LTC 060-2011 Noise Report for October 2010 MIAMISEACH
R it i 1 } p "
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # _ - - LETTER TO IS
f 060 -2011
( PT A.. C L E' R I 'S 0 :
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the Cit .. Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: March 11, 2011
SUBJECT: Noise Report for October 2010 — December 2010 (Q4 -2010)
The purpose of this Letter to Commission (LTC) is to provide you with the latest quarterly report on
the enforcement of the City's Noise Ordinance.' Noise report data is collected daily, but presented
quarterly, as required by the Administrative Guidelines approved on October 7; 2008.. This report
encompasses data for the period of October 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.
It is important to note that there was a high level staffing change during this quarter. The Code
Compliance Division Director resigned from the City, and a new Acting Code Compliance Division
Director was appointed in November. (Robert Santos - Alborna, the Acting Code Compliance Division
Director, was informed of the high priority placed on. the City's Noise Ordinance enforcement efforts,
and was directed to examine the process in its entirety. While no formal changes to the; process were
introduced during this quarter, some observations were made that will lead to revisions of the process
in future quarters.
Summary
The data reflects that in the fourth quarter of 2010, there were a total of 1,355 cases entered into our
database, the majority of which are entered as a complaint through Dispatch (which is operated by the
City of Miami Beach Parking. Department). These 1,355 cases include 18 cases that were voided
(either because it was a duplicate complaint or was entered in error), and 36. cases that were
canceled by the complainant prior to the Code Compliance Officer's (CCO) arrival. Thus, during this
period, the Code Compliance Division addressed a total of 1,301 noise - related cases. Of the 1,301
noise cases - , 206 (15.8 %) were deemed valid and 1,095 (84.2 %) were deemed not valid. The chart
below demonstrates the total numbers of cases opened by quarter since noise, complaints were first
tracked in 2006.
Total, Cases Opened - Grouped by Quarter
16001 -
1404 of 2006 .02007
1355
1400 62008 m 2009
® 20
1200 1(}$
1000
1000
87
784 Sao 7M
8013
63f 6 632�
600 48
- - 4 RK
400 5
280 31 �
A
Q1 .02 03 04
Letter to Commission
: Noise Report for October December 2010
Page 2 of 7
Total Cases Opened
(by Quarter)
1500 Y 'a- r t S
- 1 300
' axy G,-ry & . •t � x � say E �, a £ � ¢ r ^� 4 a - �s. t- a '.,� °"< �' ibs � �°' � '�„� ,
N - - x -' S^ ,. d `� a�` Ay 3 i # t ., �' S ` • � e e°" .� € d � �`` 'r. � f ` ' °,� ,�+ -
' 1100
�. s i 1O Oa
4 X107
p"l a^ �, i o- t�s �, ..� "' a a•° na,? x 'a'` k� mss '^ �°3 s - '�i1 ,g"' 3,g y �t`. -
—o -2006
�� €��r�.s,. xr• @ i�" 095¢ TM `'� -
900 :: 38 —s— 2007.
a q r a.
d
784 f ( 2008
873 a X800
X2009
700 2010
6676 s
• � ��� � _ �� � �� 637 ��g �;�485�� � ��� �� � �Y��� �� �'
'm�..
500
,3
F „4
-
- 300 .��;, _ .� w�� � .����.��� �.,� � �� �� i��
01 02 03.. Q4
As you can see from the above chart, the noise complaints in 2010 followed the same trend as in
:"previous years, wherein the :number. of noise complaint cases opened in the' first and fourth quarters
were higher than in the second and third quarters. This is consistent with the number , of events and
holidays in the first and fourth quarters, and an influx of visitors to the City during these quarters.
The vast majority of the noise complaints in the fourth quarter of 2010 (999 (76.8 %)) were from
establishments classified as residential (i. Apartments, Condominiums, 'and_ Single - family), 189
cases were- identified as commercial (i.e., Bars, Clubs, Condo /hotels, Hotels, Restaurants, Retail) and
113 cases were identified asp "Other ' (i.e., marine,r public property, etc.).
Residential vs: Commercial
(Historical Data By Quarter)
1200 3 €g s
1000
"' J0 &4 F ,£�„ F "°m, Qy� > �- .r °� fi '✓' gs„ 1.. a"4dt ae.
t" a
800
> 'f %i - Y ^e* , — » "a w °� c *', s s ;*, ��e-• s L.Y.O t a €.
640!. v
�, ,. � r ���- � �. r � �'✓' y a.„y t'�,� € � s �'� `� '�'� '�� �' -a L ��`4 X544 s�*�s"'
_ 800
., 400
'�. �, r f,. r 5 a x s ' ¢° `°' � '. �r Y $g a ^„�
^ 200 � � ��� c '' �° R �" rr� �r � � t � a e kt a -5"��� .
ev-
W F �. ,. ^" 5 Y ry2V2 � '� ° . „T ,.i (] ' . j 4''d
4i 0� ` 9 1 5 Qg ,�4 N . ^ o
ti°o bo o g oo bo o �QO do �Q tia
' c p C COQ 4At 4� n 0; a� 4� CV C
Quarter �Ra C;nmmPrr.ial
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for October December 2010
Page 3 of 7
The number of residential noise complaints this quarter is the highest number of any quarter since the
City started to measure noise violations in 2007. However, the number of commercial noise
complaints is in line with the number of complaints in all previous fourth quarters.
It should be noted that nearly one -half of the complaints were generated in "Apartments" (47.7% of all
received complaints), and "Loud Music" was the most common type of complaint with 79.2% of all
complaints. Complaints in Condominiums and Single- family homes respectively accounted for 16.5%
and 12.5% of all received complaints. Also, the highest number of complaints occurs on the
weekends, with 19.7% of all complaints on Friday, 20.4% on Saturdays, and 15.9% on Sundays,
totaling more than one -half (56 %) of all complaints.
'It is noteworthy that a review of the entire data set reflects that .the average response time by Code
Compliance 'staff from time of receipt by Dispatch to arrival time of the CCO is 24.68 minutes. The
Code Compliance Division has targeted the reduction of the response time as one of its key goals
within the current Fiscal Year.
Average Time for Code Officer to Arrive (Q4 -2010)
Average Average Time from Call
Number Establishment Time to Number Received by Dispatch to
of Cases Type Arrival* Status of Cases CCO Arrival*
Residential a. 0:24:52
Valid : :' .1545 021:52
Non -valid 750 0:25:26
1,152
Commercial 0:23:20 Valid 25 ' 01
Non -valid 139 0.24:17
= _
.Valid 15 :0 25:'36
Other ...: 0:27:26
Non -valid 78 0:27:47
AII.Cases , 0:24:51
Valid'- ' 185 0 2:1.39
Non -valid 967 0:25:28
`Average Time calculated using only those cases with valid time data for both "Time Call Received by
Dispatch" and "Time of Arrival by Code ,Officer"
As stated above, the overall validity rate was 15.8 %. However, only 15.1% of residential cases were
deemed valid, as compared to 18.5% of all commercial cases.
Since the discussion of noise complaints in the City most often centers-on noise from commercial
establishments, the remainder of this LTC will focus on the 'commercial noise, violations for the
quarter. Data for all noise violations can be found in Attachment A, and data : limited to those
violations for commercial establishments can be found in Attachment B.
" Commercial Noise Violations
During the rating period, there were 189 cases opened for complaints regarding commercial
establishments. Again, this is in line with the number of commercial noise complaint cases opened in
previous fourth quarters, as demonstrated in the chart below.
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for October — December 2010
.Page 4 of 7
Commercial Cases Opened By Quarter
f
350
300 Y
2000
-o-- 20
w \► 2 a p
i 200 2008
n $ F dfi'S
L
150
E s
.. s 2010
100 r - 2, z.
Q1 Q2 Q uarter 03 Q4
Of those commercial noise complaint cases opened this quarter, the majority were for hotels and
restaurants (33% and 25 %, respectively, for a total of 58 %). The complaints regarding bars and clubs
represented only 32% of all commercial noise complaints (12% and 20 %, respectively). These
proportions are consistent with trends since 2008, as represented in the second chart below.
Commercial Gases (Q4- By Est m
M RETAIL
BARS
12"x,
■ REST.A.URANT -
s z
CLUBS.
MM111�4- S-11 20%
7 ,7
o HOTEL
3%
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for October — December 2010
Page 5 of 7
Commercial Establishment Types
(Q3 -2008 through Q4 - 2010)
0 RETAIL
7'D /o
BAf;
14%
M RESTAURANT �
2f=io�o
o CLUDS
Gore
C1 HOTEL_
29n/.
Of the 189 cases for commercial establishments opened this quarter, 35 cases (18.5 %) were deemed
valid. A deeper evaluation of the non -valid cases for commercial- related complaints reflects that on
63 : occasions (41 %), the complaint was deemed non -valid because the noise was not deemed loud or
excessive by the CCO, and on 41 occasions (27 %), there was no noise identified by the time of the
CCO's arrival. Attachment C outlines the reasons for commercial complaints being deemed non
valid.
The chart below demonstrates the validity rates for commercial establishments by type, followed by a
chart that shows the history of validity rates for commercial establishments by quarter since 2007.
Validity Rate per Type of Commercial Establishment
(Q4 -2010)
100% is °� zs��� 2 ��f 19% �3 °r
a
80 .Y
60% `
40 �r' �$2 % ~� 79 °ro: �$1�'l0°
20 %
N ��
XX
C o
0 non -Valid ❑ Valid
p
{
Letter to Commission f
Noise Report for October - December 2010 E
Page 6 of 7
Commercial Cases (Valid/ NonValid)
100°'o
EO °o
a
E0 °.o % k
40% a 4 � � o � � c � ��. � N;
F` o cfl n 3
vt g ? a
20 °:0
LL
0%
4 d oti� d � 9 q p F' "s,
G £3 c d G Cr 4 g Qp CG. CY 6 c
Quarter Elvalid ❑Hon -Valid
Special Master
As demonstrated in Attachment D, during the current quarter, fifteen (15) noise cases were appealed
to the Special Master. Four (4) of these cases were granted a continuance, ten (10) cases have not
been heard, and one (1) case has been heard and upheld for a $2,000 fine. During this quarter, fines .
that had been upheld previously had been paid totaling $10,250.
Recommendations /Issues /Conclusion
With turnover in the administration of the Code Compliance Division, a review of all enforcement
components of the Noise Ordinance was undertaken. The Acting Code Compliance Division Director
noted the following areas for improvement:
• Revise how complaints are categorized for disposition — Complaints were previously
concluded as either valid or not valid. However, there are some that are referred to other City
Departments, or where the activity may be exempt from the Noise Ordinance. In those
situations, the complaints had previously been closed as not valid. New disposition categories
will be created to more accurately depict these actions.
• Partnering with Parking Department Dispatch Unit — The Parking Department's Dispatch Unit
is the call center for Code Compliance complaints on nights and weekends. It is essential that
all staff involved in the Noise Ordinance enforcement process, including those staff members.
who are performing intake with the complainant, are familiar with the process and using the
Permits Plus system accurately so that the outcomes can be reported accurately. A regular
series of discussions with the Parking Department, including additional training for the
Dispatchers, will be initiated and will continue to take place on an ongoing basis to better
ensure quality control and quality service.
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for October — December 2010
Page 7 of 7
• Additional training for all employees - It has been a few years since the Noise Ordinance has
been in place. While training is continual and on- going, it is important to formalize the training
to make sure all Code Compliance Officers (CCOs) have the same understanding of all parts
of the process, and consistently enforce the Ordinance. A new Standard Operating Procedure
and training effort will be implemented and effectuated during the next quarter.
Additionally, the Code Compliance Division is in the process of recruiting and interviewing to fill a
number of part -time positions, which will focus on quality of life detail. With the additional staff, one of
the goals is to improve responsiveness and response times to Noise complaints, which may have an
impact on the validity rate of Noise complaints.
JMG /HF /KT /RSA
Attachments
F : \BUIL \$ALL \Kristin \Noise Reports \Noise - Q4 -2010 LTC revised draft.doc .
O a0 N
IN
d
a
� � U
W
_ o N -o 4 m
U • U O �
Q u > a
Q cv � > z c
n to
• a o U d U
H a ro
O y
• � 2 � 2
c c u
(D
W a a
U j j ,c
F� ti ti U
t
O Q Q
N e
1 d + 81 y
4 N N tD m y o o o o y o 0 ( 0 o C 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0
o) (n
V- M C y co N � y W W (D r- O � M Q) (n O N N I� Nr- LO, O N -
C m m V 04 It y m (o MAO NO 1 0) v y(n(OO(D 1- O a
%,,,o V U L U CO a0 00 co y V U W W ap 0o P- Co OO Oo n a0 a) 00 (O I- (0 n (n 00
Q L y
C a U a U
0 > a a
N H c
O w > >
U y Z Q c Q c
'/) L V)
1 � ; M C M N OD V Cl) Z Q N M CO V N O M O Z 0 N N N O C
p
N c R � a a m(n - M� . -
U r CL 4) E U �- E U 00
Q 1 0 Z Z
Uo
J �
J N p o 0
CL
C
A M @ N d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q m V y y N N V' CO o) I- r Lo 0 Oo N M Co M LO O 00
a) .• m (n 00 r-_ C m M 0o m (D O r- O N w V M O M N O ui
O •C d i U y i U y (f) r
r
U
(y) a s m a m
U U
o >
a U > V >
U o
N U Q �MNO O(N V f_ M O C�� N O NM O V � C') C') N O
• Q U m N N N N
Z O
a �
L E
z z
,U
C y y
1 C > C N N
O Z) m m .O
N p_ U m U m
O L — Q
N r Q) Q 0 0 o r. C o 0 o O w C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 e o -.
m C V N Cl) Q Q � t() O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 o O
p M Z U O Z� I- o) V) M� f - (0 N 00 N N N N 00 M
(D cli O N m od r- �' " O) otS v N O Oo M .- v O O O r` O O
c m • �-
A N V> U V m
• 3 m a Q) m a
m ( m i U Q: U ~
y ° c '° p
M q O O H
4)
OJ U N /a N
U U N_ m] m
. y — Z N N M V (D .�- (o C'4 M CO M M C) O V
• 0 (D a a w O N 06 (D N r
• y °) Ea U o^ E�
a c z b o a z>
j U —Q
= v
• i �1 N ,
• aa)) 11 o a CO
z
c ai U E - o 3 Q)) ~ I°
CL • U U m LU
Z Z
O M c j Qco W QON0
U @ Fp m @ O a)� Wp U
c 2 i m Z U
o m aci C: (D o u B OO �Q�� F- �ZZp�Vz
. � a • N E N HWmZZ�2( • .y�W XOZSZ
(D of Q) o� aQ�000Hww0 o0 >Qx0�0
Qo000U20Q0! 2 Z -1 002
is c Y
O O d
d
w d 3
4) e e o o e e o
C O'Q U)
N O
CD
U t0 l9
L r r
a
w
0
0 0 0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 e 0 0
00 1--
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 C o c e o 0 ( 0 O C' N U) O A N O N O N U) M A
C 'C 'C O M V' (fl O � U) M . O (D .- A N tf) O � Cl) M
M N M N O N N O L N O tf) O n t` O Cl) N U) (M N �. (D 00 O U) 'IT U) 0) N M
O V V tf) U) (D U) V to O N U) (O U) M Cl) O V V U) Lo (D U) V N O U) U) M W) 0) 00 00 tl- 00 co
E E to
Q) ~ c A c A U
3 0 0.o ac
o c >
o w ° ° c
w. M M V O A 01 d N V M Q O f� T O to
to d V (D I- O M c0 w V C (D U) N tf) O t0 w 0 t� N N M N - A w O O M W) Z O) co M 0
O
A« to N co M U) O W r N U) - (D O co O r
O p p
CL
ee0eeeee eee e ee ee eeeeo eo e 4z -I e ee e e0
O CD N M 00 tf) O Cl 00 O N O 00 U) f- M r O d' O W U) A O V' O M co t() V p)
t- r- (D I- 6 I- w Q! t- O W N 0 M N M w 00 w V (o A 6) (h IM N O Ih O
Lo L V V M V U) R V V (D (D N u) U) V V M V tD v 1 r � N (p
.
O Q CL C • ai
U
f n n 9
n M r^ N O O N O O N O N tD 1-
tf) m M COO { N V I� M O N N Lo O N V (D � A 00 0 0� co I- q N N O N
co •
X. e o e e e e 0 0 \ a \ \o e e e o -
O 0 0 0 o e e e o e e o e e e o e o 0 0
t` V Q1 O h N s- O C (0. CO 1 N M U) U) U) N N c0 t() O O M a ^ e
V' O 0 U O V N O O 7 un O O co
co e - N a - ^ O 'V Cn O W E ( V 00 O O M co O
H
_ d
N
t0 t6 /3 fo t0
I H p p U
• p
F
O V V' c O 0 0 O M U) M O O Q N M O O M U) m O M C
N N N M N N N V 7 M N 00 N U) N N O m CO M M 00 M M
fn r r r
w
Q
• U
D
J
H
m m
0 • O C
Z -
• a E s °-
J J O f0
a ¢ • U 3
Z cr p p
m
iius o � °) s � m � Q o °) � ° - ai � � � c LU 7 L 0 L W O �E - ��ti z �F - S'�ii w ) 0
0 0
W 00 r
r 00
Z •
W
W) Co
V r r
Q •
Q • co
N
O R
• N cu U
• a a) U a
H U) - ZZ
U > >
a > o
ca Z Z
a
c
(Ti
a
ao(0 o w OoM o w
0 I-- ol r O O �- O r
co ap °
c o co I` co ao O O ap O co
�.. (is —
> >
O 0 0
N z z
ao r- ao rn
Cl) t— M M r Ln M O M r
vJ
W
c O
cm
Q O '
W M ° ryor no � (9 C ? 00 W
(n ` av co, 0 of �i ao co o ao 00
�— .— N r
O N °
m
Z > >
0 ti O O N M .,) 0 0 M O O M
c
_ O •
C, N
C O U 0 > L CD
O >_ 00 c 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 E
a) co 0) CD E N 0 O Lo CR E N O U Lo Otf)
O .� C.O r N MCD V U� ��NN U V� �Or0a000
E
U 0 0 > o
0
V1 0
. •
• -0 ;5 > N
:. _
• U= M r N CM 0 N M d~ � r • O (0 r M O 0
0 r
t • ~ H
J G. • •
0 1 V f--
•
O
cu • C. • y W
~ A
• U 0 c c W H a W o z
r • E OZ 0 U w O OU U
I0 O = z j ~ Z O
a • C O ' J N O Q J J Z Z p �- d' Z
iu cu a) = mpl— Q W p Co
• Of pZfAE —� • pW �OZ =Z
a) O Q J O w w 0 O> Q� O O
•
> > m 0 U0� w= J J m 0 0 0 =
o
ca �
o �
o 0 0 0 0
C (D U-)cfl
O
0 0 C') O O r�
N 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
c i C O O O ti O O O C) c LO 00 (o N M ti • LL') LO CO
N to LC) 00 L O LO (p N r N I� O
i V O L 7 �t tl- (o LO (fl IT LA y 0o 00 00 co
N V E
a o m U
� c
w a 3 a.
o r o o
.� w a >
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d N O
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
O i� LC) co O (o M 00 tp r N r (o co co M r O LL") I� N 00 • z L r O
i ce) (D (o L(7 (p W)
C
_O •
m O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0-- 0 \°
1- %- o \ o \ \ o\ \ c \ o\ c � o\ � o � • o
1 d O O .M 00 N M (o C O O O m 0 0 0 I� Ln M 00 IT M (o m LC) (O LC) I- O
CL M `- r N N r r O O O 4 0 0 0 Ln d (o O (o N M (M N d 00 fl_ N (3i O
L M LO LC) r LO LO t !t Q LO LO N CO 'CC M Lr) 'qt (Q r r r r Or
r r m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti
U) O (0 00 (o �- LO ' tG "t O Ln (p LC) r N
N LO �•- O CO (D M N r r M M N r O O LA t-- "t r r W > co N r r r
(o LO M co 'IT co LO '
Q �
r
r
� o
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • ° o o
co I� N M d• O r [)
r r O co r co t
r r r 00 O CO to N LCl O O N M
t1 r �j 0 I� d 00 O r CN r O 00 r O co N O
r r r N r r 00 • (n r Co M
N
i m
F- �' • cu
O
H
• U cu
W ++ (O O O (o O (O M Ll) r (o ti O M O co • O O
' (n 0 r N r N CM M LM 00 to V CN I- (D (O LO M r r r r (M M N r 00 00 O r
Q
U
J
Z F�
CU cu o
a`
ig Z • QU o m
Q F :=.
• : cu l=.
� p c o .
J U
ca U 3 E cu
• Q rn rn o 0
> c° 0 -j -a cu
E o o c a
N cm 'n cu > Q U) cu 0 0 0
H c a) a 3 c -� c N �° z c j ca o O o� °� _r_ L cu Q O °� ° O o m c-a o c c o CU m acnU) z �f- ��- -cncn am QQ E
ATTACHMENT C
�sanba� vodn
pa,�
{ c
-, oict Uo
! fie
00
C
ssa `�ppb pa8 O
O N
N - aa�a N N
b T .
/ an" /f ! O pUO,{
. apoo boo N N
a /ss
Ono� loN as o� ao 0
N /c/s �
W �
'q paIUa
Z
O. 7�b1
Q bas /o a
N O N r
W ssaOO apoO
b
/ ssaOOb ON o
O
U
- YJ0M pE)ptU/a
Q
> J / a!dcU oO
Z pa,/a MA -We
O M o! as / o a o /jcd N c� o
Z N /O!sn r r 00
IT La
vi
Z 3 � a
O -3sbo 7b! oNby N Z
Q ��� /V 00 W Q v
CSC 0 aa0a
ATTACHMENT D
Information on Disposition of by • - and by • (Q4-2010
Date of Violation Special Master Code Case Address Name Status
Case Number Number
SM scheduled for 5/14/09, (continued to 6/25/09).
6/25/09 vio proven, adjudicated guilty of 2nd offense.
03/14/2009 JC09000495 CE09003925 323 23rd St Acqua LLC 7/6/09 Motion for reconsideration and rehearing filed.
Motion denied on 7/10/09.CB 00019603 $2,000 PAID
10/20/10
SM scheduled for 5/14/09, (continued to 6/25/09).
Acqua LLC dba 6/25/09 vio proven, adjudicated guilty of 3rd offense.
03/21/2009 JC09000554 CE09004144 323 23rd St Rain 7/6/09 Motion for reconsideration and rehearing filed.
Motion denied on 7/10/09. CB 00019604 $2,000 PAID
10/20/10
9/24/09 Special Master Hearing - City will submit Order
Aqua LLC dba for Special Master signature. SM sent inquiry to Legal
08/01/2009 JC09000971 CE09008701 323 23rd Street Rain regarding status of the agreed order that was to be
submitted. No order submitted as 7/16/10 CB
00014090 $5,000 PAID 10/20/10
03/28/2010 JC10000456 CE10004967 1901 Collins Ave The Shore Club 5/13/10- adjudicated guilty of 1st offense, fine $250 paid
10/11/10
SM scheduled 8/13/10. Pursuant to the rulings made on
Special Master Case numbers JC10000345 and
JC10000462, this case shall be reduced to a Second
Offense. Petitioner's request for a continuance is
GRANTED. This matter is continued to August 13,
2120 BAY AV 2010, at which time the Special Master will take
04/29/2010 JC10000494 CE10006233 SUNSET 4 Gregory Mirmelli testimony and rule on the alleged violation. New date
is 11/18/10. On 11/18/10, pursuant to rulings on
JC1 0000345/JC1 0000462, this case reduced to 2nd
offense and petitioners request for continuance granted
to 2/3/11. CB 00018133 / Cust#016066 $2,000, (CB
reduced to $1,000 now that this case was reduced
to 2nd offense) Still scheduled for 2/3/11.
SM scheduled 8/12/10. DETERMINATION OF
TIMELINESS. APPEAL FILED 1 DAY LATE.
7337 HARDING Lou's Beer Petitioner is adjudicated guilty of a First Offense. The
05/28/2010 JC10000607 CE10007166 AV Garden fine of $250 shall be paid by December 9, 2010. A
progress report shall be given to the Special Master on
December 9, 2010. CB 00020071 / Cust#017034 $250
aid 12/9/10
758 KARTEL 11/18/10 DETERMINATION OF TIMELINESS.
08/16/10 JC10000754 CE10009434 WASHINGTON GROUP LLC APPEAL FILED 4 DAYS LATE. 1/6/11 Fine $250
AV d /b /a STEEL upheld to be paid by 2/1/11.
TOAST
655 Washington 1/6/11 - SM Fine $2,000 upheld and shall be paid by
10/01/2010 JC11000001 CE11000009 Ave KM Club LLC 7/1/11 CB 00020277 / Cust#014339 $2,000 unpaid as
of 1/14/11
10/07/2010 JC11000002 CE11000185 900 West Ave SouthGate
Apartments 11/18/10 SM granted continuance. Continued to 2/3/11.
10/08/2010 JC11000003 CE11000210 900 West Ave SouthGate
Apartments 11/18/10 SM granted continuance. Continued to 2/3/11.
10/09/2010 JC11000004 CE11000221 910 West Ave SouthGate
Apartments 11/18/10 SM granted continuance. Continued to 2/3/11.
10/09/2010 JC11000005 ? ?? 900 West Ave SouthGate
Apartments 11/18/10 SM granted continuance. Continued to 2/3/11.
10/18/2010 JC11000194 CE11000529 448 Ocean Drive Fresh on Fifth
LLC SM - 2/3/2011
10/20/2010 JC11000195 CE11000596 125 E San Marino Jeffrey Miller
Dr SM - 2/3/2011
11/01/2010 JC11000196 CE11000947 613 Lincoln Road Aura Restaurant SM - 3/3/2011
11/08/2010 JC11000197 CE11001196 1236 Ocean Drive Mia Bella Roma
Restaurant SM - 3/3/2011
11/09/2010 JC11000198 CE11001259 1236 Ocean Drive Mia Bella Roma
Restaurant SM - 3/3/2011
11/30/2010 JC11000199 CE11001869 1236 Ocean Drive Mia Bella Roma
Restaurant SM - 3/3/2011
12/01/2010 JC11000200 CE11001909 11775CollinsAve RaleighHotel SM - 3/3/2011
11/07/2010 JC11000201 CE11001147 11685 Collins Ave iDelano Hotel SM - 3/3/2011
Date of Violation Special Master Code Case Address Name Status
Case Number Number
12/12/2010 JC11000202 CE11002238 1532 Washington bream SM - 3/3/2011
12/18/2010 JC11000203 CE11002403 11532 Washington Dream SM - 3/3/2011
I�
I