re is Outlook Media's Zoning Board appeal." And noting that Warren Bittner invited CBS to the meeting where the City officials discussed the Outlook Zoning Board appeal. January 30, 2009 E-mail from Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith. "I would recommend that CBS file a paper indicating CBS's intention to intervene it with the hearing Boards Clerk asap with senice on the appellant and the City directed to me." January 30, 2009 January 20 2009 534855.1 E-mail betWeen Warren Bittner and Glenn Smith. "Glenn, Pieter and I are going to meet in a few minutes to discuss the CaaPartners issue. We will thereafter make a recommendation to Orlando, I may try to call you afterwards. Our goal is try to get Lummus done and out of here, if at all possible." Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith noting that they want the motion to intervene to be said at the same time as the City's Motion to Dismiss. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk December 19, 2008 E-mail - "Glenn, Quirke and Echemendia called a few minutes ago indicating they were administratively appealing the Zoning Administrative's decision to deny their permit on Mary Mays and Sevennine. I am inclined not to agree to abate their Writ of Mandamus because I don't think there is any merit to anything they are doing. How do you feel? December 9, 2008 E-mail from Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith attaching the Sevennine denial and the Mary Mays denial. December 5, 2008 E-mail referencing 660 NW 20th Street. This is the site that conflicts with Elks. This is to clarify and supplement my letter to you of December 2 concerning the 660 NW 20th Street If the City encounters any problems or issues with respect to the application, CBS will e responsible for the same and in addition?? To removing the two signs referenced CBS will also remove the sign at 1161 to 71 Flagler Street. December 2, 2008 E-mail regarding 660 NW 20th Street. Letter referencing removing the signs at 3800 Bird Road and 1661 West Flagler. November 3, 2008 E-mail from Glenn Smith to Veronica Xigues and Warren Bittner. "We have now received word that the City has signed off on the FDOT application for the Lummus site. It is critical to get this done right away to protect the spacing." September 16, 2008 E-mail where CBS consents to the filing of Lourdes' affidavit in the Monsalve appeal. .54855.1 6 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk uunx'www.ouarroomoc.gpv/omucs/oomc_nuc_ouancr_pnnt.a: P , ~ ~ Miami -Dade County Ethics Website and content provided by Marnmade County Home Rule Charter Submitted into the public record in connection with items _PZ-9 on 06-2ec11 �� Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Preamble VVethe people ofthis County, in order to secure for ourselves the benefits and responsibilities of home rule, to create a metropolitan government to serve our present and future needs, and to endow our municipalities with rights of self determination intheir local afairs, do under God adopt this Home Rule Charter. Citizen's Bill ofRights (A) This government has been created to protect the governed, not the governing. In order to provide the public with full and accurate information, to promote efficient administrative management, to make government more accountable, and toinsure to all persons fair and equitable treatment, the following rights are guaranteed: 1. Convenient access. Every person has the right to transact business with the county and municipalities with a minimum of personalinconvenience. bshall bothe duty ofthe County Manager and the Commission hoprovide, within the County's budget limitations, reasonably convenient times and places for registration and voting, for required inspections, and for transacting business with the County. 2. Truth in government. No county or municipal official or employee shall knowingly furnish false information on any public matter, nor knowingly omit significant facts when giving requested information to members of the public. 3.PuNic Records. All audits, reports, pninutos.documents and other public records ufthe County and the municipalities and their boards, agencies, departments, and authorities shall be open for inspection at reasonable times and places convenient tnthe public. 4. Minutes and ordinance register. The Clerk of the Commission and of each of the municipal council shall maintain and make available for public inspection anordinance register separate from minutes showing the votes ofeach member on all ordinances and resolutions listed by descriptive title. Wdtten minutes of all meetings and the ordinance register shall be available for public inspection not later than thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the meeting. 5. Right to be heard, So far as the orderly conduct of public business permits. any interested person has the right to appear before the commission or any municipal council or any county or municipal agency, board, or department for the presentation, adjustment or determination of an issue, request or controversy within the jurisdiction of the governmental entity involved, Matters shall bescheduled for the convenience ofthe public, and the agenda shall be divided 'into approximate time periods oothat the public may know approximately when amatter will beheard. Nothing herein shall prohibit any governmental entity or agency 1rom imposing reasonable time limits for the preaeiFionnfa matte,. 0. Right to notice. Persons entitled to notice of a county or municipal hearing shall be timely informed as to the time, place and nature ofthe hearing and the legal authority pursuant towhich the hearing iutobeheld. Failure byan individual to receive such notice shall not constitute mandatory grounds for cancelling the hearing or rendering invalid any determination made at such hearing. Copies of proposed ordinances or resolutions shall be made available at a reasonable time prior to the hearing, unless the matter involves an emergency ordinance or resolution, 7. No unreasonable postponements. No matter once having been placed on a formalagenda bythe county orany municipality shall be postponed to another day except for good cause shown in the opinion of the county commission, the municipal council or other governmental entity or agency conducting such meeting, and then only on condition that any person so requesting is mailed adequate notice of the new date of any postponed meeting. Failure by an individual to receive such notice shall not constitute mandatory grounds for cancelling the hearing or rendering invalid any determination made at such hearing, B. Right hopublic hearing. Upon a timely request of any interested party a public hearing shall be held by any county or municipal agency, board, department, or authority upon any significant policy decision to be issued by it which is not subject to subsequent administrative orlegislative review and hearing. This provision shall not apply �othe lomL_ department of the county or of any municipality, nor to any body whose duties and responsibilities are solely advisory. | of 9/17/2009 11:20 unpx/w*w.nuanmu000. nncu At any zoning mother hearing inwhich review is exclusively by certiorah.aparty orhis counsel shall beentitled to present his case ordefenuebyoral ordocumentary evidence, tosubmit rebuttal evidence, and &mconduct such cross- examination mumeybenaquimdforof4Uandtruedieo|ooumnfthefocts.Thedecisionofanyuuchogancy.board.or department or authofty must be based upon the facts in the record. Procedural rules establishing reasonable time and other limitations may bepromulgated and amended from time \otime. 9. Notice of action and reasons. Prompt notice shall be given of the denial in whole or in part of a request of an interested person made in connection with any county or municipal administrative decision is reserved at the conclusion of the hearing. The notice shall be accompanied by a statement of the grounds for denial, 10. Monage/n'ondattorneys' reports. The county manager and county ottnmeyand each city manager and city attomey shall periodically make public status report on all major matters pending or concluded within their respective jurisdictions. 11.Budgeding. Inaddition boany budget required bystate statute, the county manager shall prepare abudget showing the cost ofeach program for each budget year. Prior tothe county commission's first public hearing nnthe proposed budget required nequied by state law, the county manager shall make public budget summary setting forth the proposed cost of each individual program and reflecting the personnel for each program, the purposes therefore, the estimates millage cost of each program and the amount of any contingency and carry over funds for each program, 12. Quarterly budget comparisons. The county manager shall make public a quarterly report showing the actual expenditures cluding the quarter just ended against one quarter of the proposed annual expenditures set forth in the budget. Such report shall reflect the same cumulative information for whatever portion of the fiscal year that has elapsed. 13. Adequate audits. An annual audit of the county and each municipality shall be made by an independent certified public accounting firm inaccordance wUhgenera|lyacceptedouditingstandonju.Aoummmryoftheresuhs.\ncluding any defidendeofound, shall bemade public. |nmaking such audit, prophetaryfunctions shall beaudited separately andudaquatedepnadmdononpmphetorytoci|dieaahoUbaaccmodsothepub|icmaydetarminetheamountofany direct orindirect subsidy. 14. Regional offices. Regional offices of the county's administrative services shall be maintained at locations in the county for the convenience of the residents. 15. Financial disclosure. The commission shall by ordinance make provision for the filing under oath or affirmation by all county and municipal elective officials, candidates for county and municipal elective offices, such employees as any be designated by ordinance, and such other public officials, and outside consultants who receive funds from the county or municipalities within the county and who may legally be included, or personal financial statements, copies of personal federal income tax returns, or itemized source of income statements. Provision shall be made for preparing and keeping such reports current from time totime, and for public disclosure. The commission shall also make provision for the filing annually under oath of a report by full-time county and municipal employees ofall outside employment and amounts received therefrom. The county manager orany city manager may require monthly reports from individual employees or groups or employees for good cause. 16. Representation of public. The commission shall endeavor to provide representation at all proceedings significantly nd its residents before state and federal regulatory bodies. 0 � 0 w � � . 17. Commission on Ethics and Public Trust. The County shall, by ordinance, establish an independent Commission on Ethics and Public Trust comprised of five members not appointed by County Commission, with the authority to review, interpret, render advisor opinions and enforce the county and municipal code of ethics ordinances, conflict of interest ordinance. lobbyist registration and reporting ordinances, ethical campaign practices ordinances, when enacted, and citizens' bill of rights. (B) The foregoing enumeration of citizens' rights vests large and pervasive powers in the citizenry of Dade County. Such power necessarily carries with it responsibility of equal magnitude for the S uccessful operation of government in� the county. The orderly, efficient and fair operation of government requires the intelligent participation of individual citizens exercising their rights with dignity an restraint so as to avoid any sweeping acceleration in the cost of government because of the exercise of individual prerogatives, and for individual citizens to grant respect for the dignity cfpublic office. (C)Remedies for violations. Inany suit byocitizen alleging aviolation of this article filed hnthe Dade County Circuit Court pursuant to its general equity jurisdiction, the plaintiff, if successful, shall be entitled to recover costs as fixed by items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 IL 2 of 0/17/2009 11:20 E Lill CS nap:// www.miamiaaoe.gow etrucsinome_nue_cnaner_prma 3 of 3 the court. Any public official or employee who is found by the court to have willfully violated this article shall forthwith forfeit his office or employment. (D) Construction. All provisions of this article shall be construed to be supplementary to and not in conflict with the general laws of Florida. If any part of this article shall be declared invalid, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. (Amended 3-12-96). Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 9/17/2009 11:20 City of Miami Legislation Resolution: R-07-0625 City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number; 07-00438c Final Action Date: 10/25/2007 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION, WITH ATTACHMENT(S), APPROVING, SETTING FORTH AND SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, KNOWN AS CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1, TO ESTABLISH A CITIZENS' BILL OF RIGHTS; PROVIDING THAT THE AMENDED CHARTER MAY BE REORGANIZED AND RENUMBERED; CALLING FOR AND PROVIDING THAT CHARTER AMENDMENT NO. 1 WILL BE SUBMI 1 1 tD TO THE ELECTORATE AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 29, 2006; DESIGNATING AND APPOINTING THE CITY CLERK AS THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF VOTER REGISTRATION BOOKS AND RECORDS; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE; FURTHER, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO BE DELIVERED TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, NOT LESS THAN 45 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUCH SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THIS RESOLUTION. WHEREAS, the Miami -Dade County Charter contains a Citizens' Bill of Rights that is applicable to municipalities in Miami -Dade County; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 2007, by its adoption of Resolution No. 07-0276, the City Commission directed the City Attorney to prepare a proposed Charter Amendment that would establish in the City Charter a Citizens' Bill of Rights containing some of the same provisions as are contained in the Miami -Dade County Citizens' Bill of Rights and some additional provisions; and WHEREAS, the proposed Charter Amendment is set forth in its final form in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electorate at the Special Municipal Election to be held on January 29, 2006, as called for and provided herein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The Charter of the City of Miami, Florida (Chapter 10847, Laws of Florida, as amended), is proposed to be amended by adding a new charter section containing a Citizens' Bill of Rights as set forth in the attached text in the following particulars:{1} u .c 0 a c a, 0 ca, o o c -p u a, v a L N u E yt . r City of Miami Page 1 of 6 File Id: 07-00438c (Version: 1) Printed On: 3/19/2010 a File Number V7-0V*38 Enactment Number*o7-vuzx "PART| CHARTER AND RELATED LAWS SUBPART THE CHARTER ° Sec, xx. Citizens' Bill of Riqhts ° ° submitted into the public record inconnection with items PZ.9om 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk (A) This qovennmenthas been created toprotect the qovanned.not the qovarninq.|norder toprovide the public with full and accurate information, to promote efficient administrative manaqement, to make qovernment more accountable, and to insure to all persons fair and equitable treatment, the following Mqhtaare puaronteed: 1 . Reliqion and Conscience. The City shall not interfere with the freedom of each person in the city to follow the dkctmham of his or her own conscience cpncaminq reUqiouo worohiP, nor ohoU the pity support any ns|iq|on. 2. Speech, Aononrb/y and Press. The City ohm| not interfere with the hohta: (0 of freedom of speech-, (ii) of freedom of the press: NO to petition -the qovemment, or (iv) to peaceable assembl,�, 3. Unreasonable Searches and Seizures, The Citv shall not authorize any unreasonable search or 4. Nondiscrimination. The City shall not, directly o, |nd|rectly, discriminate amonq persons because of race oo|or, creed, ne|iqion` sex, domestic relationship otatus, parental otatus, familial status sexual orientation national mipin, political affi|ioUon, pender identity and expression, or racial profi|inq. Nothinq herein shall prevent the City of Miami from namedvinq present discrimination or the present effects of past discrimination by a race -conscious affirmative action oroqnam which is in compliance with the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the State of Florida. 6. Environmental Protection. The City shall promote the hqht of the people to clean air pure water freedom from excessive and unnecessary noise. and the natural, ocenic, historic and aesthetic qualities ofthe environment. 6� Natural Resources and Scenic Beauty. It shall be the policy of the City to oonaanxa and protect its natural resources and ocankz beoutY. which policy ohmU include the abatement of air and water pollution. and excessive and unnecessary noise. (B) The foreqoinq enumeration of citizens' riqhts vests larqe and pervasive Powersinthe dUzanm of the City of Miami. Such Power necessadiv carries with it responsibility of equal maqnitude for the Page 2w'6 File NmnberV7-V0438c Enactment Nwnberx-07-oo5 successful operation ofgovernmerdinthe City. The orderly, effioientandfoiroperationofqovem/ment requires the intelliqent participation of individual citizens exercisinq their riqhts with diqnity and restraint so as to avoid any sweepinq acceleration in the cost of government because of the exercise of individual Preroqotivms, and for individual citizens to orant respect for the dionity of public office. p Remedies for violations. In any suit by a citizen alleqinq a violation of this Bill of Riqhts filed in the Dade County Circuit Court pursuant to its oeneral equity iurisdictioTL the plaintiff, if successful, shall be entitled to recover costs as fixed by the court. Any Public official or employee who is found by the court to have willfully violated this article shall forthwith forfeit his or her office or employment. (D) Construction. AJI provisions of this article shall be construed to be supplementary to and not in conflict with the qenany|lawsofF|midaorthaprovsionsoYtheFloridaConstituton. Ifany part ofthis article ohoU be declared inva|id, it shall not affect the validity ofthe namoin|nq provisions. The Charter Amendment proposed in this Section is known as Charter Amendment No.1. Sectiun3. In accordance with the provisions of the City Charter and §5.03 of the Miami -Dade County Home Rule Charter. a Special Municipal Election imcalled and directed habaheld inthe City of Miami, Florida, from 7:UOA.M.until 7:OOP.W1..onTuesday, January 29.20O8.for the purpose oy submitting to the qualified electors of the City of Miami for their approval or disapproval the measure known aoCharter Amendment No. 1. Section4. (a) In compliance with the Florida Election Code, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish notice of the adoption of the herein Resolution and of the provisions hereof, at least twice, once inthe fifth week and once \nthe third week prior tothe week inwhich the aforesaid election is to be held, in newspaper(s) of general circulation in the City of Miami, Florida, which notice shall besubstantially ooset forth inthe following form: NOTICE OFSPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TOAMEND THE CHARTER TOBEHELD C)N TUESOAY.JANUARY28.2OO8 |NTHE CITY [}FN1|AkA|. FLORIDA PURSUANT TORESOLUTION NO. A Special Municipal Election will be held on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, from 7:00 A.M. until 7:00 P,M. in the City of Miami, Florida, at the polling places in the several election precincts designated by the Board of County Commissioners of Miami -Dade County. Florida, as set forth henain, wn|eau otherwise provided by law, and submitting to the qualified electors of the City of Miami, Florida, the following question: "Shall the Miami Charter baamended toestablish aCitizens' Bill ofRights to guarantee rights related boreligion and conscience, speech, assembly and pneoa, unreasonable searches and ueizunyo, nondioohminmdon, environmental protection, natural resources and scenic beauty and providing for remedies and construction?" By order of the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida. n 06-23-11 Page xvye File Id: v7-oomo (Versww"1) Printed On: »ox2mo � M ReNumber 0r-0n4zor Enactment Nwnber:/m7-0625 City Clerk Alist ofCity ofMiami polling places follows: (insert list of City of Miami Polling Places.) = Section5. The official ballot to be used at said Special Municipal Election shall be in full compliance with the Election Code of Florida with respect to absentee ballots and to the use of such voting machines as may be required by the Florida Election Code, and shall be in substantially the ~~ 0 following form, towit: 1� �= ^nFF|C|m BALLOT �� J5 -_-_'�.'.-..--__.� ur�um�nxum|u/�a����u|v�m E L. = � FOR APPROVAL ORDISAPPROVAL OF -' THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: Charter Amendment toestablish in the Miami Charter a Citizens' Bill of Rights. YES (For the measure) "Shall the Miami Charter beamended toestablish aCitizens' Bill ofRights ho guarantee rights related toreligion and conscience, speech, assembly and press, unreasonable searches and seizures, nondiscximinwdon, environmental protection, natural resources and scenic beauty and providing for remedies mndcunstruotion?' NO (Against the measure) Section 6. The Special Municipal Election shall be held at the voting places in the precincts designated on Exhibit No. 1, or as maybe designated by the Supervisor of Elections of Miami -Dade County, inconformity with the provisions ofthe Florida Election Code. Section7. A description of the registration books and records which pertain to election precincts wholly orpartly within the City and which the City isadopting and desires touse for holding such elections isoafollows: All registration cards, bookn, records and certificates pertaining to electors of Page 4v/« File lit n77-««* 8c(flersivn: 1) Printed On: axxomo File xumuer.,07-00*38c Enactment wmbe,x*7-0625 the City and established and maintained mwofficial by the Supervisor ofElections ofMiami-Dade County, in conformity with the provisions of the Florida Election Code, are adopted and declared to be, and shall hereafter be recognized and accepted as, official registration cards, bonko, records and caMifioatewofthe City. Section 8. The Precinct Election Clerks and Inspectors to serve at said polling places on said dates shall be designated by the Supervisor of Elections of Miami -Dade County, Florida, for such purposes in accordance with the general laws of the State. Section 9. Persons who are qualified to vote in this Special Municipal Election and who have not registered under the provisions ofthe Florida Election Code and Chapter 18ofthe Code ofthe City of Miami, Florida, as amended, or who have transferred their legal residence from one voting precinct to another voting precinct in the City, may register atsuch branch offices as may be approved by the Supervisor of Elections of Miami -Dade County and at said Supervisor's office which will be open at the folloWing location and during the following times: K8IAMI-DADECOUNlY ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT 2700 Northwest 87thAve. Oora|, Florida Monday to Friday, inclusive: 6:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. Qualified persons may also register atbranch offices and may aisouse any mobile registration van during such times and on such dates as may be designated by the Supervisor of Elections of Miami -Dade County. Soction1U. PR|SC|LLAA`THOMPSON.the City Clerk ofthe City ofMiami, Florida, io designated and appointed as the official representative of the Commission of the City of Miami, Florida, in all transactions with the Supervisor of Elections of Miami -Dade County in relation to matters pertaining to the use of the registration books for the holding of the herein general municipal election and the herein runoff election. section 11. The City Clerk shall cause tobwprepared absentee ballots for the use ofabsentee electors entitled to cast such ballots in the Special Municipal Election being called for herein. Section12. All qualified electors ofthe City shall bopermitted tnvote inthis Special Municipal Election and the Supervisor of Elections of Miami -Dade County is requested, authorized, and directed to furnish, at the cost and expense of the City of Miami, a list of all qualified electors residing in the City of Miami as shown by the registration books and records of the Office of said Supervisor of Elections and duly certify the same for delivery to and for use by the election officials designated to serve atthe respective polling places insaid election precincts. Section13. The City Clerk is authorized and directed tocause ocertified copy ofthis Resolution hobedelivered tothe Supervisor ofElections ofMiami-Dade County not less than 45days prior hothe date ofthe Special Municipal Election pursuant toapplicable law. � c FilqNumber Or-004oa Enactment Number: R-07-o62x Section14. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor,J2) (1} Words/and urfigures stricken through shall bedeleted. Underscored words and/or figures shall be added. The remaining provisions are now ineffect and remain unchanged. Asterisks indicate omitted and unchanged material. {2} |fthe Mayor does not sign this Resolution, itshall become effective atthe end often calendar days from the date itwas passed and adopted. |fthe Mayor vetoes this Resolution, itshall become effective immediately upon override ofthe veto bythe City Commission. Submitted into the public record imconnection with items �@��om&6±23-11 �� ' Priscilla A,Thompson c(tVCterk C4 of Miami Page 6 of 6 REORDER CALL 954- Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ•9 on 06 23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Ch. 153 INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS FS. 2009 Program. to enact ordinances, reguiations. or other measures to comply with the provisions of s. 373.4592. or which are necessary to carrying out a county's duties pursuant to the terms and conditions of any environ- mental program delegated to the county by agreement with a state agency, (d) For purposes of this subsection, a county ordi- nance that regulates the transportation or land applica- tion of domestic wastewater residuals or other forms of sewage sludge shall not be deemed to be duplication of regulation. (5) AMENDMENT TC LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, —The owner of a parcel of land defined as an agricultural enclave under s. 163.3154(33) may apply for an amendment to the local government comprehensive plan pursuant to s. 1533187. Such amendment is presumed to be consist- ent with rule 9J-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code, and may include land uses and intensities of use that are consistent with the uses and intensities of use of the industrial, commercial. or residential areas that sur- round the parcel. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincino evidence. Each application for a comprehensive plan amendment under this subsection for a parcel larder than 640 acres must include appro- priate new urbanism concepts such as clustering, mixed -use development. the creation of rural village and city centers, and the transfer oi development rights in order to discourage urban sprawl while protecting iandowner rights, (a) The local government and the owner of a parcel of land that is the subject of an application for an amendment shall have 180 days following the date that the local government receives a complete application to negotiate in good faith to reach consensus on the land uses and intensities of use that are consistent with the uses and intensities of use oi the industrial. com- mercial. or residential areas that surround the parcel. Within 30 days after the local government's receipt cif such an application, the local government and owner must agree in writing to a schedule for information submittal, public hearings, negotiations. and final action on the amendment. which schedule may there- after be altered oniy with the written consent of the local government and the owner. Compliance with the schedule in the written adreement constitutes 000d faith negotiations for purposes of paraoraph (b) Upon conclusion of good faith negotiations under paragraph (a), reoardiess of whether the local government and owner reach consensus on Inc land uses and intensities of use that are consistent with the uses and intensities of use of the industrie.i. commer- cial. or residential areas Thal surround the parcel, the amendment rnust be transmitted, to the slate land pier- nino aoency for review oursuent ro s. 163.3184, Ir the local government fails to transmit tne etnendment within 180 days after receipt of a completo application, the amendment must be immediately transferred to Inc state !and planning agency for such review at the first available transmittal cycle. A plan amendrnent trans- mitted to the state and plannino agency submitted under this subsection is presumed to be consistent with rule 9J-5.005(5); Florida Administrative Code. This ore- ° , .. .7e,,.., '° ' ''.c.,-". a,.....* .' t 1 ..."1k.7!'t 00',. IV ,,, .` 1. 4,, .• ' ' ..:9 pf - .....-... , sumotion may be reburied by clear and convincing evi.. dance. (c) If the owner fails to negotiate in good faith. a plan amendment submitted underthis subsection i ot entitled to the rebuttable presumption under this sub- section in the negotiation and amendment process, (dj Nothing within this subsection relating to agri- cultural enclaves shall preempt or replace any pratec. tion.currently existing for any property located within the boundaries of the follov‘iing areas: 1. The Wekiva Study .Area, as described in s. 359.316; or 2. The Everglades Protection Area. as defined in s. 373.4592(2). History.—s. 1 s Z. cis 163.3164 Local Government Comprehensive Plan- ning and Land Development Regulation Act; defini- tions. —As used in this act: (1) "Administration Commission" means the Gover- nor and the Cabinet, and for purposes of this chapter the commission shall aci on a simple majority vote, except that for purposes of imposing the sanctions pro- v(ded in s. 163.31E401 ), affirmative action shall require the approval of the Governor and al ieast IhreE other members of the cornmission. (2) "Area" or area of jurisdiction" means the total area qualifying under the provisions of this act, whether this be all of the lands lying within the limits of an incor- porated municipality. lands in and adjacent to incorpo- rated municipalities. all unincorporated lands within e county; or areas comprising combinations oi the lanes in incorporated municipalities and unincorporated areas of counties.. (3) "Coastal area.means the 35 coastal counties and all coastal municipalities within their boundaries designated coastal by the state land planning agency, (4) "Comprehensive plan' means a plan that meets the requirements of ss. 163.3177 and 163.3178. (5) "Developer- means any person, including governmental agency, undertaking any development as defined in this act. (5) -Development- has the meaning given it in S. 380.04. (7) "Development order- means any order grantina denying, or grantino, with conditions an application for development permit. (8) -Development permit includes any building permit. zonino permit, subdivision approval, rezoning oertification, special exception. variance. or any other official action of local government naving the effect of permitting the development of land. (9) "Governing body'. means the board of courOy commissioners oi a countv, the commission or councii of an incorporated municipality. or any other chief gov- erning body of a unit of local idovernment. hioviiever des- ignated, or the combination 01 such 'bodies, where joint utilization of the provision= of this act is accomplisnec, as provided herein. 00; "Governmental aoenc.vi. meens: re) The United States o env department. commis- sion, agency. or other instrumentality thereof, adencv. or other instrume.ntality thereof. f di=partmeni. commission. t..-1,) This stale or any 1476 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TO REORDER CALL Submitted into the public record in conection with items PZ.9 o.! 06-23-11 Priscilla P,. Thompson City Clerk NOTICE OF DENIED OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PERMIT APPLICATION Application #: 57570 & 57571 Date application received by Department: Applicant: CBS OUTDOOR, INC CBS OUTDOOR/ATTN: JOE LITTLE 6904 CYPRESS PARK DRIVE TAMPA, FL, 33634 Proposed Sign Location (as described in the Application): SR 9 (1-95), 20 feet N of SW 5 St (434 SW 3 Ave) 07/14/2009 Your application(s) was/were not approved for the following reasons: O Incorrect information at number(s): 0 Sign does not meet spacing requirements (1500' for interstates, 1000' for FAP). In conflict with permitted sign(s), tag#(s): Held by: O Within 500 feet of an interstate interchange, outside incorporated area. 0 Height above crown of road exceeds statutory limits. o Distance off state right of way is less than 15 feet, per location markings. EN Location is not perrnittable under land use designations of site. O Location does not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial area. Sign/location does not comply with all governmental requirements. O Landowner authorization does not specify that you have permissions to erect and maintain a billboard on the site identified in the permit application. 0 No stake/markings found at location specified in application, O Other: We are returning your check(s) numbered: 1150135 in the amount(s) of $ 96.00 . [s.479.08, FS] [s.479.07(9)(a), 1.,&2.FS] [s. 14-10.006(4)(e), F.A.C] [s. 479.07(9)(b), FS] [s.479.11(3), FS] [s.479.111(2), FS] [s.479.01(23), FS] [s.479.07(3)(b), FS] [s. 479.07(2), FS] [14-10.004(1)(b), F.A.C] YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT, if you believe your application has been improperly denied, you may file a request for an administrative proceeding pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as set forth on the Notice of Administrative Hearing Right § included with this Notice of Denied Application. Date: 08/13/2009 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk By: Superviso , Outdoor Advertising Field Operations Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee St., Mail Station 22 Tallahassee, FL, 32399-0450 (850) 414-4545 Rev 04/09 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING RIGHTS This document informs you that you may have the right to challenge the agency action described in the attached notice. If you wish to challenge the action, you may request an administrative hearing under section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. An administrative hearing is similar to a trial. You must deliver your request by 5:00 p.m, no later than 30 days after you received the notice to: Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Bums Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-045g If you disagree with the facts stated in the attached notice, you may request a formal administrative hearing under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At a formal hearing, you may present evidence and arguments on all issues involved, and question the witnesses called by the department. If you agree with the facts stated in the notice, you may request an informal administrative hearing -under section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. At an informal hearing, you may present your argument or a written statement for consideration by the department. Your request for an administrative hearing must meet the requirements of Rule 28-106.201(2), or Rule 28-106.301(2), Florida Administrative Code, depending on whether you request a formal or informal hearing. If you want a hearing to challenge the action, you must: 1. Include a copy of the notice with your request; 2. Prepare your request legibly, on 81/2 by 11 inch white paper, and 3. Include in your request all of the following items: a. State your name, address, and telephone number and/or that of your representative along with any Department of Transportation identifying number on the notice; b. Explain how your rights or interests will be affected by the action described in the notice; c. State when and how you received the notice; d. State all of the facts in the notice with which you disagree. If you do not disagree with any of the facts stated in the notice, you must say so; e. State the facts you believe would justify a change in the agency's proposed action; f. State the rules or statutes you believe prohibit the agency's proposed action; ,c7. Explain how the facts relate to those rules and statutes on which you are relying; and h. State the relief you want, plus the action you wish the agency to take or refrain from taking. The Department will dismiss your request for an administrative hearing if it does not meet these requirements. If you have not submitted your request to the Clerk of Agency Proceedings by the deadline above, you will not be entitled to a hearing and the action described in the notice will be final. Mediation, where you and the department try to work out an agreement without a hearing, may be available. If no agreement is reached through mediation, you still have the same right to a hearing. If you have any questions, comments and/or concerns about requesting a hearing, you may contact the Clerk of Agency Proceedings at (850) 414-5393. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TO REORDER CALL Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk / NOTICE OF DENIED OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PERMIT APPLICATION Application #: 57632 & 57633 Date application received by Department: Applicant: CBS OUTDOOR, INC CBS OUTDOOR/ATTN: JOE LITTLE 6904 CYPRESS PARK DRIVE TAMPA, FL, 33634 Proposed Sign Location (as described in the Application): I-95, 70 feet N of NW 29 St (591 NW 29 St) 08/31/2009 Your application(s) was/were not approved for the following reasons: ip Incorrect information at number(s): Sign does not meet spacing requirements (1500' for interstates, 1000' for FAP). In conflict with permitted sign(s), tag#(s): CE761/762 . Held by: CARTER PRITCHETT ADV • O Within 500 feet of an interstate interchange, outside incorporated area. [s.479.08, FS] [s.479.07(9)(a), 1.,&2.FS] [s. 14-10.006(4)(e), F.A.C] El Height above crown of road exceeds statutory mits. o Distance off state right of way is less than 15 feet, per location markings. O Location is not permittable under land use designations of site. 0 Location does not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial area. El Sign/location does not comply with all governmental requirements. El Landowner authorization does not specify that you have permissions to erect and maintain a billboard on the site identified in the perrnit application. O No stake/markings found at location specified in application. O Other: We are returning your check(s) numbered: 1151852 in the amount(s) of $ 64.00 [s. 479.07(9)(b), FS] [s.479.11(3), FS] [5.479.111(2), FS] [s.479.01(23), FS] [s.479.07(3)(b), FS] [s. 479.07(2), FS] [14-10.004(1)(b), F.A.C] YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT, if you believe your application has been improperly denied, you may file a request for an administrative proceeding pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, as set forth on the Notice of Administrative Hearing Rights included with this Notice of Denied Application. Date: 09/25/2009 By: Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Supervisth.r, Outdoor Advertising Field Operations Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee St., Mall Station 22 Tallahassee, FL, 32399-0450 (850) 414-4545 Rev 04/09 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRAT This document informs you that you may have the right to challenge the agency action described in the attached notice. If you wish to challenge the action, you may request an administrative hearing under section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. An administrative hearing is similar to a trial. You must deliver your request by 5:00 p.m. no later than 30 days after you received the notice to: Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 If you disagree with the facts stated in the attached notice, you may request a forrnal administrative hearing under section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. At a formal hearing, you may present evidence and arguments on all issues involved, and question the witnesses called by the department. If you agree with the facts stated in the notice, you may request an informal administrative hearing under section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. At an informal hearing, you may present your argurnent or a written statement for consideration by the department. Your request for an administrative hearing must meet the requirements of Rule 28-106.201(2), or Rule 28-106,301(2), Florida Administrative Code, depending on whether you request a formal or informal hearing. If you want a hearing to challenge the action, you must: I. Include a copy of the notice with your request; 2. Prepare your request legibly, on 81/2 by 11 inch white paper, and 3. Include in your request all of the following items: a. State your name, address, and telephone number and/or that of your representative along with any Department of Transportation identifying number on the notice; b. Explain how your rights or interests will be affected by the action described in the notice; c. State when and how you received the notice; d, State all of the facts in the notice with which you disagree. If you do not disagree with any of the facts stated in the notice, you must say so; e. State the facts you believe would justify a change in the agency's proposed action; f. State the rules or statutes you believe prohibit the agency's proposed action; g. Explain how the facts relate to those rules and statutes on which you are relying; and h. State the relief you want, plus the action you wish the agency to take or refrain from taking. The Department will dismiss your request for an administrative hearing if it does not meet these requirements. If you have not submitted your request to the Clerk of Agency Proceedings by the deadline above, you will not be entitled to a hearing and the action described in the notice will be final. Mediation, where you and the department try to work out an agreement without a hearing, may be available. If no agreement is reached through mediation, you still have the same right to a hearing. If you have any questions, comments and/or concerns about requesting a hearing, you may contact the Clerk of Agency Proceedings at (850) 414-5393. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Mr. Pieter 8nckweg City of Miami City Manager's Office 444SVV2ndAvenue Miami, Florida 331]D-19lO Re: GTUsed Trucks Folio: O1'31Z5-M-O36O(the "Property) 636NW 23rdSt,eet Miami, Florida bear Mr, BockweQ& Ms. Hobchuh: Ms. Lynn Hobchuh Outdoor Advertising & Logo Administrator Florida Department ofTransportation 605Suwannee Street, Mmi[51ationZ2 Tallahassee, F|orida32]99-&u6O Outloo-k Media of South Florida, LL[ ("OM") warrants that, pursuant to a lease with the owner of the Property. OM is the lessee/sub-lessor of the Property and is entitled to construct and operate an advertising sign on the Property. OM hereby grants to CBS Outdoor' Inc. (~[BS^)the authorityto make any necessary applications with, and obtain permits from, app|hc�b|egovernmental entities for the placement and construction of an outdoor advertising sign structure on the Property. A copy ofOM'x lease with the owner ofthe Property b�attached hereto asExhibit 1. CBS has{}M's permission to maintain the structure at this site and will ha,efroe access to the site for this business purpose. DwtlookMedia VS6yth Rorida'LLC. ' Submitted into the public record inconnection with itenmsPZ.9 on 06'23'11 Priscilla A.Thompson City Clerk roREORDER CALL Submitted into the public record in connection with items P2.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 City of Miami ZONING BOARD CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS Monday, March 22, 2010 ITEM Z.1 09-01464za Outlook Media of South Florida, LLC Members of the Board (Present) Juvenal Pina, Chairman Charles Garavaglia, Vice Chair Angel Urquiola Bret Berlin Cornelius Shiver Ileana Hernandez -Acosta Lazaro J. Lopez On behalf of the City of Miami Warren Bittner Deputy City Attorney On behalf of the Appellant Santiago Echemendia, Esq. ed into the in connectio 8 it( O —• le a 2 E .2 4. 0. 