LTC 055-2009 Noise Report: July - September, 2008 - Quarter 3; October - December, 2008 - Quarter 4m MIAMIBEACH __
C7 N
f'J
1 -~ -
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER -'' ~,
f.~
NO. LTC # oss-zoo9 LETTER TO COMM~~S~N:
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission ~ - -- ,?
J
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez. City Manager , ,,-%
l '. o
DATE: February 23, 2009 ~,
SUBJECT: Noise Report : July -September. 2008 -Quarter 3
October -December, 2008 -Quarter 4
This Letter to Commission is intended to provide a report on the implementation of the City's Noise
Ordinance, as amended in July, 2008: and as required pursuant to the administrative guidelines adopted
via resolution on that date.
Data for noise reports is collected by calendar year quarters, and includes information as required by the
Administrative Guidelines as approved on October 7, 2008. As new types of data have been requested,
staff has reviewed noise cases since the adoption of the noise ordinance in March, 2006, to be able to
provide comparables, whenever possible and appropriate. This report includes data from July through
September, 2008 (Q3-08}, and from October to December, 2008 (Q4-08).
The data for Q3-08 was shared and discussed late last year with the "stakeholders" that have met on this
issue for more than two years. Information on Q4-08 was also shared with the stakeholders prior to the
release of this LTC for their input, comments and observations. Whenever possible, their suggestions
were incorporated into the final report, and other recommendations for future reporting are noted.
Additional data was confirmed and reviewed at their request.
BACKGROUND:
On July 16, 2008 the Mayor and Commission approved Administrative Guidelines for the administration
of the city's noise ordinance. The Administrative Guidelines include, among other things: exemptions
under certain circumstances for private users of municipal facilities: clarification on who shall be held
jointly and severally liable for noise violations; how noise cases should be generally documented,
investigated and processed: and requirements for reporting. Subsequent to the adoption of these
guidelines certain concerns were raised and to address those concerns the Administrative Guidelines
were amended on October 7, 2008.
The amendments to the Administrative Guidelines clarify the intent of the responsibility for compliance for
business tax receipt holders who are owners of apartment buildings (owners), ensures opportunity for
owners to address issues with noisy tenants, and provides a mechanism for owners who have
commenced eviction proceedings against noisy tenants. In addition. the amendments clarify the intent
with regards to condo unit owners, their tenants and their management company (if one exists)
Code Compliance officers received training on the Administrative Guidelines and on the amendments to
the Administrative Guidelines. In addition. the Code Compliance Division reviewed all cases and made
all appropriate adjustments based on the amendments to the Administrative Guidelines.
This is the report of the two quarters following the amendment of the ordinance and the adoption of the
Administrative Guidelines by resolution. All of the reporting data required by the Administrative
Page 2 of 8
Noise report-Quaver 3 8 Quaver 4, 2008
Guidelines is presented in table form in Attachment A and Attachment B: and summarized below.
Additional data has also been included to provide further information in some areas.
QUARTER 3/JULY- SEPTEMBER, 2008
It should be noted that the reporting period for the third quarter of 2008 began on July 1, 2008, and
extended through September 20: 2008. However, the Noise Ordinance was adopted on July 16, 2008,
and was implemented on July 26: 2008. As such, the amendments to the ordinance and the
administrative guidelines were only in effect for 66 days of this reporting period. We believe that the
fourth and subsequent quarters will provide a better indication of the potential impact of the noise
ordinance implementation. It should also be noted that noise may have seasonal implications, as the
summer months result in slower commercial business, and the potential for slower seasonal residential
use.
Summary:
A review of the data reflects that noise incidences in the City are following the same quarterly trends as
we have seen since we began collecting information following the approval of the noise ordinance in
March. 2006, with the lowest number of cases opened during the 3~tl quarter of the year (July -
September). Residential noise complaints continue to be the greatest number of complaints received and
cases opened. The percentage of cases closed as non-valid this period is lower than for the same
quarter in the last two years, with the majority of cases closed as non-valid being residential cases.
Complaintlviolations history for Q3-08:
For the reporting period of July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008, the Division opened a total of 632 noise
cases. Complaints were received for 598 of those cases (94.6% of all cases opened), and 34 cases
were opened as a result of officers witnessing a violation while on patrol. The number of cases opened
this quarter mirrors the trend we experienced in the third quarter of the previous two years since the
noise ordinance was first adopted, as reflected in the chart below. This number also represents the
lowest quarter for the fiscal year.
