LTC 098-2011 Noise Report January-March 2011 MIAMI BEACH
RF
2011 APR 26 P
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
: 23
N o. LTC #;098 -201 LETTER TO COMM,"I rI N � F ;
i
� J
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: April 25, 2011
SUBJECT: Noise Report: January —March 2011 Quarter 1 — 2011)
This Letter to Commission (LTC) provides the January 2011 through March 2011 (Q1 —2011)
quarterly report and - data analysis on the enforcement and compliance efforts by the Building
Department's Code Compliance Division (Code) regarding the City's Noise Ordinance. Data for
this report is collected pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines. All the collected data - is
presented in table form (Attachments A through D) as required by the Administrative Guidelines,
and detailed analysis is provided to explain results and variations thereof.
It is noteworthy to reflect that during the current quarter a number of procedural changes were
initiated which will hopefully add to the future efficiency and and improved accuracy of the entire
noise reporting process. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, the re- deployment of
Code Compliance Administrators (CCAs) and Code Compliance Officers (CCOs), inter and
intra- departmental training and performance improvement sessions (including Police and
Parking Departments), enhanced training for Code staff, and the addition of case classification
sub -types and case resolutions.
SUMMARY
During the above - referenced period, there were a total of 1,567 cases entered into the Permits
Plus database (the database used to manage Code Compliance cases), the majority of which
are captured through complaints fielded by Dispatch (operated by the City's Parking
Department). Of these, 14 were voided (entered in error), 45 were canceled by the
complainant, 91 were referred to the Police Department (as the complaint was deemed to be
more aligned with disturbance of the peace rather than a noise violation), four (4) were deemed
"not applicable" (meaning that the noise was permissible due to exemptions from the noise
ordinance, specifically, construction work within the public right of way), and nine (9) were
deemed to be duplicate complaints (two (2) or more calls regarding the same incident). This
resulted in 1,404 cases where the disposition was either valid or invalid (Attachment A).
It is important to note that the number of noise- related cases opened continues to increase
when compared to previous years. During the January 2011 through March 201 (Q1 -11)
period, Code handled the highest amount of noise cases opened in any one quarter since Noise
Violations began to be measured in the City of Miami Beach. This increase in the number of
noise cases opened may be related to the number of Special Events that took place during this
quarter.
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for January — March 2011
Page 2 of 8
The following chart depicts the current trend of cases opened, by quarter, since the noise
ordinance was approved in 2006.
Total Noise Cases Opened
Q1 -11 Grouped by Quarter
1600 _ �� �1567�.�_���._�_..� mne�.�,_��._
x-2006
1400 --m-2007
x-2008 1355
(2009
1200 1089 -0--2010
2011
1000 1072 1000
895
873 84 800
5 00e 7
800
6 93 632
6 726
00
485
400
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
An analysis of the chart above shows a consistent pattern, in that the first and last quarters of
each calendar year have the highest incidences of noise cases opened, whereas during the
second and third quarters, there is a decrease in the number of noise cases opened. This
pattern is consistent with the number of special events and other holiday - related festivities
during the end and beginning of each calendar year, as well as an increase in the number of
visitors that come to the City of Miami Beach for its weather and amenities. The following chart
further reflects this quarterly trend.
Total Noise Cases Opened - Grouped by Quarter
1800 Q2/2006 - Q11/2011
1600 1567 ■ 2006 ❑ 2007
1400 1 4 ■ 2008 02009
1200 10 M 2010 2011
1 1000
1000
9
784 FRI 800
800
63 94
600
43 48
400
200
0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for January — March 2011
Page 3 of 8
One of the key parameters in the analysis is the validity rate. Of the 1,404 cases where the
disposition was identified to be either valid or invalid, a total of 233 were deemed valid, for an
overall 16.6% validity rate for the rating period. Notwithstanding the emphasis made by the
general public to this figure, it must be stated that the validity rate is not a direct correlation of
the performance of the Code Compliance Division. There are a number of variables that impact
the validity of a noise complaint, which include, but are not limited to, time of day the noise is
occurring, direction of the wind, air density due to weather conditions, and response time.