1— ID ci MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC, (305) 373-5600 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN PINA: Roll call, please. MS. FORGES: Mr. Urquiola? BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Yes. MS. FORGES: Mr. Shiver? MR. SHIVER: Here. MS. FORGES: Mr. Garavaglia? VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: Here. MS. FORGES: Ms. Ileana Hernandez? BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Yes, MS. FORGES: And Chair Pina? CHAIRMAN PINA: Yes, ma'am. MS. FORGES: And Mr. Lopez? .IJ BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ: Here. m, c CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Lopez.o w MS. FORGES: We have a quorum. c c MR. PINA: Thank you. Do we have any continuances? Any continuances? None? MS. FORGES: We have continuance, the appeal, which is Item 1. CHAIRMAN PINA: Yes, sir. MS. FORGES: No, we do not. CHAIRMAN PINA: Yes or no? MS. FORGES: No, we do not. 1 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 D. rrz 5m 22 m 0 8 iom • 5 • a 2H 23 * 25 CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. Let's hear the first item. Will you read it into the record, please, MS. FORGES: "A resolution of the Miami Zoning Board denying or granting the appeal by Amanda L. Quirke of the Zoning Administrator decision dated December 16, 2009, related to the issuance of a permit for Outdoor Advertising Signs regarding a provision contained in Article 10 of zoning ordinance Number 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami, Florida." MR. DE LA FUENTE: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Board, my name is Bob De La Fuente, with law offices at 1441 Brickell Avenue. I'm here on behalf of Outlook Media and Santiago Echemendia. I'm going to be handing out some packets for your review, Mr. Echemendia is going to make some introductory comments and then we'll get into our presentation. MR. BITTNER: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN PINA: Yes, sir. MR. BITTNER: Warren Bittner, Deputy MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -I vi 20 21 r12,— 3 . 3 M W n o g 5 22 3 g a 5 23 * fr 24 = - n , 25 City Attorney, on behalf of the City of Miami. We have a Motion to Dismiss before the item begins on the merits, if you would entertain it. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. City Attorney, on behalf of the City, they're asking to dismiss the item. MR. SUAREZ-RIVAS: I'm sorry. Would you repeat? I'm sorry, would you please repeat that? MR. BITTNER: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I would like to present Motion to Dismiss this item before it is heard on the merits. I'm asking your permission to do so. MR. SUAREZ-RIVAS: And you're asking me? All right. CHAIRMAN PINA: Yes. MR. SUAREZ-RIVAS: I'm going to tell you, in this case, the Board must reach its own deliberations on the matter. I'll tell you why. Out of an abundance of caution, though this is not a code enforcement prosecution, because you have tonight another member of our office MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presenting the item, we think that, out of an abundance of caution, we should not be presenting the item and also advising the Board. So, on this item, on this item only -- I'm here tonight for the meeting, but on this item only, I will not be offering you the regular counsel. In fact, I will be mute on this item, so -- CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. MR. SUAREZ-RIVAS: All right? CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. Mr. Appellant, present your case. think it needs the ability to have due process. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Yes, Mr, Chairman. Let me see if I understand, and I'm not sure what Warren -- you know, we were before you the last time I requested a -- this is Santiago Echemendia, 1441 Brickell Avenue, requested a continuance at the time, because we were the last item and it looked like this item is not a short item. Mr. Shiver said, warned me, "Mr. Echemendia, don't come back for another continuance." We're not going to request MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 6 TI-EZ-90 uo 67c1 suJoi! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 0, 20 fD c 8 cri al 21 5' g, n g 5- 22 g g a. 5'23 a m 3 '0 * o 24 = n • 25 another continuance, even though we believe that the pending litigation with Carter addresses some of the issues, including -- they're raising a standing issue. We don't believe there is one, but I have just been handed by Pieter -- this has been pending for -- I think the applications were filed four months before there was even a written denial, and we just got as -- your packet doesn't even have staff's recommendation. What happened at the last Zoning Board meeting that I appeared on a Monday evening is I noticed that staff had a thick packet that was their presentation. It even had a legal opinion regarding standing. Respectfully I mean, to me, this application is really all about process. It's all about transparency. It's all about why an application took 60 days to get a written denial that is required by the code, why it took another three months to get an e-mail that doesn't really explain the why of the denial. We're here really to find out what MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 7 1 1 1 m O 3 0 3 O m N w - N 8 °' -' 3 n • Q• ' 7 3 = O n '* rtT 3 m -o Q 7'n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 transpired. We're here to ask Pieter Bockweg some questions as the person who assisted in that determination. We're here to ask Lourdes Slazyk, as the Zoning Administrator, regarding the determination, ask some questions. They've raised some issues regarding standing that are red herrings. First of all, Carter -- and I'll walk you through the packet in a minute, Carter initially filed a robust appeal of the verbal denial and the City took the position that it was just a verbal denial and, therefore, they had not really technically denied it under the code, yet it took another three months to get a denial. I suspect that where Mr. Bittner is coming from is -- and we're surprised by the Motion to Dismiss, because this has been pending for sometime. As a courtesy, they could have alerted us that there was a request for a dismissal. I will let him speak to the dismissal, and then, of course, I'd like to have the time for you to hear me. 1 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 8 • 2 in N F gm o P 3 0 aI 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 25 I do have a concern in terms of just, again, procedure, because this hearing is a lot about the City running fast and loose on its own rules and thereby not complying with due process and procedure. And the effort that is before me appears to be a little bit more of that. I thank Suarez -Rivas a procedural here. We're the City Attorney for recognizing that there is due process issue as we speak not in litigation, but the City Attorney has chosen -- and this is what's also unusual, This is -- I imagine that this is probably one of the first times -- actually, the second time. The first time was in the other Outlook appeal that Mr. Bittner actually has appeared in front of this Board when there's no litigation. And we ask ourselves the same question. In other words, shouldn't this be just like any other zoning appeal, where you have Lourdes, and you have Pieter, and you have staff making a recommendation and not the City Attorney MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 1 m g r °7 o = 0 0. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 mc 8 cr a. t 22 S. el n Q.23 0-. = g a. 5— 5 ID * & 25 A 21 24 taking an advocacy position. And I'll walk you through the presentation materials in a minute. And so that to us shocks the conscience. But, moreover, you have -- there's the case of Cherry stands for the proposition that a legal advisor of a deciding panel cannot also act as an advocate at the same quasi-judicial hearing, and that's a violation of due process." And that's what Mr. Rafael Suarez -Rivas is bringing to your attention. He is telling you that he is supposed to be acting in his advice to you as a neutral arbiter. Now, I will tell you that I'm concerned about whether he can be a neutral arbiter, not because -- just before the hearing, Mr. Bittner, who is only here on this item, I saw standing over him while Mr. Rivas was asking him, but if I'm asked thus and thus, what am I supposed to say? How in the world could that City Attorney be a neutral arbiter if he is getting advice from the advocate MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 10 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 who's appearing before you on the Motion to Dismiss, Now, I'm not sure I understood Mr. Suarez -Rivas as to whether -- is that concern the basis for a continuance to get neutral counsel or were you just alerting the Board, because I didn't quite understand. MR. SUAREZ-RIVAS: I'm only going to respond because you're asking a direct question. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Thank you. Through the Chair, I'm sorry. MR. SUAREZ-RIVAS: Through the Chair, but either way what Mr. Bittner and I were discussing is privileged, and I'm not going to discuss it with you, but I will tell you that what I said publicly to the Board you heard, And, you know, I'm not going to respond to your inquiry as to what I was conversing with Mr. Bittner just like if I was -- wouldn't be asking you what and your colleague from the same law firm were conversing about prior to this item. So with that, I thank you, 1 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 1 ID 3 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 n Lfl o a. 21 3 • 22 5 4, W n M 0 3 g 23 0 m re• ni 5' m 1.11 3 -0 = 25 3'n 24 MR. ECHEMENDIA: Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, just to respond to that for the record -- MR. SHIVER: Could you give me a second, for a second? CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Shiver. MR. SHIVER: Point of clarification. If I'm understanding right, Mr. Bittner asked for a Motion to Dismiss. I think the Chair pretty much said no, put on your case and then now you're arguing the Motion to Dismiss, MR. ECHEMENDIA: No, no, I'm sorry, I misheard. I thought he was going to argue the Motion to Dismiss, because he's still standing there. I just had some procedural comments. BOARD MEMBER SHIVER: Say your peace, MR. ECHEMENDIA: Thank you. Thank you. And I guess what -- VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: Excuse me, excuse me. Through the Chair, please, who's then who's our attorney right now? BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 That's a good question. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Mr. Suarez -Rivas would be the 'Board counsel and Warren is -- MR. BITTNER: No, Mr. Suarez -Rivas is not representing you on this particular item only. VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: All right. So who is? BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Who is? Yeah. MR. BITTNER: You have no representation on this item only. CHAIRMAN PINA: We have no representation. That's understood. That's understood. And go ahead and state your case why you're -- VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: No, I'm not going to hold on that. I mean, if we don't have counsel representing us, I don't know, we've not heard items in the past, if we don't have an attorney representing the Board. So why -- why is the Chair believing it's the right thing to go forward without counsel? MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 — 20 (D r erg Er 3 1114 S.g 22 n a O O ' * '23 -. go a p �D o e, 3 w 3 a 24 FIT C ' • F. i C , s25 CHAIRMAN PINA: Because -- BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Mr. Chair, if I may, why do we not have -- I understand what you're doing, but why do we not have an attorney for the Board for this item? Mr. Attorney, why don't we have an attorney for the Board for this item? MR. BITTNER: Let me get that. You do not have an attorney for this item, because I am advocating the position of the City on this item, and we elected not to retain outside counsel at significant expense to handle just this item. Mr. Suarez -Rivas, as Mr. Echemendia appropriately said, you cannot have members of my office represent you and at the same time advocate to you. CHAIRMAN PINA: Is Lourdes here? Is Lourdes Slazyk here. MR. BITTNER: No, she's not. CHAIRMAN PINA: Who's representing zoning? MR. BITTNER: Mr. Bockweg. CHAIRMAN PINA: I'm willing to hear MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 r,3 c 21 g rq 22 0. 0 3 23 m o m o Cn st m24 r I 3 WD IT 13 1•4 = 25 n the case. MR. ECHEMENDIA: And we're willing to go forward. CHAIRMAN PINA: There should be a reason, aside from the legal aspect, why your appeal -- why your appeal is based on, okay? Let's forget about the legal part. Why are you appealing based on the zoning matter. MR. ECHEMENDIA: And we thank you, and we look forward to making our presentation and try to be as brief as possible. Understand that this is a long complicated case that will be appealed to the City Commission. Either way, we'll probably end up in circuit court either way and so -- CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay, Mr. Garavaglia. VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: I just have -- since I don't have an attorney, maybe I'll ask you. Is Motion to Dismiss take precedent? Is that something we should be hearing first, if you're making it? MR. BITTNER: In my view, yes, you M AMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 15 1 n = o n 3 ;77 n 0 0 p1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 tr, 21 c ° F 22 23 24 25 should hear that as a preliminary matter. And if you deny the motion, you should then proceed to the merits. If you grant the motion, the case is over. MR. ECHEMENDIA: We -- VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: This is your chance to answer. MR. ECHEMENDIA: We don't believe - we believe that we are the appellant, and that we should be making our argument on the merits of the appeal. VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: Outside of the merits of the case, from a procedural standpoint, isn't when a motion to dismiss is brought up by either side, isn't that isn't that what comes first, that has to be dealt with first? I'm not a lawyer. If the answer is no -- MR. ECHEMENDIA: No, the answer is you're a quasi-judicial body. You're not bound by the rules of court. Procedurally, typically, in a case, you would have Motion to Dismiss before you actually try the case. VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: Okay, thank MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 16 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 — 18 24 25 you. I mean, that's my opinion. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Echemendia, you're entitled to due process. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PINA: Please state your case based on the zoning matter. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PINA: If there's other legal issues, I will recognize them as we're not having proper representation here. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Understood. CHAIRMAN PINA: Because the City is a party to your appeal. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Understood. BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Mr. Chairman, please. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Urquiola. BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: In the case, I see this case tonight, we don't have our lawyer to represent us. The trouble over here is something legally it have to be discussed with the City lawyer, not with us. You know what I mean? Because we don't know nothing about anything in law MIA -DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 17 TT-EZ-90 uo 67d swal! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 0 19 5.1 20 8 • 5. g 0 ▪ 21 5= .0 22 E 3" n 23 24 25 0 in this case. I think we better finish this case, denying this article. It's the best way we can do right now in this situation. This is my opinion. BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Mr. Chair, if I'm correct, Mr. Echemendia needs to present this here so that he can have his case prepared, go to the Commission and then go to court, right? MR. ECHEMENDIA: Correct. BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: That's all this is about. Our determination, our decision is going to mean nothing. We're going to hear him so that he can -- BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Bueno why we hear it? Why? MR. ECHEMENDIA: Well, we hope -- CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. Okay. MR. ECHEMENDIA: We hope it's not -- we hope it's not a foregone conclusion. We'd rather win here, and not have to appeal to the City Commission. BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: But that's what you're preparing, right? MI.AMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 18 ieT n. n = o n 3 5—U n 0 X° 0 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 ,18 ID C 3 0 cr 19 a 3. NS a 20 c2 0 ,DI.3 2 1 .0 ID °1 22 I- Fr 747 23 24 25 MR. ECHEMENDIA: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN PINA: And I'm going to analyze it based on the zoning issues as opposed to legal issues between the City and Mr. Echemendia. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me just walk you very quickly, because I think that this is very telling and it's very important. This is the appendix. This would be our appendix. I believe that Bob has given it to you, and then I'll just defer to Bob to make the presentation and I'll ask Pieter some questions. BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Can we jog instead of walking? MR. ECHEMENDIA: I'm sorry? BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Can we jog instead of walking? MR. ECHEMENDIA: Yes, absolutely. You have the zoning provisions. You have the September -- one of the -- really, in a nutshell of this case is in Appendix A or Tab A. It walks you through the filing MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 19 m m a 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 6" 17 18 O • 19 g mg 20 g 21 22 23 24 25 of the application before the pilot program, et cetera, and what transpired, but rather then take up reading that, you have the code sections. C, you have the appeal letter or the letter to Teresita talking about our withdrawal of some appeals based on Warren's request that we withdraw the appeals to open the window for Carter to file his application, or for those applications to be processed. The irony of that, folks, is that Mr. Bittner took the position that the only thing we needed to do in order for the Carter applications to move forward is withdraw Outlook Media appeals. Not only withdraw the appeals, but get CBS, who was objecting to those appeals, to consent to the withdrawal. Now, if you're scratching your heads, we were scratching our heads for a long time, because here we have our appeals, which you've heard and you guys suffered through last year, six months or so, where CBS was here objecting. We wanted to withdraw those appeals to leave Carter MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. -(305) 373-5600 20 1 1 1 r—1 74: o n 3 6" 15,1 A- 0 0 tr, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 g. 19 3 20 0. 4— 21 . St 5 m 2 2 § Fci 23 24 25 room to file the applications or to process the applications for those seven same sites. And Mr. Bittner took the position that CBS, who was objecting to those appeals, had to consent to the withdrawal. So we withdrew conditional. CBS said we're okay with three sites out of the seven. One is Tanaka, the other one is Seven Nine and the other one is Contemporary Contractors. The City signed Seven Nine. That's a 1500 foot site. We still don't understand, and we'll ask Pieter, and want to get to the bottom of what happened with Contemporary Contractors and Tanaka, because CBS, though CBS's consent wasn't really required CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Echemendia, let me stop you there. Is CBS involved in this? MR. ECHEMENDIA: Well, CBS is in the audience. MR. PINA: That's fine, but are they part of this appeal? MR. ECHEMENDIA: They may stand up to MIA -DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC, (305) 373-5600 21 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 1 13 14 15 16 17 'N18 80 19 a 3 0 ▪ N 1 20 to 0 • o 0 3 fl _1' • 0 21 -� o °1 s n3 w3zm 22 ' '"�23 S of 24 ,25 the podium. CHAIRMAN PINA: No, no, but why are you bringing CBS up? MR. ECHEMENDIA: Well, sir, they're in the audience. CHAIRMAN PINA: That's okay, they can be in the audience. Why are you bringing CBS up? MR. ECHEMENDIA: Because it's part of the record in the case, where part of the processing, regarding the processing of these applications, was that Mr. Bittner requested CBS's consent and CBS's letter is in your packet, sir, okay? You then, in D, have the Carter appeal of the verbal denial, which is a three -page appeal by Carter on the denial, saying we're entitled to these applications. You then have the letter to Pete Hernandez reciting what transpired in the meeting with the manager, and Warren and Pieter Bockweg. You then have the CBS letter in F, which is important, where CBS says, well, MIAMI-DADE.000NTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 22 c n 3 0 = TI-EZ-90 uo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 r 1 °: 78 N m 2 EL: 19 1 1 20 5• tD = m E Er 21 = 22 23 24 25 we don't really object to -- I'm sorry, we don't object to Tanaka, Contemporary or Seven Nine, but we object to the others. And the City went ahead and signed off on Seven Nine. You then have an e-mail from Anel saying this will confirm that you guys withdraw. There's an interesting question as to whether that withdrawal was effective or not, because CBS didn't consent to all of them going forward, which was a condition of the withdrawal. You have Pieter confirming that the applications are pending. And then you have. some very interesting and telling e-mails in J from Warren Bittner to Glenn Smith of CBS asking him how he felt about the Carter applications, which to us is astounding, because these were Carter applications, why is he asking CBS. And he goes on and on, and you could kind of get the gist of those e-mails, which are very interesting. In K, you have the Home Rule Charter, which I've been walking around with since MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 23 - N 07 o O 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I 3c � 22 o M O 3 CD CD O O ID O 13 24 Q n 21 23 25 -- since starting with this Outdoor advertising exercise in the City of Miami, most particularly the truth in government, the right to be heard, no unreasonable postponements and things of that nature. You have a section of Chapter 163 that defines development orders. In M, you have the denial of the Lummus Park application by the state. You have the denial of another application that Bobby will tell you about. And then, lastly, you have a letter from Outlook Media to CBS withdrawing the landlord consent on GT, which is one of the applications. So that's the packet. Bob -- I asked Bob to be very brief, because I think we've gone over some of the issues, and you guys have a lot of people here and obviously there's some urgency. As an accommodation to you guys, we're jogging, because we kind of -- we do have the right to cross-examine and be heard, et cetera, but I suspect we'll have another opportunity in front of the City Commission. MIAMI-DADE.000NTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 24 1 en. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 212 g 2 2 0.— ;.7i. Fri c4)) 8 m 3 3 g 24 "714 25 = So it is important for us to, at the very least, ask questions of Pieter Bockweg as a matter of procedural due process. CHAIRMAN PINA: That's -- thank you for your consideration. Amanda Quirke, she's the applicant. I believe she's an attorney in your office. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Amanda was an associate in our firm. She's left. Bob is my partner. He is the attorney. He's registered as a lobbyist. He's done the workshop, as have I. CHAIRMAN PINA: I would like to hear from zoning. MR. BOCKWEG: Good evening, Pieter Bockweg, City of Miami Project Manager. I'll answer the questions or you want -- CHAIRMAN PINA: I would like for you to state your case based on the appellant's application. MR. BOCKWEG: Okay. MR. BITTNER: The first part of this case is the Motion to Dismiss, Mr. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 '21 22 l.O4 5' :I 08 23 = = 5 2 = g 4). 24 45 5 ri) = F. Chairman. Excuse me. May I begin with that? That's the first part of the City's case. Okay, I'll take that as a yes. The City moves to dismiss this appeal on the basis of standing. Outlook is claiming status as an aggrieved party. And you recall that a person can only appeal a decision of the Zoning Administrator if they're an aggrieved party. They are claiming status as an aggrieved party because of an agreement they say they have with Carter Outdoor. And if you take a look at their notice of appeal, the footnote on the very bottom, footnote one, they detail their notice of appeal, which is the first part of your package. First part of the package that came to you, on the very bottom, is a footnote that explains how they have this agreement, Outlook has this agreement, with Carter, and they're claiming an aggrieved party status as a result of that agreement. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 26 uosdwoyi •Nf II-EZ-90 uo 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -'21 3 '22 5.g 0 n M 23 3 g a. 5 24 8 m * & 25 x7i , Okay, now, Outlook has, first of all, not introduced into this record a copy of that agreement, nor is it in their package of materials that they just reviewed with you. Therefore, first of all, there is no evidence to support their status as an aggrieved party. Number 2, the agreement, their agreement, Outlook's agreement with Carter has been terminated. And I direct you to our package of materials, Tab Number G, which is a letter by Carter's attorneys Hogan and Hartson. This is in your tab number G of the City's materials in which, in the first paragraph, Carter's attorneys, on the very last sentence, state, "Accordingly, and pursuant to Section 11, Carter hereby gives notice of its termination of the billboard agreement dated September 21, 2009." Now, furthermore -- so they're aggrieved -- their status as an aggrieved party has disappeared as a result of Carter terminating the very agreement they're relying on. MIA -DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 27 1 ri WEZ-90 uo 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4/1 21 2 5' 2 m n Q. 0-. =23 g 5 n g w- 24 = m c . 5. 25 Now, furthermore, under the City's settlement agreement with Carter, which is contained in the City's package of materials under Tab E, this is the settlement agreement between the City of Miami and Carter, there is a provision in there concerning how disputes between the City and Carter under this agreement will be resolved. And you can find that in paragraph 17A, which you can find on Page 9 of the agreement.. Page 9 of the agreement. It's paragraph 17A. And it is entitled Dispute, Resolution, Mediation, Arbitration, Attorney's Fees. And it reads, "Any disputes among the parties, except those involving the City's police and safety powers," which is not involved here, "shall be resolved as follows: In the event disputes arise among the parties regarding the terms of this agreement, the parties shall use their best efforts to resolve their own disputes." Well, obviously that fails. "If they cannot resolve their differences, either party may then request mediation, which MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 28 Ti-EZ-90 uo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 O — 3 3 3 't 23 (D0 n O m 24 3 -0 C cr 25 mediation shall be attended by both parties with a certified mediator chosen by the parties." In no -- a mediation has never been requested by either Carter or anyone pretending to act pursuant to a right under Carter's agreement. Then this continues. "If the mediator declares an impasse, either party may then demand binding arbitration. If arbitration is instituted between the parties with respect to this agreement, the prevailing party therein shall be entitled to recover, in addition to all other relief obtained, reasonable costs, expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, paraprofessional fees and expert witness fees, incurred in such arbitration or appeal and in any post -arbitration proceedings. The parties acknowledge and agree that except as to issues arising from the City's police and safety powers, they are agreeing to mediate/arbitrate their disputes, and are expressly waiving their right to litigate their disputes in court." MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 o N c O a 3 n0 °' M 3 O fD o 24 3 13 zet 21 22 23 25 Now, this is significant, because where is this particular matter going? Well, first, this is an administrative appeal to you, the Zoning Board. Then the aggrieved party will go to the City Commission and then the aggrieved party can go to court, but the parties have agreed that they will not use that procedure. They've agreed to mediate and then submit themselves to binding arbitration. And this particular -- this particular company, Outlook Media, is only here because they have an agreement with Carter, which they believe entitles them to rights under this agreement with the City. CHAIRMAN PINA: Which is the settlement agreement. MR. BITTNER: The settlement agreement, which I just said, yes, that's correct. Now, Outlook Media's rights under this City's settlement agreement are no greater than Carter's rights. If Carter couldn't come here before you today and MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 30 7 n 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 rei C 21 ZD nQ.22 O 0 - = g a 23 ?' a 5- . M • m 24 c 2'n 25 appeal, neither can they. And they shouldn't be here. As a result, they have no standing, and you should not be hearing this appeal. It should be dismissed. CHAIRMAN PINA: Understood. BOARD MEMBER SHIVER: Mr. Chair. MR. ECHEMENDIA: May I respond? CHAIRMAN PINA: One second, please, one second. Mr. Shiver. MR. SHIVER: Briefly, and I'm going to do this very fast with Mr. -- with Warren. When I looked at the package and I saw that there was an agreement with Carter, but I didn't see Outlook, then I thought then that may have been a winning decision in the fact that, you know, there is no agreement with Outlook. However, Warren, when you then point the panel to Exhibit G, Exhibit G I guess solves that problem for Outlook, because apparently Exhibit G talks about an agreement between Carter and Outlook, whether that agreement was expired or terminated, that gave the MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 31 1 1 P n 3 w 0 n M O — 7 = 1• 0 a. '4 m = = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement that I didn't see initially. So you pointed us to agreement that we didn't see. And then you said the mediation, either party can seek mediation, including the City. MR. BITTNER: Well, remember, I told you that Outlook Media has never submitted to the City, nor have they submitted to you in this record the purported agreement between Outlook and Carter. That is what this Exhibit G referred to. What I was referring to was the settlement agreement between Carter and the City of Miami, to which Outlook Media is not a party. MR. SHIVER: I got you. Hold one second, and I'm almost finished. Where is your agreement? MR, ECHEMENDIA: Our agreement you could take judicial notice, because there's Outlook Media of South Florida versus Carter Pritchett, which is Case Number 10 -- MR. SHIVER: Could you just show me in an exhibit? We've got exhibits from MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 32 m 3 II-EZ-90 uo 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 3 r 21 8 g g 22 2 m n g '5 23 . a 4) 24 6 m Er 25 . n both parties. Just guide me to Exhibit A, 6, C, D, E, G, F, that's your agreement between Outlook and Carter, please. MR. ECHEMENDIA: And, Mr. Shiver, you can -- you can -- and there is an agreement that is currently in litigation. MR. SHIVER: Apparently there's an agreement that's what you were -- MR. ECHEMENDIA: It's referred to in the Hogan & Hartson letter. Clearly, we wouldn't be here if there weren't an agreement. That agreement is a public record. It's in circuit court currently attached as an appendix. And we didn't attach it to this hearing, because we didn't believe -- we have standing under Renard. The test is whether you're an interested party. I could be a citizen of the City of Miami and have filed an appeal on these six applications. MR. SHIVER: Hold on one second, because I'm going to turn it back over, because I'm going to let you do your presentation. Let me tell you why that bothers me. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 - 21 C 5.°3 22 2Q n N 3 . il420880. 23 o D 3 2 o e�-ao� 24 Z o No ti- ri3 w3-2 -i 14-. 25 0 3 3� n I think you -- I think Warren may have gotten you off the hook on the things I was concerned about, but you've been here before. We've been here before. And you should have known what this Board was looking for, because we had similar issues with you at a prior case. And some of the arguments I hear today are the same arguments I heard in the previous hearing, right, that their agreement was between another party. There's no agreement between you and that party. I think that marriage was broken at the last hearing_ where the party actually came out and said they want nothing to do with you. So my question was real simple. If there is an agreement, and you said take judicial notice, give me a document that I can then explain to my Board members what judicial notice is and what the document purports to say. So can you give me a document suggesting that there's an agreement where you, Outlook, could stand in the shoes of Carter to then earn benefits and rights under the settlement MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 34 n x 0 n 3 F n 8 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 cr 22 3 23 24 25 agreement. That's all I'm asking you. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Sir -- and let me answer your question the best that I could. BOARD MEMBER SHIVER: Please do. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I'm represented by counsel here and I could testify as to facts. And I'm sworn, and I will under oath attest to you that there is an agreement between Outlook Media of South Florida and Carter Prichett, the nature of which involves the seven applications that are on appeal, pursuant to which -- no, I understand, but I'm testifying as a matter of fact that there is an agreement. And my testimony MR. SHIVER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your time. CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. Mr. Garavaglia. MS. FORGES: Please note Mr. Berlin is. present. CHAIRMAN PINA: Please note -- anyone that's going to speak on any items tonight, please stand up, raise your right MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600- 35 rA.• n P n A! = 0 n 3 Fri '13 x 0 = tI-EZ-90 uo 6'Zd swal! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 r 21 EY a 22 0. Fi ; 8 3 23 5 a 5 24 5' m 3 M t ° 25 fl hand to be sworn in on any of the items. MS. FORGES: Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Your answer, please. COLLECTIVELY: I do. MS. FORGES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PINA: Thank you. Mr. Garavaglia. VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: A question to the City. Clause A, where you reference the dispute, resolution, mediation, arbitration, et cetera, et cetera, would you find that Outlook is bound by that clause? MR. BITTNER: I would say that if Outlook is claiming standing as a result of the Carter -- agreement they have with Carter, then their position is no better than Carter's when they come before you, and Carter must submit all disputes to mediation and arbitration. And you'll note today -- tonight that what they are appealing is the City's denial of MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 36 m n.N 3 O W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 applications to Carter. Well, Carter has never appealed. It's just these third party -- VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: Before you go on. So Outlook, on its own, can or cannot cite this clause as an opportunity for - to travel under this clause? MR. BITTNER: If Outlook has an agreement with Carter that requires Carter to do things, they could require Carter to submit this to mediation and arbitration to the City, but Carter has not done so. VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: All right, let's assume for a second that there is no agreement. Can Outlook ask that this clause be invoked in terms of mediation? MR. BITTNER: No, no, because then they would have no rights, no -- they wouldn't have no relationship to the City Carter agreement. But they are coming here, by virtue of their own notice of appeal, by saying that they are an aggrieved party only because they have a contract with Carter, who never appealed. MR. ECHEMENDIA: And that's not what MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 we're saying. If I may, Mr. Chair, this is important. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Echemendia, give me one second. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I haven't had an opportunity on the Motion to Dismiss. CHAIRMAN PINA: Give me one second. You'll be able to speak. This looks a lot like the other case, and that's why you brought CBS up, I guess. MR. ECHEMENDIA: And you heard it. CHAIRMAN PINA: Because this has to do with traveling through someone else's application. MR. URUQUIOLA: Right. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Could I clarify, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN PINA: Please. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Let me speak -- let me speak to the Motion to Dismiss, because I believe that Mr. Garavaglia hit on something that's very important, and, Mr. Bittner, who's a bright guy, was really kind of skirting the issue. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC, (305) 373-5600 1 38 1 2 3 1 4 1 n 3 l'n o 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 LZ o 5. ' 23 5:124 5" m o co_ 25 1 Mr. Bittner has argued that we cannot avail ourselves of the settlement agreement. On the one hand, we can't avail ourselves of the settlement agreement because we are a third party beneficiary, and, by the same token, we can't file an appeal and we don't have standing even though we have leases. There's an agreement with Carter pursuant to which they get a few, we get a few. There are leases. And the agreement said that they would apply, and indeed they filed an appeal. They haven't withdrawn. What they've submitted is a letter saying that we don't represent them. We don't purport to represent them. We're representing Outlook Media of South Florida, but this is a joke. I mean, the fact is, respectfully, Mr. Bittner, who's a litigator, and he's a very good one -- well, let me I'm sorry, I don't mean Mr. Bittner. Let me just stick to the merits, and I apologize and I say this with respect. If I were your counsel, what I would -- and Gil is 1 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 1 II-EZ-90 uo 6'Zd mall 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 r, 8 w 22 5 g n M 0 • • 5 = g 24 a. 5 a m • 25 * 5- • R here, who does City boards all the time, would urge you, in an abundance of caution, to hear it on the merits, because you have nothing to lose, as opposed to -- they're trying to do what I'm suggesting this is all about, a deprivation of proced6ral due process. Under Renard, which is the classic case on standing, all that you have to be is an affected party. Forget -- the settlement agreement has nothing to do with it. We're not here on behalf of Carter. We're here on behalf of three applications pursuant to which -- I'm sorry, seven, pursuant to which we have an interest, and some of which were going to be assigned to us, subject to City Commission approval, which agreement is currently in litigation sustaining this appeal. And one of the things that we're requesting in the litigation is specific performance that they join in the appeal. And so we believe we -- as clearly as a matter of law, we have standing and we rather you just get into the merits and we MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 1 21 c , m . 5 g 22 vi a D.5' (14 =lics n m 23 0 = F = g 24 fl 0, m D: cr, 425:1s • m '11 5. 1/L' c g- 0 = can dispense with the issue on the merits. CHAIRMAN PINA: I'm going to let you speak, but going back to the subject matter, Carter is the applicant? MR. BITTNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN PINA: There's a settlement agreement between Carter and the City? MR. BITTNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Echemendia, who represents Outlook, who's part of Outlook, claims that he has some type of interest in that. MR. BITTNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN PINA: Carter has said I'm backing off; I'm done with the City practically, in practical purposes. MR. ECHEMENDIA: No, they haven't -- CHAIRMAN PINA: In the sense -- in the sense that they would be here. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Right. Correct. CHAIRMAN PINA: Applying with you? MR. BITTNER: Yes. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Correct. CHAIRMAN PINA: In this hearing. MR. BITTNER: For the purposes of MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 41 1 1 1 n 07= n 3 g: TA g IT-£1-90 uo 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 .22 5 m ;23 n0. 0 = = 24 m 0 2 5 5" m 25 this appeal -- CHAIRMAN PINA: For the purposes of this particular hearing. MR. BITTNER: -- they have not appealed. CHAIRMAN PINA: They have not appealed this particular hearing. Okay, that's basically simple, plain language. MR. ECHEMENDIA: And there is an appeal in D by Carter, which is an ample appeal by Carter on all of the same issues that are before you. That was on the verbal denial by Carter. You have an appeal. And so back on the standing issue, your code 1800 says any affected party, independent of whether there's an agreement or not. I mean, that's almost suggesting that the neighbors, who are here today, don't have standing to appear in front of you. CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. MR. ECHEMENDIA: It's the same thing. BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Mr. Chair, we have now spent about 50 minutes MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 42 ‘—• vo FDe C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 arguing whether we're going to listen to the case or not. BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: With the same thing. BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Is it proper to take a vote to decide whether we're going to listen to the case, so that we can go ahead and listen or not listen to it so that -- CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Berlin. BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: I'll make a motion. BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: We already -- we already took half hour. CHAIRMAN PINA: All right, one at a time, please, through the Chair. Mr. Berlin, would you like to make a motion whether or not to hear the case? BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: I think the parties have demonstrated standing, and I'd like to make a motion to hear -- to proceed and hear the case. CHAIRMAN PINA: Motion by Mr. Berlin. Second by -- BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: What is the MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC, (305) 373-5600 43 1 2 3 ' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 °c 22 3 ° 3 N;m23 = n a 11 n ? 24 A -I O M O 3 wo c° 25 - 7C O 'r 2 fl motion? CHAIRMAN PINA: To hear the case. Second by Mr. -- VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: Second. CHAIRMAN PINA: -- Garavaglia. Roll call, please. MS. FORGES: Mr. Berlin? BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: Yes. MS. FORGES: Mr. Garavaglia? VIE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: Yes. MS. FORGES: Mr. Shiver? MR. SHIVER: Yes. MS. FORGES: Mr. Urquiola? BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Yes. MS. FORGES: Ms. Hernandez? BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Yes. MS. FORGES: And Chair Pina? CHAIRMAN PINA: Yes, ma'am. MS. FORGES: Motion passes unanimously. CHAIRMAN PINA: All right, Mr. Echemendia. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I think you probably need a break from me, so let me have Bob represent me for a little bit and then -- MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 44 in —1 -< ro 3 0 - TI-EZ-90 uo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 fi 8 a(74: 23 0., 24 m6"-' 25 5 a BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN PINA: No problem. Just try, in a vote of timing, I mean, we do have a good crowd here tonight. As a courtesy to others, if you can just be brief, I think everyone understands where you're coming from. MR. DE LA FUENTE: Yes, Mr. Chair, Members of the Board, Bob De La Fuente again. I will be brief, just to get everyone back on track as to the merits and why we are here today. There was a denial that was made by the Zoning Administrator on December 16, 2009, specifically she'd said that the City declines to signoff on the six FDOT applications for outdoor advertisement signs submitted by Carter. The denial is not specific, but provides the following general grounds: There's no entitlement under the zoning ordinance; there's no entitlement under Carter settlement agreement with the City and she also said that there's no entitlement under the thousand foot pilot MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 45 it-Ez-go uo 67d swell UO3 LI! pJ030.