CASES OPENED BV QUARTER
1200 -----~
1072
1000
873
~-
~_ 781
_---_
800 _....
_..
i 739
}
-.- 862 ~
726
w
-
3 y-. 2006
600 ~
6
7
632
~ 2007
.~
465
2008
\~~
400
Q1 Q2 D3 D4
Valid VS. ROR-VaII(1
A total of 159 cases, or 25.2%, were deemed valid, and 473 (74.8%) were closed as "not valid". Non
valid cases are those cases where noise meeting the definition of the noise ordinance is not occurring at
Page 3 of 8
Noise report- Quarter 3 & Quarter 4, 2008
the time of the Code Compliance Officer's arrival. The data is not intended to demonstrate that noise did
not occur, only that noise meeting the standard of the ordinance, and thus a valid violation, was not
occurring and could not be witnessed by the Code Compliance Officer as would be necessary for a
violation to be issued. A breakdown of why cases were closed as non valid is provided in Attachment A.
The percentage of `not valid" cases has ranged from 70.1 % to 82.8% since March 2006. Of the valid
cases in the current reporting period, 74% of the cases resulted in a written warning and 19 were
violations that carry fines. As the discussion has mostly centered on the number of non valid complaints,
the following graph is provided to reflect the trends in this regard.
08
O1 03 07 04
The majority of the non-valid cases are residential cases, representing 352 (74.4%) of all of the cases
closed as non valid in 03-08, and more than half (55.7%) of ALL noise cases opened in the quarter
(more detail on residential/commercial complaints follows in this memo). The following Chart
demonstrates the total number of non-valid cases, further broken down by the percentage of the total
non-valid cases that are residential vs. commercial.
PERCENTAGE OF NON-VALID CASES BROKEN
^L:~,~rmvnl
o F::fcrNy
PERCENTAGE NON-VALID 6Y QUARTER
Page 4 of 8
Noise report- Quarter 3 8 Quarter 4, 2008
Reasons for Non-valid disUOSition
An analysis of the reason why cases were closed as non-valid was conducted. The reason why cases
were closed as not valid were varied. Data was grouped into the following categories: Bad address; Call
cancelled; Duplicate Case; music/noise lowered prior to arrival per the complainant; permitted work; no
access to location (access code); no noise; music/noise did not meet criteria; not a code issue; different
violation issued; re-routed to police. Of the 473 cases closed as not valid: 55.8% of the cases were
closed because the code officer noted that no noise was present when the code officer arrived. In less
than 24% of the non-valid cases: Code Compliance Officers indicated that the noise level did not meet
the noise ordinance criteria. Another 63 cases were closed as non-valid because the complainant
advised us that noise was lowered prior to the code officer's arrival.
Residential vs. Commercial complaints
For purposes of this report, residential complaints are those complaints of noise occurring in a single
family home, condo or apartment. Hotel: bar, restaurant. retail. condo/hotel, and club would be
considered a commercial complaint. The majority of noise complaints continue to be in residential areas.
The total number of residential noise cases opened in this quarter was 448, or 70.9% of all noise cases
opened. Of those residential cases, 352 (78.6%) were deemed "not valid". By comparison, the total
number of commercial noise cases opened this quarter was 184 (29.1% of all cases). Of those
commercial cases, 121 (65.8 %) were deemed ''not valid".
TOTAL CASES OPENED
Residential vs Commercial
OF TOTAL CASES
Residential 448
Commercial 184 70.9%
29.1
TOTAL CASES 632 100%
As we have previously seen, the trend reflects a higher percentage of residential cases closed as non
valid, with almost three out of four of all cases closed as non-valid cases being residential cases
(74.4%), and residential non-valid cases representing more than half (55.7%) of ALL noise cases opened
in the quarter. This higher number of residential non valid cases may be attributed to how residential
noise complaints are received and investigated (time to respond and investigate, etc.). Attachment A
provides a further breakdown of residential and commercial violations by type.
Anonvmous vs. Known-complainant(s)
There were 259 anonymous complaints received in the quarter, and 324 complaints with contact
information provided. The anonymous complaints account for 41 % percent of total cases, but 47.2% of
"not valid' cases. It should be noted that in some instances, while the complainant was anonymous atthe
time of the call, contact was made at the location with a complainant. The review indicates that in 15
cases the dispatcher did not note whether the complaint was anonymous or whether there was an
identified complainant. The balance of the cases (34) was initiated by staff (code or police).