COMMERCIAL NOISE CASES
Because of the importance identified with non - residential (commercial and "other ") noise - related
cases opened, the remainder of this LTC will focus its analysis on commercial noise cases for
the quarter. However, data for all noise cases opened during Q1 -11 can be found in Attachment
A of this report. Data relating to noise cases opened for commercial establishments can be
found in Attachment B, but is further analyzed in the following section.
A. Commercial vs. Residential
The data analysis reflects that, consistent with previous quarters, the vast majority (1,062
(75.6 %)) of all noise cases opened involved properties classified as residential (i.e. Apartments,
Condominiums, and Single - Family homes). In contrast, during this quarter, 239 (17 %) cases
opened were identified as commercial noise cases (i.e., noise coming from Bars, Clubs,
Condo /Hotels, Restaurants, Retail). A total of 103 (7.3 %) were identified as coming from "other"
types of locations (i.e. Marine, Public Property, etc.). The following table provides a breakdown.
BREAKDOWN OF CASES BY TYPE
COMMERCIAL 239 17.0%
RESIDENTIAL 1,062 75.6%
OTHER 103 7.3%
Consistent with previous reports, nearly half of the residential cases opened were for noise in
"Apartments" (45.7% of ALL cases opened this past quarter). Cases opened for noise in
Condominiums and Single - Family homes respectively accounted for 17.7% and 12.4% of all
received complaints.
Further analysis also reflects that Q1 -11 had the single highest number of residential noise
cases opened, while it was the fifth highest quarter of commercial cases opened of the 14
quarters reported.
B. Commercial cases by Establishment Type
Although the majority of the noise cases opened are for noise reported in residential areas, the
discussion of noise complaints in the City most often revolves on noise from commercial
establishments. The chart below illustrates the total number of noise related complaints by type
of commercial establishment.
As noted in Attachment B, the highest number of commercial cases opened were for hotels (93
cases — 39 %), followed by 69 cases (29 %) opened for noise occurring in a restaurant. The
remaining breakdown is reflected below.
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for January — March 2011
Page 4 of 8
Commercial Cases (Q1 -2011)
By Establishment Type
o RETAIL
5% ❑ BARS
10%
■ RESTAURANT
29%
■ CLUBS
12%
e
e:
❑ HOTEL
39%
During the rating period, there were a total of 342 noise cases (239 commercial and 103 "other ")
opened for non - residential establishments. The chart below shows the trend of commercial
cases opened by quarter over the past three (3) years.
Commercial Cases Opened by Quarter
Beginning on Q4 2001 through Q12011
400
350
323
300
250 252
200
170
150
118
100
50
0
w oo Qo w rn o� rn o� 0 0 0 0
rV N N N rV N N rV ry N rV rV N rV
rn Cr r4 N M d' N M CI r4
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for January March 2011
Page 5 of 8
C. Closure dispositions for Commercial Cases
Further analysis for non- residential (commercial and ".other ") cases reflects that:
➢ During the reporting period, 24.4% of combined commercial and "other" cases were closed
as valid (342 cases).
➢ . Within commercial establishments, the percentage of cases closed as valid varied as
follows:
o .54.5% of all cases for retail were closed as valid,
o 36.4% of cases for condo /hotel establishments were closed as valid,
o 24.0% of cases for bars were closed as valid,
o 23.2% of cases for restaurants were closed as valid, and
0 19.4% of cases for hotels were closed as valid.
D. Type of Noise Commercial Cases
The most common type of noise reported for cases opened was for loud music. for commercial
violations, this type of noise accounted for 97.5% of all cases opened in the quarter. When all
cases are measured, "loud music" accounts for 78.8 %, whereas "barking dog accounted for
16% of the cases .opened; and 4.9 %were related to construction - related noise.
As it relates to the reasons why commercial noise cases were identified as invalid, the majority
(40 %) of the cases were. closed as non -valid because at the time of arrival, the noise or music
did not meet the noise ordinance criteria for a valid complaint, nor was it excessive. Other
reasons for deeming the complaint not valid include there being no noise at the time of the
CCOs - arrival (8 %), and that the noise was not audible at 100 feet (after 11:00 PM) (16 %)
(Attachment C).