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 be 24 2. 5 g -De 25 program. We disagree with those general grounds, and we would probably disagree with more specific grounds had they been provided. Our position is as follows: The zoning ordinance, under Section 10.4.5 specifically does permit outdoor advertising signs pursuant to a settlement agreement with the City, as you all are aware of. Carter and the City, as Mr. Bittner has explained, they do have a settlement agreement from August 2003. The pilot program, not adopted until after these applications were filed. So, therefore, there's no zoning in progress in the City. Pilot program doesn't even apply in this case. We also take the position the City is estopped from denying these permits, because it has previously approved at least five other outdoor advertising permits from Carter. The subject applications meet the applicable requirements, just as the five previously MIA -DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 46 7 ; ro. ZD 07 0 n 0 n 3 AT 3 0 n 0 G 3 = 23 n ° SH24 W 25 = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 approved applications met the applicable requirements at that time. Additionally, there are equitable reasons to grant this appeal. Outlook Media has, in good faith, dealt with the City on a number of issues. As Mr. Echemendia alluded to earlier, there were some other issues that related to the withdrawal of an earlier appeal. On September 29, 2009, Outlook had filed an appeal of this Board's decision regarding the renewal of 10 different outdoor advertising signs that are not the subject of this appeal. That's under Exhibit C of your packet. You'll see that Outlook specifically agreed to withdraw that appeal subject to the processing of the applications that are before you today. This was the item that Mr. Echemendia was talking about where the City oddly asked that CBS also consent to withdraw when they'd objected from the beginning. This offer was followed up on with subsequent meetings with the City. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 , 0, c g 22 a. 23 O -. = = ; 24 m • ' 25 0-n October 5th, Carter representatives, City Manager, Pieter Bockweg and the City Attorney's Office all met with Outlook, and Outlook was told that, subject to the CBS consent of the appeal withdrawal, the City would process the applications again. The applications were still not processed, resulting in Carter filing an appeal. So they did file an appeal of this same denial, but they filed one based on a verbal denial, as Mr. Echemendia had alluded to. The City had told them that the applications had not been approved. So they filed an appeal, which was subsequently determined to be not ripe by the City, and those are contained in your packet as well. As of November 24, 2009, the City had still not processed the subject applications. This was acknowledged in e-mail that's Exhibit I in your packet. So, in a nutshell, Outlook detrimentally relied on the City's representation. They withdrew their appeal. They thought that their MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 48 n Xr 0 n 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -- 21 r 3 8 a' 22 a. 3 - a. = m 23 ro Q. 0 • 7 , 0 M • 0 T R 5 P.JQ ID *. • = 24 25 applications were going to be timely processed, and they weren't. Here we are today. They're ambiguous reasons offered by the City ultimately, in the very short denial that you see in your packet, but frankly, they didn't make sense and they're not legitimate grounds for denial. The Zoning Administrator improperly denied the subject applications. The zoning ordinance specifically does allow Outdoor advertising signs if they're pursuant to a settlement agreement with the City. Carter has a settlement agreement with the City. Outlook has an agreement with Carter regarding these specific sites. And the pilot program wasn't in effect at the time. So we would ask that you reverse the zoning administrator's decision. CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. One second, please. Zoning. MR. BOCKWEG: Good evening. What I'll do is, I'll let you know why we MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 49 1 1 ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 - - . vi 21 ID IDC w13 a° u,i•V FOP n 0 0 — 23 = = a -4 0 fop 0 Cr a. "4 2 LIID 6 5- Ft. 22 24 25 denied the permits and I guess address them -- their points later. When I get a -- let me go through quick a procedural thing, what I do when I get a permit in front of me. When I get FDOT permit in front of me, I do three things. First, I look at our zoning ordinance, which by now, you're all very well aware. All billboards in the City of Miami are illegal unless by way of a settlement agreement. There are currently three settlement agreements: Clear Channel, Carter and CBS. Under the ordinance, there has to be a net reduction overall in the inventory of the billboards within the City of Miami. Now, the next thing I do is I look at the settlement agreement. In this particular case, I looked at Carter settlement agreement. And I'd like to focus -- have you focus on Page 6 of the settlement agreement, Tab E, paragraph 8. And what I'd like to do is walk you MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 50 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7...m• Tv% te on F22 ,. Pi 5 're, 23 8 5 0. 24 rg: Cr A 5 -.4 0 IQ stD A 3 (71 -C°3 IFIAs 0 = through this paragraph so that you have an understanding of what I go through when I have an application in front of me. And I'll read this out loud and walk you through it step by step. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Could you repeat that, Pieter? I'm sorry, I didn't get that. This is your packet. What tab? MR. BOCKWEG: E, Tab E, page 6, paragraph 8. Replacement and Relocation of Signs. Under the terms of the Carter settlement agreement, unlike the other settlement agreements, they're solely based on relocation. They do not have a two for one takedown requirements. So when I get an FDOT application from them, I read the following paragraph: "In the event it becomes necessary" -- what that means to me is that they have to show a necessity to be able to relocate a sign when they bring a permit to me. Now, those necessities could be a couple things. Two examples of those could be if a building gets built in front of the billboard. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC, (305) 373-5600 51 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ▪ � �;21 -0350-, m 0a3;22 C. IN 3 D o • 3 3 23 3 n-iom o 24 ,c o n 3 w 3 v 5-13 �+ c .- 0 E 25 That, to me, is a necessity. They're allowed to relocate it. If for some reason their lease expires, and they can't renew it, they are able to relocate it. Those are just two examples o.f necessity that I look at. For Carter to replace any signs listed on Exhibit C. the agreement, which agreement, under the agreement, these are Now, Exhibit C in is in the end of the terms of the the only ones they're allowed to relocate -- well, let me backup. They're allowed to relocate under the terms of the agreement the signs in Exhibit B, but only until December 31st of 2008. Obviously that has expired, so they're irrelevant. They're only allowed to relocate the signs on Exhibit C. If you will see on the piece of paper that I handed out to you prior to the meeting Carter's relocation plan. There are two signs on there, Number 1 and Number 2. Both of those locations are listed on Exhibit A. Under the terms of the settlement MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 52 IT-£Z-90 uo 6'Zd swal! 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I 22 m 5 g. 8 a !a g gl a ! 24 a = m * fr 25 = agreement, they cannot relocate those signs. Let me get you back to the paragraph 8. The City will authorize Carter to replace such signs on the same site, so on the same location that it is previously constructed, for whatever reason, same address, same area, or to relocate such a sign within an allowed geographical location in the same zoning district. Now, how I read that is that they would have to relocate a sign. If it's a property that's C-1, they're going to have to relocate it to another C-1 zoned property. When I got these applications, they did not provide me the proper documentation to show that zoning is the same for all the properties. Let me continue with that paragraph, same zoning district. According to relocation standards to be adopted by the City consistent with this agreement. Truthfully, we have not at this point adopted any relocation standards, however, we use these criteria here that I just MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 53 1 1 n o el 3 w 0 3 II-EZ-90 uo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 c {7,22 '23 n 0 — m.24 2; 5 m = =Fa 9, 25 outlined as part of the relocations when I get an FDOT form from Carter. Now, the other thing that I looked at, and when these applications were submitted, they were -- these are all a thousand foot applications. What that means is that the distance requirement with FDOT has always been 1500 feet apart. FDOT had passed a bill allowing a pilot program here in the City of Miami and two other municipalities or counties, for that matter, in the State of Florida to allow spacing to be a thousand feet. It is true that we had not approved the thousand foot pilot program when we got these applications, so I could not approve thousand foot spacings, because they would be illegal. Now, what I'd like to do is go through, on their appeal, which Mr. Bittner had showed you, go through each location and what is the current status of those locations, as I understand them. Contemporary Contractors, letter A. On May 8 -- May 2008, sorry, Outlook MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 54 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submitted this application on behalf of CBS. If you recall, we were before you six months to a year ago to discuss that matter, how they were running under the CBS settlement agreement, and so they submitted on behalf of CBS. When those applications expired, we did not renew, and subsequently Outlook Media appealed. They lost their appeal. They subsequently submitted the old expired FDOT forms to FDOT, which is now under appeal with FDOT, which is my •understanding. Number -- letter B, GT Used Trucks This permit actually is still active with CBS under their settlement agreement. So I do not see how I can approve the same site or have Lourdes for two different companies. The same goes with letter C, Brickell Village Landing Company, not to mention that location also conflicts with a previously approved site, which is Jose Marti Park. Now, under the terms of the thousand foot spacing ordinance, we do not MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 55 1 1 1 71: LIT 0 0 3 0 oI 171 p1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 • r 21 0 7 n 0 m 3 0 = 1 W 22 a 23 to 24 -0 25 have the right to regulate spacing. And because I have applications, when I do have an application coming in for a thousand foot spacing, I require a spacing survey, but this site conflicts with a previously approved permit that I approved that our Zoning Administrator approved for CBS, which is Jose Marti Park. So I cannot approve this site. The same goes for D. D, which is actually currently, which will be heard under appeal on Thursday in front of the City Commission, which Outlook Media is also appealing our decision which came before you, which you had denied the appeal and now he appealed that decision and we're hearing that case on Thursday, I cannot move forward with this until there's some conclusion as to what is happening in that location. Letter E. Letter E conflicts -- I'm sorry, Little Old River Real Estate Little Old Real Estate. E conflicts with a previously approved FDOT form that we signed for CBS, which is the Carello site. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 56 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 22 5' g 8 a 23 = = g g g 5 24 • m • 25 = 11 Again, I cannot approve one that is currently active and is already signed on. And the last one F, is under the same it's my understanding, under the same terms as A, which is now under appeal with FDOT. Now, there's one other thing that I'd like to mention, which was kind of strange to me, was that I was not able to verify -- as you remember, when I read you paragraph 8, that needs to be the same zoning of the properties. I was actually not able to verify, on that piece of paper that I had handed out to you earlier, the relocation plan. I was not able to verify the zoning for three through seven, not by folio number or address. So that is something that I'm going to have to look at, but I could not verify. That I know under the terms of the settlement agreement, I would have to -- they would have to be the same zoning as part of the requirements to relocate. I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys might have. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC, (305) 373-5600 1 57 1 1 1 1 1 en. n x o n 3 F A- 0 = TT-EZ-90 uo 6'zd sw 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 o = 5 a 5'24 0 • 25 E wp• = n BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: I have a question. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Berlin. BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: You delineated the differences between Exhibits A and B. I'm not seeing anywhere in this agreement where it addresses Exhibit C as separate. I'm trying to find it now. Could you let me know -- could you tell us a little bit about the process for relocating those signs on Exhibit C. MR. BOCKWEG: The sign inventory and removal of signs can be read on Page 2, Paragraph 2. There it addresses Exhibit A, B. And on the following page, it addresses C. Under the terms of the agreement, you cannot relocate -- our position is you cannot relocate the signs on Exhibit A. Exhibit B were allowed to be relocated prior to December 31, 2008. And Exhibit C can be relocated under the necessities or the qualifications that I had just mentioned to you, and how I explained the procedure that I go through MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC, (305) 373-5600 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -,21 0 0 §r• :22 O o — 23 C77 42 n M = g a n 0 m 0 24 in m = -< 0 N a m m 25 riT'a 0 = • - when looking at an application. BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: I see. Thank you. CHAIRMAN PINA: Anyone else? Mr. Garavaglia. VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: I'm sorry, to the City, I apologize for my phone ringing when you were answering one of the questions I was interested in related to the City being unable to determine the zoning on certain number of the properties listed. I guess I was curious on why -- to me the City would be the person who wouldn't be able to figure out what the zoning is. MR. BOCKWEG: I agree, and I'm -- that's something that I need to address. I was not -- I don't know why I was not able to find the zoning under our GIS system, but that's something that I need to take a look at. VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: But you believe it's the applicant's responsibility to provide that information? MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 1 59 1 2 VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: It's not the 3 City's job? 4 MR. BOCKWEG: No, it's not. 5 VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: Okay. Thank 1 1 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 • m 22 n M 0 • = 5 - 23 .• 5 8• m =-0 * & » -7 • F1 24 25 MR. BOCKWEG: Without a doubt, you. MR. SHIVER: Quick question. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Shiver. MR. SHIVER: Yes. Help me understand the Carter relocation plan. I'm trying to correlate that to -- does that correlate to the locations under appeal or does the Carter relocation plan correlates to Exhibit C. I'm trying to get a general feel on what those are. MR. BOCKWEG: Let me walk you through it. Under the proposed relocation plan, Number 1, the 4248 Northwest 14 Street is proposing to be relocated to Tanaka, which is letter F in the appeal, letter F. MR. SHIVER: Letter F. MR. BOCKWEG: Okay. MR. SHIVER: Got it. MR. BOCKWEG: The 1400 Northwest 42nd Avenue location is scheduled to be MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 n C 8 It O o n= 23 p• et, W 3 tj 91;:: 20 relocated to Little Old Real Estate. MR. SHIVER: That's E. MR. BOCKWEG: That's E. Mind you, that those two properties that I just mentioned, I was able to verify the zoning. And the 48 -- 4248 Northwest 14 Street is C1 and Tanaka is also a C-1. The 1400 Northwest 42nd Avenue is C-2, and the Little Old Real Estate is C-2. But, again, these are both on Exhibit A, which we believe are not able to be relocated. MR. SHIVER: So when you point these out, tell me what exhibits they're on as well. All these are on Exhibit A? MR. BOCKWEG: The first two are Exhibit A. MR. SHIVER: Could you point those out as you go down. MR. BOCKWEG: Sure. MR. SHIVER: So far I'd like to correlate, and also correlate on which properties or exhibits. So the first two on the Carter relocation plan are Exhibit A? MIAMMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 61 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 • m '23 n M 0 24 St• b: 5 25 7 1:3 74 MR. BOCKWEG: That's correct. MR. SHIVER: Okay. Thank you. MR. BOCKWEG: The third one, 3880 Bird Road. MR. SHIVER: Okay. MR. BOCKWEG: It is on Exhibit C, and that one is scheduled to be relocated also with Tanaka. MR. SHIVER: What alphabet would that be? MR. BOCKWEG: F. MR. SHIVER: Thank you. MR. BOCKWEG: The fourth location, 7036 Northwest 5th Avenue, which is also on Exhibit C, it's scheduled to be relocated with Contemporary Contractors, which is A, the -- could I continue? MR. SHIVER: Yes. MR. BOCKWEG: The 1050 Northwest 14 Street, which is also on Exhibit C, is scheduled to be relocated to CanPartners, which is D -- MR. SHIVER: D. MR. BOCKWEG: as in David. 3636 Northwest 22nd Avenue is • MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 1 1 TVEZ-90 uo 6'Zd 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 scheduled to be relocated for a location that we've already approved for the Carter -- for Carter, which is 1700 Southwest Third Avenue. We've already approved them -- we've approved that relocation. That's why you will not find it MR. SHIVER: On any exhibit. MR. BOCKWEG: Exactly. And the last one MR. SHIVER: Got an alphabet for me? MR. BOCKWEG: No, it's actually a new FDOT form that we had approved. MR. SHIVER: Okay. MR. BOCKWEG: The last one, which is 224 Southwest Six Street, it is also on Exhibit C, and that one is scheduled to be relocated to Brickell Village. MR. SHIVER: Which is C. MR. BOCKWEG: Which is C. Now, again, let me remind you that the majority of these -- well, not actually the majority. Four out of the six of these are in direct conflict with sites that I've already -- that we, the MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 7.: ; r 22 v I 5: g 5 23 I 4'0 8 24 rIgS)41.5 .2 0 \ It+ 6 m 25 (13 City, have already approved for another company. So, in essence, in essence, if you would move forward with granting the appeal, you would be directing me to sign another -- or directing the Zoning Administrator to sign another form for another company that would be in direct conflict with each other. And on top of that, you would also be directing us to sign applications to a company that is not here as an interested party in this appeal. So I just wanted to make sure I pointed that out. CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Could I ask him some questions, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Echemendia. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Incidentally, what is before you, just to clarify, is not the other -- that Carter is not here currently. It is the basis of -- whether the basis for the Zoning Administrator's denial is based on competent, substantial evidence at the time. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr, Echemendia, you MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 • 64 • 1 1 IT-EZ-90 uo 67d swam 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i.n c cr el 3 20 to n 0. 21 22 a st a. m m -0 23 24 125 don't have to preach us. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Okay. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I'm going to ask I don't mean, Mr. Bockweg, to antagonize you in any way. The reason for my questions is really to elicit information. MR. BOCKWEG: I don't take it personal. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ECHEMENDIA: Q. Do you want me to refer to you as Pieter or Mr. Bockweg? A. Anything you like, Santi. Q. Pieter is good. Youare clearly not the Zoning Administrator? A. No, I'm not. Q. And so what under the code, there is a section regarding the Zoning Administrator making determinations regarding applications, et cetera. The determination e-mail or the denial was sent, as we understand it, prepared by you and/or Warren and sent through Lourdes as the Zoning Administrator, but Lourdes is not here. And you're, I guess -- what provisions MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 65 1 II-EZ-90 uo 6'Zd sula4! 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 &3 '22 5 m 23 M 0 3 0 24 a = 6m = 25 * & = 3' II of the code give you authority to interpret the code as it relates to application -- FDOT applications and/or the settlement agreements? A. I don't interpret the code. I interpret the settlement agreement. I look at the code, but interpret the settlement agreement. Q. Let's go to -- are you familiar with -- and the pilot program, 'cause this is really what this is all about. It's about changing the spacing from 1500 to a thousand feet, Pieter. So you're familiar with the pilot program, correct? A. Yes, I am. Q. On September 25th, the pilot program was not yet in effect; is that correct? A. I believe so, yes. Q. The pilot program was approved on first reading, September 24th, and adopted on second reading October 5th; is that correct? A. That's right. Q. So as of prior to October 5th, you did not regulate spacing; is that correct? A. That's true. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ' 20 1 21 c 22 D. 5. 0 23 o g 24 O C1 n w S. � 25 S F Q. Okay. And these seven applications were filed September 24th or September 20 -- A. 5th. Q. 5th. So at the time that these applications -- this is really important. This is probably the most important point of this whole appeal. I know it's been very lengthy, but -- CHAIRMAN PINA: Can you go outside and see if they can quiet down, please. He's questioning him. BY MR. ECHEMENDIA: Q. This is the question. The pilot program changed the spacing to a thousand feet; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And prior to the adoption of the pilot program, the City did not regulate spacing. You've testified to that previously. A. That's correct. Q. These applications were filed prior to the adoption of the pilot program; isn't that correct? A. That's right. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 22 0 IT x: 5; a23 8 = 24 n •-• 5 to 25 =.13 * Q. And so you were not applying the thousand foot rule as of the date the applications were filed? A. No. Q. So why did it take two months before the City would even give a written denial to those applications, and what was the basis on September 25th to deny the applications? It couldn't have been spacing, correct? A. Well, let me -- let me start with the last point first. I think I just explained to the Board why we had denied the applications. Q. No, but A. That's Number 1. Q. But, Pieter, you're answering my questions. I mean, it's a yes or no. Before October 5th, you did not regulate spacing? A. That is correct. Q. And these applications were filed on September 25th; is that correct? A. Yes, I already answered that. Q. So as of September 25th, you could not have denied them based on spacing; is that correct? MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 68 U M ▪ 7 V E• r = 7wn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 A. That is correct. Q. Okay. Thank you. MR. SHIVER: But I thought the questioning was why he waited -- they waited so long to give you a response. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I'll get there, I'm sorry. MR. SHIVER: Oh, you're not going to let him answer? MR. ECHEMENDIA: No, but to us, that is one of the most critical issues, because these were filed prior to the spacing, the thousand foot spacing. So they could have really approved any application. It didn't matter whether it was a 100 feet or not. BY MR. ECHEMENDIA: Q. Now, are you familiar with CBS Outdoor, Inc.? A. Yes. Q. Isn't it true that on September 29th, you or the Zoning Administrator approved two applications for CBS Outdoor, which are immediately adjacent to existing Carter Outdoor signs? I'll bring them more specifically to MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your attention. A. I don't see how that's relevant to this, Q. It goes to the issue, Mr. Bockweg, of inconsistency. The rules apply to all in the same way. They can't apply to one and not apply to the other. The City -- on September 29th, the City approved -- Carter had an existing sign well, the City approved the sign within a 100 feet of the Carter sign, and I have a folio number and it's in the packet in Exhibit D. And, I apologize, Pieter may not have a copy of the packet. Why don't we give him a copy of the packet. Pieter, if you can refer to Exhibit D, and I don't have a lot more questions. I'll be really quick. CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. Yeah, let's try to move it along. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I'm trying to narrowly -- we have a ton of questions, but I'm not even going to bother. CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay, I appreciate -it 1 MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 g r .4 3 22 mt0,-;!.;'23 wo 0 s• r, -I 0,0 4324 . 5 -03 ' 25 § Fi‘ • BY MR. ECHEMENDIA: Q. Exhibit D is Carter appeal on October 7th, after the verbal denial on the second page, if you can read in that second paragraph -- BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I would like to know how this is pertinent to what we are voting on today. I voted to hear Mr. Echemendia, but at this point I'm beginning to think very strongly that this is not pertinent to what we have to do. I think that this is pertinent to their case, and taking it to court and not pertinent to our decision. I am ready to vote. CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. Give me one second. Give me one second, please. I'm allowing Mr. Echemendia due process. He said he was going to be brief and I -- BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Mr. Chair, due process is one thing, but we have always on this Board -- CHAIRMAN PINA: He said MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 71 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 e cr Q- 3 22 ;;i23 3 g O a. 5 24 N 5 fD W O .O �f.c 25 A o-A BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Excuse me. Let me finish. On this Board, we have always referred to what is pertinent to what the issue that we're voting on. All of this -- this is not pertinent, does not help me in making my decision on this issue. I don't know about the rest of the Board members, but it is not pertinent to our decision. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Can I explain, Mr. Chair, why it is? CHAIRMAN P:[NA: Well, one second. The decision is based on an individual opinion, okay? I'm allowing Mr. Echemendia due process. He said he was going to be brief, so please be brief. BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN PINA: Okay. Okay. Go ahead. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Just one second. Just for the benefit of Board Member Hernandez, what I am trying to establish is -- the code requires that there be a reason for the denial. The only thing that we've gotten is a three -sentence t MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 72 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 g -1 LA fD c 8 17 , 2 2 ▪ a 3 D. i.:1 5" if ' 23 47. a7 0 8 a ? 2 3 g 24 , rt.) El m o w = 13 25 • ;:..--: m =-s e-mail that says -- does not -- they can't avail themselves of the pilot program. I'm trying to understand -- CHAIRMAN PINA: No, Mr. Echemendia, they went through it very specifically. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I'm trying to understand why it is they can't. CHAIRMAN PINA: Just get to yours questions. Don't interrupt him, and let's get through this. BY MR. ECHEMENDIA: Q. I'm going specifically to the denial the basis of the denial. One is the pilot program. I think we've established that the City did not -- the pilot program is a thousand foot spacing. The City did not regulate spacing as of the time that these applications were filed. Mr. Pieter, you went through the applications, and let's go back and let's do it kind of one by one a minute -- not one by one, but let's -- CBS, on Tanaka, what was the basis for objection -- well, you remember a meeting with the City Manager, Warren Bittner and Carter, correct, regarding the applications? MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 r 22 3 2 cr 7 w a. 3. - 3 23 a N = m g:w p n g , 24 2 ;M. 25 A 4 . 1E: g. = A. Yes. Q. At the time, is it correct to say that the only basis that was raised is that the Carter agreement did not have a relocation plan and that the City would -- could adopt in a matter of weeks a relocation plan? A. That was one of the subjects that was discussed. Q. Was there any other basis articulated by the City as to not approving the Carter applications at the time of the City Manager's meeting? A. Well, if I recall correctly, I think the necessity aspect was also discussed, which I explained to the Board what I look at when I look at an FDOT form. Q.1 was at that meeting. I don't recall. My recollection is that it did not have a relocation plan. A. Well, the reason why I say that is because the necessity is part of the relocation plan, so if the relocation plan came up, that would have been discussed as well. Q. Understood. Did the City in the previous five MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 x a r 21 a. 22 -.. A 17.4 3' ri lics e, 0 07 . 0 — 23 ?i= = g. 24 < o n 3 tu) g ▪ !:, 125 3 w • n relocations in the Carter agreement, did the City require a necessity -- a showing of necessity in the past for the five previous relocations that the City has approved? A. Let me briefly, for the Board's sake, go through each one of those relocations. Q. It's either a yes or no. CHAIRMAN PINA: We already went through that. We already went through that. Santiago, stick to why the zoning ordinance in this particular case you feel is not given you the opportunity with your signs. So he's stated them. He went on the record as stating them. You're trying to get specific. I understand you're trying to get prepared for court, but let's try to move it along. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Okay. And let me just say this, and we'll cut -- the only thing that I'll say, for the record, I know that there are a lot of people here. I won't -- and you guys have indulged us, and I appreciate it. We have a court reporter here. What we were trying to do MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 37 5600 75 1 IT-EZ-90 uo 67d nual! 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 , 21 m 8 a a 22 3 m M Q. O • 5 23 n9 a m 24 m * 25 m-g is get all our cross in, so that we don't -- CHAIRMAN PINA: I understand. MR. ECHEMENDIA: have to go through this painful exercise with the City Commission. CHAIRMAN PINA: We're going to be here all night. We're going to be here all night. MR. ECHEMENDIA: However, you really are kind of undermining my ability to cross-examine him amply. CHAIRMAN PINA: No, I understand, I understand, but try in this particular hearing, just try to be as basic and specific as possible, so we can move it along. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Okay. BY MR. ECHEMENDIA: Q. Contemporary Contractors, where CBS said no problem, what was the basis? I thought the zoning there was the same in both. Is the issue there net reduction? A. Well, as I mentioned, that location is currently under appeal at FDOT. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 vI 22 r11 5- a. n M ,23 0 = o m g 24 T 5 25 & = Q. Excuse me? A. From my understanding, Contemporary Contractors is currently under appeal with FDOT. You guys had submitted the original application that we approved for CBS to FDOT. Q. And so the City is now taking the position that if there's an administrative hearing on an application, then the City won't approve the FDOT form? A. That's an application that we approved for CBS. Q. Contemporary Contractors? A. Right. Q. There is no appeal on Contemporary Contractors -- A. At FDOT? Q. -- with CBS, that's correct. A. No, no. Did you submit that location to FDOT, that form to FDOT? Q. Yes, but what does that have to do with the City form? A. Because that location was approved by the City on behalf of CBS. So, technically, since it is on appeal, that is still a CBS location. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 77 1 1 vJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Q. Right, except that there was an appeal in front of the City, and that appeal was withdrawn based on the advice of counsel that we withdraw the appeal. There is no pending conflict within the City of Miami relative to Contemporary Contractors. A. Well, and I'm trying to avoid a conflict by not approving a form that's already approved for another company. Q. And Tanaka? A. Same. CHAIRMAN PINA: Santiago, we're not going to go through every application that's been before the City. MR. ECHEMENDIA: No, but, Juve, we're almost done. There are four more and I -- CHAIRMAN PINA: Get to it. I mean, we start going, you know MR. ECHEMENDIA: No, he had not gone through these two. He didn't say that the basis was that there's an administrative hearing. CHAIRMAN PINA: But let's not go through every application that applies for an outdoor sign in the city. I mean, MIA -DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 78 1 0 j n 3 17 '0 w 0 = 0 w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 A c a° F 22 s•ni 8 ;,23 = = 0 24 o m = ' 2 5 let's just get -- let's just get why you feel you've been denied. That's it. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Well, let me do this. CHAIRMAN PINA: And you said it. He stated his case. You stated your case. And let's move along. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Fair enough. I'm just -- I'll object to the record, and the inability to make the appropriate record that is going to be reviewed on appeal at the City Commission, because the Board feels like we need to move forward. And I understand that they have a lot of people here, and so we'll move forward. The basis of our appeal is that, firstly, the Zoning Administrator is not here. It is the Zoning Administrator that makes a determination regarding the code and from which we are taking an appeal. Pieter has no authority under the code to provide competent, substantial evidence relative to the nature of the appeal. These are applications that were MIMS-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 79 IT-EZ-90 uo 67d sw 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 a 1 F g 22 n o m 0 n = sm 24 =73 & = 25 = filed by Carter where the City sat back for two months without giving a written denial, which the code requires. After they gave the written denial well, before giving the written denial, there were a number of meetings that I wanted to ask Pieter about with Carter and the City, which we know nothing about, that resulted in a denial, a three -sentence denial by Warren, who was consulting with CBS as to what CBS thought about the Carter applications. I would submit to you, respectfully, that that is not the way that government is supposed to work. That is not the way the zoning process is supposed to work. I have been doing this for 22 years. I represent local governments. And I have never seen a process that is more abhorrent from a procedural due process perspective than this process has been. We're the little guys, and the three big boys that have settlement agreements with the City of Miami, in collusion with the City, have decided to squeeze us out, MIAMI-DAOE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 80 1 1 1 1 n 1 3 = Ti-EZ-90 uo M c •-• ;4 3 m m Q. - = ri Er st 5 m 3 33 Ar= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 where the City Attorney's Office, because the City makes money from these agreements -- and notwithstanding the fact that we're first traveling under one, and then because of some things that happened at the City, we ended up having a little dust up with Carter. We're currently in litigation. It is an issue of procedural due process. We don't believe there is any competent, substantial evidence to deny the six applications. We've explained it in the memos that are in writing and are part of your backup. And we truly believe that at the end of the day, we will appeal based on a deprivation of procedural due process, a departure from the substantial requirements of the law and that there being no competent, substantial evidence. CHAIRMAN PINA: Thank you, Santiago. Anyone else like to speak on this item? Being none, close it up to the public, open up to the Board members. Mr. Berlin. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 81 ri 3 o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ri 0 a- 21 N •22 n 0. 0 a 23 ? g...m 24 Er ;§ T7 25 BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: There are two questions were raised. I don't think I heard a complete response to them, so I'd like to give you an opportunity to address those. Number 1 is, it seems to me that those boards on Exhibit A do not have a right under the settlement agreement to be replaced, and it seems to me that those boards listed under Exhibit B have already missed the deadline under the settlement agreement to be replaced. That only those sites in Exhibit C can be replaced. Of the relocation plan that you submitted, there are six boards, billboards, to be replaced, yet only five that appear on Exhibit C. How do you come up with the sixth? MR. ECHEMENDIA: And, Mr. Berlin, we may not get to the sixth. Frankly, our frustration has been that the City has refused to give us an explanation. This is the first time that the City basically pulled out tonight and gave me a courtesy copy before the hearing, and made the MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 82 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 g21 . 5' g 22 n 0 — 3 g ! 23 44 m 24 ;.,'Hw 25 explanation regarding the exhibits and their justification for the denial. That's not due process. I mean, we've been asking for why they denied them for six months. What's going on here? That's what we're saying. It smells. BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: I understand your argument, but that doesn't really address the question. MR. ECHEMENDIA: No. Five out of the six, I guess -- in other words, you're saying that five out of the six fall within the schedule that has already expired. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. MR. SHIVER: Two on Exhibit A, and the rest is on Exhibit C. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Correct. Exhibit A is the one that's expired. Exhibit C is not, the one that remains. BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: It seems to me that under the agreement -- the settlement agreement, you're only entitled to relocate five, yet you've requested to have six relocated. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Well, we'd be happy MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 t 1 1 0 -I 0 a cn 3 c 21 n cr 22 n • a • 23 0 No 24 w 3 0 I— Q' 25 with getting five approved. They approved -- there were seven. They approved one because it was 1500 feet. If we go site by site, and you all decide that five out of the six should be approved, then, by God, that's what we would be requesting. And one irony, Bret, that I failed to ask Pieter is, Pieter literally said on the record that it would be illegal had they approved -- could not approve, because it would be illegal a thousand foot site. The City approved the Jose Marti Park site, the City approved park sites that are a thousand foots sites, I think, before the adoption of the pilot program, so I guess -- BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: I don't -- I don't have any questions about the pilot program. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Fair enough. BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: I don't really want to talk about it. I'm more focused on the settlement agreement. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I apologize. BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: The second MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 question with respect to the settlement agreement has to do with necessity. Can you address necessity? Is there a necessity here? BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Mr. Chairman, please. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Berlin has the floor, Mr. Urquiola. Mr. Berlin has the floor, Mr. Urquiola. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Mr. Berlin, it's the first time that I hear the issue of necessity. I believe necessity -- I don't believe it's a defined term under the agreement. I don't know whether necessity appears in the CBS settlement agreement as to whether there's a necessity. We were told that all three agreements, when we met with the manager, had the same exact relocation language, and that the City within two weeks would be adopting a relocation plan that would apply to all three agreements. And so if it is defined, it's the first time I hear of necessity. It's the first time I hear that the explanation has been necessity, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Fl °c 22 Ta°3 N � rid-4 a 3 ap 23 of iD n a v3 3' 24 A -I 0 z°'a.z N ° 5'm 25 ar mi F+ * C 7C 0 F+ Q 3 S n' but thank you for asking, Mr. Berlin. CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Berlin. MR. ECHEMENDIA: An argument could be made that it is a necessity. Mr. Shiver. MR. SHIVER: I tend to agree with you to this extent. I do believe, though, that the -- I guess the decision by the City was very vague. In essence, you are being ambushed as far as explanation. I'm not too sure if that's our standard, though. So I would be very critical of the City if you're going to deny an applicant on such an important application. I would have hoped that some of the explanation to some of the language or some of the reasoning that you have given would have been in writing, which may have fine tuned his argument, and/or may have avoided this hearing or may have properly warrant to go to mediation. However, I'm not too sure if that's the standard that we should be looking at. I think our standard should be whether or not there was a reasonable basis for the MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. -(305) 373-5600 86 IT-EZ-90 uo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 • cr 21 a. 3 - a m 8 2:'22 3 7 R g 5 23 6 m • I; 24 Er A7= n 25 limited decision. And based on the testimony here today that has not been rebutted -- and you are in a very disadvantaged situation, because so are we, by the way. We were bombarded with exhibits, and we're looking -- and some of these exhibits look alike. Their package looked like your package. So I feel your pain. Believe it or not, I agree with you on something. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I appreciate it. MR. BOCKWEG: Mr. Chair. MR. SHIVER: But whether or not -- hold on, hold on. But whether -- but I think -- but I think the City said that explained his position very clearly on why the decision was made, though. And if our analysis should be based on -- I mean, he took us to -- he said Exhibit C has to be a necessary standard, and they didn't find it was necessary and he explained. You didn't really rebut that. And you're at a disadvantage, because I'm sure you were ambushed. No doubt in my mind about that, okay? But I'm not too sure if that is MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 in 21 3m c S 0- 0. = m 0. 