Time/date of violation
The quarter data reflects that an almost equal number of complaints were received for noise occurring
from 7a to 11 p (45.7 % of all complaints), as from 11 p to 7a (46%). Additionally. 41 % of the complaints
(262) were received on Fridays and Saturdays, combined. It was requested bythe stakeholders that time
of day data also be provided broken down by commercial and residential. That information is reflected
below, and indicates a fairly even number of complaints, both residential and commercial, called before
11:00 pm, as after. There were 43 occasions in which time of day was not noted in the report. The data
program has been amended to require an entry for time of call.
Page 5 of 8
Noise report -Quarter 3 & Quarter 4, 2Q08
Not
7a-11 11 -7a Noted Total
Residential 210 204_ 34 448
Commercial 82 93 9 184
292 297 43 632
Appeals
Ten appeals were filed for violations issued during this reporting period. The outcome is reflected in
Attachment A.
QUARTER 4/OCTOBER -DECEMBER, 2008
Quarter four in 2008 experienced the second highest number of noise cases opened since the approval
of the ordinance in March 2006. However, this reporting period also included the beginning of the busiest
period in the City, including Art Basel Miami Beach and New Years Eve. Quarter 4 and Quarter 1
encompass the traditionally busiest periods in the City, and the trend charts for the past two years reflect
that these two quarters have also consistently had the highest number of cases opened.
Summary:
Quarter 4 - 2008 had an increase over Q3-O8 in terms of total number of cases opened and,
subsequently, the percentage of cases closed as non-valid. This quarter included two major event
periods, Art Basel Miami Beach (ABMB) and New Year's Eve. For example, there were 36 noise cases
opened on New Years Eve alone. Over the 92 days of the quarter, noise cases averaged fewer than 11
calls per day. The 80 noise cases opened during the five-day period that encompassed ABMB represent
an average of 16 calls per day. While we are not suggesting that all of the cases were associated with
New Years Eve or ABMB, and although staffing is adjusted in anticipation of increased activity, this
intensity, increased traffic and call volume handled by dispatchers that also handle parking complaints,
may affect the time of response for Code Compliance staff.
Complaint/violations history for Q4-08:
For the reporting period of October 1 2008 to December 31, 2008, the Division opened a total of 1000
noise cases. Complaints were received for 971 of those cases (97.1% of all cases opened), and 29
cases were opened as a result of officers witnessing a violation while on patrol. The following chart
demonstrates the current trends of cases opened, by quarter.
-~2oos
200
zoos
Page 6 of 8
Noise report -Quarter 3 6 Quarter 4, 2008
Valid vs. non-valid
As previously noted, non-valid cases are those cases whereby' noise" meeting the definition of the noise
ordinance is not occurring at the time of a Code Compliance Officer's (or police officer's) arrival. The
data is not intended to demonstrate that noise did not occur, only that noise meeting the standard of the
ordinance. and thus a valid violation, was not occurring and could not be witnessed by the Code
Compliance Officer (or police officer) as would be necessary for a violation to be issued. A total of 181
cases, or 18.1 %, were deemed valid during this quarter, and 819 (81.9%) were closed as 'non-valid".
For the same quarter in 2007. 17.2 % of the cases were deemed valid and 82.8 % were deemed "non-
valid", reflecting only a slight increase in the number of valid cases versus prior year.
Of the 181 valid cases in the current reporting period, 24 or 13.25% resulted in a verbal warning, 122
(67.4%) of the cases resulted in a written warning and 35 (19.33%) were violations that carried fines. A
breakdown of why cases were closed as non-valid in Q4-08 is provided in Attachment B.
While the data can not definitely collaborate that the increase in the number of cases in Quarter 4 is
directly attributable to the increase in activity in the City during the quarter (including activities that
produce more "noise"), in looking at the Quarter 4 trends in the past 3 years, it would appear that there
are similar influences during similar reporting periods. Moving forward, data on "time to arrive' will be
compiled to assist in determining whether the time between the receipt of a complaint and the arrival of a
Code Compliance Officer may affect the percentage of cases closed asnon-valid. Traffic congestion and
multiple calls for various code-related issues may also affect the arrival time, which may determine
whether noise that would constitute a violation is still occurring. Time/date data below provides further
information in this regard. The following chart demonstrates the trends during the reporting quarters
since the Noise Ordinance was approved in March 2006 (no first quarter data is available for 2006, as
the ordinance was not in place for most of the quarter).