E. Time /Day of Week of Commercial Noise occurring
An analysis of the time the violation took place reflects a relatively even balance between noise
cases opened for noise occurring between the hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM, and those
between 7:00 AM and 11:00 PM; with a slightly higher number of cases opened for noise
occurring between 11:00 PM and 7 :00 AM. As noted in Attachment A, more commercial cases
were opened for noise taking place between. 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM (50.6 %) as opposed to
commercial noise violations addressed between 7:00 AM to 11:00 PM (49.4 %).
As it relates to the day of the week the noise case was opened', unequivocally, the highest
number of cases were opened for noise that occurred on the. weekends (Friday through
Sunday), with 56.2% of all the cases addressed during this three -day period, as opposed to the
Monday through Thursday four -day period. As expected, the busiest day of the- week (in regard
to noise- related cases) is Saturday, accounting for 20.4% of all the cases, followed by Friday
(19.7 %) and then Sunday (15.9 %).
F. Arrival Time
Data analysis on "arrival time" reflects the time from when a call was received by Dispatch to the
time the CCO arrives to the location of the complaint. For commercial cases, the "time to arrive"
averaged 22:25 minutes for valid cases, and ' 21:38 for non - valid. With these cases, there
appears to be little correlation in the response time with respect to validity of the complaint.
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for January — March 2011
Page 6 of 8
Notwithstanding the small variations in the response time, Code has targeted the reduction of
-the response time as one of its key goals within the current Fiscal Year. With the addition of
new part -time CCOs, it is hoped that the response time will be shortened once the part -time
staff are able to operate .independently and complete their training. The average time for CCO
arrival is provided below. We have included the residential and "other" cases as a basis for
comparison. As noted, the response time for commercial non -valid cases is the lowest of the
types of noise cases opened.
Average Time for Code Officer to Arrive (Q 1 -2011)
Average Average Time from
Time to Call Received by
Number Establishment Officer's Number Dispatch to Code
of Cases Type Arrival* Status of Cases Off icer's
Resident'al 0:24:24
VALID 145 0:22:08
NON -VALID 750 0:24:50
VALID.:. 25. 0:22 :25.
1,152 Commercial 0:21:46
NON -VALID 139 0 :21:38
Other 0:27:15
VALID 1'5 0:26:27 -
NON -VALID 78 0:27:24
VALID 185
. 0:2.2:26
Al! Cases 0:24:10 -
NON -VALID 967 0:24:31
*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"
MAJOR EVENTS / SPECIAL EVENTS-
During the reporting period, there were a number, of events that may have directly impacted the
volume of noise cases opened. These events included the South Beach Wine and Food
Festival, the Miami Beach International Boat Show, the Festival of the Arts, Art -Deco Weekend,
Spring Break, Winter Music Conference (WMC), and Ultra Music Festival. The increase in the
overall number of noise - related cases appear to have a direct correlation to higher number of
visitors, the holidays, and the aforementioned festivities.
However, although some of the above special events have components that may cause some
noise, Winter Music Conference (WMC) and Ultra Music Festival (Ultra), both of which take
place in March, are specifically music - oriented. As a result, there is an expected increase in
noise- related cases within the time -frame of these two events. A detailed analysis of March
2011 noise - related cases indicates there were a total of 541 noise- related cases opened, 37%
higher than in February 2011 (394 cases); and 10% higher than in January 2011 (491 cases).
When compared to previous years, the number of cases opened in March 2011 is similar in
volume to previous years: 585 in 2010 (8% higher than 2011); 447 in 2009 (17% lower than in
2011); and 500 in 2008 (8% lower than 2011).
In addition, the separation of WMC and Ultra (although not based in Miami Beach) raised
specific concerns regarding the potential that a typically noise - producing period would occur
twice in one month, as opposed to previous years when these two separate events took place
simultaneously. Thus, an annual comparative analysis of Winter Music Festival and Ultra Music
would not be completely accurate, as the events in March 2011 took place over a two (2) week
period as opposed to a one (1) week period in prior years.
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for January — March 2011
Page 7 of 8.
Notwithstanding, during the current rating period, WMC took place from Tuesday, March 8,
through Saturday, March 12, 2011. During this five (5) day period, Code opened a total of 138
cases, of which 51 were deemed to be ".commercial ". Of these 51 cases, 17 were deemed valid,
for x.33.3% validity rate.