0 0 — 23 3 = 3 3 0 M T '4 24 r.j0 gr 25 • = • n 22 enough for us to rule in your favor, but I want to at least make that part of the record on your behalf, okay, that I don't -- I think the notice -- the denial notice should have been a little more explicit on the reasons why, okay? Maybe there were conversations. Maybe they felt you had understood, your 20-plus years in the business, your several years of litigating similar issues, maybe they thought there was a general understanding on why, but it's not apparent here today. I'm going to -- I'm prepared for a motion, but CHAIRMAN PINA: Give me one second. One second. Yes, sir, and then Mr. Urquiola. MR. BOCKWEG: I just want to clarify one issue real quick, that under the -- currently under the Zoning Code, which you do not have to interpret to see this clearly, Santiago Echemendia and Outlook Media is not entitled to anything. Nothing. They do not have a settlement agreement with the City of Miami. Only MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 88 C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CBS, Carter and Clear Channel are entitled to placing billboards in the City. Nobody else. MR. SHIVER: But let me respond to that. I tend to agree, except counsel came and talked about an Exhibit G. In Exhibit G, it said that it proved to me that there was an agreement between Outlook and Carter at some particular point. Clearly that marriage was broken in 2010 apparently. So it were more recently. So I'm not too sure, if you can hit a home run on that argument alone, you know. And the Chairman heard the argument and said he still gave the applicant, or I guess the appellant, an opportunity to make his case. So under the code -- and we're not -- we're not legally interpreting this, they may be an aggrieved party, okay? They may be an aggrieved party. And so that's not a winning argument, but you don't have to beat him on that. Beat him on just a reasonable basis for the denial, and I think you're looking good. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. '(305) 373-5600 89 'n A- 0 z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 0 a. m n 0. 0 — 7 7 cC g 64. a 5 5' m 7 -0 = =es 22 23 24 .25 CHAIRMAN PINA: Mr. Urquiola. BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Mr. Shiver, how many times we given already this case? Yes, You see how many people we have over here? We have to take care of all these people, because they are human like these people. We give them too much time already. And I hear so many things. This gentleman talk and this gentleman talk. And a lot of this we don't need it in the Zoning Board, and I don't talking about, we are not we are not supposed to be think they're interested, and interested in a lot of this talking over here tonight, believe me. This is very clear over here. I read over here that Mr. Carter make an agreement to remove it all the signs in the City of Miami, an agreement he made it with the City. And that way, we don't have nothing to talk. If they want to talk or go to court, pero not over here. It's too much already we hear over here. We are not supposed to argue so many things. It's not irrelevant (sic) to reserve one of this case. Only we have to MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 90 g7-1 M 3 0 C. • N m is" ri 0- > 7 = g o m cn n om -s m-0 .7.;" — • = Ft' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 study part of the agreement. And we can see it clear, made it very clear, the City have the right. I want to make a motion. CHAIRMAN PINA: Make your motion. BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: We don't have it over here. Bridgette. I move the requested agenda Item Number 1, that the decision of the zoning administration, Planning & Zoning Board director, be reversed and denied. And that the requirements of Section 13 -- BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Are you -- BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Deny the appeal. BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: You're denying the appeal? BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: The appeal. CHAIRMAN PINA: Uh-hum. MR. ECHEMENDIA: I thought we got a break there for a second. BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Because the City have the right, if this gentleman - and it say over here, he cannot rent it. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 He cannot sell it. He have to go personally to the City Commission. And this gentleman coming with nothing. Where is Mr. Carter? CHAIRMAN PINA: Yeah, he's denying -- a motion by Mr. Urquiola denying the appeal, upholding the zoning administration decision. Roll call, please. Is there a second? Is there a second? MR. SHIVER: I'm going to second it, and could I make an additional finding on that. And the reason I'm going to second it is because, under the agreement, on the replacements and relocation of signs, it says: In the event it becomes necessary for Carter to replace any signs. This is on Exhibit C. And I think what the Zoning Administrator's representative said is that he didn't find it necessary. I'm going to find that reasonable, however, that may be a little vague and general, because I don't know necessarily who's supposed to make that finding. I don't MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 FT; r 7 22 r..74 5' (4, E. i.13 n n. 23 0 (1• 9 0 • 24 n - n re, .V. 11 3 1‘44 5= Tim 25 r7 13„ know if Carter's position or the City's position. The City is saying it was their position. So if they're saying it's their position, then I'm going to support them on that, but I think that could be read both ways. But, however, I find that there's a sufficient basis for the decision, so I'm going to second it. CHAIRMAN PINA: There's a motion and a second. Roll call, please. MS. FORGES: Mr. Urquiola? BOARD MEMBER URQUIOLA: Yes. MS. FORGES: Mr. Shiver? BOARD MEMBER SHIVER: Yes. MS. FORGES: Mr. Lopez? BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ: Yes. MS. FORGES: Ms. Hernandez? BOARD MEMBER HERNANDEZ-ACOSTA: Yes. MS. FORGES: Mr. Berlin? BOARD MEMBER BERLIN: Yes. MS. FORGES: Mr. Garavaglia? VICE CHAIR GARAVAGLIA: No. MS. FORGES: Mr. Pina? CHAIRMAN PINA: I'm going to base my MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (305) 373-5600 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 23 Lon O. 0 ° P 3 g g 24 An -4 o m 2 5 ' ..c 0 •m 25 ... .47 . r, * Er ' x- 7; = = decision based on the zoning ordinance 11000, yes. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Mr. Chairman, we just want to thank you MS. FORGES: Motion. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Sorry. MS. FORGES: Motion to deny passes six to one. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Thank you for affording us the opportunity to know why it is that the City denied our application. And, Mr. Berlin, and Mr. Shiver, and Garavaglia, thank you very much, greatly appreciate it, and Ms. Hernandez. (Thereupon, at 8:40 p.m,, the hearing on Outlook Media of South Florida, Inc., Appellant, was concluded). MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC. (05) 3373-5600 94 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 -,22 74: n V, M M C , :1.3. ,,, R §r ; 23 -0 --°-. .rt• .-,• ;,,N 3 (7 24 07 — n Q. 0 0 — ?.333 6+ 25 n r* .< o rt, Et (7 n3 w g, — 73 I 1.11) 4A l'a i 0 * C X". 1.4 .. Cr 7'n e„. CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER, , Lorena Ramos, National Registered Professional Reporter and Florida Professional Reporter, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did report the foregoing proceedings, and that the transcript, pages 1 through 93, is a true and correct record of my stenographic notes. DATED this 30th day of March 2010 at Miami -Dade County, Florida. LORENA RAMO , RPR & FPR COURT REPORTER MIAMI-DADE COUNTY COURT REPORTERS, INC, (305) 373-5600 TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE. ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 10-03089 CA 30 OUTLOOK MEDIA OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff, -vs- CARTER PRITCHETT HODGES, INC., d/b/a CARTER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant. DEPOSITION OF PIETER A. BOCKWEG 1441 Brickell Avenue Suite 150D Miami, Florida Monday, May 10, 2010 10:10 a.m. - 2:25 p.m. R 1 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk • KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 2 2 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff: MATAIS DORTA, ESQ. SANTIAGO ECHEMEND.IA, ESQ. T.ew Cardenas, LLP 1441 Brickell Avenue Suite 1500 Miami, Florida 33131 For the Defendant: CAROL A. LICKO, ESQ. CATHERINE S. DORVIL, ESQ. Hogan Lovells US, LLP 1111 Brickell Avenue Suite 1900 Miami, Florida 33131 For the Deponent: Warren Bittner, Esq. City of Miami Attorney's Office 444 S.W. 2nd Ave. 9th Floor Miami, Florida 33132 Also Present: Rex Hodges, Defendant Rep. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, 305-371-7692 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk LLC Page 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX Witness Direct Cross Pieter Bockweg (By Mr. Dorta) 4 EXHIBIT INDEX Plaintiff's Description Page 1 Outlook Media Appeal 10 2 Appeal by Outlook Media 21 3 CBS Settlement Agreement 34 4 Clear Channel Settlement 'Agreement 44 5 Contemporary Contractors Property Information Map 49 6 City of Miami Website Page 50 7 City of Miami Website Page 51 8 City of Miami Website Page 53 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 4 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THEREUPON: PIETER BOCKWEG, was called as a mitness on behalf of the Plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DORTA: Q. Good morning, sir. A. Good morning. Q. Could you please state your full name. A. Pieter Bockweg. Q. Can you spell the first and last name. A. P-I-E-T-E-R. B-O-C-K-W-E-G. Q. Can you give me your home address and business address.. A. Home address is 11600 Northeast 10th Avenue, Biscayne Park, Florida 33161. Office is 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33132. Q. Have you ever had your deposition taken before? A. On this matter? Q. On any matter. A. Once. , Q. In what circumstance did you have your deposition taken? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Personal. Q. Pardon me? A. Personal, Q. What do you mean? What type of case? A. My father was sued and they needed to depose me. Q. Sc you were just a witness? A. Yes. Q. Sir, I'm going to ask you a series of questions. If at any time you don't understand any of my questions, please let me know and I'll be happy to rephrase them. Okay? A. Okay. Q. If you answer my question as phrased, I'm going to assume you understood it as I phrased it. Okay? A. Okay. Q. You have to answer audibly for the court reporter to take everything down. Understood? A. Yes. Q. Lastly, if at any time you need to take a break, please let me know and we'll take a break. A. No problem. Q. Can you give me your educational KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 4J .0 " § • C cip 0 .c 0 4.o C 0 .0 V 11 E 113- .ca 8 e 0 0. .c 1- O u Page 6 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 background, please. A. I have an undergraduate degree in international relations, a minor in communications, and. I have an MBA in management, international business and marketing. Q. When did you get your undergraduate degree? A. I graduated in '98. Q. From where? A. Rollins College. Q. And your MBA? A. Crummer Graduate School. And I graduated that in 2000. Q. What is your current position at the City of Miami? A. Project manager. Q. How long have you been a project manager? A. About a year, year and a half. Q. What are your duties as a project manager? A. I am the project manager on the various projects that are assigned to me by either the City Manager or Assistant City Manager. Q. When you say projects, what type of • KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 § m c a, 0 0 2 c ▪ c — 0 u O s P. E u ✓ I 0 0.11I 4.441 0E 413 .c 0 I- 0 rB EtL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 projects? A. For example, I negotiate certain deals like the FPL franchise agreement. I do the FPL transmission line applications. I was part of the negotiating team for the Marlins, paramutuals, billboards and murals. Q. How long have you been working for the City of Miami? A. About five years. Q. Tell me your progression within the City of Miami. A. I started off as assistant to Otto Boudet who was Assistant City Manager at the time. I moved to Assistant Director of Economic Development. From there, I went to Project Manager. Q. Who do you report to currently? A. Orlando Toledo. Q. And what is A. And the manager. Q. The City Manager? A. Yes. Depending on the project. Q. Who is Orlando Toledo? A. Director of Building. Q. And the manager now is? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 .4.3 • c 61 o cc a) 0 c u 1 0 E .0 0 rJ 0 0 items PZ.9 on 0 0 0. E 0 4 o. u Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Carlos Migoya. Q. How did you become a project manager? A. It was my understanding that Orlando needed some help in certain areas in the building department and stuff like that. He asked me to move over under him from economic development. Q. Who did you report to at economic development? A. At the time I was there, in the beginning, it was the Assistant City Manager, who was Linda HaSkins. And then when the new director was hired, it was Lisa Mezeke. Q. You said for certain projects you report to Orlando Toledo and for certain projects you report to the.City Manager, Migoya. Can you tell what projects you report to Toledo and which projects you report to Migoya? A. For example, the FPL franchise agreement, 1 reported directly to the manager, or Assistant City Manager, Larry Spring. The FPL transmission line application, I report to the Manager. Murals, billboards, I report to Orlando. Paramutuals, 'I report to Orlando. And the Marlins, when I was part of the YRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 c A E A 7 0 u ..- a c ao 0 o 2 0 c o & E — u 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page negotiating team, I reported directly to the manager, who was not Carlos Migoya at the time. Q. Is it written somewhere what type of projects you report to the Manager as opposed to the Director of Building? A. No. Q. How do you know who do you need to report to? A. Well, I guess it depends on who assigned it to me. I mean, Orlando is in the loop on all of them. It's just depending on the issues, I just either go directly to him and brief him afterwards, or I brief him and then go to the Manager. But -- Q. Do you -- are you required to report directly to Orlando, or it just depends on the project that is assigned to you? A. I report directly to Orlando on day-to-day operations. If there's something that happens that Orlando is not available, 1 report directly to the Manager when those circumstances occur. But Orlando is always put into the loop as, far as what is reported to the Manager. Q. Is Orlando Toledo your direct KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 u .c § C al 0 7cY; 0 c C C • 44 4/ •c 'a .5 6 0 c 0 -v a. EU o 4...) Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supervisor? A. Yes. (Thereupon, Outlook Media Appeal was marked as Plaintiff's Composite Exhibit 1 for Identification.) Q. Sir, let me show you what we've marked as Plaintiff's Composite Exhibit 1 to this deposition, and.' ask if you've seen this Composite Exhibit 1 before? A. I don't believe so. Q. Were you at a Zoning Board hearing on March 22, 2010? A. Yes. Q. You didn't receive a copy of this? A. I don't recall if it's the exact same thing that I received or not. Q. Can you turn to Tab D within Plaintiff's Composite Exhibit 1. You knOw what, let me -- I'm going to switch this, because I gave you my copy. Turn to Tab D, please. That's an October 7th letter from BeLminio, H-E-R-M-I-N-I-0,' San Roman to Teresita Fernandez, dated October 7th, 2009. u I'd ask if you've ever seen that letter 1 ci. c m cy 0 NI sw, us u 0 E° c o. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 .1J1 0. Page 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 before? A. Yes, I have. Q. You appear copied on the letter on page five. Do you see that? A. Um -hum, yes. Q. Now, on October 7th, 2009, what was your position at the City of Miami? A. Project manager. Q. Do you know why you were copied on this letter? A. I'm sure because it's related to billboards. Q. In October of 2009, what was your role regarding billboards in the City of Miami? A. I would receive the FDOT applications that were submitted from the various companies. I would review them and then submit them to the zoning administrator. Q. Zoning? A. Administrator. Q. The zoning administrator at the time? A. Lourdes Slazyk. Q. Can you tell me what your review entailed, generally? A. Generally, my review entails the KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 u m m C CU ° 'r:. • (.0 o E c ▪ c w 3 tr) 1-4 m 0 0 0▪ . 0 Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 settlement agreement of the company that submits the applications. I review to make sure it's in accordance with those requirements. If they don't, I request more information for them to submit. Then I review it with our legal department to make sure all requirements are met. And then from there, I present it to Lourdes, the zoning administrator. Q. You mentioned settlement agreements. What settlement agreements are you referring to? A. There's only three settlement agreements at this time, which is Clear Channel, CBS, and Carter. Q. You said you consult with the legal department. Who at the legal department do you consult with? A. Warren Bittner. Q. Why Mr. Bittner? A. It's my understanding that he oversees the billboard issues. Q. Now, you say you present something to Lourdes Slazyk; is that correct? A. That's: correct. Q. After you review. Now, Lourdes's title is what? A N ki) a) 0 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 o • E 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 13 A. Zoning administrator. Q. What do you present generally to the zoning administrator? A. I present her with the FDOT application that was submitted, and then I present her that they have met all the requirements per, you know, the respective settlement agreement, depending on who submits them. And then I give it to her for -signature. Q. When you say they have met all the requirements, is there a certain form that you fill out that you check-out what requirements were needed and how they were met? A. No. Q. When you say they met all the requirements, is -there any explanation of the requirements that were met? A. No.- Q. Is your representation to the zoning administrator verbal or in writing? A. Verbal. Other than the actual FDOT application. Q. Has there been a time where you have presented to the zoning administrator that the FDOT application does not meet all the 41 0 0 c c c — 0 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 c o c o 00. 4.1 7 0.1 ;A 1- Page 14 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 requirements? A. Yes. Q. How many times have you done that? A. I dont.t recall. Q. When the FDOT application does not meet all the requirements, is that done verbally or in writing? A. My presentation to Lourdes? Q. YeS. A. Verbally. Q. And it's not reduced to writing in any way whatsoever? A. After the fact. I present it to Lourdes, then she will write the letter or notification to the perspective company that the application was denied. Q. Prior to your presentation to Lourdes, and situations where the FDOT application does not meet all the requirements, do you speak to the applicant to notify them that the FDOT application does not meet all the requirements? A. Not necessarily. It would depend on the information that,I would need. Q. Why don't you give me the situations in :KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which you have spoken to the applicant and told the applicant that the FDOT application does not meet all the requirements for certain reasons? A. I don't think I can recall a specific conversation that I had with an applicant as far as why the permit was denied, or might be denied, or there was not sufficient information. Q. Do you recall any situation where you've spoken to the applicant and asked the applicant to supplement their application because something was missing? A. I don't recall a specific conversation, no Q. Canyou recall all the times that you informed the zoning administrator that an FDOT application doesnot meet all the requirements? A. No. Q. Was there ever a time where Clear Channel presented an FDOT application to you? A. I believe so. Q. Was there ever a time that you informed Lourdes Slazyk that a Clear Channel FDOT application did not meet all the requirements? A, I don't recall. Q. Has CBS ever presented an FDOT u .r = 0. c a) .0 0 4-, C C c KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC o m w 305-371-7692 .c m = rn 0 0 0. 0 0 -x 0) EU 0 cz L. Page 16 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application to you? A. Yes. Q. Was there ever a time when you notified Lourdes Slazyk that an FDOT application presented by CBS did not meet all the requirements? A. I don't recall. Q. Has Carter ever presented an FDOT application to you? A. Yes. Q. Was there ever a time that you informed Lourdes Slazyk that a Carter FDOT application did not meet other requirements? A. Yes. Q. When was that situation? A. I don't know the exact date. 4. Let's look back at the October 7th, 2009 letter that you should have in front of you as part of Composite Exhibit 1. Do you see it? A. Yes. Q. Do you see those applications listed there? A. I see addresses. Q. Are you familiar with the seven addresses listed there with regard to the ( AMESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 • .• 4.0 70 3 3 • C a) 0 .c 4., c • c — 0 m u E P.; m VI • 6, n 06-23-11 items PZ.9 c 0 -1g o .c u u 0. Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presentation by Carter of FDOT applications? A. Say again. Q. Do you see the seven locations listed on the October 7th letter that we have that you have before you? A. Yes. Q. You said that you see seven addresses there; is that correct? A. Folios, yes. Q. Do those seven folios correspond to FDOT applications? A. I don't have the actual applications in front of me unless they're part of the actual attachment. Q. Do you know that Carter presented FDOT applications for the seven locations that you have in front of you? A. I would need a copy of the actual FDOT form to confirm. Q. As you sit here today, do you know if they presented FDOT applications for those seven sites? A. I believe so, but I need to have the forms. Q. What is the purpose for submitting the SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Submitted i c 0 0 Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 FDOT applications? A. The purpose to present an FDOT application to the City would be to get local government permission. And. then from there, they would take it to FDOT. Q. And FDOT, so we're clear, is Florida Department of Transportation? A. That's correct. Q. Describe the process that you undertake once you get an FDOT application. A. As I stated, I review -it based on the respective settlement agreement of whoever submits the application, see if it meets all the requirements.' Then I present it -- meet with our legal department to review it, then I present it to Lourdes. Q. At any time do you meet with the applicant? A. When they submit the application. Q. You meet with the applicant when they submit the application? A. They provide it in person. Q. When they provide the application, do you have any interview of the applicant regarding :KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 M tD 0 c 0 VI D. 0 t F 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 19 the application?. A. No. Usually they provide itand they just drop it off. Q. As you're reviewing the application, do you consult with anybody other than the legal department and the zoning administrator? A. Well, I brief Orlando, but I don't consult. I brief Orlando. Q. Other than the legal department, Orlando, the zoning administrator, do you discuss the application with any other person? A. No. Q. Do you ever discuss the application with any third parties? A. I don't understand what you mean. Q. For example, the zoning applications presented by Carter, did you discuss theses applications with anybody representing CBS? A. I don't recall if I did or not. Q. Why would -- you don't recall? A. No, I don't recall. Q. Do you know Joe Little? A. I do. Q. How do you know Joe Little? A. He's the representative for CBS. .KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 20 Q. Do you know if you discussed FDOT applications submitted by Carter Pritchett with Joe Little? A. I might have in this particular case. Q. Why is that? A. If I did for any reason, it would be because these locations were similar to ones submitted by CBS. Q. When you say they're similar, what does that mean? A. They are the same location. Q. When you say they are the same location, all seven of them are the same location that were presented by CBS? A. I don't recall at this time. I don't know if all seven of them. Q. But you think some of them are? A. Yes.. Q. Do you know any of them here that are the same locations? A. CanPartners. GT Used Trucks, I believe. Little Old Real Estate, I believe. Brickell Village. But there's no way for me to confirm unless I see the applications. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 0 w f 0 c 1 Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Now, you think you spoke with Joe Little regarding these four sites? A. I think I might have. I don't recall. Q. Would your discussion with Joe Little be before you make your presentation to the zoning administrator? A. I don't recall. Q. Can you recall what was your discussion with Mr. Little? A. I don't recall. Q. Would you have anything in writing regarding any discussion you may have with Mr. Little? A. I dori'.t know. Q. Did these seven applications go through the process you just described, that you review the settlement agreement, discuss it with the legal department, and then present it to Lourdes? A. Yes. (Thereupon, Appeal By Outlook Media was marked as Plaintiff's Composite Exhibit 2 for Identification.) Q. Sir, I have marked as Plaintiff's Composite Exhibit 2, it sayshere appeal by Outlook Media from decision. I ask if you've seen KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 u u Page 22 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that before? A. I believe I have, yes. Q. Do you know who prepared this? A. I believe we did, because it says City of Miami. Q. Were you involved in the preparation of this document? A. , I believe so, yes. Q. What was your involvement? A. I believe this was compiling information together to address the appeal that was going in front of the Zoning Board. Q. What was your involvement in the preparation of this document? A. Collecting information, providing it and reviewing it. Q. Providing it to whom? A. The legal department. Q. Would that be Mr. Bittner? A. Yes. Q. Can you please turn to Tab F in Composite Exhibit 2. This is an e-mail from Lourdes Slazyk to, it says Rex@Carteroutdoormiami.com. Have you ever seen this e-mail before? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC . 305-371-7692 Page 23 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. What is this e-mail? A. This e-mail is the denial of the FDOT application that Carter submitted. Q. You say the denial of the FDOT application? A. That's my understanding. Q. Where do you get that understanding from? A. The City declines to sign off. Q Did you report to Lourdes before this e-mail was sent out? A. Yes. Q. Now, the e-mail states that -- at the end, it says: Because Carter -- I'm reading a part of it --because Carter has no entitlement to such under the authority of either the City of Miami zoning ordinance, Carter's settlement agreement w th the City dated August 18, 2003, or - the City's/FDOT/1,000 foot pilot program. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Is that what you reported to Lourdes? A. This is what was presented to Lourdes. Q. Who presented it to Lourdes? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 u .0 - § c 0 w 5 V, 2 = c = — 0 -E w c m 7 0 0 o. oE Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. 1 believe I did myself, and Warren, I believe. Q. Were you in agreement that Carter has no entitlement to such authority under the three reasons stated there? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever been -- have you ever seen any other denial of FDOT applications? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall seeing any written denial of an FDOT application? A. I don't recall. Q. In your presentation to Lourdes, did you provide more substance, or more reasons as to why each of these were reasons to deny the FDOT applications presented? A. I believe so, yes. Q. Tell me what you recall that you presented to Lourdes? A. I don't recall specifically what I presented to Lourdes on December 16th. Q. As You said here today, tell me what I recall regarding the reasons for the denial of the FDOT applications, the ones referenced in this e-mail by Lourdes? ..., .0 c = :- 0 L. 1 3 al . 0. cu 0. c 0 M Eu 4) .- co f, t ul, .c • 0 c c c ci 0 m 1 1 "lc g',...iit: E 8 ig t .0 u w 4/1 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 A. The only one I can think of is related to settlement agreement, having to do with the relocation standard. Q. We'll get to that in a second. When it says City of Miami zoning ordinance, what specific ordinance are you referencing there, or is she referencing there? A. The zoning ordinance. Q. What specific section or portion of the zoning ordinance was the reason for the denial of these FDOT applications? A. I don't know. It doesn't state. Q. As you sit here right now, you don't know what specific zoning ordinance she's making reference to? A. Not specifically. I mean, I can assume, but I don't know specifically. The only zoning ordinance section that talks about billboards that I know of is 10.4.5. Q. Which 'States, generally? A. That all billboards in the City of Miami are illegal,.other than by way of settlement u t c agreement. 3 74 v, 0. a, Q. Let's turn to sub -section E. -- I'm s n, ° • C O H CU sorry -- to Tab E.within Plaintiff's Composite 2, - o o ;11 c IV u H O m U y O V1 • ' .KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which is the settlement agreement between the City of Miami and Carter Pritchett Hodges. Have you seen that settlement agreement before? A. Yes. Q. Is that the settlement agreement that is referenced in Lourdes Slazyk's e-mail of December 16, 2009? A. I would assume so. Q. It says dated August 18, 2003, which in fact is the date of the settlement agreement between Carter and the City of Miami that is under Tab E, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, on this settlement agreement, you reviewed it before you reported to Lourdes Slazyk, correct? A. Yes. Q. Did you report to Lourdes Slazyk that the Carter Pritchett applications referenced in Mr. San Roman's letter did not meet or comply with this settlement agreement? A. I don't recall. I would assume so. Q. Tell me what sections of the settlement agreement they did not comply with? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 27 A. Section 8. Q. Why did the applications not comply with Section 8? A. If 1 recall correctly, the applications did not show or provide necessity. don't believe it provided the zoning classifications.. Q. I'm sorry? Necessity -- A. The zoning classification of the properties. Q. Okay. A. I don't believe that they had provided me with their relocation properties at the time. I dOn4t recall the rest. Q. Okay. Let's start with necessity. What does necessity mean to you? A. To me, that would Mean a building gets built in frcintif the billboard, or a lease is expired that they can't renew. Q. Where did you get that understanding of necessity? A. Something that was discussed internally '--- as far as the.meaning of it becomes necessary. Q. When was that discussed internally? = A. I don't recall. 0. C cy .0 0 W c c c u KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 items PZ.9 on 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 28 Q. Who discussed that with you? A. I believe we all did, meaning the legal • department and Lourdes. Q. Do you recall when that was done? A. No. Q. Was'it done in connection with the FDOT applications that were denied by Lourdes Slazyk on December 16, 2009? A. I don't recall. I believe this conversation happened prior to that. Q. Tell me where is it written within the City of Miami what necessity means? A. I donjt know. Q. Have you ever seen any document, any memo, any e-mail where necessity is defined? A. Not that I recall. Q. How many discussions have you had within the City of Miami regarding the necessity requirement? MR. BITT R: Other than with your attorney. Q. No. How many? It can be with your attorney. A. I don't know. .0 1 3 74 0. c 0 N c m 8 cv c KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 .0 0 1- 0?, o. Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. More than one? A. I believe so. Q. How many total? A. No idea. Q. Is that a frequent conversation with people within the City of Miami? A. I don't know. Q. Tell me what was the first time you recall having a necessity discussion with anybody within the City of Miami? A. The first time, I don't recall. I'm'assuming the last time was when I received the applications. But the first time Q. When you say you received the applications, the applications that were denied by Lourdes on December 16, 2009? A. Say again. December what? Q. The applications that you're talking about are the ones that were denied by Lourdes on December 16, 2009, and that is under Tab F? A. I belieVe so. Q. Does the CBS settlement agreement have necessity requirement also? A. I don't know. I don't have it in front of me. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 0. c • o -45 o 614 C ▪ ▪ C — 0 M u W p • E A 8 = r f7i 9 on 06-23-11 0. Pacre 30 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If you could provide it -- Q. Let me show you a copy of the CBS settlement agreement with the City. And unfortunately, 1 only have one copy. But. I'd turn your attention to page 19 of that document and ask if that refreshes your recollection as to whether the CBS settlement agreement with the City has a necessity requirement. A. Could you repeat the question, please. Q. Does the CBS settlement agreement have a necessity requirement? A. Give me a second to look through it. Q. Sure.. A. It has a similar requirement as to Carter. Q. With regard to necessity, right? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever denied a CBS submitted FDOT application due to necessity? A. Not that I recall. Q. Did all the FDOT submissions by CBS meet ' the necessity requirement of a building being built in front of a billboard or a lease expiring? A. Say that again. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 . = sa '5 c cu 5 t 2 c c c — 0 -0 w c p 4- E- 1'11 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 31 Q. Did all the CBS FDOT applications meet the necessity requirements because it had a building built in front of the billboard, or there was a lease expiring? A. I don't fully understand the question. Only because of the requirements in the different settlement agreements. Q. You -- A. So -- Q. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. A. Maybe I'm not sure how to answer the question, because I don't know -- there's different requirements for each settlement agreement. Q. On the CBS settlement agreement, if I could look at it real quickly for a second. It says: If it becomes necessary for CBS to replace any C-2 sign listed on Exhibit D.. Do you see that? A. Um -hum.. Q. Does necessity in that instance apply to something other than a building being built in front of the billboard or a. lease expiring? u t A. No. •3 O. c y o -_.y.... 0 W +, C C C D U C E o • u V1 L KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 5- • Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Same thing? A. Yeah. Q. Therefore, every FDOT application submitted by CBS that was approved by the City either had a billboard -- I'm sorry -- a building built in front of the billboard, or a lease expiring; is that correct? MR. BITTNER: Object to form. MS. LICKO: Objection. A. No. Q. Why not? Why is that not a correct statement? A. Because under the CBS settlement agreement, they provided FDOT applications based on amended or initial amended permits. Q. I'm sorry. Based on what? A. Amended or initial amended permits. SO the requirements for the amended or initial amended permit's were different. They did not travel under that section is my understanding. Q. Where did you get that understanding? A. Because when I get an FDOT application from CBS specifically, under the terms of their settlement agreement, they were allowed to have 15 amended permits. In exchange, they would have to KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 C a) 0 4-5 o. L Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 remove two signs. So the relocation or the restructuring of that sign to another location would have to meet the requirements of another section in their settlement agreement. And I would have to find that. You're going to have to give my time to look through this. Q. Go ahead. A. I believe it starts on paragraph four, ended permits. Q. Okay. A. And these provisions, the provisions in this agreement, are not in the Carter agreement. Q. Therefore, in the FDOT applications submitted to the City by CBS, you did not have to apply the necessity requirement? A. I don't recall having used the necessity requirement. Q. Let me show you the Clear Channel settlement agreement with the City. And I direct your attention to page 13, which is the replacement and relocation of signs of that agreement. And I ask you whether the settlement KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement between Clear Channel and the City of Miami also has a necessity requirement? MR. ECHEMENDIA: Are we tabbing those as exhibits? MR, DORTA: I will. While: Mr. Bittner is reviewing that document, I'm going to mark the CBS settlement agreement as Exhibit 3. And Carol, I'll give you a copy afterwards. MS. LICKO: Sure. (Thereupon, CBS Settlement Agreement was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 for Identification.) A. Yes, Q. Has the.City approved FDOT applications presented by:Clear Channel? A. Yes. Q. Does that mean that every FDOT application presented by Clear Channel represented a situation where a building was built in front of a billboard, or a lease expired? MR. BITTNER: Object to form. A. I dont know. Q. Did:all the FDOT applications presented to the City by Clear Channel comply with the u t fl. C M 0/ 0 N t � • Obi O H 0 • 0 C Q M u OI c a 0 0 7 y 01 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7-692 Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 necessity requirement? A. I don't know. I was not project manager of the billboards at the time of that happening. Q. So you have never seen or have never been part of the approval process for an FDOT application presented by Clear Channel? A. No. You asked me if I had seen all of them. All of them is no. The ones that I have seen -- the ones that I have seen? Q. Yes. A. I don't recall. Q. You don't recall the necessity requirement was satisfied? A. don't believe I did. I don't believe I did. I don't believe - the did with CBS. don't believe under that requirement -- Q. it? same as what I I submitted it Under what requirement A. look through the the necessity -for Clear Channel. Q. Why not? did you submit requirement of • u = .c m '5 ei 0. CU 0 NI ▪ g c 0 0) c p E = 112 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 ro Page 36 A. I don't recall. Q. Therefore, do you ever recall approving of an application submitted by either CBS or Clear Channel where you have represented to Lourdes that it meets the necessity requirement? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you ever recall approving of an FDOT application submitted by CBS or Clear Channel because a building had been built in front of the billboard? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you ever recall, in connection with any FDOT application submitted by CBS or Clear Channel, that you recommended approval because a lease had expired? A. I don't recall. Q. As you sit here today, do you recall any application wherein the necessity requirement, you believe, was satisfied because a building had been built in front of a billboard? A. I don't recall. Q. As you sit here today, do you recall any application in which the necessity requirement was satisfied because the lease had expired? A. I don t recall. —KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 MC .0 t 0 E u ,„ 41 V/ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 37 Q. Tell me the circumstances in which those two conditions were communicated to you as a satisfaction of the necessity requirement of the settlement agreements? MS. LICKO: Objection to form. A. Could you repeat the question. Q. Tell me the circumstances in which you learned that the conditions of having a building built in front of a billboard, or a lease expiring, satisfied the necessity requirements? MS. LICKO: Same object to form. MR. BITTNER: To the extent it was not with your attorney.. A. None. Q. Because they were all from your attorney? A. They were all MR. BITTNER: Don't answer that question. Q. Were they all from your attorney? MR. BITTNER: Do not answer that question. If you have one that is other than with your attorney, you can answer it. A. Not that I recall. .0 21. 0. C ai 0 re 4.5 s 2 c c c — 0 -0 .c C C. al E 1 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC : 305-371-7692 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 38 25 1 Q. Therefore, the necessity requirements, or those two conditions of the necessity requirements, only came from your attorney? MR. BITTNER: Don4t answer that question. Q. Did you represent to anybody that the necessity requirements were a building built in front of a billboard, or a lease expiring? MS. LICKO: Objection to form. A. I represented that to the Zoning Board. Q. When did you present that to the Zoning Board? A. I believe it was March 27th. Q. Did you ever present to any applicant that those are the two conditions to satisfy necessity? A. I don't recall. Q. Do you recall discussing that with anybody other than the Zoning Board that necessity were those two conditions? MR. BITTNER: Other than with your attorney. A. I don't recall. Q. Did you ever discuss that with Lourdes? A. Alone? -KIRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 = CL c o -45 o c C C — 0 M u w c E 0 c 0 E 0 > _0 PZ.9 on 06-23-11 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 39 Q. Yes. A. I don't recall. Q. When you discussed it with Lourdes, were attorneys present? A. Yes. Q. Who was present? A. Warren. Q. Other than the six applications referenced in Lourdes Slazyk's e-mail of December 16, 2009, which we have as Tab F, tell me all other circumstances that you recall in which FDOT applications were denied because they did not comply with the necessity requirement? A. I don't recall. Q. Pardon me? A. I don't recall. Q. Sir, you understand that if you know the answer to be tio, and you respond I don't recall, that's an inaccurate answer; you know he that, right? A. Yes, I do. Q. And you knew that from the beginning when we started this deposition? A. Yes. Q. As you sit here today, do you believe PRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 3 :13 7-1 tis 0 Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you denied any application other than the ones referenced in Tab F because it did not meet the necessity requirement? MR. BITTNER: Object to form. A. Say again. Q. As you sit here today, do you believe you recommended the denial of any FDOT application other than the six referenced on the December 16th, 2009 e-mail from Lourdes, because of necessity? A. No. Q. You don't believe you have? A. No. Q. So as you sit here today, the first and only applications you believe you have represented to Lourdes did not meet the necessity requirements are the six referenced in Lourdes's e-mail of December 16, 2009? A. 1 believe so. Q. Have you ever had any discussion with anybody within the City wherein it was recommended that these necessity requirements should be written? MS. LICKO: Objection to form. MR. BITTNER: Same objection. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Submitted int incmnr 1 0 1- Page 41 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Yes. Q. Who did you have those discussions with? MR. BITTNER: Other than with your attorney. MR. DORTA: He can identify if he had them with you. He just can't disclose what it was. MR. BITTNER: You just asked him the content of the question and now you are asking him to identify who the attorney was. No, you may not. If it's with your attorney, don't say it. A. I believe I had a conversation with Lourdes. Q. Tell me what was the conversation with Lourdes? A. I believe the conversation with Lourdes had to do with the provision of the settlement agreements that talks about relocation standards being adopted by the City commission. Q. Let s talk about those relocation standards. Tell me what is your understanding of relocation standards to be adopted by the City. -•KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 • • • = I• v_ 3 • ao cam E o .0 II/ o t • 4 c c ▪ °11 := U vi E .0 ig = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 A. Well, we haven't adopted any. Q. Why not? A. I don't know. Q. Tell me what are the parameters that you discussed with Lourdes regarding what are those relocation standards? A. Other than it being a requirement in the settlement agreement, I don't recall. Q. Did you guys discuss any conditions of what a relocation standard could be? A. I'm sure we did. Q. Do you recall any aspect of it? A. Not specifically, no, I don't recall. I assuine we had conversations about, you know, where they would be relocated to and things like that. But I can't be specific about that conversation. I just don't know. Q. How many conversations did you have with Lourdes regarding relocation standards? A. I don't know. Q. Tell me generally. More than one conversation?. A. I really don't know. Q. Tell me after you had those conversations with Lourdes, was there any KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2D 21 22 23 24 25 Page 43 agreement that relocation standards had to be written? A. Yeah. I think -- I believe we talked about the fact that there should be something presented to the commission. Q. Why is that? A. Because it's a requirement in it's a provision in the settlement agreement. Q. Was anybody tasked with drafting those relocation standards? A. Not specifically that I can recall. Q. Tell me, if you can, any aspect of these relocation standards, any condition, any A. They haven't been drafted. Q. So as you sit here today, you have no idea what the relocation standards could mean? A. Well, they would have to include seeing a geographical location. I'm assuming they would include zoning district, the same zoning district. I would assume they would also require a necessity. That's all I can think of now. Q. Let's talk about those three. MR. DORTA: Let me mark that first. Before going on to my next question, • KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 'SI 0. c .0 2 c E 5 m u w .0 8 u c „dr" E o = o "C, c 0 m 2E 1= gL 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10• 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 44 I'm going to mark the Clear Channel settlement agreement with the City of Miami as Exhibit 4. Again Carol, I'll give you a copy after the deposition. (Thereupon, Clear Channel Settlement Agreement was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 for Identification.) Q. Sir, when you discussed the relocation standards with Lourdes, did you mention in fact those three conditions: Geographical location, zoning district,and necessity? A. I don't recall the specific conversation,, but I'm assuming those came up. Q. When you just said to me what you believe would be included in relocation standards, and you gave me those three things, were you referring to any document in particular? A. well, those three things that I mentioned are in all three of the settlement agreements, Q. When you say all three of the settlement agreements, that's the Clear Channel settlement agreement with the City, the CBS settlement agreement with the City, and the Carter Pritchett KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 a O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 45 settlement agreement with the City? A. That's correct. Q. Now, what do you mean by geographical location? A. Geographical location, to me, means in the same area. Or -geographical location can also mean not only within a restricted area, but within an allowed geographical location. I guess it would be the City.of Miami. Q. So the geographical area means the City of Miami boundaries? A. That is how I, personally would take that. Q. Did you discuss that with Lourdes? A. I don't recall. Q. Zoning district. What does that mean? A. Again, to me, that would mean a sign being relocated or replaced from a C-1 to a C-1, or a C-2 to a C-2. Q. Let me take you back to these six applications mentioned in Lourdes Slazyk's e-mail of December 16, 2009. I believe that the zoning district was one of the reasons you stated you recommended the u .45 53 '5 ci. c cu 0 .c sERESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Submitted in u c w c 0 E Page 46 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 denial to Lourdes; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Tell me why you recommended denial based on the zoning district. A. Well, I don't have all my paperwork in front of me. But as far as I recall, when these applications were submitted to me, like I mentioned, they did not provide a relocation property at first. So they did not show me where they were going to be relocated to. Once they did provide that, I could not verify the actual zoning classifications for those properties. Q. Did you contact the applicant to try to verify the zoning? A. I don't believe I did. Q. Why not? A. I looked at the change of locations that they provided where the new -- not the new ones, but the ones being relocated to, looked it up in the GIS, and I could not verify the zoning for those properties. And usually, that is up to 0 O.Cthe applicant . ; 4 to provide that information as well. c 0 c C C • - - to Q. You said you looked up the GIS. What is c .7, -1 F a. E 01 0 E w 0 L. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that? A. Our computer system •in the City that provides the zoning classifications for the properties. Q. You said you don't recall contacting the applicant to, obtain that zoning information, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Would you agree with me that to supplement the zoning information on those applications is an administerial requirement? A. To provide the zoning for the relocation? Q. Yes, for the relocation. A. It is part of the application. Q. Have you ever called an applicant to say your application is deficient because it lacks X? A. X? Q. Anything. Any particular subject or entry? A. I believe so. I don't recall specifically. Q. What are the conditions, or in your practice, when would you call an applicant to say your application is deficient because it's missing '.KAESSE & ASSOCIATES, LIZ 305-371-7692 E g 0 - = Page 48 2 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some information? A. One of the things I would call about would be which signs they are removing. Another thing would be the lease agreement with the property owner. Those are the things I can think of right now. Q. Why wouldn't you call the applicant in this instance and tell him that the zoning information is missing from the application? A. No specific reason. Q. Would you agree with me that the missing zoning application is something that the applicant can easily supplement? A. Can easily what? Q. Supplement. A. Provide it, yeah. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Matt, can we take a two minute break. MR. DORTA: Sure. (Recess in the proceedings.) Q. Let me show you, if turn again to Tab D, which is Mr. San Roman's letter -- of Composite Exhibit 1 -- you will see that it has the various locations. Do you know if the applicant provided KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 c 4 o 0 m u mi = c E Lt w 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 49 the zoning for any of those locations? A. I don't believe they did. Q. If you look at the first one, Contemporary Contractors. I will mark as Exhibit 5 from the My Home page of Miami -Dade County the property information map for Contemporary Contractors, which is one of those sites. (Thereupon, Contemporary Contractors Property Information Map was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 for Identification.) Q. And I ask if the zoning information you're looking for is listed on that document? A. No.: w = ... 0 3 :Ll a w Q. No? CLCMEW W 0 NI 0 )'' f4i '' A. Let meclarify for you. 0 w c • c 0 0 Q. Sure. • 0. .0 A. This is the Miami -Dade County website. 'EtE M A O w W I go into our City GIS system, which lists all the zoning of the properties within the City of Miami. Dade County, obviously, is obviously for the entire Dade County. There's no way of me verifying 100 percent if this property is located in the City of Miami, because :Idon't know the exact boundaries. Also, the zoning classifications for the KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 50 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 County is different than that of the City. (Thereupon, City of Miami Website Page was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 for Identification.) Q. Sir, let me show you what we've marked as Exhibit 6. One of the other sites referenced there is GT Used TrUcks. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Let me show you what we've marked as Exhibit 6 from the City of Miami's website, and ask if this gives you the information you need regarding the GT Used Trucks location? A. Yes. Q. Does that tell you the zoning? A. Yes, it does. Q. The.zoning is what? A. Industrial. Q. Is this the type of place you would look for to determine the zoning on the application? A. Yes, it is. Q. Did you in fact look for that on that website to determine the zoning when you received the application for the GT Used Trucks location? c cy 0 grv.i E `7) .▪ 1) 2 A. Yes, 1 did. 0 1- 2 c o 0 m -0 uch= a. .0 OE KIcESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 W E 305-371-7692 Page 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And it was not on the website at the ime? A. As I stated during the appeal to the Zoning Board, I don't know why it didn't show up when I reviewed it, and it was something that I had to look into. There are malfunctions inthat system from time to time. But that is the exact place I would look. Q. And:would that zoning classification allow for the billboards to be placed there, assuming the.Other conditions were satisfied? A. What other conditions? Q. Necessity and every other -- the 1,000 feet and every:other reason for denial? A. I would have to first verify that the property where the sign is being relocated from is in the samezoting classification. Q. If it.is, that satisfied the zoning requirement?. A. That would satisfy.the same zoning district. (Thereupon, City of Miami Website Page was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 for Identification.) Q.0 A 4) .0 t o ° ESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 c m • o E A 7 u T m EU o .c u ci 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 52 Q. One of the other locations is the Brickell Village Land Company. Let me give you what I've marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 7 from the City of Miami's website. A. Yes. Q. And ask you if this document that I'm marking as Exhibit 7 gives you the zoning requirement that you were looking for with regard to Brickell Village Land Company? A. Yes, Q. Again, when you looked at it before, prior to the hearing before the Zoning Board, it did not have that information on the website? A. I don't recall if the information that I was looking for was specifically these locations, or the locations of where the billboards were being removed' from. I reviewed all of them. 1 mean, punched in all the addresses. So I don't recall 100 percent if the classifications I was looking for were for these exact locations and/or the other current locations. Q. Where they were going to be moved from? A. Right. 4.1 .0 C = 4.. .0 '5IIo -% in l- w o. c Et-) GONo ).• 1- w 0 w c c ci 0 0 u _ 0 • - • - -a E - ci .0 = 0, ..n ... ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 ii Page 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I just didn't have a way of verifying the zoning classifications. (Thereupon, City of Miami Website Page was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 for Identification.) Q. Now, let me show you what we've marked as Exhibit 8. This deals with CanPartners. Again, one of the properties -listed in this letter by San Roman. This is from the website of. the City of Miami. And I ask if that has the zoning classification that you were looking for? A. Yes, it does. Q. Sir, has the City of Miami, to your knowledge, ever allowed Carter to relocate any billboards under the settlement agreement? A. Yes. Q. Were you involved in the process for the approval of the relocation of any billboards by Carter? A. I believe I was involved in one of them. Q. Which one was that? A. I believe it was the -- you want the exact address? I can give you the location. I don't 1 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 0 c A 7 0 '§ 74 record in conn Page 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know the exact address. Q. Give me the location. A. It's on Southwest 1st Street, right off the little parking lot there. It's a little building with a law firm on it in Downtown Miami. Right by the off ramp and on ramp of 95. It's the three faced one. Q. Did Carter satisfy the relocation standards for that particular building? A. Yes. Q. What was the necessity requirement that is satisfied for that particular building? A. If I recall correctly, 1 believe that the lease expired. Q. The lease expired from A. From the Q. -- previous place? A. That's correct. Q. Sir, in reviewing these applications that were denied by Lourdes Slazyk in that e-mail that we reviewed earlier, did you review to see if there were any other billboards that the City had approved under the Carter settlement agreement, other than the one you just mentioned? A. Did 1 review to see,if we approved any SSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 .c c -o u a) 0 •• •X E u O ).▪ • • L./ 4 47 8 E. VI a. :t 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 55 other relocations from Carter? Q. Yes. A. I don't believe we did. Q. The denial by Lourdes Slazyk on December 16th also mentions the City's FDOT 1,000 foot pilot program. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Tell me -what is the City's FDOT 1,000 foot pilot program? A. It's a program under FDOT allowing the spaCing requirement between billboards from 1,500 feet to 1,000. Q. On the denial that we see here by Lourdes Slazyk, other than the 1,000 foot requirement underthe pilot program, was the denial based on any other aspect of the pilot program? A. Yes. Q. What was the other aspect? A. I believe that there was no overall net reduction in the number of signs for Carter as required by the ordinance. Q. As required by what? .171 A. The ordinance. = c cm 0 r '47.1 LJ 2 2 F = 0 -0 U aJ c E 1 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 771 m es' 41) CU Page 56 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. The.City ordinance? A. Yes. And State. Q. Can you explain that net reduction to me. A. Well, as long as there's one fewer by the time you put a relocation up, that's one less in the overall inventory of the respective company. Q. So therefore, for every one you put up, you need to take down two? A. As it relates to which settlement 'agreement? Q. I'm focusing on the Carter settlement agreement. Does the Carter settlement agreement require a two to one? A. No, it does not. Q. It only requires a one to one? A. It requires a relocation, a reconstruction, that's correct. Q. Does the net reduction apply to any application submitted by Carter? A. The, thousand foot application; is that what you're asking? The pilot program application, or any KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 e0 u6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa e other application? Q. Any other application. A. No, it does not. Q. If you. are not going under the pilot program, what is the spacing requirement? A. It's 1,500 foot. Q. So therefore, under the Carter settlement agreement, if the spacing is 1,500 feet or more, it does not require net reduction? A. Under the teL of their settlement agreements? Q. Yes. A. I don't believe that is one aspect, that net reduction is required. There's no two for one. Q. So when does the two for one kick in on any application submitted by Carter? A. Well, I'm not comfortable saying two for one. We need an overall net reduction in the number of inventory signs of, in this particular case, Carter, if they submit a sign within a thousand feet. Q. So therefore, if Carter submits for a sign 1,500 feet or more in spacing -- A. Right. ▪ § 0 0. c w 0 • = c = - 0 -0 w w c E k r; tu tfl •-)<RESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Page 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. there's no net reduction requirement? A. That's correct. Q. If Carter submits an application for less than 1,500 feet, there is a net reduction requirement? A. In their overall inventory, in my opinion, yes. Q. Where do you obtain that understanding? A. From the state statute and our ordinance that there needs to be a net reduction. Q. Did you discuss that with Lourdes? A. Yes. I believe I did. Q. Did you recommend to Lourdes the denial of the six FDOT applications that she mentioned on the December 16th e-mail? A. Yes. Q. When you recommended to Lourdes the denial of those six FDOT applications, did you tell her one of the reasons for the denial was because there was no net reduction? A. I believe I did, yes. Q. Did you ever recommend approval of billboards for CBS that were within 1,000 feet of an existing billboard? A. I believe so. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 uC C := 0 t Eu w ° N 0 — I-7U 0 c g 4, a, oE :t -a (I w a. Page 59 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. When did you do that? A. There's no way for me knowing that, without me having the paperwork in front of me. Q. Why would you recommend the approval of CBS applications that were within 1,000 feet of an existing billboard? A. Why would I approve for? Because there's an overall net reduction in the number of signs for CBS. Q. Even --- A. The inventory. Q. Even if it's within 1,000 feet? A. Yes.. Q. Does not -- does the pilot program require that the billboards be at least 1,000 feet away from the adjacent billboards? A. At least, yes. Q. CBS, you approved billboards for CBS that were within 1,000 feet of an existing billboard, correct? A. That's my understanding, yes. Q. Why did you recommend approval if it was within 1,000 feet? A. Those specific locations were submitted on 1,500 foot applications, not 1,000 feet. And KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 60 .0 .4a§ CL c W .0 t 0 CU 4-, 0 g D • c •- 136 • 1- items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 a. Page 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we do not regulate distance with the 1,500 feet requirement. Q. So therefore, if an applicant submits an application that says 1,500 feet, yet in reality it is five feet from an existing billboard, you would still recommend approval based on distance? A. If I recall correctly, and I don't know exactly which locations you're talking about, but if I recall correctly those locations were submitted prior to the effectiveness of the 1,000 pilot program. Q. If you look at the letter that's in front of you, which is the San Roman letter, and you look at page two of that letter, it says: On September 29, 2009, the City approved two applications for CBS Outdoor. One is immediately adjacent to an existing Carter Outdoor sign. Do you see that paragraph? A. Yes. Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to the two applications for CBS that were approved by the City? A. Yes. Q. Now, why -- these were submitted on L, .0 September 29th, or the approval was September 29, me a) 0 4./ 0 41 144 m 0 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 VI '6 O -z• e. 0. cu E O z• 1-13 ci 0 nil 'Ca ct. Lei 8: cv :0" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 61 2009, according to this letter, right? A. Um -hum. Q. Is that a yes? A. Yes. Sorry. Q. Why wasn't it denied -- if one of them here says it was 100 feet from the Carter sign, why weren't they denied because of the distance between the signs? A. Because on September 29th, 2009, the pilot program was not adopted yet and we did not regulate distance. Q. What do you mean we did not regulate distance? A. It is my understanding that under the 1,000 foot pilot program, we do have the ability to regulate the distance between the signs. Q. Now, let's go back to the first page of that letter, October 7th. Would you agree with me that on September 25, 2009, the City did not regulate distante? A. Yes. Q. These applications were submitted, according to this letter, and I'm sure we could verify it, on September 25th, 2009. Do you see that? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC • 305-371-7692 c u ' E 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 62 A. Yes. Q. Therefore, did you regulate distance with regard to these particular applications? A. No. Q. You did not? A. No, we•did not. Q. Therefore, the denial had nothing to do with the distance? A. No. Q. What did the denial have to do with? A. No net reduction. Q. If the denial did not have to do with the distance, that means you were not applying the pilot program to these particular applications, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Does the settlement agreement with Carter, since you are not applying the pilot program, requirea net reduction? A. No, it does not. Q. Therefore A. Well, •I'm sorry. I don't believe it does. Q. Therefore, if you are not applying the .c c = -Ne %- pilot program, and the Carter settlement agreement = D. c E u Go .c W U 0 +.0 C C 0 to O IJ 61 c M 115) 7 ty • 1. SSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 63 with the City does not require a net reduction, would you agree with me that these applications would not be subject to the 1,000 foot requirement, nor would it be subject to the net reduction? A. If they were approved or denied prior to October 5 h, yes. Q. Does the approval and the denial, does the date for the application of the pilot program depend on the date its approved or denied, or does it depend on the date the application is submitted? A. You mean at time of submittal? Q. At time of submittal? A. Well, in this particular case, they were submitted prior to the approval of the 1,000 foot spacing, and they were denied after. I don't recall there being a specific -- I don't recall there being a specific procedural aspect as far.as you base it on the time of the acceptance or the denial. Q. You would agree with me that if the practice is to apply it based on the date of submission, then the 1,000 foot requirement under the pilot program and/or the two for one net .KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 0. C a) 0 o w c c E A = v t5) A a E Page 64 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reduction would not be applicable to these applications? A. Yes. Now. that I think about it, the approval or denial should come at time -of submittal. Q. .Therefore, do you believe it was an error to use the 1,000 foot pilot program and the net reduction for the denial of these applications? A. Well, I think the overall e-mail that was sent on the basis of the denial had to do with all aspects related to billboards in the City of Miami. Q. But -I want to, for this question, I want to focus on the City's FDOT 1,000 foot pilot program. Okay? A. Okay. Q. You said that the review should be based from the date of submission, correct? A. My personal opinion. Q. Your personal opinion. You base that personal opinion on what, sir? A. My opinion. Q. Is -it. anything you read? '1(RESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 - a• cmEw 0 N .7 z- fi = — ty 0 i•-• O c C C n 0 m M = 01 C 1.4 — m u E w = m Page 65 3. 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. Q. ow of? A. Not that I know of. Q. Is there any policy in the City that you Now, my question is whether the applications that were submitted on September 25, 2009 are subject to the City's FDOT's 1,000 foot pilot program? A. No. Q. Pardon e? A. No. Q. Therefore, the net reduction would not apply to Carter, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Because under its settlement agreement, Carter does not have a net reduction requirement, correct? A. That's -correct. Q. And the distance regulation would not be applied by the City in its review of the applications that were submitted on September 25, 2009; is that right? A. That''s correct. Q. Therefore, is it an error for the City to deny applications submitted by Carter on KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 ubmitted into the record in connectio A 4.0 0 items PZ.9 0 c 0 -Ne 1/1 E u 0 u u a. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 66 September 25,2009, based on the city FDOT's 1,000 foot pilot program? A. Ifthat was the only reason for denial, yes. Q. At:least that particular reason is in error, correct? A. Like I said, if that was the only reason, yes. MR..DORTA: Why don't we do this. We're at around noon. Why don't we take a break for lunch, and come back. Id like to review.my notes over lunch and hopefully have a short afternoon session:. That would be my goal. Is that all right? MR: BITTNER: Fine. MS. LIMO: Fine with:me. (Recess in the proceedings.) Q. Sir, you realize you are still under oath? A. Yes. Q. During the morning session, there was several questions that I asked you that you u said -- your response was you did not recall. = m c Over lunch, did yourecall any answers 4,,,0 t 49 2 ACRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 67 to any of those questions? A. No, I don't. Q. Sir, are you familiar with the Lumus site? A. Yes;. Q. How are you familiar with that site? A. It's a CBS application. Q. Was that application approved by the city? A. Yes, it was. Q. Were you involved in the approval of that application? A. Yes. Q. Did that application meet the necessity requirements of the CBS settlement agreement with the City? A. That application was an initial amended permit, if I recall. And in the CBS settlement agreement, there are specific requirements for the initial amended permit. Q. Is necessity one of those requirements? A. No, it's not. Q. It's not? A. No. Not for initial amended or amended permits. • Talial....==a.....:==Ezmiliers., W .0 = ▪ u 4) 4••• C C C 0 D W KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Are you familiar with the Jose Marte site? A. Yes. Q. Were you involved in that application? A. Yes, I was. Q. How were you involved in that application? A. I reviewed it when it was submitted. Q. Who submitted•it? A. CBS. Q. Did it obtain approval from the City? A. Yes, it did. Q. Did that one meet the necessity requirements? A. That one was also an initial amended permit item, if I recall correctly, from CBS. So it did not fall under those requirements. Q. Are you familiar with the Fujimo site? A. Yes, I am. Q. Wbat is the Fujimo site? A. It's a location that was submitted by CBS. Q. Were you involved in the analysis of that application? A. Yes, I was. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 g.; .c = 0 if I.§ acrnEw al .2 ee 0 >. t O — Cti O m 0 W C • '4, • p • E .0 = w 2 Page 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Was it approved by the City? A. Yes, it was. Q. Did that have a necessity requirement? A. No, it did not. Q. Why not? A. For the same reason as the other ones. It was an initial permit as well. Q. Are you aware of the Overtown Curtis Center? A. The Overtown Center Plaza? Q. Is there a billboard site in Overtown Center? A. There's an Overtown Plaza. I don't know if it's the same location. Q. Is there a billboard site in connection with that? A. There was an application for Overtown Plaza. Q. Who submitted that? A. CBS. Q. Were you involved in that application? A. Yes, I was. Q. Was it approved boy the City? A. Yes. Q. Did it have a necessity requirement? KRE SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7*692 c 0 E O.0 rn aj .0 ell Page 70 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Again, as previous, it was an initial amended permit, I believe, and those requirements do not fall under that. Q. What about Grapeline? A. Same. Q. CBS approved? A. Yes. Q. It didn't have a necessity requirement? A. No, it did not. Q. Sir, are you familiar with this chart back here? It says City of Miami billboards, all companies? A. Yes, I am. Q. My understanding is you have a chart like this in your office, right? A. Yes, I do. Q. Can you -- let me see how I can do this. Can you look at these billboards and tell me which ones met the necessity requirements under either the CBS settlement agreement with the City, the Clear Channel settlement with the City, or the Carter settlement with the City? A. Well, I can tell you that as far as Clear Channel and CBS are concerned, they were initial amended and amended permits for . • KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-37177692 Page 71 1 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 billboards, so they did not qualify for the -- necessity is not a requirement for those locations. The Carter ones, which is the green circles, those would all have to meet the, as part of the review, the necessity requirements. Q. Is there any here that have obtained City approval? A. I'm sorry. Q. This chart right here, City of Miami billboards, all companies, are these locations that have been approved by the City? A. Yes. Q. All of them listed here? A. Yes. Q. And of all the ones listed here, the only ones that had necessity requirements, are the Carter ones; is 'that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Therefore, all the Carter ones here have either had a building put in front of a billboard, or have had a lease expiration; is that correct? A. I can't speak for all of them. The only one I was involved with was the one I described to you, the location on Southwest KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 u D. c a,' p 0 2 c E .c 4 Page 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1st. Q. That would be 201 Southwest 1st Street? A. I believe so. I can't speak for the rest. Q. Where would I go within the City records to find out -- before I ask you that question. Therefore all the Clear Channel and CBS that you see here on this list were either amended ipermits or initial amended:permits; is that the language you used? A. Thaes correct. Q. Sir, where would I 'find an analysis that necessity does not apply to amended permits or initial amended permits? A. May I have one of the settlement agreements. Q. Here is CBS. A. Because of the nature of the CBS and Clear Channel settlement agreements, the structure of it was that they would be able to put up one billboard arid remove two more. The.Carter settlement agreement does not have those provisions in. it. The Carter settlement agreement was, for the most part -- not for the most part -- is a one for one swap. .,,TRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC • 305-371=-7692 u .0 = A• CL c a, .0 t o 0 0 c 0 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 So because of the one for one swap, they had to follow the relocation and replacement signs provision. Under the CBS and Clear Channel agreements, 'there was specifically lined out that they would get 15 initial and amended permits. So I think seven initial, then eight through 15 was amended permits. Those fell out of the relocation or what's the exact word -- replacement of signs. Those fell out of that requirement. Those specific initial amended permits had their own requirements as set forth in the settlement agreement. Q. Let me see the CBS agreement for one second. You would agree with me, sir, that on the CBS settlement agreement, if CBS sought to replace any C-2 sign listed, it would have to meet the necessity requirements, correct? MR. BITTNER: Object to form. A. Yes. Q. You would also agree with me that the relocation standards, in your view, encompasses the quote necessity requirements, correct? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC • 305-371-7692 .0 3 = > M c W .19.7 O W ✓ C CC 0 -0 u c E m w 7 w '0 L. • items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Page 74 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That's correct. Q. Do you know whether any of the CBS approved and/or constructed billboards that we have here in the City of Miami billboards for all companies, whether those replaced any C-2 sign listed on Exhibit D? A. 1 would need to have that information in front of me. Q. You would agree with me that if any of those signs replaced any of the locations on exhibit -- any C-2's listed on Exhibit D, that it would require a necessity? A. If it were to replace any of the ones on Exhibit D? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. It would require necessity? A. Yes. Q. Regardless of whether it's an amended permit or initial amended permit? A. If they are solely replacing a structure on Exhibit D, yes. Q. What do you mean solely replacing? A. Because an initial amended permit and axnended permit does not necessarily come from KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 ; 0. c c c u cu L. PZ.9 on 06-23-11 E a) u 0. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 75 Exhibit D. So if they don't come from Exhibit D, then the parameters of the settlement agreement of CBS and Clear Channel allowed for them to put up signs as an initial amended or amended permit format. Like I said, Carter does not allow for that provision. It allows for a one -for -one swap. So using the Carter agreement, I only looked at the replacement or relocation of signs, and put in those requirements for the Carter agreement. Q. Right. A. Under the CBS and Clear Channel agreements, *I looked at the requirements set forth under the initial amended and amended permits requirements. Q. Right. A. So in this paragraph B I'm sorry paragraph A of the settlement agreement paragraph 11{a), sorry. Q. Okay. A. These necessities or these replacement relocation requirements did not fall under the initial amended or amended permit requirements. So if they have a sign on Exhibit D that 0 45 le KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 E 0 1 c c 0 8 items PZ.9 a. Page 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they would like to relocate or replace, then they would have to:follow those requirements. Q. So you can't have an initial amended permit or amended permit that relocates a sign on. Exhibit D, correct? A. You.can, yes, you could. Q. And.if you have an initial amended permit or amended. permit that relocates a sign on Exhibit D,..yoU would agree it would have to meet the relocation standards? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Going back to the Carter billboards that are listed here in the City of Miami's billboards of all companies -- and this was, just for the record, created by the City of Miami Planning Department, dated 10/14/09. Where would I look to see whether those Carter listingsmet the necessity requirement or relocation standards? A. It would be part of the overall application,. I .believe. Q. So as part of the Carter application for the billboards listed on this chart, I would see either that there was a building going up in front of a billboard, or that a lease expired, correct? Vr & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I can only speak to you about the one I was involved in, the 201 Southwest 1st Street. As part of the application that was submitted, there was -- it was showed to me that it met the necessity as fax as, I believe, a lease was expiring. It met the geographical area and the zoning district requirements. Q. When you were -- yousaid that the necessity requirement, the two conditions, at least, that you're aware of, are a building going in front of a billboard, or a lease expiration, correct? A. Right. Q. In your in the process of you understanding, what necessity meant in any ▪ .▪ 0 settlement agreements did you go back and look at ; .0.74 other previously approved applications? w 0 4 A. For:Carter? 2 2 cc 0 -0 u A Q. For. anybody. c A. Well, no. = w ... Q. I'm trying to figure out how you arrived at the conclusion that those two conditions that you mentioned to me earlier in your testimony were the conditions to meet the necessity requirement? A. Those were discussions that we had 0 IRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 78 internally. Q. Do you know if someone else reviewed other applications that were approved that met the necessity requirements and concluded that those two conditions is -- that those two conditions are the conditions required to meet the necessity requirement? A. I don't know. Q. Sir, let me take you back to the letter that is marked under Tab D of Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. There's a mention on the first page of an April 6th, 2009, meeting. Do you see that? A. Yes; Q. Were you at that meeting? A. I don't know. I mean, an April 6th meeting? Q. I' sorry. October 6th. A. You'd have to be more specific. Let me read it for a minute. Q. Okay. A. I believe I was in this meeting. Q. Who,elte was at that meeting? A. Well, I'm assuming you're talking about 0. c 12) 0 - 5 2 2 c 4.0 - E'- Lfl .... O -• V t0. en E .0 0 I- U c 4 r4u 0. ‘e' cu KkESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 79 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a meeting we had with Carter and the City Manager. Santiago was there, and myself, Warren was there. Q. Who was there from Carter? A. Rex Hodges and Scott Pritchett, believe, is his last name. And Herminio San Roman. Q. Do you recall what the purpose of the meeting was? A. No. I'm assuming it had something to do with, the applications. Q. That's all you recall? A. It's October 6th. Q. It -was. A. It must have been having to do with these applications. Q. Do you recall at any time during that meeting that there was a discussion that the applications could not be approved until an appeal by Outlook was withdrawn? A. Ibelieve so, yes. Q. And.why was that, do you recall? A. I think it had to do with the fact that the appeal from Outlook at the time was on u = M. C 41.0 47, • U 2, 2 c c 0 711 E 2 D. 2 r4 *0 • m• W KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 locations that were submittedby CBS for the same locations. Q. Okay. A. I believe that's what it was. Q. Do you know whether or not Outlook withdrew that appeal? A. I believe it did. Q. I believe there was also an issue as to whether CBS had to consent to withdraw the appeal. Do you, recall any of that? A. 1 think the reason why was because they were CBS locations. So they were their applications. Q. When you say they are CBS locations, what do you mean by that? A. They were locations submitted by CBS. Q. As opposed to Outlook? A. Well, they were submitted on behalf of CBS. Q. By Outlook? A. By Outlook. Q. Sir, let me turn your attention to Exhibit F on Composite Exhibit 1, and ask if you're familiar with that letter? A. Yes. _KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. On the fourth paragraph of the letter, it says: As to the following site, CBS has no comment or objection assuming FDOT applications or building permits can be legally issued by the City for Contemporary Contractors, 79 Antenaga. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Was City approval given for those three locations on the FDOT applications? A. I believe they were given for 79s. Q. Okay. A. That's it, I believe. Q. Why was it given for 79s? A. Because it met the requirements. Q. Thenecessity requirements and relocation standards? A. Yes. Q. On 79s, do you know whether it was an issue of a building being placed in front of the billboard, or an expiration of a lease? A. I believe it was a lease. Q. An expiration of a lease? A. Yes. Q. Why was it not given to Contemporary Contractors or Tenaga? 'KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 ci to E O- A • Page 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, it goes back to my original testimony where these locations were submitted and the applications were not complete. The applications were not complete, and these locations were also submitted -- it was my understanding they were also still part or a part of the CBS applications. Contemporary and Tenaga. Q. Were they part of the CBS applications? A. Let me clarify. CBS submitted those applications. They were up for renewal. We did not renew those applications. When they were submitted now from Carter, we felt they did not meet the requirements, as stated in the e-mail sent by Lourdes. Q. In the e-mail sent by Lourdes, which is Tab F of Composite 2, where does it spell out what you just stated regarding the CBS applications? A. No, no. I'm not saying that was the reason for the denial. I was talking out loud as far as procedural where they were. ThOse two did not, we feel, qualify under the requirements, as shown in the e-mail by Lourdes. 0 w c c c - 0 m 0 '• V IA L' M W m E .c .- 0 C 0 • KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 5 E Page 83 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So it has nothing, to do whether they were CBS submisSions or not? A. No.' Q. Now, when you say the 79's had a lease expiration, can you explain that to me? A. IfI recall correctly, 79s was a location that was being relocated to 79. So the lease expiration would be on another.property. Q. Sotheproperty where the billboard was at the time, that lease was expiring, and that's why it was moving over to 79s? A. Right. Q. Was:the applicant being given credit for the lease that expired as part of the analysis? A. What do• you mean by credit? Q. Thelease expiration just meets the necessity requirement under the Carter settlement agreement? A. Right.. Then it has to go through the geographical area and same toning district. Q. As to 79's, in that particular . application, they had -- the zoning requirements were present in that application? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 .c = 3 o. c al .0 -5 t o 0 c c — o m u cu c items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 g • Id 0.= E 0 U 4 Page 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. The zoning requirements were present. Q. Were on the application itself? A. I believe so. Q. Was the Hampton Inn lease, was that the one that expired, and that's, why it was allowed to move over to 79s? The Hampton lease. A, That, I don't. MR. ECHEMENDIA: Can we go off the record. (Proceedings held off the record.) Q. Explain to me, sir, what is an application by Outlook, and what is an application by CBS? A. It1.s our position -- it's my position that when theCBS settlement agreement was approved by the City commission, I received a letter dated May 2nd from CBS stating that Outlook Media is permitted to submit FDOT applications on behalf of CBS. It was My position that because it was ' .§ 0. c w .2 e4 on behalf of CBS, they were property of CBS, 0 •c because it was traveling under their settlement w c Z.- 0 agreement. a Go E co 1 8 SO any application that was submitted to ul _,!:KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 85 me from May 2nd to August 26th, I believe -- I got a letter rescinding that authorization -- that had Outlook Media on there, which traveled under CBS, I accepted. Q. Sir, between September 25th, when the applications were submitted, the ones referenced in the letter from Mr. San Roman which appears at Tab D of Composite Exhibit 1, to the date of the denial by Lour.des.Slazyk on December 16th, 2009, did you have any meetings with anybody from Carter? A. I don't recall. Q. Have you ever had any meetings with anybody from Carter regarding any of the sites listed on the letter from Mr. San Roman that we have as Tab D? A. When they submitted them to me. Q. You met with whom? A. I believe it was Bo Hodges. I believe it was Bo. Q. Just at the time of .submission? A. Well, I know that is when I would have to have met him. That's when he gave it to me. Related to these? Q. Yes. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 86 A. Well, the meeting that you had mentioned. Q. On .October 6th? A. On October 6th. Q. Okay. A. I don't recall any subsequent meeting to that. Q. No meetings with Rex Hodges? A. I mean, I might have. I don't know if it was meetings specifically related to these locations, but I might have met with him. Q. Tell me all the meetings you recall with Mr. Rex Hodges from September 25, '09 to the present? A. I would have to check my calendar. There's no way for me to know. Q. Do you recall the substance of any of those meetings? A. No. Q. Do you recall any discussions whatsoever with Carter, orany representative of Carter regarding their settlement agreement with the City? A. Yes. • KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-37177692 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 87 Q. With whom? A. I believe that was one of the discussions I had with Rex. Q. What about? Tell the what was the substance of that discussion? A. 1 believe the substance of that discussion had to do with them qualifying under the 1,000 foot spacing. Q. For what site? A. Not a specific site. Q. Tell me the substance of that discussion. A. It was I believe I informed them for them to be able to qualify for 1,000 foot spacing they would have to show a net reduction in their inventory. Q. That would have been after October 25, 2009, when the implementation of the pilot program began? A. I believe so. Q. Did you have any discussions with anybody from Carter regarding the appeals on any of the applications that were submitted by Carter on behalf of Carter? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 c 0 E 0. .(5 u a.