Q4 08
Once again, there are a higher numberof residential cases closed as non-valid versus commercial cases
closed as non-valid. It is interesting to note that in spite of a greater total number of cases opened in
Quarter 4 as compared to Quarter 3, the percentage of residential non-valid cases as a percentage of
ALL cases opened in Quarter 4 was comparable to Quarter 3 (Q4-08 = 55.8%; Q3-08 = 55.7%), and still
remains more than half of all cases opened.
PERCENTAGE NON~VALID BY QUARTER
Page 7 of 8
Noise report -Quarter 3 & Quarter 4, 2008
PERCENTAGE OF NON-VALID CASES BROKEN DOWN BV RESIDENTIAL VS COMMERCIAL
mnva~c.w. 483 347 509 657 543 385 872 805 566 473 819
Residential vs. Commercial comolairlts
For purposes of this report, residential complaints are those complaints of noise occurring in a single
family home, condo or apartment. Hotel, bar, restaurant, retail, condo/hotel, and club would be
considered a commercial complaint. The majority of noise complaints continue to be in residential areas.
The total number of noise cases opened in residential areas this quarter was 661, or 66.1 %, of all noise
cases opened. Of those residential cases, 558 or 84.4% were deemed "non-valid'. The total number of
noise cases opened in commercial areas this quarter was 339. Of those commercial cases, 261 or
76.99 (65.8 %) were deemed "non-valid". The highest total number of commercial cases opened was for
hotels (55 of 261); 18 of those cases were deemed valid. The second highest number of commercial
cases opened was for restaurants (48 of 261); 14 of those cases were deemed valid.
TOTAL CASES OPENED
Residential vs Commercial
OF TOTAL CASES
RES 661 66.1%
COM 339 P32°rb
TOTAL CASES 1000 100°,',
Anonymous vs. Known-complainant(s)
There were 506 anonymous complaints. 53 anonymous complaints with contact information provided
and 412 complaints with contact information provided. The anonymous complaints account for 55.9%
percent of total cases, a significant increase in the percentage of anonymous complaints as compared to
the previous quarter. This also represents 60.04% of "non-valid' cases, also an increase over last
quarter. As previously mentioned, in some instances the complainant was anonymous and no contact
information was provided, but contact was made at the location with a complainant. These cases were
considered anonymous with contact information provided.
Time/date o/ violation
The quarter data reflects that fewer complaints were received for noise occurring from 7a to 11 p_(43 % of
all complaints). than from 11 p to 7a (51.8%).: these numbers may be skewed somewhat by the higher
number of complaints received from 11 p - 7a on New Year's Eve (86% of all noise cases opened on
NYE were for noise complaints from 11 p - 7a). Additionally, 43% of all complaints were received on
Page 8 of 8
Noise report -Quarter 3 & QuaRar 4, 2008
Fridays and Saturdays, combined. As previously noted, adjustments have been made at the dispatch
and Code Compliance Officer level to ensure that we are capturing time of call) time of arrival.
Not
_7a -11 11 - 7a noted Total
RESIDENTIAL 296 362 3 661_
COMMERCIAL 134 157 48 339 _
430 519 ~_ 51 1000
Appeals
Twelve appeals were filed for violations issued during this reporting period. The outcome is reflected in
Attachment B, along with updates that occurred this quarter on appeals filed previously.
CODE TRAINING/DATA MANAGEMENT:
On July 17, 2008, the day after approval of the amendments to the noise ordinance, including the
requirements of the Administrative Guidelines, training was provided to all code compliance staff. The
training included a review of the amendments. as well as the guidelines. Prior to the implementation of
the ordinance, adjustments were made to the data gathering screens in Permits Plus to assist in
gathering information that would ultimately assist in reporting on the noise ordinance. As you may recall,
this included adding a "dispatch screen" for the parking dispatchers who receive all noise complaints.