As previously mentioned, Ultra is an event.that primarily takes place in Miami, not in the City of
Miami Beach, and this year took place a week after WMC. Even though the main -Ultra event
takes place elsewhere, there are numerous events associated with Ultra that take place and /or
impact our City. This year, Ultra took place a week after Winter Music Conference, beginning
on Friday, March 25, and ending on Sunday, March 27, 2011. During this three (3) day period,
Code opened 79 cases, of which 23 were deemed commercial. Further analysis of the 23 cases
indicates that three (3) cases were duplicate (emanating from the same source of noise) and
another case was referred to the Police Department as it was vehicular (car alarm). Of the
remaining 19 cases within this time period, five (5) were deemed valid (26.3 %).
The table below reflects WMC data for 2011 (excluding Ultra), 2010 and 2009 (both including
Ultra) data.
Winter Music Conference
Commercial Noise Related Cases
Commercial
Yearµ •,; Total Cases. Valid . % .Valid
Cases .
2011 138 51 17 33.3%
2010 198 80 25 31.3%
2009 161 80 .31 38.8%
WMC data for 2010 and 2009 includes Ultra, whereas 2011 data does not.
SPECIAL MASTERS APPEAL HEARINGS
During the rating period, 32 noise- related cases were heard at the Special Masters Appeal
(SMA) Hearings. Their respective status is reflected in.Attachment D, along with updates that
occurred this quarter on appeals filed previously.
As reflected in the attachment, during the. current quarter, of the 32 appealed cases, six (6)
cases were granted a continuance, eleven (11) cases have yet to be heard, six (6) cases were
heard and upheld, one (1) was withdrawn, and eight (8) were dismissed by the Special Master.
During this quarter, fines for appeals upheld totaled $5,250.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The current reporting period was the first complete period under the leadership of the new
Acting Code Compliance Division Director; ' Robert Santos- Alborna. Although he has been
tasked with a myriad of responsibilities, there is at clear -understanding of the importance,
methodology, and process in which noise- related cases are responded to and addressed.
Among the changes made by the Acting Division Director, the following are relevant to the
handling of noise complaints:
Letter to Commission
Noise Report for January — March 2011
Page 8 of 8
➢ The establishment. of a Noise, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), and training to both
established and new employees. The SOP goes beyond the exsiting Noise. Administrative
Rules, and has been developed and is being refined. With the completion of the SOP, staff
will again be comprehensively trained in handling noise complaints. Assistance in the form
of ride- alongs with supervisors and staff well versed in the application of the noise ordinance
will provide supplementary training to CCOs.
➢ New dispositions were created in Permits Plus, the database utilized .by Code, in an effort to
more accurately reflect the assignment of noise- related cases: For. example, cases where
noise was identified to be more in line with "disturbance of the peace" and /or criminal
violations were forwarded to Police for their review and response. In previous reporting
periods, these would have been deemed, invalid, while in fact they were not actually noise
cases. This may have an impact on the validity rate for future. noise reports, but it will more
accurately reflect the proper disposition of certain noise cases.
➢ Ongoing training and discussion in mutual areas of concern have and continue to take place
with, the Parking Department/Dispatch Unit, which is the unit responsible for dispatching
calls . on behalf of Code. Technically, when a complainant calls 305 - 604 -CITY (2489), the
call is' initially handled by a Parking Department employee, who takes the initial information
and forwards it to a CCA, who in' turn, based on assignments, location, and a number of
other factors, assigns the case to a CCO to .handle. The continued partnership and open
communication between Parking and Code .is essential for the proper handling of noise
complaints. The Parking Department and Code are meeting quarterly and more frequently
if necessary, to discuss issues of mutual concern and address any issues that may arise.
➢ As you know, Code recently hired additional part-time staff, as discussed above, to
supplement regular full -time staff with quality of life issues. Although, the new staff is not
fully trained and prepared to address noise- related cases yet, it is anticipated that they will
be able to address these kinds of cases within the next reporting period. With the additional
staff, the division- of responsibility and response time will hopefully be improved in the next
few reporting periods.