- Page 88 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Other than to ask them if they were going to show up? Q. Show up to what? A. To the appeal. Q. Who did you discuss that with? A. I think I asked Rex. Q. What did he tell? A. He didn't tell me anything. He told me he had to confer with his attorney. Q. Sir, let me direct your attention to 5 Composite Exhibit 2, Exhibit G. MR. BITTNER: Tab G. MR. DORTA: Tab G. Sorry. Q. Did you ever see this letter before? A. I believe once. Q. And'who provided it to you? A. Hold on. Carter provided it to me when I had asked them if Outlook Media was appealing on Carter's behalf. Q. When did you ask that of Carter? A. I had asked them if Outlook Media was acting on Carter's behalf. They said no, and provided me with this statement. Q. When was that? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC • 305-371-7692 Page 89 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I don't recall. Prior to March 27th. Q. Who did you speak to at Carter? A. I believe it was Rex. Q. And why did that issue come up? A. I was not -- I found it odd that Outlook Media was appealing the City's rejection or denial of the permits, when Carter themselves were not appealing them. So I wanted to know if Outlook was acting on their behalf. Because I found it strange that they were appealing it. Q. What did Rex respond to you? A. He said no, they were not acting on Carter's behalf. Q. Did you document that conversation anywhere? A, No. Q. Did you report that conversation to anybody? A. I believe I reported it to the law department. Q. By the law department, you mean Mr. Bittner? A. Yes. 7g.§ Q. With regard to -- taking you back to c 2 c 0 m u KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 00 c Z.- 305-371-7692 E - m 8 w 0 Page 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit D on composite or Tab D I'm sorry -- on Composite Exhibit 1, which is the letter from Mr. Roman, do you know if as of October 7th, 2009, the City had provided a verbal -- had verbally notified Carter that it was going to deny the applications, the FDOT applications that were submitted? A. I believe there was a something to that effect in that meeting that you mentioned on April 6th. Q. October 6th? A. October 6th. Sorry. Q. Why did it take from October 6th until December 16th for the City to write to Carter to deny stating that it was going to deny those six FDOT applications? A. No particular reason. Q. Do you recall any meetings with Lourdes, or anybody else, between the October 6th meeting and the December 16th written denial regarding these applications? A. With the law department. MR. BITTNER: Other than with your attorney. A. I might have met with Lourdes a couple KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC ,.' 305-371-7692 (%;11 kb 0 c E 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 91 of times. I'm sure I met with Lourdes a couple of times. Q. Was there ever a meeting with the people from your law department and third parties where you were included with Rex or Joe Little regarding applications? A. I'm sure there was. Q. Was there ever a meeting with anybody from Carter, your law department, and yourself, regarding any of these applications that we have at issue here today? A. I don't recall. Q. Was there ever a meeting with anybody from CBS, your law department, and yourself regarding applications that CBS claimed they were also submitting? I think you mentioned a couple that Carter had submitted and also CBS had submitted. Do you recall that testimony? A. Yes. Q. Was there ever a discussion, or any meeting including Joe Little, regarding those applications? A. I believe 1 spoke to Joe Little related KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 92 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the locations that were submitted by CBS, and then now by Carter. Q. What did he tell you? A. That those applications -- well, he didn't tell me anything. 1 told him that my position was:that those applications which were still active and were property of CBS. Q. Why is -that? A. CBS.submitted them and they were still active. Q. CBS submitted them first? A. Wellrputlook submitted those on behalf of CBS. Q. Okay. A. Prior to Carter. Q. Then in that October 6th meeting, was Outlook told to.Withdraw, or asked to withdraw those applications? A. TheSe.applications? MR,BITTNER: Object to fotm. Q. The applications that Outlook had submitted onbehalf of CBS that you have now stated they aisq.submitted On, behalf of Carter? A. No. Hold on. Back-up a minute. Outlook never submitted these on behalf 1 .0 .5 c 3 0 -1g ... acm EU gu .2 o z- f t i-E KJ- .° •E oc 0 m -a u all '' a) c 1.4 • p.- 0. ... E az .0 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 93 of Carter. The applications the only thing that I recall that they needed o be withdrawn was the appeal from that October h meeting. Q. Okay. That was t? A. That was it, as far as I can recollect. Q. Did you have any discussions with anybody from Carter about ot pursuing any appeals of the denial of the applications listed on this October 7th letter frora Mr, San Roman? A. I don't reca Q. When were you notified by Rex that Outlook was not acting on its behalf? A. Sometime beforebetore the meeting and after the appeal was filed. Q. Sometime before hat meeting? A. March 27th. Q. Sometime before he March 27th appeal? A. For the rejection. And after the appeal was filed. Q, Okay, During at time period, have any of Carter's applications een approved? A. I don't believe so, no. Q. Does Carter have any pending applications before the City? A. I don't believe so, no. .,;KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 0 0 A E ord in connectio ms PZ.9 Page 94 2 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Other than the application, the Carter applications, which you have stated were for sites that Outlook had also presented on behalf of CBS, did you speak to anybody at CBS regarding any other Carter applications?. A. No. Q. When I say speak, I'm also including, if that's not in your answer, any communication via e-mail or anything like that? A. NO, I don't think so. Q. So when I told you speak, you also included with that any contact he via e-mail? A. Yes. I don't believe I have. MR. DORTA: Let me take a 10 minute break. I may be wrapping up. (Recess in the proceedings.) Q. Sir, let me take you back to the Carter Pritchett settlement agreement with the City. The necessity requirement in the relocation standards only applies to signs listed on Exhibit C of that agreement, correct? A. Correct. Or B, if they were submitted prior to December 31, 2008. Q. But the applications we're talking about 0 _ E 0 z- . _ u 4 6. a. KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 now were submitted around that date, correct? A. Yes. Q. Therefore, do you know for a fact whether the applications that were submitted on September 25,. '09 necessarily replaced any sites listed on Exhibit C? MR. BITTNER: Exhibit C? MR. DORTA: Exhibit C of the Carter settlement :agreement. A. I dOn't have the replacement schedule that they provided me here, so there's no way of me telling you for sure. Q. From your recollection, did those applications the. ones submitted on September 25, did they seektb replace signs listed on Exhibit C? A. Fram my recollection, they were going to replace signs on Exhibit C, and also two from Exhibit A. Q. So therefore, two of those signs did not have the -- therefore, the relocation standards, including necessity, did not apply to two of those applications, correct? A. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, if I recall correctly -- because I do -KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 96 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not have the exact replacement schedule in front of me -- under the terms of the settlement agreement, the signs on Exhibit A cannot be relocated. So that application for relocation for hibit A would be denied on that basis. Q. But they would allow replacement? A. For Exhibit A? Q. Yeah. A. It's my understanding they're not allowed to replace or relocate those signs. Q. Therefore, all the applications that you looked for, all the applications submitted on. September 25th, did they all -- were they all subject to a replacement and relocation? A. Under the terms of the Carter settlement agreement, yes. Q. That's why the relocation standards applied? A. That's correct. Q. The relocation standards under the Carter agreement, which includes necessity, only applies to those sites listed on Exhibit C of the Carter settlement agreement? A. Yes. .c w in connectio u KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 c 0 E 0. 0 .c 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 97 Q. Let me take you to the CBS settlement agreement. A. But--- Q. Go ahead. A. Respective if they are only from Exhibit C, these applications, it's my understanding, would still be denied by FDOT, the ones submitted by Carter. Q. But'what we're looking at is the denial by the City, okay. You said they would still be denied by FDOT? A. It's my understanding that regardless, they would still have been denied. Q. By? A. By DOT. In accordance with our denial e-mail as it relates to the 1,000 foot pilot program. Q. You do 't -- the denial by FDOT is handled by FDOT not by the City, correct? -5 t A. That's true. 2 E c c — 0 u Q. The City's denial, as we -- so .5 therefore, the application of the 1,000 feet, whether it's going to be denied, will be denied at' FDOT for applications submitted prior to October t-i re o a. u E c 0 m m m _ 0 tr. 0 E 0 ."KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC • 305-371-7692 Page 98 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your belief that applications are judged based on 25, '09, correct? A. The applications that were submitted on September 25th, prior to the October 5th enactment of the 1,000 foot space, would have been submitted as 1,500 foot locations. Because 1,000 foot spacing was not in effect at that time. So I cannot speak for FDOT, of course. They would have automatically been denied, because there was no 1,000 foot spacing in effect. Q. By FDOT? A. By FDOT. Q. Not by .the City, because at the time the city did not regulate spacing? A. True. After October 5th, these applications would be scrutinized by the City under the 1,000 foot spacing. That is another reason why in the e-mail I mentioned that they were also denied based on the fact there's no net reduction as required by the thousand foot spacing and the City of Miami limits. 71 0 Q. But I think we also stated that is the date of submittal? KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 0 0. E .c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 99 A. True. Then they would have been denied by FDOT, not by the City, after -- regardless of the thousand foot.space was in effect or not, because they would have been submitted on the 1,500 foot basis. Q. Let me take you to the CBS settlement agreement, just to make sure I'm clear. Page 19, specifically, of the CBS settlement agreement. For CBS, the only time the relocation standards, which includes the necessity requirement, come into play, is if they seek to 3 . replace any C-2 sign listed on Exhibit D; is that m o` N E u o > correct? c c a c 0 0 10 A. Yes. m u al Av �a` 0 3 Gii d V1 L. f'' Q. Now., I: don't think that has the exhibits, butlet me show you Exhibit D to the CBS settlement agreement. If CBS submits an application, whether it's an amended or initial amended application, and it seeks to replace any C-2 sign listed on Exhibit D, it would have to comply with the relocation standards; is that correct? A. If CBS chooses to replace or relocate any sign on Exhibit D, they would be subject to KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 0 Page 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the relocation standards. Under the terms of the initial amended permit and amended permit, those are classified simply as that. They are classified as initial amended permits or amended permits. They're not classified as relocations or replacements. So that is why we follow under the CBS agreement and Clear Channel agreement the parameters for the initial amended permit and amended permit, and not the relocation or replacement section. Q. Therefore, if CBS wants to replace or relocate a sign that is listed C-2 on Exhibit D, it cannot use an amended permit or initial amended permit? A. That would be my interpretation. Not interpretation, but that would be my opinion of what the agreement says. Q. So if it seeks to relocate or replace a sign that is listed as C-2 on Exhibit D, What type of application do they file? A. A relocation. Q. A relocation application? A. Right. Q. And you're unaware of any relocation LI .0 ac 0 ,f, 49, c c 0 0 6, w 4. ;..ax on 06-23-11 a. 3 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 101 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 application submitted by CBS while you've been in the position of project manager? A. That's correct. MR. DORTA: All right, sir. I have no further questions. THE WITNESS: That's it? MR. DORTA: That's it. MS. LICKO: No questions from me. (Thereupon, proceedings were concluded.) Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 102 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF DADE: , BEVERLY LISA RABATIE, a Court Reporter in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the deposition of PIETER BOCKWEG, a witness called by the Plaintiff in the above -styled cause; that the witness was first duly sworn by me; that the reading and signing of the deposition were waived by the witness; that the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 101, inclusive, constitute a complete record of my stenographic notes. I further certify that I am not an attorney or counsel for any of the parties, nor related to any of the parties, nor financially interested in the action. Dated this 13th day of May, 2010. Beverly L. Rabatie Court Reporter Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk SSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 10 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE - REPORTER NOTARY OATH THE STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE) I, Beverly Lisa Rabatie, Notary Public for the State of Florida, certify that PIETER BOCKWEG personally appeared before me and was duly sworn. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 13th day of May, 2010. Beverly L. Rabatie, Court Reporter DD# 969315 Expires March 23, 2014 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk .• KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 A ability 61:15 able 72:20 87:15 above -styled 102:11 acceptance 63:21 accepted 85:4 acting 88:23 89;10,13 93:12 action 102:20 active 92:7,10 actual 13;21 17:12,13,18 46:12 address 4:14,15,16 22:11 53:24 54:1 addresses 16:23,25 17;7 52:20 adjacent 59:16 6017 admInisterial 47:11 administrator 11:18,20,21 12:8 13:1,3,20,24 15:15 19:6,10 21:6 adopted 41:21,25 42:1 61:10 ADVERTISING 1:9 afternoon 66:13 agree 47:9 48:11 6118 63:2,22 73:17,23 74:9 76:9 agreement 3:12,13 7:3 8:19 12:1 13:7 18;12 21;17 23:19 24:3 25:2 25:23 26:1,3,6,11,15,22 26;25 29:22 30;3,8,11 31:15,16 32:14,24 33:5 33;14,14,21,24 34:1,8,11 42:8 43:1,8 44:2,7,24,25 45:1 48;4 53;16 54:23 56:12,14,15 57:8 62;17 62:25 65:15 67:15,19 70:20 72:22,24 73:14,15 73:18 75:3,9,11,19 83:19 84:16,24 86:23 94:18,21 95:9,25 96:3,17,22,24 9'7:2 99;8,9,18 100:8,8 100:18 agreements 12;9,10,11 31:7 37;4 41;20 44:21 44:23 57:11 72:16,19 73;5 75:14 77:16 ahead 33:9 97:4 allow 51:11 75:7 96:7 allowed 32:24 45:9 53;15 75:4 84:5 96:11 allowing 55:11 allows 75:8 amended 32:15,15,17,17 32:18,19,25 33:11 67:17 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 67:20,24,24 68:15 70:2 70:25,25 72:8,9,13,14 73:6,8,12 74;19,20,24,25 75:5,5,15,15,24,24 76:3 76;4,7,8 99:20,20 100:2 100:3,5,5,9,10,14,14 analysis 68;23 72:12 83:15 and/or 52:22 63:25 74:3 answer 5:14,18 31:12 37:18,21,2438:4 39:18 39:19 94:8 answers 66:25 Antenaga 81:5 anybody 19:5,18 29:9 38:6 38:19 40;21 43;9 77:19 85:10;14 87:23 89:19 90:19 91:9,14 93;7 94:4 appea13:10,11 10:3 21:20 21:2422;11 51:3 79:20 79:25 80:6,9 88:4 93:3 93;14,17,18 appealing 88:19 89:6,8,11 appeals 87:23 93:7 appear 11:3 APPEARANCES 2:1 appeared 103:9 appears 85:7 applicable 64;1 applicant 14;21 15:1,2,5,9 15;9 18;19,21,25 38:14 46:14,23 47;6,16,24 48;7 48;12,25 60;3 83;14 application8:21 13;4.22 13:25 14:5,1.6,19,21 15:2 15:10,16,19,23 16:1,4,8 16:11 18:3,10,13,20,22 18;24 19;1,4,11,13 23:4 23:6 24:11 30:20 32:3 32:22 34;19 35:7 36:3,8 36:13;18,23 40;1,7 47:15 47:17,25 48:9,12 50:20 50:24 56:22,23,25 57:1,2 57:17 58:3 60;4 63;9.11 67:7,8,12,14,17 68:4,7 68:24 69:17,21 76:21,22 7713 83:24,25 84:2,13,13 84:25 94:1 96:5 97;23 99;19,20 100:21,23 101:1. applications 7:4 11:15 12:2 16:21 17:1,11,12,16 17:21 18:1 19:16,18 20:2,25 21:15 24:8,16,24 25;11 26:2D 27;2,4 28;7 29:13,15,15,18 31:1 32:14 33;15 34:15,24 39:8,12 40:15 45:22 46:7 47:11 54:19 58:14 58:18 59:5,25 60:16,21 61:22 62;3,14 63:2 64:2 64:9 65:6,21,25 77:17 78;3 79;12,17,20 80:13 81:3,9 82:3,4,7,8,10,12 82:19 84:19 85:6 87:24 90:6,6,16,21 91:7,11,16 91:24 92;4,6,18,19,21 93:1,8,21,24 94:2,5,25 95:4,14,23 96:12,13 97:6 97:25 98:2,15,24 applied 65:20 96:19 applies 94:20 96:23 apply 31;22 33:17 56;21 63:23 65:13 72:13 95;22 applying 62;13,18,24 approval 35:6 36:14 53:19 58:22 59:4,22 60:6,25 63:8,16 64;4 67:11 68:1171:8 81;8 approve 59:7 approved 32:4 34:15 54:23,25 59:18 60:15,21 63:6,10 67:8 69:1,23 70:6 71:12 74:3 77:17 78:3 79:20 84:17 93:21 approving 36:2,7 April 78:13,18 9D:9 area 45:6,8,11 77:6 83:22 areas 8:4 arrived 77:21 asked 8:5 15:9 35:8 41:8 66:23 88:6,19,22 92:17 asking 41:10 56:24 aspect 42:12 43:12 55:17 55:20 57:13 63:20 aspects 64:12 assigned 6:23 9:9,18 assistant 6:24 7;12,13,14 8:10,20 assume 5:15 25;16 26:9,23 42:14 43:20 assuming 29;12 43:18 44:14 51:12 78:2,5 79:11 81:3 attachment 17:14 attention 30:5 33:22 80:22 88:10 attorney 28:22,24 37:13 37:16,20,24 38;3,22 41:4 41:10,12 88:9 90:24 102:18 attorneys 39;4 Attorney's 2:15 audibly 5:18 August 23:19 26:10 85;1 Page 104 authority 23:17 24:4 authorization 85:2 authorized 102:8 automatically 98:8 available 9:21 Ave 2:15 Avenue 1:19 2:5,11 4:17 4:18 aware 69:8 77:10 a.m 1:22 B 3:8 75:18 94;23 back 16:16 45:21 61:17 66:11 70:11 76:12 77:16 78:9 82:1 89:25 94:17 background 6:1 Back-up 92:24 base 63:20 64:22 based 18:11 32:14,16 46:3 55;17 60:6 63:23 64:18 66:1 98:19,24 basis 64:11 96:6 99:6 began 87:20 beginning 8:10 39:22 behalf 4:3 80:18 84:20,22 87:25 88:20,23 89:10,14 92:12,22,23,25 93:12 94;3 belief 98:24 believe 10:10 15:20 17:23 20:21,22 22:2,4,8,10 24:1,2,17 27:6,12 28:2 28:10 29;2,21 33:10 35;16,16,18,19 36:19 38;13 39:25 40:6,12,15 40:19 41:14,18 43:3 44:16 45:2446:1647:21 49:2 53:21,23 54:13 55:3,21 57:13 58:12,21 58:25 62;22 64:6 70:2 72:3 76:21 77;5 78;23 79:6,22 80;4,7,8 81:10 81:12,21 84:3 85:1,19,19 87;2,7,14,21 88:15 89:3 89:20 90;8 91:25 93:22 93:25 94:13 Beverly 102;6,23 103:7,16 billboard 12:20 27:18 30:24 31:3,24 32:5,6 34:21 36:10,20 37:9 38:8 58;24 59:6,20 60:5 69:11,15 71:21 72:21 76;25 77;11 81:20 83;10 billboards 7:6 8:23 11:12 11:14 25:19,2135:4 51:11 52:17 53:16,19 KRESSE EL ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 Page 105 54:22 55:12 58;23 59:15 59:16,18 64;12 70:11,18 71:1,11 74:3,4 76:13,14 76:23 Biscayne 4:17 Bittner 2:14 12:17,18 22:19 28;21 328 34;6 34:22 37:12,18,21 38:4 38:21 40:4,25 41;3,8 66:16 73:21 88:12 89:23 90:23 92:20 95:7 Bo 85:19,20 Board 10:11 22:1238;10 38:12,19 51;4 52:13 Bockweg 1:17 3:3 4:2,11 102:10 103:9 Boudet 7:13 boundaries 45:12 49;24 boy 69:23 break 5:22,23 48:18 66:11 94:15 Brickell 1:19 2:5,11 20:22 52:2,10 brief 9:13,14 19:7,8 building 7;24 8:4 9:5 27:17 30:23 31:3,23 32:5 34:20 36:9,19 37:8 38:7 54:5,9,12 71:21 76:24 77:10 81:4,19 built 27:18 30:24 31;3,23 32:6 34:20 36;9,20 37:9 38:7 business 4:15 6:5 B-O-C-K-W-E-G 4:13 C 94:21 95:6,7,8,16,18 96:23 97:6 CA 1:3 calendar 86:16 call 47:24 48:2,7 called 4:3 47:16 102;10 CanPartners 20:21 53:7 Cardenas 2:5 Carlos 8:1 9:2 Carol 2;9 34:9 44:4 Carter 1:9,9 12:13 16:7,11 17:1,15 19:17 20:223:4 23:15,16 24:3 26:2,12,20 30:16 33:14 44:25 53;15 53:20 54:8,23 55:1,22 56:13,15,22 57:7,17,21 57:23 58:3 60:17 61:6 62:18,25 65;13,16,25 70;22 71:4,18,20 72:22 72;23 75:7,9,11 76:12,18 76:22 77:18 79:1,4 82;14 83:18 85:11,14 86:22,22 87:23,24,25 88:18,21 89:2,7 90:5,14 91;10,19 92:2,15,23 93:1 93;7,23 94:1,5,17 95;8 96:16,22,24 97;8 Carter's 23:18 88:20,23 89:14 93:21 case 1;3 5;420:4 57;21 63:15 CATHERINE 2:10 cense 102:11 CBS 3:12 12:12 15125 16:5 19;18,25 20:8,14 29:22 30:2,7,11,19,22 31:1,16,19 32;4,13,23 33:16 34:7,11 35:19 36:3,8,13 44:24 58:23 59:5,9,18,18 60;16,21 67:7,15,18 68:10,16,22 69:2070:6,20,24 72;7,17 72:18 73:4,15,18,18 74:2 75:4,13 80:1,9,12,14,16 80:19 81.:2 82:7,8,10,19 83:2 84:14;16,18,2/3,22 84:22 85:3 91:15,16,19 92:1,7,9,11,13,22 94:3,4 97:1 99:7,9,10,17,19,24 100;7,12 10-1:1 Center 69:9,10,12 certain 7:2 8:4,13,14 13:11 15:3 CERTIFICATE 102:1 103:2 certify 102:8,17 103:8 change 46:18 Channel 3;13 12:12 15:19 15;22 33;20 34:1,16,19 34:25 35:7,24 36:4,8,14 44:1,6,23 70;21,24 72:7 72:19 73:4 75:4,13 100:8 chart 70:10,14 71:10 76:23 check 86:16 check-out 13;12 chooses 99:24 circles 71:5 CIRCUIT 1:1,1 circumstance 4;24 circumstances 9;22 37:1,7 39:11 city 2;15 3:16,17,18 6:15 6:24,24 7:8,10,13,21 8;10,15,20 11;7,14 183 22;4 23:10,17,19 25:5,21 26:1,122813,19 29:6,10 30:3,8 32:4 33:16,21 34:1,15,25 40:21 41;21 41:25 44:2,24,25 45:1,10 45:11 47;2 49;18,19,23 50:1,2,11 51:23 52;4 53:3,10,14 54:22 56:1 60:15,22 61:19 63:1 64:12 65;2,20,24 66;1 67;9,16,68:11 69:1,23 70r.11,21,21,22 71:8,10 71:1272:5 74:4 76:13 76:15 79:1 81:4,8 84:17 86;2490;4,14 93;24 94:18 97:10,20 98;12,13 98:16,21 99:3 City's 55;5,9 64:15 65:7 89:6 97:22 City's/FDOT/1,000 23:20 claimed 91:16 clarify 49:15 82:9 classification 27:9 51:10 51:18 53:12 classifications 277 46:12 47;3 49:25 52:21 53:2 classified 100:3,4,6 ciesr 3:13 12:12 15:18,22 18:6 33:20 34:1,16,19,25 35:7,24 36:3,8,13 44:1,6 44:23 70:21,24 72;7,19 73:475:4,13 99:8 100:8 Collecting 22:15 College 6:10 come 64:5 66:11 74:25 75;2 89:4 99:12 comfortable 57:18 comment 81:3 commission 41:21 43;5 84:17 communicated 37:2 communication 94:8 communications 6;4 companies 11;16 70:12 71:11 74:5 76:14 company 1:6 12:1 14:16 52:2,10 56:8 compiling 22:10 complete 82:3,4 102:15 comply 26;21,25 27:2 34:25 39:13 99;22 composite 10:4,7,9,18 16:18 21:21,24 22:22 25:25 48:22 80:23 82:18 85:8 88:11 90:1,2 computer 47:2 concerned 70;24 concluded 78:4 101;9 conclusion 77:22 condition 43:13 conditions 37:2,8 38:2,15 38:20 42:9 44:11 47:23 51:12,13 77:9,22,24 78:5 78:5,6 confer 88:9 confirm 17:19 20:24 connection 28;6 36:12 69:15 consent 80:9 consdtnte 102:15 constructed 74:3 consult 12:14,16 19:5,8 contact 46:14 94:12 contacting 47:5 Contemporary 3:14 49:4 49:6,8 81:5,24 82:7 content 41:9 Contractors 3:14 49;4,7,8 81:5,25 conversation 15:5,12 28:10 29:5 41;14,16,18 42;17,22 44;14 89:15,18 conversations 42:14,18,25 copied 11:3,9 copy 10:14,20 17:18 30:2 30:4 34:944:4 corporation 1;10 correct 12:22,23 17:8 18:8 26:13,17 32:7,11 45:2 46:1 47:7,8 54:18 56:20 58;2 59:20 62:15,16 64:19 65:13,14,17,18,23 66:6 71:18,19,22 72;11 73:20,25 74:1 76;5,25 77:12 94;21,22 95:1,23 96:20 97:20 98:1 99:14 99:23 101:3 correctly 27:4 54:13 60:7 60:9 68:16 83;6 95:25 correspond 17:10 counsel 102:18 County 1:1 49:5,17,20,21 50:1 102:4 103:5 couple 90:25 91:2,18 course 98:7 court 5:18102:1,6,24 ,6, 103:16 created 76:15 credit 83:14,16 Cross 3:2 Crammer 6:12 current 6:14 52:23 currently 7:17 Curtis 69;8 C-1 45:19,19 C-2 31:19 45:20,20 73:19 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 106 74:5 99:13,21 100:13,20 C-2's 74;11 D D 3:1,8 10:17,21 31:19 48:21 74:6,11,14,22 75:1 75:2,25 76:5,9 78:10 85:8,16 90:1,1 99:13,17 99:22,25 100;13,20 Dade 1:1 49;20,21 102:4 date 16:15 26:11 63:9,10 63:11,23 64:19 85;8 95:1 98;25 dated 10:23 23;19 26:10 76;16 84;18 102:21 day 102:21 103:13 day-to-day 9:20 DD 103:16 deals 7:2 53:7 December 24:2,1 26:7 28:8 29;16,17,20 39:9 40:8,18 45:23 55:4 58:15 85:9 90:14,20 94:24 decision 21:25 declines 23;10 Defendant 1:11 2:8,19 deficient 47;17,25 defined 28:16 degree 6:2,7 denial 23:3,5 24:8,10,23 25:10 40:7 46:1,3 51:15 55;4,14,17 58;13,18,19 62:7,10,12 63:8,21 64:5 64:8,11 66:3 82:21 85;9 89:6 90:20 93:8 97:9,16 97:19,22 denied 14:17 15:6,6 28:7 29:15,19 30:19 39:12 40:1 54:20 61:5,7 63:6 63:10,17 96:6 97:7,11,14 97:24,24 98:8,19 99:2 deny 24:15 65:25 90:5,15 90:15 department 8:5 12:6,15,15 18:7,16 19:6,9 21:18 22;18 28:3 76:16 89:21 89:22 90;22 91:5,10,15 depend 14:23 63:10,11 depending 7:22 9:12 13:7 depends 9:9,17 Deponent 2:13 depose 5:6 deposition 1:15 4:19,25 10:8 39;23 44:5 102:9 102:13 Describe 18:9 described 21:16 71:25 Description 3:9 determine 50:20,23 development 7;15 8;6,8 different 31:6,14 32:19 50:1 direct3:2 4:6 9;25 33:21 88:10 directly 8:19 9:1,13,17,19 9:22 director 7:14,24 8:11 9:5 disclose 41:6 discuss.19:10,13,17 21;17 38:2442;9 45:15 58:11 88:5 discussed 20:1 27:22,24 28;1 39;3 42:5 44:9 discussing 38:18 discussion 21:4,8,12 29:9 40:20 79:19 87:6,8,13 91:22 discussions 28:18 41:2 77;25 86:21 87:3,22 93:6 distance 60:1,6 61:7,11,13 61:16,20 .62;2,8,13 65:19 district43:19,19 44:12 45:17,24 46;4 51:22 77:7 83:22 DIVISION 1:2 document 22:7,14 28:15 30:6 34;7 44:18 49:12 52:7 89:15' Dorta 2;4 3;4 4;7 34;5 41:5 43:24 48:19 66:9 88:1394:14 95:8 101;4 101:7 DORVIL 2:10 Downtown 54:5 drafted 43:14 drafting 43:9 drop 19:3 due 30:20 duly4:4 102:12 103:9 duties 6:20 d/b/a 1:9 E E 3:1,8,8 25:24,25 26:13 earlier 54:21 77:23 easily 48:13,14 ECHEMENDIA 2:4 34:3 48:17 84:9 economic 7:14 8:6,7 educational 5:25 effect 90:9 98:6,9 99:4 effectiveness 60:10 eight 73:7 either 6:23 9:13 23:17 32:5 36:3 70:20 71:21 72:8 76;24 ELEVENTH 1;1 enactment 98:3 encompasses 73:24 entailed 11:24 entails 11:25 entire 49:21 entitlement 23:16 24:4 entry 47:20 error 64:7 65:24 66:6 Esq 2:4,4,9,10,14 Estate 20;22 exact 10:15 16:15 49:24 51;8 52;22 53:24 54:1 73:10 96;1 exactly 60:8 EXAMINATION 4:6 examined 45 example 7:2 8:18 19:16 exchange 32:25 exhibit 10:4,7,9,18 16:18 21:21,24 22;22 31:19 34:8,12 44:3,8 48;23 49:4,10 50:3,6,11 51:24 52:4,8 53:4,7 74:6,11,11 74:14,22 75;1,2,25 76:5 76:9 78;10 80:23,23 85:8 88:11,11 90;1,2 94:21 95:6,7,8,15,18,19 96:3,6,8,23 97:5 99:13 99:17,22,25 100;13,20 exhibits 34:4 99;17 existing 58:24 59:6,19 60:5,17 expiration 71:22 77;11 81:20,22 83:5,8,17 expired 27;19 34;21 36: 5 36;24 54:14,15 76;25 83:15 84:5 Expires 103:17 expiring 30;24 31:4,24 32:7 3710 38:8 77:6 83:11 explain 56;3 83:5 84;12 explanation 13:16 extent 37:12 e-mall 22:22,25 23:2,3,12 23:14 24:25 26:7 28:16 39:9 40:9,17 45:22 54:20 58:15 64:10 82:15 82;17,24 94:9,12 97:17 98;18 F 22:21 29:20 39;10 40:2 80:23 82:18 faced 54:7 fact 14:13 26:11 43:4 44:10 50:22 79:24 95:3 98:20 all 68;17 70:3 75:23 amillar 16:24 67:3,6 68;1 68:18 70:10 80:24 9:24 15:5 27;23 46:6 63:20 70;23 77:5 82:22 93:5 father 5:5 FDOT 11;15 13:4,21,25 14:5,19,21 15:2,15,19,22 15;25 16:4,7,11 17:1,10 17;15,18,21 18;1,2,5,6 18:10 20:1 23;3,5 24:8 24;11,15,24 25:11 28:6 30:20,22 31;1 32:3,14,22 33:15 34;15,18,24 35:6 36:7,13 39:11 40:7 55:5 55:9,11 58:14,18 64:15 81:3,9 84:19 90;6,16 97:7,12,16,19,20,25 98:7 98:10,11 99:3 FDOT's 65;7 66:1 feel 82:23 feet 51:15 55:13 57:8,22 57:24 58:4,23 59:5,12,15 59:19,23,25 60;1,4,5 61:6 47:23 fe1173:9,11 felt 82:14 Fernandez 10;23 fewer 56:5 figure 77;21 file 100:21 filed 93:14,19 fill 13:12 financially 102:19 find 33:6 72:6,12 Fine 66:16,17 firm 54:5 first 4:4,12 29:8,11,13 40;14 43:24 46:9 49:3 51;16 61:17 78;12 92:11 102:11 e 7:9 11:4 60:5 oor 2:16 Florida 1;1,5,5,10,20 2:6 2;12,16 4;17,18 18:6 102:3,7 103;4,8 ocus 64:15 o using 56:13 ios 17:9,10 o low 73:2 76:2 100:7 ollowing 81:2 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-37 1-7692 1 follows 4;5 foot 23:20 55:5,10,15 56:23 57:6 59:25 61:15 63:3,16,24 64:7,15 65:7 66:2 87:9,15 97:17 98:4 98:5,5,9,17,21 99:4,5 foregoing 102:14 form 13:11 17:19 32;8 34:22 37:5,11 38:9 40:4 40:2473:21 92:20 format 75:6 forms 17:24 forth 73:13 75;14 found 89:5,10 four2l:233:10 fourth 81:1 FPL 7:3,3 8:18,20 franchise7;3 8;18 frequent 29:5 front 16:17 17:13,17 22:1 27:18 29:24 30:24 31:3 31:2432:6 34:20 36:9 36:20 37:9 38:8 46:6 59:3 60:13 71;21 74:8 76:24 77:11 81:19 96:1 Fujimo 68:18,20. full 4;10 fully 31:5 further 101:5 102:17 Grapeline 70:4 green 71:4 ' GT 20:21 50:8,13,24 guess 9:9 45:9 guys 429 11 H 3;8 half 6:19 Hampton 84:4,7 hand 103:12 handled 97:20 happened 28:10 happening 35:4 happens 9:21 happy 5:12 Haskins 8:11 hearing 10:11 '52:13 held 84111 2 help 8;4 Herrai'nio 10:22 79;7 hired 8:12 Hodgei 1:9 2;19 26:2 79:5 85:19 86:8,14 Hogan 2:10 Hold 88:17 92:24 home 4:14;16 49:5 hopefully 66:13 H-E4-M,I,N-I-0 10:22 . G G.88;11,12,13 GENERAL 1;2 generally 11:24,25 13:2 25:20 42;21 geographical 43:18 44:11 45;3,5,7,9,11 77:6 83:22 GIS 46:21,25 49:18 give 4;14 5:25 13:8 14;25 30;13 33:7 34:9 444 52;3 53:25 54:2 given 81:8,10,13,24 83:14 gives 50;12 52;8 go 9:13,14 21:15 33:9 49:18 61:17 72;5 77:16 83;21 84:9 97;4 goal 66:14 goes 82:1 going 5:9,15 10:19 22:11 33:7 34;7 43:25 44:1 46:10 52:24 57:4 76:12 76:24 77:10 88:2 90:5 90:15 95:17 97:24 Good 4;8,9 government 18:4 Graduate 6:12 graduated 6:8,13 idea 29:4 43:16 Identification 10:5 21;22 34:13 44:8 49;10 50:4 51:25 53:5. identify 415,10 illegal 25;22 immediately 60:16 implementation 87:19 inaccurate 39:19 include 43;17,19 included 44:16 91:6 94:12 Includes 96;22 99:11 ine1uding 9143 94:7 95:22 inclusive 102:15 Industrial 50:18 information 3;15 12:4 14:24 15:7 22:10,15 46:24 47:6,10 48:1,9 49:6,9,11 50:12 52:14,15 74:7 informed 15:15,21 16:10 87:14 initis132:15,17,19 67:17 61:20,24 68:15 69:7 70;1,25 72:9,14 73:6,7 73:12 74:20,24 75:5,15 75:24 76:3,7 99:20 100;2,4,9,14 Inn 84:4 instance 31:22 48:8 interested 102:20 , internally 27:22,24.78:1 international 6;3,5 interpretation 100:16,17 interrupt 31:10 interview 18;25 inventory 56:7 57:20 58;6 59:11 87;17 involved 22:6 53:18,21 67:11 68:4,6,23 69:21 71:24 71:2 involvement 22:9,13 issue 80:8 81:19 89:4 91;12 issued 81:4 issues 9:12 12:20 item 68:16 J Joe 19:22,24 20:3 21:1,4 91:6,23,25 Jose 68;1 Judged 98:24 JUDICIAL 1:1 JURISDICTION 1;2 K kick 57:16 knew 39;22 know 5:11,22 9:7 10:19 11:9 13:6 16:15 17;15 17:20 19:22,24 20:1,16 20:19 21:14 22:3 25:12 25:14,17,19 28:14,25 29:7,24 31:13 34:23 35:2 39:17,19 42:3,15,1 42:20,23 48:25 49:24 51:4 54:1 60:7 65:3,4 69:13 74:2 78:2,8,17 80:5 81:18 85:22 86:10 86:17 89:9 90:3 95:3 knowing 59:2 knowledge 53:15 L L 102:23 103:16 lacks 47;17 Land 52;2,10 language 72:10 Large 102:7 Larry 8:20 Lastly 5:21 Page 107 w 54:5 89:20,22 90:22 91:5,10,15 learned37:8 lease 27:18 30:24 31;4,24 32:6 34:21 36:15,24 37:9 38:8 48:4 54:14,15 71:22 76:25 77:5,11 81;20,21,22 83:4,8,11,15 83:17 84:4,7 legal 12:5,14,15 18:15 19:5,9 21:18 22:18 28:2 legally 81:4 letter 10:22,25 11:3,10 14;15 16:17 17;4 26:21 48:22 53:8 60:12,13,14 61;1,18,23 78:9 80;24 81:1 84:18 85;2,7,15 88:14 90:2 93;9 let's 16;16 25:24 27:15 41:22 43;23 61:17 liability 1:5 LICKO 2:9 32:9 34:10 37;5,11 38:9 40:24 66:17 101:8 limited 1:5 limits 98:22 Linda 8:11 line 7;4 8:21 lined 73:5 LIEU 8:12 102;6 103:7 list 72:8 listed 16;21,25 17:3 31:19 49;12 53:8 71;14,16 73:19 74:6,11 76:13,23 85:15 93:8 94;20 95:6 95:15 96:23 99:13,21 100:13,20 listings 76:18 lists 49:18 little 19:22,24 20:3,22 21:1 21:4,9,13 54:4,4 91:6,23 91;25 LLC 1:5 LLP 2;5,10 local 18:3 located 49:23 location 20;11,12,13 33:3 43;18 44:11 45:4,5,7,9 50:13,24 53;25 54:2 68:21 69;14 71:25 83:7 locations 17:3,16 20:7,20 46:18 48:2449:1 52;1 52:16,17,22,23 59:24 60:8,9 71:3,11 74:10 80;1,2,12,14,16 81:9 82:2,5 86:11 92:1 98;5 long 6:17 7;7 56:5 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3 05-371-7692 1 1 look 16:16 30:13 31:17 33:7 35:23 49:3 50:19 50:22 516,9 60:12,14 70;18 76:17 77:16 looked 46:18,20,25 52:12 75;9,14 96:13 looking 49:12 52:9,16,21 53:12 97:9 loop 9:11,23 lot 54:4 loud 82;21 • Lourdes 11:22 12:7,22 14:8,14,18 15:22 16:4,11 18:17 21:18 22:23 23:11 23:23,24,25 24:13,19,21 24:25 26:7,16,19 28:3,7 29:16,19 36:4 38:24 39:3,9 40:9,16 41:15,17 41:18 42:5,19,25 44:10 45;15,22 46:1 54:20 55:4,15 58:11,13,17 82:16,17,25 85:9 90:18 90:25 91:2 Lourdes's 12:25 40:17 Lovells 2:10 Lumus 67:3 lunch 66;11,13,25 M making 25:14 malfunctions 51:6 management 6:4 manager 6:1 6,18,21,22,24 6:24 7:13,16,20,21,25 8:2,10,15,19,20,22 9:2,4 9:15,22,24 11:8 35:3 79:1 101:2 map 3:15 49:6,9 March 10:12 38:13 89:1 93:16,17 103:17 mark 34:7 43:24 44:1 49:4 marked 10:3,6 21:21,23 34:12 44:7 49:9 50;3,5 50:10 51:24 52:3 53:4,6 78:10 marketing 6:5 marking 52:8 Marlins 7:5 8:25 Marie 68:1 MATAIS 2:4 Matt 48:17 matter 4:21,22 MBA 6:4,11 mean 5:4 9:11 19:15 20:10 25:16 27:16,17 31:10 34;18 43:16 45:3,7,17,18 52;19 61;12 63:13 74:23 78:18 80:15 83:16 86:9 89:22 meaning 27:23 28:2 means 28;13,45:5,11 62:13 meant 77:15 Media' 1:5 3:10,11 10:3 21:20,25 84:19 85:3 88:19;22 89;6 meet 13;25 14:5,20,22 15:3,16,23 16:5,12 18;15 18;18,21 26:21 30:22 31:1 33;4 40:2,16 67;14 68:13 71:5 73:19 76;9 77:24 78:6 82:14 meeting 78:13,16,18,23,24 79;1,9,19 86;1,6 90:9,19 91:4,9,14;23 92:16 93:3 93:13,15 meetings 85:10,13 86:8,10 86;13,19 90:18 meets 18:13 36:5 83:17 memo 28:16 mention44:10 78:12 mentioned 12:9 44:20 45:22 46:8 54:24 58:14 77:23 86:2 9.0:9 91:18. 98:19 mentions 55:5 met 12:6 13:6;10,13,15,17 70:19 76:18 77:5,6 78:3 81:14 85:18,23 86;12 90;25-91:2 Mezelie 8:12 Miami 1:20 2:6,12,15,16 3;16,17,18 4:18 6:15 7:8 7;11 11:7,14 22:5 23;18 25;5,2126:2,12 28;13,19 29:6;10 34:2 44;3 45:10 4512 4919,24 50;2 51:23 53:3,10,14 54:5 64:13 70:11 71:10 74;4 76:16 98:21 Miami's 50:11 52:4 76:14 Miand-Dade 49:5,17 103:5. Migoya 8:1,15,17 9:2 minor 6:3 minute 48:1S 78:21 92:24 94:14 missing 15:11 47;25 48:9 Monday 1:22 morning 4:8,9 66;22 move 8:6 84:6 moved 7:14 52:24 moving 83:12 murali 7:6 8:23 N 3:1,8 name 4:10,12 79:6 nature 72:18 necessarily 14:23 74:25 95:5 necessary 27:23 31;18 necessities 75:22 necessity 27;5,8,15,16,21 28:13,16,19 29:9,23 30:8 30:12,17,20,23 31:2,22 33:17,18 34:2 35:1,14,24 36:5,18,23 37:3,10 38:1 38:2,7,16,19 39:13 40:3 40:10,16,2243:21 44:12 51:14 54;11 67:14,21 68:13 69;3,25 70:8,19 71:2,6,17 72:13 73:20,25 74:12,17 76:18 77:5,9,15_ 77:24 78;4,6 81:15 83:18 94:19 95:22 96;22 99:11 need 5:21 9:7 14:24 17:18 17:23 50:12 56:10 57:19 74:7 needed 5:5 8:4 13:13 93:2 needs 58;10 negotiate 7:2 negotiating 7:5 9:1 net 55:21 56:3,21 57:9,14 57:19 58:1,4,10,20 59:8 62:11,19 63:1,4,25 64:8 65:12,16 87;16 98:20 never 35;5,5 92:25 new 8:11 46:19,19 noon 66: 10 Northeast 4:16 Notary 103:2,7 notes 66;12 102:16 notification 14:15 notified 16:3 90:5 93:11 notify 14:21 number 55;22 57:20 59;8 numbered 102:14 0 oath 66:20 103:2 object 32:8 34:22 37:11 40;4 73:21 92:20 objection 32:9 37:5 38:9 40:24,25 81:3 obtain 47;6 58:8 68:11 obtained71:7 obviously 49:20,20 occur 9:23 October 10;22,23 11:6,13 16:16 17:4 61:18 63:7 Page 10 78:19 79:14 86:3,4 B7:18 90:3,11,12,13,19 92;16 93:3,9 97:25 98:3 98:15 odd 89:5 office 2:15 4;17 70:15 official 103:12 okay 5:12,13,16,17 27:11 27:15 33:12 64:16,17 75:21 76:1278:22 80:3 81:11 86;5 92:14 93:4 93:20 97:10 Old 20;22 once 4:23 18:10 46:11 88;15 ones 20:7 24:24 29;19 35:10,10 40:1 46:19,20 69;6 70:19 71:4,16,17,18 71;20 74:13 85;6 95:14 97:7 one -for -one 75:8 operations 9:20 opinion 58:7 64:20,21,22 64:24 100:17 opposed 9:4 80:17 ordinance 23:18 25:5,6,8 25:10,14,18 55:23,25 56:1 58:9 original 82:1 Orlando 7;18,23 8:3,14,23 8:24 9:11,17,19,21,23,25 19;7,8,10 Otto 7:12 Outdoor 1:9 60:16,17 Outlook 1:5 3:10,11 10:3 21;20,25 79:21,25 80;5 80:17,20,21 84:13,18 85:3 B8:19,22 89:5,9 92:12,17,21,25 93;12 94;3 overall 55:21 56:7 57:19 58:6 59:8 64:10 76:20 oversees 12:19 Overtown 69:8,10,11,13 69:17 owner 48:5 page 3:9,16,17,18 11:3 30:5 33:2249:5 50:2 51:23 53:3 60;14 61:17 78:12 99:8 pages 102:14 paperwork 46:5 59:3 paragraph 33:10 60:18 75:18,19,20 81:1 parameters 42:4 75:3 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 109 100;9 paramutuals 7:5 8:24 Pardon 5:2 39:15 65:10 Park 4;17 paridng 54:4 part 7:4 8:25 16;18 17:13 23;16 35:6 47:15 71:5 72:24,25 76;20,22 77:3 82:6,6,8 83:15 particular 20:4 44;18 47:19 54;9,12 57:20 62:3,14 63;15 66:5 83;23 90:17 parties 19:14 91:5 102:18 102:19 pending 93:23 people 29:6 91:4 percent 49:23 52:21 period 93:20 permission 18:4 permit 15:6 67:18,20 68:16 69:7 70:2 74:20 74:20,24,25 75:5,24 76:4 76:4,8,8 100:3,3,9,10,14 100:15 permits 32:15,17,19,25 33;11 67:25 70:25 72:9 72:9,13,14 73:6,8,12 75:15 81:4 89:7 100:5,5 permitted 84:19 person 18:23 19:11 personal 5:1,3 64:20,21,22 personally 45:13 103:9 perspective 14:16 phrased 5;14,15 Pieter 1:17 3;3 4;2,11 102:9 103:8 pilot 23:20 55:6,10,16,17 56;2-5 57:4 59;14 60:11 61:10,15 62:14,18,25 63:9,25 64:7,15 65:8 662 87:19 97:17 place 50:19 51:8 54:17 placed 51:11 81:19 Plaintiff 1:7 2;3 4:4 102:10 Plaintiff's 3:9 10:4,7,17 21:21,23 25:25 34:12 44:7 49:9 50:3 51;24 52:4 53:4 78;10 Planning 76:16 play 99:12 Plaza 69:10,13,18 please 4:10 5:11,22 6:1 10:21 22:21 30;10 policy 65:2 portion 25:9 position 6:14 11:7 84:15 84:15,21 92:6 101:2 practice 47:24 63:23 preparation 22:6,14 prepared 22:3 present 2;18 12:7,21 13:2 13:4,5 14:14 18:2,15,16 21:18 38:11,14 39:4,6 83:25 84:1 86:15 presentation 14;8,18 17:1 21:5 24;13 presented 13:24 15;19,25 16:4,7 17;15,21 19:17 20;14 23:24,25 24:16,19 24;21 34:16,19,24 35:7 43;5 94;3 previous 54:17 70:1 previously 77:17 prior 14:18 28:11 52:13 60;10 63;6,16 89:1 92:15 94:23 97:25 98;3 Pritchett 1:9 202 26:2,20 44:25 79:5 94:18 problem 5;24 procedural 63:19 82:22 proceedings 48;20 66:18 84;11 94;16 101:9 process 18:9 21:16 35:6 53:18 77:14 prograin 23;20 55:6,10,11 55:16,18 56:25 57:5 59:146011 61:10,15 62;14,19,25 63:9,25 64:7 64:1,6 65:8 66;2 87:19 97:18 progression 7:10 project 6:16,17,20,22 7:15 7;22 8:2 9:18 11;8 35:3 101:2 projects 6;23,25 7:1 8:13 8:14,16,17,9:4 properties 27:10,13 46:13 46:22 47:4 49;19 53:8 property 3:15 46;9 48:5 49:6,8,23 51:17 83:9,10 84;22 92:7 provide 18:23,24 19:2 24:14 27:5 30:1 46:8,11 46:24 47:12 48:16 provided 27:6,12 32;14 46:19 48:2,5 88:16,18,24 90:4 9511 provides 47:3 providing 22:15,17 provision 41:19 43:8 73;3 75:8 provisions 33:13,13 72:23 Public 103:7 punched 52:20 purpose 17;25 18:2 79:8 pursuing 93:7 put 9;23 56:6,9 71;21 72;20 75:4,10 P-I-E-T.E.R 4:13 p.m 1;22 0 qualify 71:1 82:23 87:15 qualifying 87:8 question 5:14 30:10 31:5 31:13 37:6,19,22 38:5 41:9 43:25 64;14 65:5 72:6 questions 5;10,11 66:23 67:1 101;5,8 quickly 31:17 quote 73:25 Rabatie 102:6,23 103:7,16 ramp 54:6,6 read 64:25 78:21 reading 23;15 102:12 rea120:22 31:17 reality 60:4 realize 66:19 really 42:23 reason 20:6 25:10 48:10 5115 66:3,5,8 69:6 80;11 82;21 90;17 98:18 reasons 15:3 24:5,14,15,23 45:25 58;19 recal110:15 14;4 15:4,8,12 15:14,24 16:6 19:19,20 19:21 20:15 21:3,7,8,10 24:9,10,12,18,20,23 26:23 27:4,14,25 28:4,9 28;17 29:9,11 30;21 33:18 35;13,14 36;1,2,6 36:7,11,12,16,17,21,22 36:25 37:25 38:17,18,23 39;2,11,14,16,18 42:8,12 42;13 43:11 44:13 45;16 46:6 47:5,21 52:15,20 54:13 60:7,9 63:18,19 66:24,25 67:18 68:16 79:8,13,18,23 80:10 83:6 85:12 86;6,13,18,21 89:1 90:18 91;13,20 93:2,10 95:25 receive 10;14 11;15 received 10:16 29:13,14 50:23 84:17 Recess 48:20 66:18 9416 recollect 93:5 recollection 30:7 60:20 95:13,17 recommend 58:13,22 59;4 59;22 60:6 recommended 36:14 40:7 40:21 45:25 46:3 58:17 reconstruction 56:20 record 76:15 84;10,11 102;15 records 72:5 reduced 14:11 reduction 55:22 56;3,21 57:9,14,19 58:1,4,10,20 59:8 62;11,19 63:1,5 64:1,8 65:12,16 87:16 98:20 reference 25:15 referenced 24:24 26:7,20 39:9 40;2,8,17 50:7 85:6 referencing 25:6,7 referring 12:10 44:18 refresh 60:20 refreshes 30;6 regard 16;25 30;17 52:9 62:3 89:25 regarding 11:14 18:25 21:2,12 24:23 28:19 42;5,19 50;13 82:19 85;14 86:23 87;23 90:20 91;6,11,16,23 94:4 regardless 74;19 97:13 99:3 regulate 60:1 61:11,12,16 61:20 62:2 98:13 regulation 65:19 rejection 89:6 93:18 related 11:11 25:1 64:12 85:24 86:11 91:25 102:19 relates 56:11 97:17 relations 6:3 relocate 53:15 76:1 96:11 99:24 100:13,19 relocated 42:15 45:19 46:10,20 51;17 83:7 96:4 relocates 76:4,8 relocation 25:3 27:13 33:2 33:23 41:20,22,25 42:6 42:10,19 43:1,10,13,16 44;9,16 46:8 47:13,14 53:19 54:8 56:6,19 73:2 73:9,24 75:10,23 76;10 76;19 81:16 94:20 95:21 96:5,15,18,21 99:10,23 100;1,10,22,23,25 4 • Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC • 305-371-7692 Page 110 relocations 55:1 100:6 remove 33:1 72:21 removed 52:18 removing 48:3 renew 27:19 82:11 renewal 82:11 Rep 2:19 repeat 30;10 37:6 rephrase 5:12 replace 31:19 73:19 74:13 76:1 95:15,18 96:11 99:13,21,24 100:12,19 replaced 45;19 74:5,10 95:5 replacement 33:23 73:2,10 75:10,22 95:10 96:1,7,15 100:11 replacements 100:6 replacing 74:21,23 report 7:17 8:7,13,15,16 8:17,21,23,24 9:4,8,16 9:19,21 23:11 26:19 89:18 102:9 reported 8:19 9:1,24 23;23 26:16 89;20 reporter 5:19 102:1,7,24 103:2,16 represent 38:6 representation 13:19 representative 19:25 86;22 represented 34:19 36:4 38:10 40:15 representing 19:18 request 12;4 require43:2056:16 57:9 59:15 62;19 63:1 74:12 74;17 required 9:16 55:23,24 57:14 78:6 98:20 requirement 28:20 29:23 30:9,12,15,23 33:17,19 34:2 35:1,15,20,21,23 36:5,18,23 37:3 39:13 40:3 42:7 43:7 47:11 51:20 52:9 54:11 55:12 55:16 57:5 58:1,5 60:2 63:4,24 65:16 69:3,25 70:8 71:2 73:11 76:18 77:9,24 78:7 83;18 94:19 99:12 requirements 12:3,6 13:6 13:11,12,16,17 14:1,6,20 14:22 15:3,16,23 16:5,12 18:14 31:2,6,14 32:18 33:4 37;10 38:1,3,7 40:16,22 67;15,19,21 68;14,17 70:2,19 71:6,17 73:11,20,25 75:11,14,16 75:23,24 762 77:7 78:4 81:14,15 82:15,24 83:24 84:1 • requireS 56;18,19 rescinding 85:2 respective 13:7 18:12 56:7 97:5 respond 39:18 89:12 response 66:24 rest 27:14 72:4 restricted 45:8 restructuring 33:2 review 11:17,23,25 12:2,5 12:24 18;11,16 21:16 54:21,25 64:18 65:20 66:12 71:6 reviewed 26:16 51:5 52:19 54:21 68;8 78;2 reviewing 19:4 22;16 34:6 54:19 Rex 2;19 79:5 86:8,14 87:3 88:6 89:3,12 91:6 93:11 RexOcarteroutdoormi... 