Required fields also now include, among other things: whether there is complainant information: time of
the call; noise type (music, dog, shouting, construction, etc.); whether the 100' rule was used: and
whether the complaints occurred during a special event. Refresher training has been and will continue to
be provided to ensure that parking dispatchers understand the ordinance and administrative guidelines
requirements.
A process for the Police Department to handle noise complaints when Code staff is unavailable was also
established and implemented. Calls are routed to police during the hours that code compliance staff is
not on-duty (approximately 16 hours a week)..
RECOMMENDATIONSIISSUES!CONCLUSION:
As previously mentioned, the data collected and draft report was shared with the stakeholders
electronically, and at a meeting to discuss the 03-08 statistics. At the meeting, they recommended that
no change to the ordinance be considered at that time, as there has not been sufficient time to determine
what, if any, impact these amendments have had on noise in the City. They suggested that the data be
reviewed over at least four (4) quarters to determine if any trends exist or become apparent.
Neither the Code Compliance Division nor the Manager's office has received any complaints during the
reporting period regarding excessive noise in the City. An issue with one particular noise complaint was
brought to our attention, resulting in retraining of Dispatch staff to ensure all calls are properly noted in
the record.
The two reporting quarters may not be sufficient to determine what, if any, impact the most recent
amendments have had on the level of noise in the City. As previously mentioned, an amendment to the
Noise Ordinance Administrative Guidelines was considered and approved to address several issues,
including those relating to noise complaints in apartment buildings. The approval of the amendments
resulted in cases being reclassified. While training has been conducted with code staff, and adjustments
have been made to the Permits Plus database, we will be providing additional refresher training on a
regular basis and are looking at whether additional screens/and or fields can assist us in capturing data
for purposes of reporting on the implementation of the noise ordinance.
Attachments
JMG/hmf F:',cmgnSALL\Hilda'~Cotle Compliance~.NOisetNOise Report FINAL Q3 08 R 04 08 doc
ATTACHMENT A
- ~. 1 11: 1• 1 11: ~ 1:
o ases
Opened ess o e or
PD initiated omp amt a s
Received
632 34 598
~ ..
Valid Cases 159
Not Valid Cases
Tota! Cases
. . ..
Verbal 22
Written Wamin 118
Violation 19
ota a + ases
ases opene o 0 0
esi enha 448 9
ommercia 84 _ ~ ',~
Totar
Residential =Apt. Condo, Single Family
Commercial =Bar, Club, Hotel, Hotel-Condo, Restaurant, Retail, Other
Noise Type .-
Valid Cases
Not valid Cases
TOTALS
CONSTRUCTION 19 SO 69
LOUD MUSIC 131 352 483
LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT
4
12
16
ANIMAL 1 1 2
OTHER 4 58 62
Totals 159 473 632
- • ^. ~-
TOTAL VALID AND NOT VALID CASES
p- a
following
morning)
Ta - 11 p
Not Noted
Totals
Frida 84 40 2 126
Saturda 70 67 5 142
Sunda 31 55 6 92
Monda 17 36 10 63
Tuesda 27 33 3 63
Wednesda 24 30 7 61
Thursday 44 31 10
Totals
VALID
p- a o
following
morning)
7a - 11p
Not Noted
Totals
Frida 33 9 0 42
Saturda 22 26 0 48
Sunda 10 9 0 19
Monda 3 3 0 6
Tuesda 2 7 0 9
Wednesda 2 8 0 10
Thursday 17 8 25
Tota/s 89 7 0
N OT VALID
7101 -9130108 p- a o
following
morning)
7a -11p
Not Noted
Totals
Frida 51 31 2 84
Saturda 48 41 5 94
Sunda 21 46 6 73
Monda 14 33 10 57
Tuesda 25 26 3 54
Wednesda 22 22 7 51
Thursday 7 23 10
Totals 208 222 4
Residential
Commercial
11 p-7a 7a-11 p Not Noted Total
204 210 34 448
93 82 9 184
297 292 43 632
- .. . .-
Valid -.
Not Valid
Total
Anonymous 36 208 244
Anonymous with
Contact made
0
15
15
Contact Info
Provitled
87
237
324
Not Noted 5 10 15
Interna
ar Code)
31
3
34
ota s
None
pecial Master o e Case
r1a1o of Vin f'acn Nrrmhnr Nillflt)P-r AddreSS Name $tatUS
07!05/2008 JC08001084 CE08007093 2701 Collins Ave FAT AND FAT Appeal denied on 9125!08
LLC. DJB+A because request not file
DELIRIUM t imely ($250 fine Paid
LOUNGE 10r23108)
07rp6i2008 JC08001085 CE08007113 2701 Collins Ave CLUB DELIRIUM Appeal denied on 0125/08
because request not fred
t imely. ($1000 fmd Paid
70123+08)
07123/2008 JC06001086 CE08007534 5120 Alton Rd Yigit Aral file upheld by Snit on
fN25!O8. Noels td De paid
by 1012TG8. (As of
Ov2:5/08 tole not paid)
0&'0372008 JC08001087 CE08007794 1610 Euclid Ave 1610 Euclid Corp (~na violation vies voided
per new Admin guidelines}
0 61 09/2 008 JC08001245 CE08007964 1 0 Street (1775 Collins) Raleigh Hotel (Viioiation upheld) -
(52000 fine Paid
11!75!08)
08,'1712008 JC08001262 CE08006119 1775 Collins Ave Raleigh Hotel 11113108 adjudiwted
guilty of a 4th offense
fine and restrictions
imposed. (53000 fine
Pab 11!25x68)
08+22!2008 JC08001263 CE08008196 2377 Collins Ave Gansevoort 11113x08 violauon
Dismissed
08!22!2008 JC08001244 CE08008201 721 N. Lincoln Lane Laundry Bar (This violation ct,anged to
a vnitton yarning)
09?2112008 JC09000056 CE08008870 1775 Collins Ave Raleigh Hotel 11113+08 adjudicated
guilty of a 51h o((en5e.
Fine and residgions
imposed. ($5000 fine
Paid 1v25!G8i
FAT AND FAT Continuance granted at
LLC, DBA 1 pry 1108 SM meeting.
09!2612008 JC09000057 CE08008981 270 i Collins Ave DELIRIUM Now scheduled for
LOUNGE. 2126x09
CANTINA 27
ATTACHMENT B
- ~. ~ t t~: ~t: s~ is
Total Cases
Opened Less Code or PD
initiated Complaint Calls
Received
1000 29 971
~ ~.
Valid Cases
181
Non-valid Cases
Tota! Cases
. •
Verbal .•
24
Written warning 122
iolation
o a a r ases
.- ..
5
HOTEL-CONDO 29
OTHER 156
RESTAURANT 48
RETAIL 4
A I
Iota! 1000
ases opene o 0 o a
Residential 661 66.1 °~o
Commercial 339 339'ih
Total 1000
Noise Type .-
Valid Cases
Non-valid Cases
TOTALS
CONSTRUCTION 15 79 94
LOUD MUSIC 160 711 871
LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT
4
7
11
ANIMAL 1 2 3
OTHER 1 20 21
Totals 181 819 1000
sCmg!•.$hLLtH Ca.°.cca ~cmGiance'.NO SdSynoosis Q9 AA 8 DO CAxls
• • ~. ~.
TOTAL VALID AND NON-VALID CASES
P-
following
morning)
7a -11p
Not Noted
Totals
Frida 111 75 5 191
Saturda 139 94 6 239
Sunda 70 71 6 147
Monda 51 38 6 95
Tuesday 35 54 7 96
Wednesda 64 52 7 123
Thursday 4 1
Totals
VALID
p- a o
following
morning)
7a -11p
Not Noted
Totals
Frida 31 17 0 48
Saturda 46 24 0 70
Sunda 10 8 0 18
Monda 3 4 0 7
Tuesda 4 4 0 8
Wednesda 9 7 0 16
Thursday
Totals
NON-VALID
p- a o
following morning)
7a - 11p
Not Noted
Tolals
Frida 80 58 5 143
Saturda 93 70 6 169
Sunda 60 63 6 129
Monda 48 34 6 88
Tuesda 31 50 7 88
Wednesda 55 45 7 107
Thursday 5 5
Totals
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
7a-11p 11p•la o noe Total
296 362 3 661
134 157 48 339
430 519 51 1000
Breakdown of Calls with Identified Complainants and with Anonymous Complainants
10101 - 12/31/2008 Valid Non-valid Total
Anonymous 60 446 506
Anonymous with
Contact made
4
49
53
Contact Info
Provided
88
324
412
Not Noted 0 0 0
Internal (PD or Code) 29 0 29
oas
F^,cmgd,$i.LL'•Hima•~cce Cnmpianoe~.NCSe~Syncpsis Q3 08 8 D4 o8xlx
~ • • • - • ~ • !1 . • - • • ~ ~
None
Date of Vio Special Master Code Case Number Address Name Status
Case Number
11:13:08 (violation
08!03!2008 JC08001087 CE08007794 1610 Euclid Ave 1610 Euclid Corp v oided by dept per new
Admin guidelines)
( Viiolation upheld) -
081092008 JC08001245 CE08007964 1 0 Street (1775 Raleigh Hotel ( $2000 fine Pald
Collins) 11;25:08)
11;13:08 adjudicated
guilty of a 4th offense
0 811 712 0 0 8 JC08001262 CE08008119 1775 Collins Ave Raleigh Hotel Fine and restrictions
i mposed. ($3000 fine
Paid 11;25;08)
11/13308 Notice of
08122!2008 JC08001263 CE08008196 2377 Collins Ave Gansevoort violat,on dated 8,'22;08
Dismissed
10+23!08 (This wclation
08/2212008 JC08001244 CE08008201 721 N. Lincoln Lane laundry Bar changed to a written
warning)
11/13108 adjudicated
guilt' of a 5th offense.
0921/2008 JC09000056 CE08008870 1775 Collins Ave Raleigh Hotel Fine and restrictions
imposeC. ($5000 fne
Paid 11125108)
FAT AND FAT Continuance granted at
12;11108 SM meeting.
LLC. DBA Scheduled for 2+26r09
09262008 JC09000057 CE08008981 2701 Collins Ave DELIRIUM (Requested
LOUNGE, continuance)
CANTINA 27
Continuance gran[etl at
12/11/08 SM meeting.
Scheduled for 2,26;09
10!11!2008 JC09000152 CE09000221 136 Collins Ave Opium Gardens (Requested continuance
-granted -continued to
4;23109)
Continuance granted at
12!11;08 SM meehng.
10!1012008 JC09000153 CE09000216 1200 Ocean Drive Palace Food Bar Now scheduled .or
2326!09
FAT AND FAT
LLC, DBA (SM 1;22109 granted
continuance to 2;26109)
10/122008 JC09000183 CE09000249 2701 Collins Ave DELIRIUM (2+26;09 Requested
LOUNGE, continuance)
CANTINA 27
SM 1;22.~C9-appeal not
timely, requested on
11112/06. deadline by
102912008 JC09000223 CE09000698 1458 Ocean Drive Table 8 Restaurant ~ 1+10108 (Taking ,nto
consideration weeke.^.d;.
The violation was
dismissed.
hicrcgrtBALJ.~iItle~Code Complianceaolset5y^opsis C3 OB & Q4 08 tla
Date of Vio Special Master Code Case Number Address Name Status
Case Number
SOBE USA, LLC 1212108 Appeal
11/09/2008 JC09000224 CE09000963 960 Ocean Drive dba Ocean's Ten withdrawn
SM 1122109 -City's
WSA South request for
11/14/2008 JC09000225 CE09001053 2377 Collins Ave Beach. LLC, WSA continuance granted -
Paradiso ASS now scheduled for
3!12109
Appeal not timely. SIb9
must rule on requez,t
SOBE Lincoln Rd
SM 1122!09 continued
11112!2008 JC09000295 CE09001018 727 Lincoln Road Holding DBA
to 3112109
Score (subsequently
continued to 4123!O~r;
SM 1122!09
11/28/2008 JC09000296 CE09001379 1717 Collins Ave Doubletree continuance grante
Surfcomber Hotel
to 3!12109
SM 1!22109
11!2812008 JC09000297 CE09001385 1717 Collins Ave Doubellree continuance granted
Surfcomber Hotel to 3112!09
Scheduled for SM
1211312008 JC09000330 CE09001739 6525 Collins Ave Paco Nagaro 2!26109
Appeal filed one day
1 210 712 0 08 JC09000333 CE09001609 224 Meridian Ave Jairo Franco late, SM must rule.
(scheduled 2126109)
F-tcmgf~SALLil~lilda'~Code Gompiiance~,Nasc',Synposis Q3 OS 8 (24 OB
F'u~ngr~.tpLL'•H,Wa'•COae mono ancetNoiu•Synopss U3 CS 804 GS.xls