JMG /HMF /KT /RSA
Attachments
F: \BUIL \$ALL \Kristin \Code Compliance \Noise Reports \Q1 -2011 LTC - Final.doc
- N
a)
ca
D..
cc Lo q r CD Q N (D
v r r -
..
c
' • U d ��
d) y
.O EO _a y y N
Q- U v
-p O N ._ N N 'p. - -
• a U >� 0 Z > j Z
F- C
a, 2
R
_ � v
o
,
r-
O
(a .: 'w' y mo. r (O O LO M U) (D
m OR O V
C' �. O N M U) '' (0:' M O O M N CD lD O M Cl) M Cl) M (D (D O
LO (D O I
M
V' oor- co ao d �(� mr- rnr- (D(oaor- vao co
d m aocD� ° ao
la
CL; s
y; L
N a7
r C ` O a r r w
W M . a) C>` ' C O CO L a) a) o n Z O a r Lo Co (n Z co r r M n U
ch M d M- :� y O a0 M ^ y CD r N O V M L r- r ,. -�: N O N N LO O
00 r E I (n. O r r
xG a) r.- O V t' V" O V. r ;; r
U
O �
o d ?
tD
Q N �«'- (D
a s `rvd - " o 0 0(o d o o �o
!• O.. (p V O,. Q) _ �+ y M (D . Y , y. V' O M O V' O (D. N (f) `7 t0 s M r M N (D
O '6 r+ O r w C �, a) M (f) N r r- to `� :a�i O' N v Ch O O O r - M R 'O w M M M M t0
C (p - V ()' V (�: r N N M r r N r r� r r CO N CL
'm '
a
V ,
U)
0, v W M z, ,O . O O N �. M O M M M V) 0 N O (D r M. O O Cl)
-� - (3 'a i r r N L, I_ r LO M r r N ' r M N
:.y a U
0
.,N 'O 'p '., o o c C "" .d 'p ° o o ° o o
O o o o o 0 0 0 o
Lr) - O = M M cn - CD O 01" O co co r V a0 N O
a7 aS M O Y. �.. M O N CD O r
U _C —'< >, N r 0 r - V O (D 0 V O
a V y ,( '. V U), r
t'
U U 3 w
o H a Ha
O. N d
N ca y (a
' U. dE y O. c_ U C„
p 'p p - O C ',... M M O M a �Ot O, <: (D O Cl) O a `'� O, O tD O O M O <- M O O V O O
a y , �,.. U is �.. C ( r t\ Cl) ¢, . L Z.. O N O er p,,C C "Z. Cl) N M N r O (D r O ;3e' O N CO M O r
V) a) 'O - . a) d R' : �:: '. 0 ot) : r a� �. (� a) e d plf • " r r
c ,� o .= U - E ':°- @ ° CL� U ox= a • 3 � O = R
- W C Q Z, Z >"
d Z C
Z (D • 0 U U m
W ° Z Z U)
• Q m a O Z U 0 O U n
1 10) V V (° fp- go is '� co 2 9 Q H Z O O E
Q m .� a�i ,� m O O Q FT ? Z O Z
O m E L m �O W wF arm Y�� WY U
�, a m • ZZ�
>3 o m o� D_Q�o00F -ww0 002t<W0 O
> ��0 amUUUm0wwM Z J m 0 UO2
O
.. - N
(U
0
m
a
o
O
s y au , -
O try Y:
O LO V' N (O V N
N r
0' - - - .
IL mM O
1
�* ``''• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o o o o o o o o
x g O M M N !` -q V n (o O O M O LO OJ r .- O M M M V (T N 1� (O r n r N (D
�C N M O 1- (fl ci E.. Co (d I- N O N T �`5 N O (T CO n N CM O O r fA M I O - co
M N M V O V M �' - ° ° �O^ M Cl) Cl) V O V N M O` M N N V' O LO M V O` O M 7 N- 00 CO (T 1- j
4a l CL
H OC
co O to M N (0 0). r. OD r �� d_ V V V O) 4 t N - N O Z': LO In W co
Cl) N V. 0) 1- co L r n (O r r M M a M N M O O x ! Cl) r OO LO IT
r ,'
cn
� A
G *' 4 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `� 5' o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3� 0 0 0 0 o o o o °-
R 3^+"' N I - n CO M (fl O M LO N (O 1� O (o r " O N r O r a0 ",� ,. �', M V O M • `" .' � O O O V 0 -
a�n,YY � f `. ti w M N M O 00 C6 " '. �;i vi N 1� O � (U O 'F,`i b� 1` (3i O N c0 n n # m m 06 C6 � `� (D CV
'.�?,.. . Or CD.(O�OO h OO(fl Cn U Lo 1- co •ec ,.O!-- 1-O V V (D w A . V) V (D b
1` R g
.�o'
� � >;
LO O (D (0 C) N e �- V n a 4 g O O T ' (") �t M .
'- N N N 0 ' a O N 0 LO O N �O ' N O N O co z �` - r 0
O O (O O r 4 N V n �;, C) r u M O O
r (T (P O r r 00 S h N r r V N , ', n O O O O r r ti co �% N r -
o o - 0 0 0 0 o \° 0 0 0 0 0 o c ° o 0 0 o a o o°' ea
r ° N (O v N M 0 N CO . I� ( . -: ° ° O O O (n d' _ COO ° ; e' M ° (0. ° -
al
co (O C ' x N O O (3) M A ` M
- 7 (T co O r N O O .r- M r r a`" (P O O) I' .- N ¢ r~ _ (O Cl) O
�s
y
f� O N O (O O N p� x O O O (fl Cl) N M s fr o O V' O O O s� O M G C O O O
(� a. a ,,a„ P-,. M N M O"r N V M r s- N M I� Cl) M x'. O O r I- O (O r 0 co O q V' O (O N
W N N M N _g' N "z { `#' r N N N °x N •-- ,a +�' 00 (O _
Se
> C
10 10 14 - � 14 - _ R
Z
Z c 2'
p O
Z � '�`: 1 • a U O �
• Q # s • J EO
Q s N m U • N to
-j U) m c m� 'a m> > m m> w w E E m V
Q a c N ° (° D m a c w > m a c b m w a T m a c
g N a m 7. a a N a m a Z a N a m .y a O _ .• - C .0 'j
c a C J C 0) 0 7-0 C C 4) (U O ti C C O
O 3 .0 m 3 O. 7 L m 3 - W O H O O
C C m 'O -
�I- u`cncn > �H�F- (icncn z �H���cnU) ��O �• ¢Q EUac
N
O
N
o �
CD
M ti d
o Co
N ti
*k j co M O
r N N
• N
O
•
to
N O
N
cn
• Q N cu V
• >% aD U a
F- (n
U c
a > 0
> z
a
c
a
r
• O
N - .- 0 - . - 0 � - . - C - 0 - - o
C) ti (o ao LO (0 ti in o ti
r ° o
(� r- rn (D r- � a ti ° rte ° ° o
W r m
(J) r > >
Q N O O
U z z
T" a
W M O O CO U') oo co co N ao M 0 o v O o M E
_ M L
O O ('
a.
Z r U
J r �
Q O o 0 0 0 - 0 0 - o
N a Co I• N U) V M U ? � � � ° � � �? O 0
N M M N LO T- N 'D N N N
LL Q
W r
O
M m CO m ' 0 � ,° o 0 0 � o oLf)
o •
U
(D cn
N U - 0
cu
m o 0 o N> o 0 0 0 �> o
N � � � � d c � � � o 0 ,- � � d c � � o 0 0 0
Z m M ° E N o 'n c- o rn o °' E N o'- o o 0 0
O N LO N 0 U �O co M U V � O O O N O O
Q N
7 0 70
E . - -
O p co p c0
U o > o >
L
` O 'a •
• ' D `
O V O CO r c4 Lo O, O, M m . co 01
• (� = ti co �+ M �+ M O O U') O O M
0 M �� O N M I CO �- O N • O N N
O
J • .
>, . H �" •
'O
m o u U ~ F- M- m
I� rn l? a a �, w <
W > cu
• F- >, z
c rn rn — c J ~ Z w zp Cl)
«� _0 0' • �- oz o U w oOU U
U f - co O 2 z H Z 0 N
iu • N J O Q J J 2 Z Z F- Lt Z E
- 70 cu
pp 0 Q u1 0 w Y to W Y o
• > -0 • Z Z c/) F- H • w 0 z z U
O Q J O w w 0 O> Q w O O
Q > m U U _ m 01 010 z
N
O
CN
N
• m
M
IL
O
CN
C4
N'
O
cc
r r-
O
«�+
O c p
w
LO N O
3 4 M O O M \° \° \° \° \° \ \° \ \° \° \ \ \ \ \ \° \° \ \
r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0
O O O LO O LO LO N = C1' O M I` I- (0 CY) P- . I- O O r-
d = O O O I-- O cM �. O c d O d O M N c`") N O M O CV
V M M N M M t} a O CO Cfl
E E m
M O O , y f- I� O M
N
h e h C • V
CL 3 CL3
o 0 0 •
Ch
_ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N O O
o o M c0 M M M ca �' O M Lo C) M
w- N M C0 If M w C0 N O OO O CA O
O O O M LO LO M O O N p N M �- r • r L
Lo , f r Lo Cfl LO IT Li) N
C
O •
- O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -00, 0 o 0 0 0'\
o \ \ c \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ o \ 0
O LO co co O N 0 co N O O O LO O V) LC) co C0 O r- co cM �' ' M N M O 0) O O.
Q g N M M O O N O CD' N O Lo O Lr) 0 M Lo I` CO d r r- O I" O C/)
+' O CO LO O O CO Q- LO Cfl co co M CM LO It (0) N N
� r U
0 0 8- 0 0 0 0 ti ti
C>. O co ' I-- N— ' C) N M I` O f` ti LO Lo O M to , r M O r r r �- N 00 > N r Cfl
O O V-- -T � M o0 Q1 LO
LC) C0 W ' M 'd' LO 'a'
!Z �
r
� s
o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\° \ 0 \ o 0- \ � � \ \ \ \ c • o c
LO N co C0 I O LO co O 00 O C0 M I� M Lb O q . O ,- LO (fl ti M CN I� LLo
co N r CV M LO O M U) r M ti� O LO co co M 4 0) N
r CO N �- N N ti • N LO co
d
N
O O • U
I—
F-
0 cn
W r O O (0 Cfl O LO M Cn p I` V- Lo rP co O co LO Co • O co O LO
M �- Ln N M d1 M N O
r N M C0 CV r LA r r N M V M r CN
Q
U
J �
( to a a
L o u
Z c a <
• Q (j o o a)
Q E
C O C)
Q T T Q T • Q U) cn O co
M M M • O O O
J M a) a M >, M a y cv M a) a U >, >, M o
a C >, a M a c us a c cn >' L M
Q a cn a M a a cn a M Z a cn a M a c c U
O O -t7 �. c J 00 O N a �. c 00 N O O -a �. c O O c
O
0 O L M O Q O L M O' 0 O L M O O c c 0
LL U) U) > �— cn Wn z �— t— u_ U) cn �� Q Q E U
N� b Ada 1 . 1
k S RS �
r a A/s ,
•-• °
?At
asio o
• �- �` -N /ors � � r-
CO
J p ;u�
N
.• Q Ada
sa ce)
z s y apoo
�3ad
o a
U
W ,bl cn
w
• Q. � a��b N;
1- Q oN ggC v
F-- W w
Q � a
i o.
ATTACHMENT D
Information on Disposition of Cases b Special Master and b Judicial (Q1 -2011)
Special Master Code Case
Date of Violation Case Number Number Address Name Status'
CB 00018133 / Cust#016066 $2,000, (CB reduced to
04/29/2010 JC10000494 CE10006233 2120 BAY AV Gregory Mirmelli $1,000 now that this case was reduced to 2nd offense)
SUNSET 4 pursuant to rulings on JC10000345/JC10000462,
unpaid as of 4/13/2011
11118/10 DETERMINATION OF TIMELINESS.
758 KARTEL GROUP APPEAL FILED 4 DAYS LATE. 1/6/11 Fine $250
08/16/10 JC10000754 CE10009434 WASHINGTON LLC d /b /a STEEL upheld to be paid by 2/11.11. (City Bill 00021807 issued
AV TOAST to Cust# 016955 $250 paid 2/1/2011)
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 4/13/2011
11/18/10 SM granted continuance. Continued to 2/3/11
10/07/2010 JC11000002 CE11000185 900 West Ave SouthGate where the petitioner is adjudicated Guilty of a 1st
Apartments Offense, fine of $250. (City Bill 00020064 issued to
Cust# 014680 $250 paid 2/7/11).
11/18/10 SM granted continuance. Continued to 2/3/11
10/08/2010 JC11000003 CE11000210 900 West Ave SouthGate where the petitioner's appeal was granted. Case
Apartments Dismissed. (City Bill 00019424 issued to Cust# 016893
for $1,000 to be voided
11/18/10 SM granted continuance. Continued to 2/3/11
10/09/2010 JC11000004 CE11000221 910 West Ave SouthGate where the petitioner's appeal was granted. Case
Apartments Dismissed. (City Bill 00019563 for Cust# 006641
$2,000 to be voided
11/18/10 SM granted continuance. Continued to 2/3/11
10/09/2010 JC11000005 CE11000210 900 West Ave SouthGate where the petitioner's appeal was granted. Case
Apartments Dismissed.
10/18/2010 JC11000194 CE11000529 448 Ocean Drive Fresh on Fifth (City Bill 000196941 issued to Cust# 016941 for $250)
LLC Scheduled SM - 7/7/2011
2/3/2011 - Determined through clear and convincing
125 E San Marino evidence Written Warning CE110004396 issued on
10/20/2010 JC11000195 CE11000596 Dr Jeffrey Miller 3/16/10 was invalid, reducing CE11000596 issued on
10/21/10 to a Written Warning. (City Bill 00019671
issued to Cust# 016944 for $250 has been voided)
11/01/2010 JC11000196 CE11000947 613 Lincoln Road Aura Restaurant (City Bill 00020076 issued to Cust# 012513 for $250)
SM - 3/3/2011, continued to 5/5/2011
03/03/2011 Violation was not proven to be valid,
11/07/2010 JC11000201 CE11001147 1685 Collins Ave Delano Hotel through clear and convincing evidence, appeal granted,
case dismissed. (City Bill 00020078 issued to Cust#
013810 $250 to be voided
11/08/2010 JC11000197 CE11001196 1236 Ocean Drive Mia Bella Roma (City Bill 00020074 issued to Cust# 017036 for $1,000)
Restaurant SM - 3/3/2011, continued to 5/5/2011
11/09/2010 JC11000198 CE11001259 1236 Ocean Drive Mia Bella Roma (City Bill 00020073 issued to Cust# 017036 for $2,000)
Restaurant SM - 3/3/2011, continued to 5/5/2011
11/29/2010 JC11000281 CE11001830 1756 Collins Ave Catalina Hotel (City Bill 00020657 issued to Cust# 017182 $250)
Scheduled SM -
11/30/2010 JC11000199 CE11001869 1236 Ocean Drive Mia Bella Roma (City Bill 00020658 issued to Cust# 017036 for $3,000)
Restaurant SM - 3/3/2011, continued to 5/5/2011
12/01/2010 JC11000200 CE11001909 1775 Collins Ave Raleigh Hotel 3/3/2011 - Appeal withdrawn. (City Bill 00020659 to
Cust# 010197 for $250 paid 2/2011
12/12/2010 JC11000202 CE11002238 1532 Washington Dream (City Bill 00020662 issued to Cust# 014626 $2,000) SM
- 3/3/2011, continued to 5/5/2011
12/18/2010 JC11000203 CE11002403 1532 Washington Dream (City Bill 00020895 issued to Cust# 014626 for $3,000)
SM - 3/3/2011, continued to 5/5/2011
Carlos Capote & 04/07/2011 -Violation CE11002671 reduced to Written
12/26/2010 JC11000273 CE11002671 5924 Alton Road W Mercedes Warning. (City Bill 00020914 issued to Cust# 013224
$2,000 to be voided
1885 Daytonia Andre Burguera 4/7/11 Violation CE11002769 reduced to Written
12/30/2010 JC11000274 CE11002769 Road & W Mariel Muniz Warning, case dismissed. (City Bill 00020913 issued to
Cust# 017297 for $250 to be voided
01/02/2011 JC11000271 CE11002934 700 W Dilido Drive Jonathan L. (City Bill 00021246 issued to Cust# 017352 for $25)
Rooks Scheduled SM - 5/19/2011
01/02/2011 JC11000272 CE11002931 1120 Collins Ave Hotel Nash, LLC 4/7/11 Case Dismissed, (City Bill 00021246 issued for
Cust# 011352 $1,000 to be voided
01/06/2011 JC11000275 CE11003072 2344 N Bay Road Fredric N Karlton 4/7/11 Case Dismissed.
Trust