22:24 right 25;13 30:17 39:20 48:6 52:25 54:3,6 57:25 61;1 65:22 66:15 70:15 71:10 75:12,17 77;13 83:13,20 100;24 101:4 role 11:13 Rollins 6:10 Roman 10;23 53:9 60:13 79:7 857,15 90:3 93:9 Rotrian's 26:21 48;22 S S 2:10. San 10:23 26:21 48;22 53:9 60:13 79:7 85:7,15 93:9 Santiago 2:4 79:2 satisfaction 37:3 satisfied 35;15 36:19,24 37:10 51:12,19 54:12 satisfy 38:15 51:21 54:8 saying 57:18 82:20 says 21;24 22;4,23 23;15 25:5 26;1031:18 60:4 60;14 61:6 70:11 81:2 100;18 schedule 95:10 96:1 SchoO16;12 Scott 79:5 scrutinized 98:16 seal 103:12 second 25:4 30:13 31:17 73:16 section 25;9,18 27:1,3 32:20 33:4 100:11 sections 26:24 see 11:4 16:19,21,23 17:3 17:7 18:13 20:25 23:21 31;20 48:23 50:8 54:21 54:2.5 55:7,14 60:18 61:2470;17 72:8 73:15 76:17,23 78:14 81:6 88:14 seeing 24:10 43:17 seek 95:15 99;12 seeks 99:21 100:19 seen 10:8,25 21:25 22:25 24:7 26:3 28:15 35:5,8 35:10,11 sent 23:12 64:11 82:15,17 September 60:15,25,25 61:9,19,24 65:6,21 66:1 85:5 86:14 95;5,14 96:14 98:3 series 5:9 session 66:14,22 set 73:13 75:14 settlement 3:12,13 12:1,9 12;10,11 13:7 18:12 21:17 23:18 25:2,22 26:1,3,6,11,15,22,24 29:22 30:3,7,11 31:7,14 31:16 32:13,24 33:5,21 33:25 34:8,11 37:4 41:19 42:8 43;8 44:2,6 44:20,22,23,24 45;1 53:16 54:23 56:11,13,15 57:8,10 62:17,25 65:15 67:15,18 70:20,21,22 72;15,19,22,24 73:13,18 75;3,19 77:16 83:18 84;16,23 86;23 94;18 95:9,24 96:2,16,24 97:1 99:7,9,18 seven 16:24 17:3,7,10,16 17:21 20:13,16 21:15 73:7 short 66:13 show 10:6 27:5 30:2 33:20 46:9 48;21 50:5,10 51;4 53:6 87:16 88:2,3 99:17 showed 77:4 shown 82:24 sign 23:10 31;19 33:3 45:18 51:17 57:21,24 60:17 61;6 73:19 74:5 75:25 76:4,8 99;13,21,25 100:13,20 signature 13:9 signing 102:12 signs 33:1,23 48:3 55:22 57:20 59:9 61:8,16 73:2 73:10 74:10 75:5,10 94:20 95:15,18,20 96:3 96:11 similar 20:7,9 30;15 simply 100:4 sir 4;8 5:9 10:6 21;23 39:17 44:9 50;5 53:14 54:19 64;23 66:19 67:3 70:10 72:12 73:17 78:9 80:22 84:12 85:5 88:10 94;17 101;4 sit 17:20 25:13 36:17,22 39:25 40:6,14 43;15 site 67;4,6 68:2,18,20 69:11,15 81:2 87:10,11 sites 17:22 21:2 49:7 50:7 85:14 94;2 95:5 96:23 situation 15:8 16:14 34:20 situations 14:19,25 six 39:8 40;8,17 45:21 58:14,18 90;15 Slazyk 11:22 12:22 15:22 16:4,11 22:23 26:16,19 28:7 54:20 55;4,15 85:9 Slazyk's 26:7 39:9 45:22 solely 74:21,23 sorry 25:25 27:8 31:10 32:5,16 61:4 62:22 71:9 75:18,20 78:19 88:13 90;1,12 sought 73:18 SOUTH 1;5 Southwest 4:18 54:3 71:25 72:2 77:2 space 98:4 99;4 spacing55:12 57;5,8,24 63:17 87:9,15 98:6,9,13 98:17,21 speak 14;20 71:23 72:4 77:1 89:2 94:4,7,11 98:7 specific L5:4,12 25:5,9,14 42:16 44:13 48:10 59:24 63:18,19 67:19 73:12 78:20 87:11 specifically 24;20 25:16,17 32:23 42:13 43:11 47:22 52:16 73:5 86;11 99:9 spe114:12 82:18 spoke 21;1 91:25 spoken 15;1,9 Spring 8;20 standard 25:3 42:10 standards 41:20,23,25 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692' 1 1 42:6,19 43:1,10,13,16 44:10,16 54:9 73:24 76:10,19 81:16 94:20 95:21 96:18,21 99:11,23 100:1 start 27:15 started 7:12, 39;23 starts 33:10 te 4:10 25:12 56:2 58;9 102:3,7 103;4,8 statd 18;11 24:5 45:25 51:3 82:15,19 92:23 94:2 98:23 statement 32:12 88:24 states 23;14 25:20 stating 84:18 90:15 statute 58:9 stenographic 102:16 stenographlcaHy 102:9 strange 89:11 Street 54:3 72;2 77:2 structure 72:19 74:21 stuff 8:5 subject 47:19 63:3,4 65:7 96:15 99:25 submission 63:24 64:19 85:21 submissions 30:22 83;2 submit 11;17 12:5 18:20 18:22 35:21 57:21 84:19 submits 12;1 13:8 18;12 57:23 58:3 60:3 99:19 submittal 63:13,14 64:5 98:25 submitted 11:16 13:5 20;2 20:8 23:4 30:19 32:4 33:16 35:19 36:3,8,13 46:7 56;22 57;17 59:24 60:10,24- 61:22 63:12,16 65:6,21,25 68:8,9,21 69:19 77:4 80:1,16,18 82:2,5,10,13 84:25 85:6 85:17 87:24 90:7 91:19 91:19 92:1,9,11,12,22,2 92:25 94:23 95:1,4,14 96:13 97:7,25 98:2,4 99:5 101:1 submitting 17:25 91:17 subsequent 86;6 substance 24:14 86;18 87:5,7,12 sub -section 25:24 sued 5:5 sufficient 15;7 Suite 1:19 2:6,11 supervisor 10:1 supplement 15:10 47:10 Submitted Into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 48:13,15 sure 11:11 12:2,6 30:14 31:12 34:10 42:11 48:19 49:16 61:23 91:2,8 95:12 99:8 swap 72:25 73:1 75:8 switch 10:20 sworn 4;4 102:12 103:10 system 47:2 49:18 51;7 S.W 2;15 T3:8 Tab 10:17,21 22:21 25:25 26:13 29;20 39:10 40:2 48;21 78:10 82:18 85:8 85:16 88:12,13 90:1 tabbing 34:3 take 5:19,21,22 18:5 45:13 45:21 48:17 56:10 66:10 789 90:13 94;14,17 97:1 99:7 taken 4:19,25 talk 41:2243:23 talked 43:3 talking29:18 60:8 78:25 82:21 94:25 talks 25;19 41:20 tasked 43;9 team 7:5 9:1 te117:10 8:16 11:23 24:18 24:22 26:24 28:12 29;8 37;1,739:10 41:16,24 42:4,21,24 43:12 46:3 48:8 .50:15 55:9 58:19 70:19,23 8613 87;5,12 88:7,8 92:3,5 telling 95:12 Tenaga 81:25 82:7 Teresita 10:23 terms 32:23 57:10 95;24 96:2,16 100:2 testified 4:5 testimony 77:23 82;2 91;20 TeW 2:5 theses 19:17 thing 10:16 32:1 48:4 93:1 things 42:15 44:17,19 48;2 48:5 think 15:4 20;17 21:1,3 25:1 43;3,22 48:5 64;4 64:10 73:7 79;24 80:11 88:6 91:18 94:10 98:23 99:16 third 19:1491:5 thousand 56;23 57:22 98:21 99:4 three 12:11 24;4 43:23 44:11,17,19,20,22 54:7 81:8 time 5:10,21 7:13 8:9 9:2 11:21 12:12 13;23 15:18 15:21 16:3,10 18:18 20:15 27:13 29:8,11,12 29:13 33:7 35:4 51;2,7,7 56:6.63:13,14,20 64:5 79:18,25 83:11 85:21 93:20 98:6,12 99:10 times 14:3 15:14 91:1,3 title 12:25 today 17:20 24:22 36:17 36:2239:25 40:6,14 43:15 91:12 told 15:1 88:8 92:5,17 94:11 Toledo 7:18,23 8:14,17 9:25 total 29:3 transmission 7:4 8:21 Transportation 18:7 travel 32:20 traveled 85:3 traveling 84:23 Trucks 20:21 50:8,13,24 true 97:21 98:14 99;1 try 46;14 trying 7721 turn 10:17,21 22;21 25:24 30;5 48:21 80:22 two 33;1 37:2 38:2,15,20 48;18 56:10,16 57:14,16 57:18 60:14,15,21 63:25 72;21 77:9,22 78:5,5 82;23 95:18,20,22 type 5:4 6:25 9;3 50:19 100;20 U Um -hum 11:5 31;21 61:2 unaware 100:25 undergraduate 6:2,6 understand 5:10 19:15 31:5 39:17 understanding 8:3 12:19 23:7,8 27:20 32:20,21 41;2458:8 59;21 61;14 70:14 77:15 82:6 96:10 97:6,13 understood 5:15,19 undertake 18:9 unfortunately 30:4 use 64:7 100:14 usually 19:2 46:23 KRESSE &ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page various 6:22 11:16 48:23 verba113:20,21 90:4 verbally 14;6,10 90:4 verify46:12,15,21 51:16 61:24 verifying 49:22 53:1 view 73;24 Village 20:23 52:2,10 vs 1:8 w waived 102:13 want 53:23 64:14,14 wanted 89:9 wants 100:12 Warren 2:14 12;1724:1 39:7 79:2 wasn't 61:5 way 14:12 20:24 25:22 49:22 53:1 59:2 86:17 95:11 website 3:16,17,18 49:17 50;2,11,23 51:1,23 52:5 52:14 53:3,9 went 7:15 weren't 61;7 5:22 25:4 we're 18:6 66:10 94:25 97:9 we've 10:6 50:5,10 53:6 whatsoever 14:12 86:21 withdraw 80:9 92:17,17 withdrawn 79:21 93:2 withdrew 80:6 witness 3;2 4:3 5:7 101:6 102:10,11,13 103:12 word 73:10 working 7:7 wouldn't 48:7 wrapping 94:15 write 14:15 90:14 writing 13:20 14:7,11 21:11 written 9;3 24:10 28:12 40:23 43:2 90:20 X X 3;1,8,8 47:17,18 yeah 32:2 43:3 48:16 96:9 year 6:19,19 years 7:9 zoning 10:11 11:18,19,21 flMatbr 1 1 12:8 13;1,3,19,24 15;15 19:6,10,16 21:5 22:12 23:18 25:5,8,10,14,18 27;6,9 38:10,11,19 43;19 43:19 44:12 45:17,24 46:4,12,15,21 47:3,6,10 47:12 48:8,12 49;1,11,19 49:25 50:15,17,20,23 51:4,10,18,19,21 52:8,13 53:2,11 77:7 83;22,24 84:1 0 09 86:14 95:5 98:1 1 1 3:10 10:4,7,9,18 16:18 48:23 78:11 80:23 85:8 90:2 102:14 1st 54:3 72:1,2 77:2 1,000 51:14 55;5,9,13,15 58:23 59:5,12,15,19,23 59:25 60:10 61:15 63:3 63:16,24 64:7,15 65:7 66:1 87:9,15 97:17,23 98:4,5,9,16 1,500 55:12 57:6,8,24 58:4 59:25 60:1,4 98:5 99:5 10 1:22 3:10 94:14 101114:16 10-03089 1:3 10.4.5 25:19 10/14/09 76:16 10:10 1:22 100 49:22 52:21 61:6 101 102;14 11{a 75:20 1111 2:11 11600 4:16 13 33:22 13th 102;21 103:13 1441 1:19 2:5 15 32:24 73:6,7 1500 1:19 2:6 16 26:8 28:8 29:16,20 39;10 40:18 45:23 16th 2421 40:9 55:5 58:15 85:9 90:14,20 18 23:19 26:10 19 30:5 99;8 1900 2:11 2 2 3:11 21:21,24 22:22 25:25 82:18 88;11 2nd 2:15 4:18 84:18 85:1 2:25 122 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 2000 6:13 2003 23:19 26:10 2008 94:24 2009 10:24 11:6,13 16:16 26:8 28:8 29;16,20 3910 40;9,18 45:23 60:15 61:1,9,19,24 65:7 65:22 66:1 78:13 85:9 87:19 90:5 201 72:2 77:2 2010 1;22 10:12 102:21 103:13 2014 103;17 21 3:11 22 10;12 23 103:17 2561;19 65421 66;1 86:1487:18955,14 98:1 25th 61:24 85:5 96:14 98:3 26th 85;1 27th 38.:13 89:1 93;16,17 29 60;15,25 29th 60:25 61:9 3 3:12 34:8,12 0 1:3 94:24 131 2632. 33132 2:16 4:18 33161 4:17 34 3:12 4 4 3:4,13 44:3,8 44 3:13 444 2:15 4:18 49 3:15 5 5 3:14 49:5,10 5th 63:7 98:3,15 50 3:16 51 3:17 53 3:18 6 6 3:16 50:3,6,11 6th 78;13,18,19 79:14 86:3 86:4 90;10,11,12,13,19 92:16 93;3 7 3:17 51:24 52:4,8 7th 10:22,24 11:6 16:16 17:4 61:18 90:3 93:9 79 81;5 83:7 79s 81:10,13,18 83;6,12 84:6 79's 83;4,23 8 3:18 27:1,3 53:4,7 9th 2:16 95 54:6 969315 103:16 98 6:8 Page 112 KRESSE E. ASSOCIATES, 305-371-7692 LLC C P-- 0 0 TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page 1 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO. 10-03089 CA 30 OUTLOOK MEDIA OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Plaintiff -VS- CARTER PRITCHETT HODGES, INC., d/b/a CARTER OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., a Florida corporation, Defendant. DEPOSITION OF WARREN BITTNER 1441 Brickell Avenue Suite 1500 Miami, Florida Tuesday, May 11, 2010 10;25 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. I I, Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 APPEARANCES For the Plaintiff: MATAIS DORTA, ESQ. Tew Cardenas, LLP 1441 Brickell Avenue Suite 1500 Miami, Florida 33131 For the Defendant: CAROL A. LICKO, ESQ. CATHERINE S. DORVIL, ESQ. Hogan Lovells US, LLP 1111 Brickell Avenue Suite 1900 Miami, Florida 33131 For the Deponent: HENRY HUNNEFELD, Esq. City of Miami Attorney's Office 444 S.W. 2nd Ave. 9th Floor Miami, Florida 33132 Also Present: Rex Hodges, Defendant Rep. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Pa e 3 INDEX Witness Direct Cross Warren Bittner (By Mr. Dorta) 4 EXHIBIT INDEX Plaintiff's Description Page 9 October 2, 2009 E-Mail 18 10 October 7, 2009 E-Mail 20 11 Emergency Ordinance of the City of Miami 25 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THEREUPON: WARREN BITTNER, was called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DORTA: Q. Okay. Good morning, sir. A. Good morning. Q. Can you please state your full name. A. Yes. Warren Bittner. Q. Your address, please? A. 444 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Suite 945, Miami, Florida 33130. That's your work address? A. Yes. Q. Home address, please? A. 287 Northeast 96th Street, Miami Shores, Florida 33138. Q. Your educational background? A. From college? Q. Start with that. Go ahead. A. Graduated University of Miami in 1980. BS in mathematics, BA in anthropology. JD, University of Miami, 1983. LLM in admiralty from Q Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 5 Tulane in 1986. That's it. Q. Okay. Where are you currently employed? A. City of Miami. Q. What position do you hold at the City of Miami? A. Deputy City Attorney. Q. How long have you been employed at the City of Miami? A. For twenty years and six months. Q. Can you tell me your progression at the City of Miami in the last 10 years? A. Yes. Q. Okay. A. Assistant City Attorney. Division Chief of Litigation, also Assistant City Attorney. Deputy City Attorney. Q. How long have you been a Deputy City Attorney? A. Since March or April of 2008, I think. Q. Can you tell me your duties and responsibilities, first as Division Chief of Litigation? A. Well, I'm not the Division Chief of Litigation any more. But when I was the Division Chief of Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Litigation, I was in charge of supervising the litigators and the litigation handled by the office. Q. What are your duties and responsibilities as Deputy City Attorney? A. I'm responsible for essentially the same thing, except I'm also responsible for the labor and employment division and the land use division to the extent that it involves litigation. Anything concerning litigation. Before it was tort and civil right litigation as the Division Chief. Now it's everything. Q. You were here at the deposition of Pieter Bockweg yesterday, correct? A. That's correct. Q. Yesterday, during that deposition, we discussed several settlement agreements. Do you recall those? A. I recall your discussing several settlement agreements. Q. There was a settlement agreement between the City of Miami and CBS. Remember that one? A. Yes. Q. There was a settlement agreement between Submitted into the public KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC record in connection with 3 0 5- 3 71- 7 6 9 2 items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Clear channel and City of Miami. Recall that one? A. Yes. Q. And a settlement agreement between Carter and City of Miami. Do you recall that? A. Yes. Q. Do you know of any other settlement agreements between the City of Miami and any entity regarding billboards? A. No. Q. Just those three? A. Yes. Q. Did you have any involvement in the drafting or negotiations of those settlement agreements? A. Only one of them. Q. Which one? A. The most recent one, which was entered into with CBS. Q. What was your involvement with the settlement agreement between CBS and the City of Miami? A. I essentially took the masterpiece drafted by Carol Licko in the Clear Channel arena, copied it word-for-word, and made whatever improvements I could to it, which were minimal. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Pacie 1 2 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Minimal. It's like improving on Shakespeare, right? A. Exactly. Q. So if any person would know how to interpret those contracts, it would be Miss Licko? A. I would say between her and the person on the other side, yes. Q. Sir, do you know if there's been any modification to any of those settlement agreements? A. Yes. Q. To which one? A. Clear Channel. Q. When was the modification to the Clear Channel agreement? A. About a year ago. Maybe less. Q. Were you involved in that modification? A. Yes. Q. What was your involvement? A. I was on one side of the table negotiating with Clear Channel. Q. Who was on your side of the table in the negotiations? A. Orlando Toledo, Pieter Bockweg. Yeah, that's it. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk _KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 1 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And your side of the table, just so the record is clear, is the City of Miami? A. City of Miami. Q. Who was representing Clear Channel? A. There were a lot of people, and they changed every few months. The last one was a guy by the name of I don't remember his name. sorry. Q. was, or the amendment to the agreement? A. Yes. It dealt with a number of subjects. Can you recall what that modification It dealt with the Jackson Soul Food litigation. It dealt with LED billboards. It dealt with the gateway map. It dealt with -- without it in front of me, I really can't remember anything else. That's what I can recall. Q. What is Lourdes Slazyk's position at City of Miami? A. She's currently the zoning administrator for the City of Miami. Q. Let me show you what we marked as Plaintiff's Composite Exhibit 2 to yesterday's deposition. And let me ask you to turn to Tab F. There's an e-mail from Miss Slazyk to, Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 10 it says rex@carteroutdoormiami and a couple of other people. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. You're copied on that e-mail, correct? A. Looks that away, Q. Why is Lourdes Slazyk the one who sent the e-mail regarding the denial of the six FDOT applications? A. As I understand the process, she's the decision maker for the City. Q. Decision maker as the Zoning Administrator? A. Well, if it were somebody else as a Zoning Administrator, that e-mail would be coming from that person instead of Lourdes. Q. So then the Zoning Administrator is the one that makes the decision, or final decision, as to accepting or denying FDOT applications? A. Yes. Q. Is that because billboards, or outdoor advertising, is a zoning matter? A. Not necessarily. But we currently have the sign -- portions of the sign code in the zoning ordinance, and portions are in the city code. But the Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 11 portions concerning billboards are currently in the zoning ordinance, Q. How long has it been in the zoning ordinance, do you know? A. I don't know. Q. For as long as you've been at the City of Miami, do you know whether billboards have been within the zoning ordinance? A. I don't. Q. As you sit here today, do you recall at any time when billboards were not in the zoning ordinance? A. I'd have to research it. Sitting here right now, without all that in front of me, I couldn't tell you. Q. You don't recall it -- as you sit here right now, you don't recall it being outside of the zoning ordinance, the issue of billboards? A. I've never looked at it. I couldn't tell you. Q. Zoning falls under the city's police power, right? A. Yes. Q. Can you turn to the settlement agreement, which is Tab E of Plaintiff s Composite Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk .."...-driJ.,...namesansedideFORENIW., KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2. I want to ask you a couple of questions about this settlement agreement between the City of Miami and Carter Outdoor Advertising. Let me start with the replacement and relocation of signs, which appears on page six of that agreement paragraph eight. My question to you is: The City has not adopted any relocation standards as is referenced in that paragraph; am I correct? A. As far as I'm aware, at this moment they have not. Q. Have you drafted any relocation standards in your position as Deputy Attorney? A. No. Q. Have you instructed anybody working under you to draft relocation standards for the City of Miami? A. No. Q. Have you been instructed at any time to draft relocation standards for the City of Miami? A. No, Q. Why not? A. I don't know. My boss, who is the City Attorney, has never said Warren, do this. Q. Let me ask you to turn to page nine. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 13 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This is the provision of dispute resolution, mediation and arbitration, and attorney's fees under the settlement agreement between Carter and the City. it. Have you read that provision before? A. I'm sure I have, but it s been a while. Q. Why don't you take a second and review A. Okay. Q. Sir, you would agree with me that any dispute regarding the City's police power is not subject to mediation under this agreement, correct? A. That's what it says. Q. You would agree with me that zoning is a police power, correct? A. Well, I'm not sure if whoever drafted this intended zoning to be covered by that. But I think that zoning is -- I could be wrong -- I think zoning is a police power. I might be wrong. Q. If zoning is a police power, and billboards falls under the zoning code, then any dispute regarding billboards will not be subject to mediation, correct? Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk - KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, that would be turning this agreement, or this paragraph, on its head. So to the extent that you're reaching that conclusion, think it is an unreasonable interpretation. Q. Why is that? A. Because this is meant to cover most dispute. But I think by the words "except involving the City's police and safety powers," they meant something involving an unsafe structure. Taking down a sign, for instance, after a hurricane if the structure got damaged. Or if a billboard was about to collapse, that the City could come in and take action if the parties didn't voluntary take action. I don't think the exception was meant to swallow the agreement. Q. What person should I contact at the City of Miami to get an interpretation as to the intent of this agreement? A. I don't know. Q. What drafts or e-mails are located in the City, so I could get a better understanding of the intent of the agreement? A. Well, I think, if there is a -- I think Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk '.KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Paae 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your effort to find the intent through drafts would be futile, because typically contracts are interpreted by their final language and not by those drafts that preceded it. Q. So the answer to the question is? A. I think I answered your question. MR. DORTA: Can you read the question back, please. (Thereupon, the requested portion of the record was re -read by the Court Reporter.) A. I answered it. Q. Is there any drafts of this contract at the City? A. I have no idea. I don't think this was drafted at the City. Q. Who drafted it? A. I think Carol Licko did. Q. Are there any e-mails located at the City where I could A. I have no idea. Q. Sir, you have to let me finish. Are there any e-mails at the City regarding the drafting of this agreement? A. I have no idea. Q. So Carol Licko also drafted the Carter Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement? A. That's my understanding. Q. Was Carol Licko at the City of Miami at the time? A. She was outside counsel at the time. Q. In your review of this agreement, did you get any understanding as to why the parties used the words "may request mediation"? A. Why was that language used? Q. Yes. A. It would only be speculation, so I don't have any knowledge of why. I was not involved in drafting this. Q. Are you also speculating as to the intent of the parties in reviewing this contract? A. To a certain degree, yes. Q. You have read contracts before where they have mandatory mediation requirements using the word "shall," haven't you? A. I can't think of one. Q. So all of the mediation agreements you've seen, or all the clauses you've seen requiring mediation have always used the word "may"? A. No. This contract uses the word Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 17 "shall." It says, "Any dispute among the parties, except those involving the City's police and safety powers, shall be resolved as follows." So I don't know where you get the idea it says may, but Q. Let me suggest something to you, and I don't want to get into a legal discussion here, but if you continue reading, it says, "If they cannot resolve their differences, either party may request mediation." Do you see the word "may"? A. Yes. But that doesn't mean you can then go to court. It means either party can ask for mediation, and which mediation shall be attended by both parties. Then there's a waiver of right to litigation. Q. So Carol Licko was the drafter and she was retained by the City of Miami? A. Yes. Q. So as the drafter, she was acting on behalf of the City of Miami, I take it, right? A. Well, this was a product of two people with differing interests sitting down at a table Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk )- .KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and coming up with a document. So it was Carol Licko at one side, who was the attorney for the City. And on the other side of the table, I don't know who there was. But they both sat down, I'm sure, and worked out something and came to an agreement and this is what it is. Q. Sir, let me mark an e-mail as Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 from you to Mr. Smith dated October 2nd, 2009. That's Exhibit 9. (Thereupon, October 2nd, 2009 E-Mail was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 for Identification.) Q. Sir, while you're reading it, for the record, I have marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 9 an e-mail from you to Glenn Smith dated October 2nd 2009. The subject is Outlook Media Appeal of September 14th Zoning Board. Let me know when you've had a chance to read it. A. Okay. Well, I've read the e-mail, but not the attachment, in detail. But depending on what your question is, I may need to refer to the rest of it. Q. Sure. ---41,ikkgemut,..resesta&VSN.,—,—.4...sweaumweeiroMikho Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Glenn Smith is the attorney for CBS? A. That's right. Q. Why are you sending Glenn Smith an e-mail regarding the Outlook Media appeal of September 14th? A. Because Outlook Media, in this particular instance, was acting as agent of CBS. I imagine I wanted to ask Glenn Smith how CBS felt about this. Q. How do you know that Outlook was acting as an agent of CBS in this particular instance? A. Because they were traveling under their settlement agreement, and because the City was provided a letter by CBS that permitted CBS excuse me -- permitted Outlook Media to act as its agent in applying for FDOT permits with the City on its behalf. So therefore, I concluded that legally, they were the agent of CBS. Q. This was not an appeal of Carter applications? A. No. This is CBS applications. Q. And what was -- A. This was to renew. They wanted to renew them. And CBS didn't want to renew them. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I haven't even asked my question, but let me follow up on your answer. Who wanted to renew what? A. It's my understanding that Outlook Media wished to renew FDOT applications that had expired. And those applications were applied for initially by Outlook Media as the agent of CBS. Q. And did Glenn Smith respond to you? A. I don't remember. But I'm sure you have e-mails that would help refresh my recollection. Q. I may. I'm not sure yet. MR. DORTA: Let me mark this as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. (Thereupon, October 7, 2009 E-Mail was marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 for Identification.) Q. Sir, while you're reading that, let me introduce it for the record. It's an e-mail from Mr. Bittner to Mr. Glenn Smith, dated October 7th, 2009. It says "Outlook Letter to City of 10/7/09, Re: Carter applications." A. Okay. Q. All right, sir. Did you in fact send an e-mail to Mr. Smith on October 10th, 2009 as Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Pa e 21 2 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reflected on Exhibit 10? A. Yes. But I'm not sure it contained all this stuff that's attached to it. It could have, but I1m not sure. Q. Why did you send Mr. Smith an e-mail regarding Carter's FDOT applications? A. Because these locations were the same locations that CBS had already gotten signed off by the City, or were pending, as a result of their agent, Outlook, applying for them. And they were still in play. Q. All right. You said they had been signed off by the City, or pending. I thought you used both words. I don't know if they're synonymous. A. I did use both words. As we recall, in our former dialog and questioning, CBS applied for certain locations through its agent, Outlook. Outlook then requested that those applications be renewed, which the City denied because CBS didn't agree to them being renewed. Outlook appealed. Outlook, as the agent of CBS, appealed that decision. While that appeal was pending, Carter Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 comes in with Outlook at its side, requesting the very same locations that were still on appeal with the City. The issue that is being addressed in this correspondence that is attached to the e-mail is whether or not CBS is going to consent to the withdrawal of that appeal, so that the Carter applications could proceed. Q. Now, did you get a response from Mr. Smith? A. I don't remember. Q. Sir, let me hand you what we've marked yesterday as Composite Exhibit 1. And I'll ask you to turn to Tab D. This is a letter that we discussed yesterday during the deposition. This letter is from Mr. San Roman, dated October 7th, 2009. You were copied on the letter. Have you ever seen that letter before? A. I certainly saw it yesterday. Q. Before yesterday, sir? A. I imagine I did, but I don't recall it. Q. In the bottom of the first page of this letter, there is a paragraph discussing a meeting that occurred on October 6th, 2009. Were you present at that meeting? Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 A. without Q. in this I believe I was, but I can't be sure checking my calendar. There's also a discussion, or statements letter, regarding Outlook's withdrawal of its appeal. Do you recall any discussion regarding Outlook's withdrawal of its appeal? A. Yes. Q. Tell me what you recall of those discussions and with whom you had those discussions. A. Well, at a meeting -- I don't remember whether it was October 6th. But at a meeting where Santiago Echemendia was City Manager was there, I was remember who else was there. don't recall. Outlook wanted the City to process these Carter applications, which were for the same locations as the CBS applications that were currently then on appeal due to CBS's agent appealing them. I recall indicating that I would feel most comfortable, or more comfortable, in allowing staff to review these Carter applications only in attendance, the there, and I can't Maybe San Roman. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 after CBS withdrew that appeal, because those same applications were still pending. That's what I remember. Q. Do you know whether or not Outlook withdrew the appeal? A. The question was not whether Outlook withdrew the appeal. The question was whether CBS would consent to the withdrawal. Q. Let me ask the question. Do you know whether Outlook withdrew its appeal? A. Outlook didn't have an appeal. Outlook was the agent of CBS. CBS controlled that. It was not within Outlook's power to withdraw anything. Q. Did CBS withdraw the appeal? A. CBS refused to do anything. Q. When you say refused to do anything, what do you mean? A. They refused to object. They refused to withdraw. They refused to -- they would not do anything. Q. Did you have any conversation, or any communication with anybody from CBS regarding the status of those appeals? Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 A. Well, I was attempting to do that in this e-mail of October 7th, where I wanted to get CBS's position on those applications and the appeal. Q. Do you recall any response from CBS? A. I don't recall what it was. I do know that ultimately CBS didn't do anything. (Thereupon, Emergency Ordinance of the City of Miami was marked as P1aintiff4s Exhibit 11 for Identification.) Q. Sir, let me show you what we've marked as Exhibit 11, Emergency Ordinance of the City of Miami. I guess this is a proposed ordinance; is that correct? A. This is a proposal, yes. Q. And when is this proposal set for hearing? A. May 13th. Q. Okay. What were the origins of this proposal? A. The pen of Warren Bittner. Q. Anybody else draft it, other than Mr. Bittner? - ..4E.deatialima•1711.1i0.6-,..k..1. L.-.-1.....11143,-....i.e.r.1.3•21,.... .va,C, '''' Submitted into the public record in connection with KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page 26 2 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No, Q. How did this come about? A. I put pen to paper. Q. Why is that? A. Because I thought it would be a good thing to do. Q. Why would it be a good thing to do? MR. HUNNEFELD: I'm going to object. I think the question calls for attorney/client privileged information. MR. DORTA: I m sorry? MR. HUNNEFELD: I'm going to object. I think the question calls for attorney/client privileged communication. If there were communications between the Deputy City Attorney and his client, and I don't know whether there were, but if there were communications between the Deputy City Attorney and his client that resulted in the creation of this document, any communications would be privileged. MR. DORTA: I don't think that was my question. My question is why do -- MR. HUNNEFELD: You don't think that question could lead to attorney/client Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 privileged information? MR. DORTA: No. MR. HUNNEFELD: What if the answer were my client told me to draft that. That would be attorney/client privileged information, I believe. MR. DORTA: It depends. MR. HUNNEFELD: We disagree legally on that point. MR. DORTA: I m going to ask the question. You can always instruct him. Q. Sir, why did Warren Bittner draft this? MR. HUNNEFELD: I'm going to object and instruct the witness not to give any attorney/client privileged information. Q. So can you answer? MR. HUNNEFELD: To the extent there's anything other than attorney/client, it could be disclosed. THE WITNESS: Other than attorney/client. MR. HUNNEFELD: Is there anything other than attorney/client information? THE WITNESS: No. Q Was this in response to any pending Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lawsuit? MR. HUNNEFELD: It's the same objection. If there's any answer that doesn't include attorney/client privileged information, then you can answer. Otherwise, I instruct him not to answer that question. THE WITNESS: There's no other answer. Q. So you're refusing to answer the last two questions based on attorney/client privilege? MR. HUNNEFELD: I've instructed him not to answer to the extent that the answers called for the disclosure of attorney/client privileged information. THE WITNESS: If there was something that was not attorney/client, I'd be happy to tell you. But there's nothing. Q. Who else at the City assisted you in drafting this proposed ordinance? A. It was just me. Q. By yourself? A. Um -hum. Q. Yes? Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 City Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 29 A. Yes. Just me. Q. Sir, did you have any input from any person? MR. HUNNEFELD: By input, do you mean communication from a client? MR. DORTA: From any person. If there's some input that you claim to be attorney/client privilege, just say SO. If there's input from somebody other than that client then -- MR. HUNNEFELD: To the extent the question calls for communications, attorney/client communications, I instruct you not to answer. If there are any communications with anyone that was not a client, that was not meant to be attorney/client privilege, then you may answer the question. A. As to what is before us, no, it was just attorney/client. Q. So you did receive input -- don't tell me what the input was -- you did receive input from other people at the City of Miami? MR. HUNNEFELD: I'm going to object Submitted into the public KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC record in connection with 305-371-7692 items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page 30 2 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to that question. That automatically requires attorney/client privileged information. You're asking whether a communication on a specific point was made between attorney/client. Even the disclosure of whether that occurred would be an attorney/client privileged communication and I instruct him not to answer. That's clear, obvious attorney/client privilege. Objection. MR. DORTA: As long as you're convinced and you're telling your client not to answer, that's fine. Wetil move on. Q. Did you have any discussions with anybody at Carter regarding this proposed ordinance? A. This, no. Q. Any communication with anybody at CBS regarding the proposed ordinance? A. As to what is contained in here? Q. Regarding the proposed ordinance. A. In putting this together, CBS had no input. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. When did you draft this? A. Last week. Q. Last week. Tell me all discussions you've had with anybody at CBS in the last month. A. CBS was provided a copy of this after I drafted it, and after it was put on the agenda. They saw it on the agenda. They didn't like it, so they called me. Q. Okay. Tell me who called you from CBS? A. Inez Marrero. Q. Tell me about your discussion with Inez Marrero regarding your proposal of this? A. She said she saw it on the agenda, just like you did. She read it, and she didn't like it. Q. Why didn't she like it? A. But she was going to send it to CBS for their comment. Q. Why didn't she like it? A. We didn't go into the nitty-gritty of it. She thought it may adversely impact the City's relationship with CBS. Q. In what way? Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 32 1 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Well, one of the settlement agreements is with CBS. Q. But did she tell you how it would adversely effect the A. No. Q. Was that the extent of your conversation with Miss Marrero? A. Yes. Q. Did anybody from Carter call you regarding this proposed ordinance? A. No. Q. Did anybody from Clear Channel call you regarding the proposed ordinance? A. No. Q. Will this proposed ordinance affect any of the settlement agreements? A. I don't think so. But you know, reasonable people can disagree, I guess. Q. Is the purpose of this ordinance to affect or impact any of the settlement agreements? A. No. Q, Would it modify any of the settlement agreements? A. No. Q. Who does it affect? Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES LLC 305-371-7692 Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. It affects new entrance into the billboard playing field. It allows anyone now to have a billboard. Q. Would it affect South Florida Equitable Fund? A. It would make it now legally possible for them to enter the playing field with specific criteria, objective, and allow them to participate just like everybody else. Q. When did you start drafting this proposed ordinance? A. About two weeks ago. Q. Would this proposed ordinance in any way affect the Mary May's site? A. I don't know, because I don't have enough information about the Mary May site to be able to answer that question. Q. Does the City of Miami have an agreement with CBS in which the City of Miami will be able to obtain certain funds that are in an escrow account if certain conditions are complied with? A. It did at one time. It no longer does, as far as aware. Q. Let me take you back to the letter from Mr. San Roman. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 34 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. You're referring to Composite Exhibit 1, Tab B. Q. Yes, sir, I am. Mr. San Roman starts the letter with: Submittals made on September 25, 2009. Carter Pritchett. Do you see that? A. Yes. Q. Can you describe to me your involvement of course without disclosing any attorney/client privilege, but your involvement generally when applications such as these are submitted to the City. What is your role? A. Well I don't think I've ever reviewed these locations. But generally, my goal, or my hope, is that my client will want to review an application with me before it takes action on an application to be sure that we're complying with the settlement agreement. They are a little bit complicated. But that doesn't always happen. So but generally, we hope it does happen. So that is the procedure. Q. Okay. Is that procedure written Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 35 anywhere? A. No. It's just common sense of if you're doing something that is legal, you might want to consult your attorney before you do something. Q. Do they consult the Deputy City Attorney, the position, or do they always consult Mr. Bittner because of your experience at the City? A. It has nothing to do with my position. It just happens to be that when Joel Maxwell left the City of Miami, he was handling billboards at the time. Someone needed to be assigned the project, so Warren Bittner got it. Q. When Warren Bittner was assigned the project, that was in what year? A. Whenever it was that Joel Maxwell left, and I can't recall when that was, but several years ago. Q. Has Warren Bittner been the attorney at the City of Miami that has handled the billboard issues since Mr. Maxwell left? A. I'm one of them. I also recruited Veronica Henkeys to assist me, because there's just too much to do all by myself concerning this. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. So the two attorneys at the City of Miami dealing with billboards are yourself and Veronica A. Henkeys. Q. Henkeys; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. From the time these applications were submitted on September 25, 2009, until the present, the present meaning including today, have you had any discussions with Carter or any representatives of Carter? A. On these applications? Q. Yes, A. Well, there was that meeting with San Roman that this letter seems to suggest occurred on October 7th. But beyond that, I don't recall. Could be, but I don't recall. Q. Have you had any meetings regarding any other matters with a representative of Carter, or any representative of Carter? A. Since October 7th? Q. Since September 25th, 2009. From the submittal to the present. A. If I did, I don't remember it as I'm Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 37 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sitting here today. Other than that meeting around October 7th, 2009, referenced in this letter. Q. You haven't had any discussions with Miss Licko regarding Carter? A. There haven't been any issues to discuss about Carter. MR. DORTA: Why don't we take a 10 minute break. Let me review my notes real quick. (Recess in the proceedings.) THE WITNESS: I'd like to clarify my last answer that I did have conversations with Miss Licko yesterday after the deposition, to convey to her my opinion that what was on the agenda for the 13th would not have any impact on any of the settlement agreements, in my opinion. I don't think that -- well, to that extent, it tangentially relates. Q. How did that conversation arise? A. I initiated it. Q. How did you initiate the conversation? A. I said: Carol, I'd like to talk to you. Q. She said? Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 '!=!!!!!!!•!!!!,!'"'Wr'4,-", ! Page 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Okay. I'll listen. Q. You said? A. There's an ordinance going up on the 13th, and I don't think it impacts any of the settlement agreements. Q. Did anybody from Carter call you asking that question? A. No, Q. Did you also contact anybody from Clear Channel regarding the proposed ordinance? A. No. Q. So you've only had a conversation with Inez Marrero, who respects CBS, correct? A. Um -hum. Yes. Q. And with Miss Licko, who you understand represents Carter? A. And I didn't say there were not other folks. I spoke also with Glenn Smith about it. Q. Tell me about your conversation with Mr. Smith. A. My conversation with Glenn Smith was very similar. I didn't think that what was drafted would impact the settlement agreements. Q. Did you speak to any of these individuals, or any of their representatives -- Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I'm talking about CBS, Carter, or Clear Channel -- in the process of drafting this ordinance? A. No. I drafted it myself. Q. So in your conversations with the individuals you just mentioned, Inez Marrero, Miss Licko, and Mr. Smith -- let me take that one at a time. The first time, to your understanding, that Miss Marrero learned about the proposed ordinance that we have marked as Exhibit 11 is when she read it as an agenda item? A. Correct. Q. What about, do you have any idea when Mr. Smith first learned of the proposed ordinance? A. I think Miss Marrero sent it to him. Q. Then he initiated the call to you regarding the proposed ordinance? A. No. I called him about it after I spoke with Miss Marrero. Q. Why did you call Mr. Smith? A. He, I think, calls the shots for CBS, and not Miss Marrero. Q. Why did you feel you needed to call Mr. Smith? A. Because Inez was not happy about it, and Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 40 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I wanted to allay any concern that they may have had that this may impact the settlement agreement with CBS. Q. Is that the reason why you spoke of the subject with Miss Licko? A. For the same reason. Q. Do you have any plans on calling Clear Channel about it? A. Clear channel changes attorneys every other day. So I don't know -- it's kind of hard to pick figure out who it is that represents Clear Channel. Q. Is it on your things to do list to contact somebody from Clear Channel? A. It would be a prudent thing to do. Fm going to attempt to do it. But we'll see. I don't know. Q. Okay. Sir, let me just ask you, with regard to the Carter applications that are referenced in Mr. San Roman's letter -- again, Tab D of Exhibit 1 -- do you recall speaking to anybody, other than that one meeting where Mr. Echemendia was present, you were present, and you think Mr. San Roman was present, other than that one meeting, did you speak to anybody else Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 41 regarding those applications? A. Well, my clients, of course. Q. Other than your clients? A. If you're asking did I meet with anybody with Carter, as I sit here at the table today, I don't remember meeting with them at any other time. Q. Other than -- and by meeting, I want to include communications over the phone, e-mails, and anything else. A. I don't communicate with anyone from Carter on the phone. I would only communicate with their attorney. I know that's Miss Licko. I've never discussed this with Miss Licko. Q. With CBS, or any representative of CBS, have you had any communication with them regarding the applications listed on Mr. San Roman's letter, other than the e-mails, or the one e-mail that we have reviewed in this deposition? A. There's the e-mail, which I'm initiating contact with CBS to find out their position. They may have called back. They may have said I'm not doing anything to me. But I don't remember. Unless there's an e-mail that says otherwise, I don't remember contacting CBS at any Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRES'SE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 42 1 other time. Could have happened, but I don't 2 remember as I sit here at this table today. 3 MR. DORTA: Well, sir, I have no 4 further questions. 5 MS. LICKO: No questions. 6 MR. HUNNEFELD: We read. 7 (Thereupon, having not been waived, the 8 proceedings were concluded.) 9 10 11 Warren Bittner 12 13 14 15 Sworn to and subcribed before 16 me this day of , 2010. 17 Notary Public in and for the 18 State of Florida at Large. 19 20 21 22 I 23 24 25 ,Ulgt*Trattatiosig=.,.... Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER STATE OF FLORIDA: COUNTY OF DADE: I BEVERLY LISA RABATIE, a Court Reporter in and for the State of Florida at Large, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the deposition of WARREN BITTNER, a witness called by the Plaintiff in the above -styled cause; that the witness was first duly sworn by me; that the reading and signing of the deposition were waived by the witness; that the foregoing pages, numbered from 1 to 42, • inclusive, constitute a complete record of my stenographic notes. I further certify that I am not an attorney or counsel for any of the parties, nor related to any of the parties, nor financially interested in the action. Dated this 14th day of May, 2010. Beverly L. Rabatie Court Reporter Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 44 CERTIFICATE - REPORTER NOTARY OATH THE STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE) Beverly Lisa Rabatie, Notary Public for the State of Florida, certify that WARREN BITTNER personally appeared before me and was duly sworn. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 14th day of May, 2010. Beverly L. Rabatie, Court Reporter DD# 969315 Expires March 23, 2014 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 Page 45 Kresse & Associates, LLC 66 W. Flagler Street 7th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 May 14, 2010 WARREN BITTNER C/O Henry Hunnefeld, Esq. City of Miami Attorney's Office 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue 9th Floor Miami, FLorida 33132 Re: Outlook Media vs. Carter Pritchett Hodges Dear Mr. Bittner, This letter is to inform you that the transcript of your deposition taken on May 11, 2010, is available for your reading and signature. Please contact my office at 305-371-7692 to schedule an appointment at our office, 66 W. Flagler Street, 7th Floor, Miami, Florida 33130, to read and sign the transcript. Our office hours are 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If the reading and signing have not been completed prior to May 24, 2010, the original transcript will be forwarded to Matias Dorta, Esq. as is, without corrections. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincere Beverly L. Ra15atie, Court Reporter cc: Matias Dorta, Esq. Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk r KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 46 3 4 5 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ERRATA SHEET RECORD CHANGES HERE - DO NOT WRITE ON THE TRANSCRIPT IN RE: OUTLOOK MEDIA VS. CARTER PRITCHETT HODGES Page/Line Change Reason Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read my deposition and that it is true and correct subject to any changes in form or substance entered here. Date Witness Name Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 A able 33;17,19 above -styled 43:10 accepting 10:18 account33:21 act 19;15 acting 17:22 19:7,10 action 14:14,15 34:18 43;19 address 4:12,15,17 addressed 22:3 administrator 9;20 10;12 10:14,16 admiralty 4:25 adopted 12:8 adversely 31:23 32:4 advertising 1:9 10:21 12:3 affect 32:15,20,25 33;4,14 agenda 31:7,8,14 37;16 39;11 agent 19:7,11,16,19 20;7 21;10,19,23 23:21 24:13 ago 8:16 33:12 35:18 agree 13:10,15 21:21 agreement 6:22,25 7:3,20 8:15 9;10 11:25 12:2,6 13:3,12 14;2,17,20,24 15:23 16:1,6 18:6 19:13 33:18 34:20 40:2 agreements 6:18,21 7:7,14 8:10 16:21 32;1,16,20,23 37:18 38;5,23 ahead 4:22 allny4o:1 allow 33:8 allowing 23;24 Bows 33:2 e dment 9:10 15:5 20:2 27;3,16 28:4,6,7,10,11,14 29:15 29:19 30:9,14 33:17 37;13 answered 15:6,11 answers 28;15 anthropology 4:24 anybody 12;15 24:24 25:24 30:17,20 31:5 32:9,12 38:6,9 40:22,25 41:4 appeal 18:17 19:4,20 21:25 22:2,6 23:5,7,21 24;1,5,7,11,12,16 25;4 appealed 21:23,24 appealing 23:22 appeals 24:25 APPEARANCES 2:1 appeared 44:9 appears 12;5 application 34:17,18 applications 10:8,18 19:21 19:22 20:5,6,22 21;6,20 22:7 23:19,20,25 24:2 25:3 34:11 36:7,12 40:19 41:1,17 applied 20:6 21:18 applying 19:16 21;10 appointment 45;14 April 5:19 arbitration 13;2 arena 7:23 asked 20;1 asking 30:4 38:6 41:4 assigned 35:12,14 assist 35;24 Assistant 5:14,15 assisted 28:20 Associates 45:1 attached 21;3 22:4 attachment 18:22 attempt 40:16 attempting 25:1 attendance 23:14 attended 17:15 attention 45;19 attorney 5:6,14,15,16,18 6:5 12:13,24 18:3 19:1 26;16,19 35:4,6,19 41:13 43:17 attorneys 36:1 40:9 attorney's 2:13 13:2 45:6 attorney/cBent 26:10,14 26:25 27:5,15,18,21,23 28:5,12,16,18 29:8,14,18 29:21 30:2,6,8,10 34:9 autborize.4 43;7 automatically 30;1 available 45:13 Ave 2:13 Avenue 1:19 2:4,9 4:13 45:7 aware 12:10 33:23 a.m 1;22,22 45:16 B3:9 34:2 BA 4:24 back 15:8 33:24 41;22 background 4:20 based 28:12 behalf 4:3 17:23 19:17 believe 23:1 27:6 better 14:23 Beverly 43:5,22 44:7,16 45:23 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk beyond 36;17 billboard 14;13 33;2,3 35:20 billboards 7:8 9:14 10:20 11;1,7,11,18 13:23,24 35;11 36:2 bit 34:20 Bittner 1:17 3:4 4:2,11 20:19 25:23,25 27:12 35:7,13,14,19 42:11 43:9 44:9 45:5,11 Board 18:18 Bockweg 6:15 8:24 boss 12:23 bottom 22:22 break 37:9 Brickell 1:19 2:4,9 BS 4:24 CA 1:3 calendar 23:2 ca1132:9,12 38:6 39:16,20 39:23 called 4;3 28;15 31;9,10 39:18 41:22 43:9 calling 40:7 calls 26:9,13 29:13 39:21 Cardenas 2:3 Carol2:7 7:23 15:17,25 16:3 17;19 18:2 37;24 Carter 1:9,9 7:4 12:3 13;3 15:25 19:20 20:21 21:25 22:6 23;19,25 30:17 32:9 34:5 36:10,11,20,21 37:5,7 38;6,16 39:1 40;19 41;5,12 45;9 46:5 Carter's 21:6 CASE 1:3 CATHERINE 2:8 cause43:10 CBS 6:23 7:18,20 19:1,7,8 19:11,14,14,19,22,25 20:7 21:8,18,21,24 22:5 23;20 24:1,7,13,13,16,17 24:24 25:5,7 30;20,24 31;5,6,10,18,24 32:2 33:19 38:13 39;1,21 40:3 41;15,15,21,25 CBS's 23:21 25:3 cc 45;25 certain 16;16 21;18 33:20 33:21 certainly 22;19 CERTIFICATE 43:1 44:2 certify 43:7,16 44:8 chance 18;19 Page 47 Change 46;6 changed 9:6 changes 40;9 46:3,22 banne17:1,23 8:13,15,21 9:4 32;12 38;10 39:1 40;8,9,12,14 charge 6:1 checking 23;2 Chief 5:14,21,23,25 6;12 CLRCUIT t :1,1 city 2:13 3:14 5:3,4,6,8,11 5:14,15,16,17 6:5,23 7:1 7:4,7,20 9:2,3,19,21 10:10,25 11:6 12;2,7,17 12:20,23 13:4 14:13,18 14;23 15:13,15,19,22 16;3 17:20,23 18:3 19:13,16 20:21 21:9,13 21:21 22;3 23:15,18 25:9,13 26:16,19 28;20 29;24 33;18,19 34:12 35:5,8,11,20 36:1 45:6 city's 11;21 13:11 14:8 17:2 31:24 1016;11 claim 29:7 clarify 37:12 c auses 16:22 clear7:1,23 8:13,14,21 9:2 9:4 30;10 32:12 38:9 39:1 40;7,9,11,14 client 26:16,19 27;4 29;5 29;11,17 30:13 34:17 clients 41:2,3 code 10:24,25 13;23 collapse 14;13 college 4:21 come 14:14 26;2 comes 22:1 comfortable 23:24,24 coming 10:14 18:1 comment31:19 common 35:2 communicate 41:11,12 communication 24:24 26:14 29:5 30:4,8,20 41:16 communications 26:15,18 26;21 29:13,14,16 41;9 company 1:6 complete 43;14 completed 45:17 complicated 34:21 complied 33;21 complying 34;19 Composite 9;23 11:25 22:12 34:1 441,14400044,0 litte7frOs*VAIM*11411...Witith >,,VMS.,440,41.1itc4 10.10k.t.4a4,4oplowoom.,.., RESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-'7692 Page 4 8 rn 40;1 concerning 6:10 11;1 35:25 concluded 19;18 42:8 conclusion 14:3 conditions 33:21 consent 22;5 24;8 constitute 43:14 consult 35:4,5,6 contact 14;18 38;9 40;14 41;21 45:14 ontacting 41;25 twined 21:2 30:22 continue 17:8 contract 15:12 16:15,25 ontracts 8:5 15:2 16;17 controlled 24:13 conversation 24:23 32:6 37:21,23 38;12,19,21 conversations 37:13 39:4 convey 37:15 convinced 30:13 copied 7;24 10:4 22:17 copy 31:6 orporation 1;10 orrect 6:15,16 10;4 12:9 13:13,16,25 25;16 36:5 38;13 39:1246:21 corrections 45:18 correspondence 22:4 counsel 16;5 43;17 COUNTY 1:1 43:4 44:5 couple 10:1 12:1 course 34:9 41;2 court 1:1 15;10 17:14 43:1 43:5,23 44:16 45:23 cover 14:6 covered 13:18 creation 26:20 criteria 33:8 Cross 3:3 currently 5:2 9:20 10;23 11:1 23:21 C/045:6 D D3:1,9 22:13 40;21 DADE 1:1 43;4 damaged 14:12 Date 46:24 dated 18;9,16 20:20 22;16 43;20 day 40:10 42:16 43:20 44:13 DD 44;16 dealing 36:2 dealt 9:11,13,14,15,15 Dear 45;11 decision 10;10,11,17,17 21:24 declare 46:21 Defendant 1:11 2:6,17 degree 16;16 denia110:7 denied 21:21 denying 10:18 depending 18;22 depends 27:7 Deponent 2:11 deposition 1:15 6:14,17 9:24 22:15 37:15 41:19 43:8,12 45;12 46:21 Deputy 5:6,16,17 6:5 12:13 26:16,19 35:5 describe 34:8 Description 3:10 detail 18;22 dialog 21:17 differences 17:9 differing 17:25 Direct 3;3 4:6 disagree 27:8 32:18 disclosed 27:19 disclosing 34:9 disclosure 28:15 30;6 discuss 37:6 discussed 6:18 22:14 41:14 discussing 6:20 22;23 discussion 17:7 23:3,6 31:12 discussions 23:10,11 30;16 31:4 36;10 37;4 dispute 13:1,11,24 14;7 17;1 division 1:2 5;14,21,23,25 6;8,8,12 document 18;1 26:20 doing 35;3 41;23 Dorta 2:3 3:5 4:7 15:7 20;12 26:11,22 27;2,7, 0 29:6 30;12 37:8 42:3 45;18,25 DORVIL 2:8 draft 12;16,20 25:24 27;4 27:1231:1 drafted 7:23 12:12 13:17 15:15,16,25 31:7 38:23 39:3 drafter 17;19,22 drafting 7:13 15:23 16:13 28;21 33:10 39:2 drafts 14:22 15:1,4,12 due 23;21 duly 4:4 43:11 44:9 duties 5:20 6:4 d/b/a 1;9 E E3:1,9,9 11:25 46:1,1,1 Echemendia 23:14 40:23 educational 4:20 effect 32:4 effort 15:1 eight 12:6 either 17;9,14 ELEVENTH 1:1 Emergency 3:13 25:9,13 employed 5:2,7 employment 6;8 enter 33;7 entered 7:17 46:22 entity 7;8 entrance 33:1 Equitable 33:4 escrow 33:20 Esq 2;3,7,8,12 45:6,18,25 essentially 6:6 7:22 everybody 33:9 Exactly 8:3 EXAMINATION 4;6 examined 4:5 exception 14:16 excuse 19:15 Exhibit 9:23 18;9,10,12,15 20:13,15 21:1 22:12 25;10,13 34:1 39:10 40:21 experience 35:7 expired 20:6 Expires 44:17 extent 6:9 14:3 27:17 28;14 29:12 32:6 37:20 e-ma113:11,12 9:25 10:4,7 10:14 18:8,11,16,21 19:4 20:14,19,25 21:5 22:4 25:2 41;18,20,24 e-mails 14;22 15:18,22 20:10 41;9,18 F 9;24 fact 20;24 fails 11:21 13:23 far 12;10 33;23 FDOT 10:7,18 19:16 20:5 21:6 feel 23:23 39;23 fees 13;2 felt 19:8 field 33:2,7 figure 40:11 flna110:17 15:3 financially 43:18 find 15:1 41:21 fine 30:14 finish 15;21 first 4;4 5:21 22:22 39:8 39:14 43:10 Fiagler 45:1,15 Floor 2:14 45:2,7,15 Florida 1;1,5,5,10,20 2:5 2:10,14 4:14,19 33:4 42:18 43:3,6 44:4,8 45:2 45;8,15 folks 38:18 follow 20:2 follows 4:5 17:3 Food 9:13 foregoing 43:13 form 46:22 former 21:17 forwarded 45:18 Friday 45:16 front 9:16 11:14 full 4;10 Fund 33;5 funds 33:20 further 42:4 43;16 futile 15:2 G gateway 9;15 GENERAL 1:2 generally 34;10,16,23 give 27:14 Glenn 18:16 19;1,3,8 20:8 20;20 38:18,21 go 4:22 17:13 31:21 goal 34:16 going 22:5 26;8,12 27:10 27:13 29:25 31:16 38:3 40:16 good 4;8,9 26:5,7 gotten 21:8 Graduated 4;23 guess 25:15 32;18 guy 9:7 11 H3:9 46:1 hand 22;11 44:12 handled 6:2 35:20 handling 35;11 happen 34;22,23 happened 42:1 happens 35:10 happy 28;18 39:25 Submitted into the public KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, record in connection with 305-371-7692 items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk LLC Page 4 9 hard 40:10 head 14:2 hearing 25:19 help 20:10 Henkeys 35;23 36;4,5 Henry 2:12 45:6 Hodges 1:9 2:17 45:9 46:5 Hogan 2:8 hold 5:4 Home 4:17 hope 34:16,23 hours 45:15 Hunnefeld 2:12 26:8,12,24 27;3,8,13,17,22 28;2,13 29:4,12,25 42:6 45:6 hurricane 14:12 idea 15:14,20,24 17:4 39:13 Identification 18;13 20:16 25111 imagine 19:8 22:21 impact 31:23 32:20 37;17 38:23 40:2 impacts 38;4 improvements 7:25 improving 8:1 include28:5 41:9 including 36:9 inclusive 43:14 indicating 23:23 individuals 38:25 39:5 Inez3]:11,12 38:13 39:5 39:25 inform 45;12 information 26:10 27;1,6 27;15,23 28;6,16 30:3 33;16 initially 20:7 initiate 37;23 initiated 37:22 39;16 initiating 41:20 input 29:2,4,7,10,22,23,23 30:25 instance 14:11 19;7,11 Instruct 27:11,14 28:7 29;14 30:9 instructed 12;15,19 28;13 intended 13:18 intent 14:19,24 15:1 16:15 interested 43:19 interests 17:25 interpret 8:5 interpretation 14:4,19 interpreted 15:3 Introduce 20:18 involved 8:17 16:12 involvement 7:12,19 8:19 34:8,10 Involves 6:9 involving 14:8,9 17:2 Issue 11:18 22:3 issues 35;21 37:6 item 39:11 Jackson 9:13 JD4:24 Joel 35:10,16 JUDICIAL 1:1 JURISDICTION 1:2 kind 40:10 know 7;6 8;4,8 11:4,5,7 12;23 14;21 17:4 18:4 18:19 19:10 21:14 24:4 24:10 25:7 26:17 32;17 33:15 40:10,17 41:13 knowledge 16:12 ICresse 45:1 L43:22 44;16 45:23 labor 6:7 land 6:8 language 15:3 16:9 Large 42:18 43:6 lawsuit 28:1 lead 26;25 learned 39:9,14 LED 9:14 left 35;10,16,21 lega117:7 35:3 legally 19:18 27:8 33:6 letter 19;14 20:21 22:14 22;15,17,18,23 23:4 33:24 34;4 36:15 37:3 40:20 41:17 45:12 liability 1;5 Licko 2;7 7:23 8;5 15:17 15:25 16;3 17:19 18:2 37:5,14 38:15 39:6 40:5 41:13,14 42:5 limited 1:5 Lisa 43;5 44:7 list 40;13 listed 41:17 listen 38:1 litigation 5:15,22,24 6:1,2 6:9,10,12 9;14 17;18 litigators 6:2 little 34:20 LLC 1;5 45:1 LLM 4:25 LLP 2:3,8 located 14:22 15:18 locations 21:7,8,18 22:2 23:20 34:15 long 5:7,17 11:3,6 30:12 longer 33:22 looked 11:19 Looks 10:5 lot 9:5 Lourdes 9:18 10:6,15 Lovells 2:8 M maker 10:10,11 Manager 23:15 mandatory 16:18 map 9:15 March 5:19 44:17 mark 18:8 20:12 marked 9;22 18:12,15 20:14 22:11 25;10,12 39;10 Marrero 31:11,13 32:7 38:13 39:5,9,15,19,22 Mary 33:14,16 masterpiece 7:22 MATAIS 2;3 mathematics 4:24 Matins 45:18,25 matter 10;21 45:20 matters 36:20 Maxwel135:10,16,21 May's 33;14 mean 17:13 24:19 29:4 meaning 36:9 means 17;14 meant 14:6,9,16 29:18 Media 1:5 18;17 19:4,6,15 20:4,7 45:9 46:5 mediation 13:2,12,25 16:8 16:18,21,23 17:10,15,15 meet41:4 meeting 22:23,25 23:12,13 36:14 37:2 40:22,25 41:6,8 meetings 36;19 mentioned 39:5 Mlami 1:20 2:5,10,13,14 3;14 4;14,18,23,25 5:3,5 5:8,11 6;23 7:1,4,7,21 9:2,3,19,21 11:7 12:3,17 12:20 14:19 16:3 17:20 17:23 25;10,14 29;24 33;18,19 35:11,20 36:2 45:2,6,8,15 MIAMI-DADE 44:5 minimal 7:25 8;1 minute 37:9 modification 8:9,14,17 9:9 modify 32:22 moment 12:10 Monday 45:16 month 31:5 months 5:9 9:6 morning 4:8,9 move 30;14 N N3:1,9 name 4:10 9:7,8 46:24 necessarily 10:22 need 18;23 needed 35:12 39:23 negotiating 8;21 negotiations 7:13 8;23 never 11:19 12:24 41:14 new 33:1 nine 12:25 nitty-gritty 31:21 Northeast 4:18 Notary 42;17 44;2,7 notes 37:9 43;15 number 9;11 numbered 43:13 0 OATH 44:2 object 24:20 26;8,12 27:13 29:25 objection 28;3 30:11 objective 33;8 obtain 33:20 obvious 30:10 occurred 22:24 30:7 36:15 October 3:11,12 18:10,11 18:16 20:14,20,25 22:16 22:24 23:13 25;2 36:16 36:22 37:2 office 2:13 6:3 45:6,14,14 45:15 official 44;12 Okay 4:8 5;2,13 13:9 18:2120:23 25:21 31:10 34:25 38:1 40:18 opinion 37:15,18 ordinance 3:13 10:24 11:2 11:4,8,12,18 25:9,13,15 28;21 30:18,21,23 32:10 32:13,15,19 33;11,13 38:3,10 39:2,10,14,17 original 45:17 origins 25:21 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 Page 50 Orlando 8:24 outdoor 1:9 10:20 12;3 Outlook 1:5 18:17 19:4,6 19:10,15 20:4,7,21 21;10 21;19,19,23,23 22:1 23:18 24:4,6,10,12,12 45:9 46:5 Oatlook's 23:4,7 24:14 outside 11:17 16:5 page 3:10 12:5,25 22;22 pages 43:13 Page/Line 46:6 paper 26:3 paragraph 12:6,9 14:2 22:23 participate 33;8 particular 19:7,11 parties 14;14 16:7,15 17;1 17;1643:17,18 party 17:9,14 pen 25:23 26:3 penalties 46;21 pending 21:9,13,25 24;2 27;25 people 9:5 10;2 17:24 29:24 32:18 perjury 46;21 permits 19:16 permitted 19:14,15 person 8:4,6 10:15 14;18 29:3,6 personally 44:9 phone 41:9,12 pick 40:11 Pieter 6:15 8:24 Plaintiff 1;7 2:2 4;4 43;9 Plaintiff's 3;10 9:23 11;25 18:9,12,15 20:13,15 25;10 plans 40;7 play 21:11 playing 33:2,7 please 4;10,12,17 15;8 45:14 point27:9 30:5 police 11:21 13:11,16,20 13;22 14:8 17:2 portion 15:9 portions 10:24,25 11:1 position 5:4 9:18 12:13 25:3 35;6,9 41:21 possible 33:6 power 11;22 13:11,16,20 13:22 24:14 powers 14:8 17:3 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk preceded 15:4 present 2:16 22:25 36:9,9 36:24 40:23,23,24 prior 45:17 Pritchett 1:9 34:6 45:9 46:5 privilege 28:12 29:8,18 30:11 34:10 privileged 26:10,14,21 27:1,5,15 28:5,16 30:2,8 procedure 34:24,25 proceed 22:7 proceedings 37:11 42:8 process 10;9 23:18 39;2 product 17:24 progression 5:10 project 35:13,15 prompt 45:19 proposal 25;17,18,22 31:13 proposed 25:15 28;21 30:17,21,23 32:10,13,15 33:11,13 38:10 39:9,14 39:17 provided 19:14 31;6 provision 13:1,5 prudent 40:15 Public 42:17 44;7 purpose 32:19 put26:3 31:7 putting 30:24 p.m 45:16 question 12:7 15:5,6,7 18:23 20;1 24:6,7,9 26:9 26:13,23,23,25 27;11 28;8 29:13,19 30:1 33;17 38:7 questioning 21:18 questions 12:1 28:12 42:4 42:5 quick 37:10 R R46:1,1 Rabatie 43:5,22 44;7,16 45:23 reaching 14;3 read 13:5 15:7 16;17 18;20,21 31:15 39;11 42;6 45:15 46:21 reading 17;8 18:14 20;17 43;11 45:13,17 rea137:9 really 9:16 reason 40;4,6 46;6 reasonable 32:18 recal16:19,20 7;1,4 9:9,17 11:10,16,17 21:17 22:21 23;6,9,17,23 25;5,6 35;17 36:17,18 40;21 receive 29:22,23 Recess 37:11 recolleetlon 20:10 record 9;2 15:10 18;15 20;18 43:14 46;3 recruited 35:23 refer 18;23 referenced 12;8 37:3 40:20 referring 34:1 reflected 21:1 refresh 20;10 refused 24:17,18,20,20,21 refusing 28:11 regard 40;19 regarding 7;8 10;7 13:11 13;24 15:23 19:4 21:6 23:4,6 24;24 30;17,21,23 31:13 32:10,13 36:19 37:5 38:10 39:17 41;1 41:16 related 43:18 relates 37:20 relationship 31;24 relocation 12:5,8,12,16,20 remember 6;23 9:8,16 20;9 22:10 23;12,16 24:3 36;25 41;6,23,25 42:2 renew 19:24,24,25 20:3,5 renewed 21:20,22 Rep 2:17 replacement 12:4 report 43;8 Reporter 15:10 43:1,6,23 44:2,16 45:23 representative 36:20,21 41;15 representatives 36;11 38:25 representing 9;4 represents 38;16 40;11 request 16;8 17;10 requested 15;9 21;20 requesting 22:1 requirements 16;18 requires 30:2 requiring 16:23 research 11:13 resolution 13;1 resolve 17:9 resolved 17:3 respects 38:13 respond 20:8 response 22:8 25:5 27:25 responsibilities 5:21 6:5 responsible 6;6,7 rest 18:24 result 21;9 resulted 26:20 retained 17:20 review 13:7 16;6 23:25 34:17 37;9 reviewed 34;14 41;19 reviewing 16:15 Rex 2:17 remgcarteroutdoormiami 10;1 re -read 15:10 right 6;11 8:2 11;14,17,22 17:17,23 19;2 2024 21:12 role 34:13 Roman 22:16 23:16 33;25 34:4 36:15 40:24 Roman's 40:20 41:17 S 2;8 46:1 safety 14:S 17:3 San 22:16 23:16 33:25 34;4 36:14 40;20,24 41;17 Santiago 23;14 sat 18;5 saw 22:19 31;8,14 says 10;1 13:14 17;1,5,8 20:20 41:24 schedule 45:14 sea144:12 second 13:7 see 10:2 17:11 34;6 40;17 seen 16:22,22 22:18 send 20:24 21:5 31;18 sending 19:3 sense 35:2 sent 10:6 39:15 September 18:18 19:5 34;5 36:8,23 set 25:18 settlement 6:18,21,22,25 7:3,6,13,20 8:9 11:24 12:2 13:3 19:13 32:1,16 32;20,22 34:20 37:18 38:5,23 40;2 Shakespeare 8:2 Shores 4:18 shots 39:21 show 9;22 25:12 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 1 1 side 8:7,20,22 9:1 18:2,4 22:1 sign 10:23,24 14;11 45:15 signature 45:13 signed 21:8,13 signing 43;11 45:17 signs 12:5 similar 38:22 Sincerely 45:21 sir 4:8 8:8 13;10 15:21 18:8,14 20:17,24 22:11 22:20 25:12 27;12 29:2 34:3 40:18 42:3 sit 11;10,16 41:5 42:2 site33:14,16 sitting 11;13 17:25 37;1 six 5:9 10;7 12;5 Slazyk 9:25 10;6 Slazyk's 9:18 Smith 18:9,16 19:1,3,8 20:8,20,25 21:5 22:9 38:18,20,21 39;6,14,20 39:24 somebody 10:13 29:10 40:14 sorry 9:8 26:11 Soul 9:13 South 1:5 33:4 Southwest 4:13 spek38:24 40:25 speaking 40:21 specific 30;5 33:7 speculating 16:14 speculation 16:11 spoke 38:18 39:18 40:4 staff 23:25 standards 12:8,13,16,20 start 4:22 12:4 33;10 starts 34:4 state 4:10 42:18 43:3,6 44:4,8 statements 23:3 status 24:25 stenographic 43:15 stenographically 43:8 Street4:18 45:1,15 structure 14;10,12 staff 21:3 subcribed 42:15 subject 13;12,24 18:17 40;5 46:22 subjects 9:12 submittal 36;24 Submittals 34:5 submitted 34:11 36:8 substance 46:22 suggest 17:6 36:15 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Suite 1:19 2:4,9 4:13 supervising 6:1 sure 13:6,17 18;5,25 20:9 20:11 21:2,4 23:1 34:19 swallow 14:17 sworn 4:4 42:15 43;11 44:10 synonymous 21:15 S.W 2:13 45:7 T3:9 46;1,1 Tab 9:24 11:25 22:13 34:2 40:20 table 8;20,22 9:1 17:25 18:4 41:5 42:2 take 13:7 14;14,15 17:23 33:24 37:8 39;6 taken 45:12 takes 34:18 talk 37;24 talking 39:1 tangentially 37;20 tell 5;10,20 11:15,20 23:9 28;19 29:22 31:4,10,12 32:3 38:19 telling 30:13 testified 4:5 Tew 2:3 Thank45:19 thing 6:7 26;6,7 40:15 things 40;13 think 5:19 13:19,20 14:4,7 14:16,25,25 15:6,14,17 16:20 26:9,13,22,24 32;17 34:14 37;19 38:4 38:22 39:15,21 40:24 thought 21:13 26:5 31:23 three 7;10 time 11;11 12:19 16:4,5 33:22 35:12 36:7 39:7,8 41;7 42:1 today 11:10 36;9 37:1 41:5 42:2 told 27:4 Toledo 8:24 tort 6;11 transcript 45:12,15,18 46;4 traveling 19:12 true 46:21 Tuesday 1:22 Tulane 5:1 turn 9:24 11:24 12:25 22:13 turning 14:1 twenty 5:9 two 17:24 28;12 33:12 36:1 typically 15:2 11 ultimately 25:7 Um -hum 28:24 38:14 understand 10:9 38:15 understanding 14:23 16:2 16:7 20:4 39:8 University 4:23,25 unreasonable 14:4 unsafe 14:9 use 6:8 21:16 uses 16:25 V Veronica 35:23 36;3 voluntary 14:15 vs 1;8 45;9 46;5 w W45:1,14 waived 42:7 43:12 waiver 17:17 want 12:1 17:7 19:25 34:17 35:3 41:8 wanted 19:8,24 20:3 23:18 25:2 40:1 Warren 1:17 3:4 4:2,11 12:24 25:23 27;12 35:13 35:14,19 42;11 43:8 44:8 45:5 way 31:25 33:13 week 31:2,3 weeks 33:12 we'll30:14 40:17 we're 34:19 we've 22:11 25:12 wished 20;5 withdraw 24:14,16,21 withdrawal 22:6 23:4,7 24:8 withdrew 24:1,5,7,10 witness 3:3 4:3 27:14,20 27:24 28:9,17 37:12 43:9,10,12 44:12 46:24 word 16;19,23,25 17;11 words 14:7 16:8 21;14,16 word-for-word 7;24 work 4:15 worked 18:5 working 12:15 WRITE 46:3 written 34:25 wrong 13:20,21 Page 51 X X3:1,9,9 Y Yeah 8;25 year 8:16 35;15 years 5;9,11 35:18 yesterday 6:15,17 22:12 22:15,19,20 37:14 yesterday's 9:23 z zoning 9:20 10:11,14,16 10;21,24 11;2,3,8,11,18 11:21 13:15,18,19,20,22 13;23 18:18 1 1 22:12 34:1 40:21 43:13 10 3:12 5:11 20:13,15 21:1 37;8 10th 20;25 10-03089 1:3 10ni09 20;21 10:25 1:22 11 1:22 3;13 25:10,13 39:10 45:12 11:30 1;22 1111 2:9 13th 25:20 37:16 38:4 14 45:4 14th 18:18 19:5 43:20 44:13 1441 1:19 2:4 1500 1:19 2:4 183:11 1900 2:9 1980 4:23 1983 4;25 1986 5:1 2 2 3:11 9;23 12:1 2nd 2:13 4;13 18:10,11,16 45:7 20 3:12 2008 5:19 2009 3;11,12 18:10,11,17 20;14,20,25 22:16,24 34:5 36:8,23 37:3 2010 1;22 42:16 43:20 44:13 45;4,13,17 2014 44:17 23 44;17 24 45;17 25 3:14 34:5 36;8 25th 36;23 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7692 2 7 4:18 3 30 1:3 305-371-7692 45:14 331304:14 45:2,15 33131 2:5,10 33132 2:14 45:8 33138 4:19 4 4 3:5 4:00 45:16 42 43:13 444 2:13 4:13 45;7 6 6th 22:24 23:13 66 45:1,14 7 7 3:12 20:14 7t1120:20 22:16 25:2 36:16 36:22 37:3 45:2,15 9 93:11 18:9,10,12,15 9th 2:14 45:7 9:00 45:16 945 4:13 96th 4:18 969315 44:16 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Page 52 KRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 305-371-7 692 TO REORDER CA LI, 954-846•9 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk City of Miami Legislation Resolution City Hall 350D Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com File Number: 09-01061 Final Action Date: A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING ITS INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PILOT PROGRAM ALLOWING 1,000 FOOT SPACING OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE CITY'S INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PILOT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Section 10.4.5 of the Miami Zoning Ordinance prohibits new freestanding "Outdoor advertising signs" as defined therein, except for Outdoor advertising signs permitted pursuant to a Settlement Agreement that results in a net reduction in the number of Outdoor advertising signs located in the City of Miami (hereinafter a "qualified settlement agreement"); and WHEREAS, by separate Resolutions, the City Commission has authorized the City Manager on behalf of the City of Miami ("City") to enter into qualified settlement agreements with the following sign owners: Carter Pritchett Hodges, Inc, d/b/a Carter Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Carter), Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., d/b/a Clear Channel Outdoor ("Clear Channel"), and CBS Outdoor, Inc. (hereinafter "CBS"); and WHEREAS, at the time the qualified settlement agreements were approved by the City Commission, Section 479.07(9)(a), F.S. (200B), required new Outdoor advertising signs to be located at least one thousand five hundred feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of an interstate highway (hereinafter "1,500 foot spacing"); and WHEREAS, by House Bill 1021, the Florida Legislature recently amended s. 479.07(9)(c), F.S., in the 2009 Legislative Session, to include the City within a pilot program permitting new Outdoor advertising signs on an interstate highway to be located within one thousand feet from any other permitted sign on the same side of the interstate highway (hereinafter "1,000 foot spacing"), under certain enumerated conditions, to wit: (c) Notwithstanding subparagraph (a)(1), there is established a pilot program in Orange, Hillsborough, and Osceola Counties, and within the boundaries of the City of Miami, under which the distance between permitted signs on the same side of an interstate highway may be reduced to 1,000 feet if all other requirements of this chapter are met and if: 1. The local government has adopted a plan, program, resolution, ordinance, or other policy encouraging the voluntary removal of signs in a downtown, historic, redevelopment, infill, or other designated area which also provides for a new or replacement sign to be erected on an interstate highway within that jurisdiction if a sign in the designated area is removed; City of Miami Page 1 of 3 Printed On: 9/16/7009 File Number., 09-01061 2. The sign owner and the local government mutually agree hothe terms of the removal and replacement; and 3. The local government notifies the department of its intention to allow such removal and replacement as agreed upon pursuant to subparagraph 2. � and; | WHEREAS, the City Commission deems dinthe best interest of the City to participate in the pi|ot� program authorized bys. 479.07(9)(d. F.O. (200E). which would permit 1.000 foot spacing for Outdoor = advertising signs under the guidelines provided in this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BYTHE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MA\M|, Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Gention2. Pursuant to o. 479.07()bA(2). F.S. CZOOQ\, the City hereby adopts a pilot program, encouraging the voluntary removal ofsigns within the boundaries ofthe City, which provides, subject hothe conditions m1ahod ba|uw, for o new orreplacement sign to be enacted on on interstate highway, with 1.000 foot spacing, if other Outdoor advertising signs within the boundaries of the City are namoveo. Section 3. Any sign owner seeking permission to erect an Outdoor advertising sign with 1.000 foot spacing under this pilot program shall meet the following conditions: (a) The sign owner must have a qualified settlement agreement with the City; 0d Any application fora new sign under the pilot program must be in accordance with all terms and conditions of the qualified settlement ogn»ement, un|ano otherwise specified in these conditions; (c) In no event may on application for a new sign under the pilot program exceed the limitation on the number of signs otherwise permitted under the qualified settlement (d)The duration ofthe pilot program will not exceed the term ofthe qualified settlement Aa> No LED Sign- may be erected with 1.00D foot spacing unless allowed by on onnmndrnerd to the sign owner's qualified settlement agreement pursuant to applicable provisions ofthe Miami Zoning Ordinance; Ul Sign owners must specify in advance of applying for a 1.000 foot spacing application the locations of the signs proposed to be removed or already removed; (o) Sign owners may not be delinquent on any financial obligation to the City as per their qualified settlement agreement, Page 2 of 3 Printed On: 9116,12009 record in connectio Re Number: 09-01061 (h) All Outdoor advertising signs erected with 1.O0Ofoot spacing shall bedesigned with aluminum plating (example attached) or be subject to design review per Managers designee or designees. Section 4. Should s. 479.07(9)(c). F8. (2009) be repealed by the Florida Legislature, this pilot program shall automatically expire, Section 5. The City Manager is authorized Ul to notify the Florida Department of Transportation of the City's intention to mUmw nannova| of and nep|eoennnnt of Outdoor advertising signs under 1.DO0foot spacing msprovided inthis Resolution, Section 6. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.[21 APPROVED AGT3FORM AND CORRECTNESS: JUL|EO.BRU ~�� CITY ATTORNEY Footnotes: 11)The herein authorization ksfurther subject tocompliance with all requirements that may bn imposed by the City Attorney, including but not limited to those prescribed by applicable City Charter and Code provisions, (2) If the Mayor does not sign this Reoo|wUon, it shall become effective at the end of ten calendar days from the dote it was passed and adopted. /f the Mayor vetoes this Raoo|u1(on, it shall become effective immediately upon override ofthe veto bythe City Commission. Submitted '—'--' -- intm the pub�c | record Unconnection with items PZ.9mn 06'23'11 Priscilla A.Thompson I City Clerk Cry of Affami Page 3 of 3 Printed On: 911612009 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2009 Chair Sanchez: So substitution has been put on the record. We have a motion and a second.,_ _ _ _ _ Ms. Thompson: Modified. Chair Sanchez: Modified. All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say "nay." Motion carries. ; c RE.9 09-01053 RESOLUTION - ° E • f2 District 2- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION OPPOSING Commissioner FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT 'S SITE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION Marc David Sarnoff TO PLACE OVERHEAD HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES ON US HIGHWAY 1 TO CONNECT THE TURKEY POINT POWER PLANT TO THE DOWNTOWN SUBSTATION WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI; URGING THE REVIEW OF ALTERNATE CORRIDORS AND UNDERGROUND LINES WITHIN THE CITY OF MIAMI INSTEAD. 09-01053 Legislation 10-8-09.pdf c Y 0 r;i vl a 20) 0 N E u c0 o if- .c c Q . c C o •o -0 V al Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes; Ayes; 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item RE.9 was deferred to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for October 8, 2009. RE.10 09-01062 RESOLUTION District 2- A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION CODESIGNATING Commissioner SOUTHEAST 25TH ROAD FROM BRICKELL AVENUE TO BISCAYNE BAY, Mare David Sarnoff MIAMI, FLORIDA, AS "TORY JACOBS BOULEVARD;" FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INSTRUCT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE HEREIN DESIGNATED OFFICES, 09-01062 Legislation10-8-09.pdf 09-01062 Biography 10-8-09.pdf 09-01062 Application 9-24-09.pdf Motion by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, that this matter be DEFERRED PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones Note for the Record: Item RE.10 was deferred to the Commission meeting currently scheduled for October 8, 2009. RE.11 09-01061 RESOLUTION City Manager's A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSING ITS Office INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN A PILOT PROGRAM ALLOWING 1,000 FOOT SPACING OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGNS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI ("CITY"), SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE CITY'S City of -Miami Page 87 Primed on 10/20/2009 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2009 INTENTION TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PILOT PROGRAM. 09-01061 Legislation.pdf 09-01061 Summary Form.pdf 09-01061 Message Displays.pdf Motion by Commissioner Regalado, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. Votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Sarnoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-09-0451 A motion was made by Commissioner Sarnoff, seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez, and was passed unanimously, to open a public hearing for RE.11. Chair Sanchez: So let's take up RE. 11 and then we'll go and do a couple of the PZ (Planning & Zoning) items, and then when we get to maybe 5:30, we'!! go ahead and have the public hearing for the budget. All right. Go ahead, RE.11. Pieter Bockweg (Assistant to Senior Director, Building, Planning & Zoning): RE. 11. Pieter Bockweg, project manager. RE.11 is a resolution of the City of Miami expressing its intent to partake in the thousand foot spacing that was passed in House Bill 1021 -- State Bill 1021. Chair Sanchez: Okay, RE.11. It's a resolution. Is there a motion? Commissioner Regalado: Move it. Chair Sanchez: There's a motion by Commissioner Regalado. Is there a second? Commissioner Gonzalez: 1'!! second it. Chair Sanchez: Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. All right, the item is under discussion. Anyone wants to address this item under discussion? Commissioner Sarnoff 1-- Chair Sanchez: So it's a resolution; no public hearing. Commissioner Sarnoff Well, I'd like --1 could support this is there were some stipulations put into this. Chair Sanchez: All right, then let's get a motion and a second, and get three votes to allow him to talk. Commissioner Sarnoff I move to allow CBS and Carter to speak. Chair Sanchez: All right. Is there a second? Commissioner Gonzalez: Second. Chair Sanchez: All right, there's a second. Commissioner Gonzalez: Go ahead. Chair Sanchez: All in favor, say "aye." City of Miami Page 88 Printed on 10/20/1009 Li City Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2009 The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Sir, you're recognized for the record. Five -thirty we're starling the budget hearing, five -thirty sharp. Herminio San Roman: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commission, and staff My name is Herminio San Roman, with offices at 500 South Dixie Highway. I represent Carter Outdoor, and I just wanted to say that we support this proposed ordinance the way it's written: that we have agreed that we will not build any new billboards east of Federal Highway, and that this will also give us the opportunity to look for alternative sites to relocate two billboards presently existing, one which is at 7th Street and approximately Southwest 2nd Avenue,- another one located at Northwest 36th Street and 22nd Avenue. And we're processing one -- we hcrve not obtained permits -- but we're processing one at 409 Northeast 36 Street that we also plan to abandon if this ordinance -- if this resolution's approved as proposed, and we'll be able to find the alternate sites. Thank you. Commissioner Sarnoff You're tendering this as a voluntary covenant? Mr, San Roman: Yes, sir. Ines Marrero-Prieguez: Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Ines Marrero, with offices at 701 Brickell Avenue, on behalf of CBS Outdoor to address the questions of the Commissioner. Commissioner Sarnoff Move to allow -- well, 1 think you were allowed. CBS was allowed. Chair Sanchez: Open it up to the public. Anyone can come and address the Commission now based on -- so you're recognized for the record -- Commissioner Sarnoff Go ahead, Chair Sanchez: -- but you're here only for questions, right? Ms. Marrero-Prieguez: Yes, just for questions. Chair Sanchez: All right. Does anybody have any questions? All right, hearing no questions, 1 guess we could -- Joe Little: I think -- Chair Sanchez: Sir, you need to stale your name and addressfor the record. LEI N m m Fir 1.0 n CL 0 ° —* Mr. Little: My name is Joe Little, 6904 Cypress Park Drive, Tampa, Florida. For the record, CBS also voluntarily agrees that there'll be no new billboard sites east of Federal Highway. -co ma co n 3 1JJ = ..... Chair Sanchez: Okay. r_Di la 11' % 2 0 = n Commissioner Sarnoff: Thank you, sir. = .-r = Chair Sanchez: All right. Commissioner Sarnoff It's a voluntary covenant, right? Ms, Marrero-Prieguez: Yes. Ciry of Miami Page 89 Printed on 10/20/2009 City Commission Meeting Minutes September 24, 2009 m m c 3 :8, • — ▪ 7 m W n O 0 • 7? 2 Mr. Little: Yes, sir. That was a voluntary covenant, Commissioner Sarnoff Thank you. Chair Sanchez: All right, it's a voluntary covenant proffered by both, Okay. Any further discussion on the item? If not, we are on RE.11, so there was a motion and a second. No further discussion. It's a resolution. All infavor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Sanchez: Anyone in opposition, having the same right, say ''nay." Motion carries. It's been approved, 5-0, REM. "[Later..1" [Later...] Mr. Bockweg: Mr. Chair, I forgot to mention that the last billboard item, RE I I, we would like that also to be effective October 5 the resolution to be effective on October 5. Chair Sanchez: I think you put that on the record as the amendment. Priscilla A. Thompson (City Clerk): Does that then mean you have a modified resolution? Mr. Bockweg: It would be effective October 5. Ms. Thompson: Is -- Mr. Bockweg: That's correct. Ms. Thompson: Is that a change to what was presented? Mr. Bockweg: It's different thczn what was -- yes. Ms. Thompson: Okay. Then that is modifying the resolution. Chair Sanchez: Okay. For the record, the resolution has been modified. RE.12 09-01067 RESOLUTION District 3- Chair A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY Joe Sanchez MANAGER TO INSTITUTE A "USE IT OR LOSE IT" POLICY FOR ALL UNCLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES PRECLUDING THE ACCRUAL OF CERTAIN BENEFITS, SPECIFICALLY COMPENSATORY TIME, SICK TIME, VACATION TIME, AND OTHER RELATED BENEFITS, AND TO PROVIDE THE CITY COMMISSION A REPORT OF SAID ACTION BEFORE ITS IMPLEMENTATION. 09-01067-Legislation-SUB.pdf Motion by Chair Sanchez, seconded by Vice Chair Spence -Jones, that this matter be ADOPTED WITH MODIFICATIONS PASSED by the following vote. votes: Ayes: 5 - Commissioner Gonzalez, Samoff, Sanchez, Regalado and Spence -Jones R-09-0433 Ciry of Miami Page 90 Printed on 10/20/2009 El 1,9 E o 0 0 TO REORDER CALL 954 846-9399 a a. a LIJ -a cu Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk :,- .:,; .�, Miami Zoning Details for Folio: 0131240031440 71 j I .i+e.r ....ya�o�v+ SM l . . I[.... I 1, L j - - 1 tsci iTi e:7tItittgest 2:MO t4svat Former Zone C•1 Description Restricted Commercial Enactment SD Description Enactment Owner 01312J0G314-0 Physical Address P 0 BOX 3077 DELRAY BEACH FL 33.482 Billing Address CONTEMPORARY CONTRACTORS FLA INC (a) Contemporary Contractors Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk .... •„,', ,..3 Miami Zoning Details for Folio: 0131250350360 . twit* 041.444 . 4, I C.I .,..._ ....._ ___ . .,,,,-.tr, ',Atli1 , .. .., ...... _ , 1 C-1 • • 4 . I " f • ' , . , . , . . iI.•-• .....L...„ : i . 4 . t f . 4 1 I 1 i •L 1 • • , 0 '22TO esswt tl=cset .7314:4 Former Zone Description Inclusvial Enactment SD Description Enactment Owner 0134250350260 Physical Address 6E4 NW 24 ST MIAMI FL 3312742E1 (N GT Used Trucks Billing Address GT USED TRUCKS REALTY CORP Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ` •t' f1F.f�/ ", Miami Zoning Details for Folio: 0102050001131 : ..1e...1... • ."t, _ y --- /, Special Overlay District 1 — ;°- ______ -"_ I ; C-1 * 4 r i \ ' ria SD-7 { 11 I . C-1 1 I F 1,, / �1 ,• I l.t Former Zone Description Enactment c-1 Restncted Commercial SD SD-25 Description SW 3th St.Soecial Overlay Distnct Enactment Owner 0102050001131 Physical Address 2323 CORAL 'NAY 0308 MIAMI FL 33145 Billing Address 3RICKEL VILLAGE LAND COMP (c) Brickell Village Land Company Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Miami Zoning Details for Folio: 0141370360020 go 0 \ \ . CA \ \ ,, . \, . _I.,- \ \ \ - Former Zone Description Enactment c-1 Restricted Commercial $D Description Enactment Owner Physical Address Billing Address 0141370360020 2000 AVENUE OF STARS 11 FL LOS ANGELES CA 90067 CANPARTNERS RLTY HOLD CO & ETAL (d) CanPartners Realty Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk 1 1 , Miami Zoning Details for Folio: 0131250250280 ...;;,.,..4 2,1F411.1 • :: LJii.........,-- ":I r----1C-1 t 4....___! , . , . - , 1 t . — 1 I t . . I I ! t . ' . — — .t Malt — — i r • i 1 t -,1-'err • i I ----- rrTTf Former Zone Description Inaustrral Enactment Description Enactment Owner 013 1250 25C22.0 Physical Address 21501 N'iv 3 AVE MIAMI FL 331274114 Billing Address THE LITTLE OLD REAL ESTATE CO (e) The Little Old Real Estate Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk • ----, Miami Zoning Details for Folio: 0131130250041 .,.., 1... , , • , ****** am. , • , ii • „ - , . ... . _ i . ... . .i. . --...-,.- ... q 1 • .; •, , v. , .,. -c• t • raitOnr. 13 u'ccsat Former Zone C•1 Description ResMcCea Commercial Enactment SD Description Enactment Owner 012113026,3041 Physical Address 176 NE 46 ST MIAMI FL 33137 Billing Address JIMMY L+NIJA (f) Tanaka 1 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Tf r TO REORDER CALL 954-946-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk ,SETTLEMENT A GREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is made and entered into as o 2008, by and between the City of Miami (the "City"), a Florida municipality, and CBS Outdoor, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (successor -by -merger to National Advertising Company, a Delaware corporation, dlb/a Viacom, Infinity, National and CBS and Infinity Outdoor of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Viacom, Infinity and CBS) (collectively referred to as "CBS"). RECTIALS A. The City has adopted ordinances that, among other things, regulate the size, height, appearance, lighting, and landscaping requirements for outdoor advertising structures ("Signs"). City ordinances have permitted Signs in certain Zoning Districts and prohibited them in others. Certain Signs which CBS erected in accordance with the City's former zoning ordinances do not conform with the City's current Sign regulations. B. As of April 2001, CBS owned or operated 53 Signs in the City. Since April 2001, disputes have arisen between CBS and the City regarding City ordinances regulating Signs, the applicability of certain City ordinances to Signs owned by CBS, and the effect of State laws on City ordinances and on the enforcement of such ordinances. These disputes have resulted in enforc--ment actions and litigation now pending. C. The City acknowledges that CBS has removed a number iens that were in CBS's inventory as of April, 2001. D. The City and CBS desire to resolve all disputes and the pending 1itigaon between them in this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"): • Page 1 of 32 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk a. In the event it becomes necessary for CBS to replace any C-2 Sign listed on Exhibit D, the City will authorize CBS to replace such C-2 Sign on the same site or to relocate such Sign within an allowed geographical location in the same Zoning District according to relocation standards which may be adopted by the City consistent with this Azreement. This right to maintain, replace, and relocate C-2 Signs listed on Exhibit D shall expire and terminate on the Termination Date. During the term of this Agreement, any City Sip law promulgated prior to the Termination Date, shall not be applied retroactively to CBS. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to permit the relocation, reconstruction, or installation of a Sign without the consent of the owner of the real property where it will be located. CBS and the City acknowledge that CBS bears the sole risk of finding, securing and maintaining the sites for its Signs, includirig any replacement Sims, and that its failure to find and secure suitable sites or to take advantage of the replacement right granted herein shall not give rise to any claim for compensation or other relief from the City, and CBS expressly waives any such claim. CBS's obligation to remove its Sims as provided herein is not dependent in any way on its ability to find or secure sites for replacement Sims. b --CBS owns a.bulletin Sign located at 1200 Bisc-ayne. Boulevard, which has been removed at the City's request. In replacement for said removed Si., CBS is entitled to construct the Siz-es referenced in Exhibit G-1 hereto. CBS shall not be required to pay any permit or settlement fees related to said replacement Sims. This relocated Sign shall not be deemed to be one of the 15 Amended Permit Sips referred to in Paragraph 4 of this Aueernent. With respect to this Sii, and upon receipt of all required City approvals for the relocadon of this Sii, CBS expressly waives any right to receive from the City just cornvensaon or any other relief therefor, whether such claim for just comp FM:2556251:5 nsaon is predicated on Section 70.001, Page 19 of 32 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk TO REORDER CALL 954-846-9399 Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk a-- SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is made and entered 'Iran as of this 8th day ofJuly, 2004, by and between the City of Miami (the "City"), a Florida municipality, and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. ('CCO"), a Delaware corporation, registered in Florida as CC Outdoor, Inc. cl/b/a Clear Channel Outdoor. A. E.E CITA LS The City has adopted ordinances that, among other things, regulate the size, height, appe,arance, lighting, and landscaping requirements for outdoor advertising structures ("Signs"). City ordinances have permitted Signs in certain zoning districts and prohibited them in others. Signs which CCO erected in accordance witb the City's forrner zoning ordinanceido not conform with the City's current Sigo regulations. B. As of April 2001, CCO owned 452 Signs in the City. Since April 2001, disputes have arisen between CCO and the City regarding City ordinances regulating Signs, the applicability of certain City ordinances to Signs owned by CCO, and the effect of State laws on City ordinances and on the enforcement of sucb ordinances. These disputes have resulted in enforcement actions and litigation now pending in the Appellate Division of tbe I Circuit Court in and for Miami -Dade County: Marks Classics Corp., et al. v. Citv of Miami, Appellate Case Nos. 02-284-AP; 02-330-AP; and 02-477-AP. C. The City and CCO desire to resolve all such disputes and the pending litigation berweeo them in this Settlement Agreement ("Agreement"): NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of tbe mutual covenants and undertakings set forth in this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City and CCO hereby agree as follows: 1/1/2004 I 0351 J.I alia.4( 40 'gas imass.t.s.ig.DOCI COMPOSITE EXHIBIT A E 41' . u 7 al sw 1 1 , 7/41/CC4 )0 7) A.N1 - . .... LA.A.Li Lo5964.r.ifi.piaiSoa,140Qq_.. 9. Overbeigbt Signs. TbeStateofFlorida has bui!t and is currently building sound walls along certain federal aid primary highways. These sound walls obstruct or will obstruct visual access to certain lawfully erected Signs in the City. For those Signs to which visual access is or becomes obstructed by State -constructed sound walls, CCO may raise their elevation to such height necessary to restore visual access so long as any such elevation complies with applicable FDOT regulations and provided that the top of the Sign shall under no circumstances exceed 65-feet above the crown of the adjoining highvfay.. 10. Re_placement and Relocation of Signs. a. In the event it becomes necessary for CCO to replace any C-2 Sign Iisted on Exhibit D, tbe City will authorize CCO to replace such C-2 Sign on the same site or to relocate such Sign within an allowed geographical location in the same zoning district according to relocation standards to be adopted by the City consistent with this Agreement. This right to maintain, replace, and relocate C-2 Signs fisted on Exhibit D shall expire and terminate on July 31, 2029. Any City Sign law promulgated prior to this date shall not be applied retroactively to CCO. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to permit the relocation, reconstruction, or installation of a Sign without the consent of the owner of the real property wbere it will be located. CCO and the City acknowledge that CCO bears the sole risk of finding, securing and maintaining the sites for its Signs, including any replacement Signs, and that its failure to find and secure suitable site-s or to take advantage of the replacement right granted herein shall not give rise to any claim for compensation or other relief Crom the City, and CCO expressly waives any such claim. CCO's obligation to remove its Signs as provided herein is not dependent in any way on its ability to find or secure sites for replacement signs. -13- Submitted into the public record in connection with items PZ.9 on 06-23-11 Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk