LTC 042-2014 Noise Report - Quarter 4, 2013 (Oct - Dec 2013) 1 f
MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER F g - ti q; S7
LETTET COMMISSION
_
NO. LTC # 422014 _
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of the City ommission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: February 3, 2014
SUBJECT: Noise Report—Quarter 4, 2013 (Oc ober 2013 through December 2013)
The purpose of this Letter to Commission (LTC) is to provide information and analysis on the Code
Compliance Department's enforcement efforts regarding Noise Ordinance cases for the period
between October 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. For the purpose of Noise Reports, quarters are
reflected by Calendar Year, as opposed to Fiscal Year as prescribed in the 2008 Administrative
Guidelines. Said guidelines also require data and analysis to be presented in a specific format.
I. SUMMARY
The data is presented in a table format (Attachment A), and commercial noise data is further
detailed in a similar arrangement (Attachment B). The third and last attachment (Attachment C)
reflects a synopsis on the resolution of noise-related cases that have been appealed, have been
presented or are scheduled to be presented before the Special Master.
The compiled data reflects that during the rating period there were a total of 1,182 noise cases,
opened through complaints or proactively. Of these, there were 159 cases that were either
canceled by the complainant (22), were deemed to be duplicate (78), were voided due to input error
(32), did not apply to Code (1), and/or were referred to the Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD)
for handling (26). When these 159 cases are subtracted from the total number of noise cases, the
result is 1,023 cases with either a valid or a non-valid disposition. Of the 1,023 cases, 599 (58.6%)
were identified to have taken place at a residentially zoned location; 301 cases (29.4%) occurred at
a commercial establishment; and 123 (12.0%) were identified to have taken place on public
property and are reflected as "other". The matrix below reflects the breakdown by type of location.
v'
RESIDENTIAL 599 58.6%
COMMERCIAL 301 29.4%
OTHER 123 12.0%
During the rating period, there were a total of 221 valid noise cases and the aggregate validity rate
for all noise cases was identified to be at 21.6%. The validity rate for noise cases within
commercially zoned areas was slightly higher, at 22.6%. However, this rate is skewed by calls at
one specific location which is currently in litigation with a neighboring property, and where the vast
majority of the calls are invalid. If these calls (216) total noise cases for the current period, 5 of
which were valid, and the rest were either invalid (130), duplicates (74), canceled (4), or voided (3)
are backed out of the equation, the overall validity rate increases to 24.3%. Taking it a step further,
when cases routed to the MBPD for handling are also removed from the equation (exclusively
measuring the validity rate of noise cases responded to by Code) the rate increases to 26.3%.
LTC—Q4 2013 Noise Report Page 2 of 6
(October 2013—December 2013)
II. VALIDITY RATES
Historically, noise validity rates have been incorrectly associated with the overall performance of
Code Compliance. This correlation is not accurate as there are a myriad of factors that impact the
validity of a noise complaint. Some factors that have a direct relationship to validity include
response time and accessibility. Another reason that a case would be deemed invalid is that it
simply fails to meet the validity threshold as reflected in Article IV — Section 46-152 of the City of
Miami Beach Code. According to the code the noise must be identified to be "excessive, unusual, or
unnecessary"; and between 11 PM and 7 AM, a noise may be deemed valid if it is "plainly audible
at 100 feet." However, there are occasions where the complaint cannot be assessed as the
location in question may not be accessible (i.e. Code Compliance Officer (CCO) may not be able to
enter the property as it may require an access code that was not provided by the complainant); or
the noise ceased to exist by the time the CCO arrives to the subject address, or the call was
unfounded/no noise.
Below is a chart reflecting the multiple reasons why noise complaints were deemed invalid during
the rating period.
DCPLAW!90N, $T .t L:L WAS NOT VALtD
C+omrr�at.t�sa�Ca��►
No access Lowered can After 11
No Noise handled by PM Not Music not
/No Not a prior to Exception
Occurring MBPD,no Plainly loud or TOTAL
Access Code Issue officer's Granted
at Arrival Code arrival details Audible at excessive
available 100 Feet
40 1 1 5 2 9 25 150 233
It is also important to denote that there is a direct correlation between noise validity rates and the
complainants providing their identity and or contact information. During Q4 2013, the validity rate
when the complainant leaves a contact number is 22.3%; as opposed to when the complainant
remains anonymous (19.1%).
Notwithstanding, and directly as a result of multiple efforts including case monitoring, closer case
review by Code Compliance Administrators (CCA) and management, accountability and follow up,
the noise validity rate has gradually increased over the past seven (7) quarters. The chart below
reflects the validity rate for commercial cases, which has improved more than 10 percentage points
relative to quarters in year 2009, 2010, and 2011.
n,
At
40.0% F
.......� _....�� �� 362%
28.4 30.0% C
. o .
„ y
21.3% 21.9%
Cr' V Ci''- CS� Off' Off' O�� 01' Off• Off• 01' Off' O,' Off' O,' Off• O,• O,' Off• O
o- a a
Chart#1
LTC—Q4 2013 Noise Report Page 3 of 6
(October 2013—December 2013)
III. ALL NOISE CASES
Historical analysis reflects a consistent pattern where Quarter 4 has the second highest number of
Noise Violations within any calendar year. This pattern is in line with the festivities and special
events that take place at the end of the year. The chart below demonstrates the quarterly trend and
horse-shoe pattern in effect for the past eight (8) years.
Total-Noise Cases
2000 �---�.�� .�_ v... — .���.
By Quarter —4--2006
--s-2007
1500 ---
- 2008
:: -- --2009
-'` 2010
nw
Chart#2
IV. COMMERCIAL CASES
A historical trend analysis beginning on Quarter 1 2008 clearly reflects that the majority of noise-
related cases take place within residentially zoned areas. This pattern is clearly illustrated in Chart
#3, below.
Aft
662 4,76'9
644
45$ '�-
�-
z
252 339 207 .
i 89 ---- 7
4 1
_..__..____,._._....__.._.._._.._._.-..._._..�..____ ..,_.__�..-_. .. .___.�,______._____.___�_
Chart#3
During Quarter 4 2013, there were a total of 599 noise cases that took place in residential
properties, and 301 cases in commercial. For the analysis, commercial noise cases are those that
take place in hotels, condo/hotels, restaurants, bars, retail space and commercial construction sites.
A detailed breakdown of the 301 commercial cases and their location is reflected in Chart#4 on the
following page.
LTC—Q4 2013 Noise Report Page 4 of 6
(October 2013—December 2013)
A cursory analysis reveals that noise from hotels and restaurants make up more than half (56.5%)
of all the commercial noise cases; followed by condo-hotels, bars, and clubs; while commercial
retail space made up less than 2% of the cases.
All Commercial Cases- By Establishment Type
October 2013-December 2013
CONDO/HOTELS
59 Cases-19.6%
RESTAURANTS
69 Cases 22.9% CLUBS
3 Cases-11%
RETAIL
BARS 5 Cases-1.7%
34 Cases 11.3%
HOTELS
101 Cases-33.6%
Chart#4
A. Type of Noise - Commercial Cases
As trending in noise reports since 2006, loud music is the most common type of noise
reported. During the rating period, loud music accounted for 62.1% of commercial noise
cases opened. This was followed by construction noise (110 cases—36.5%), honking / car
alarms (3 cases — 1%) and one (1) incident of a barking dog within a commercially zoned
location.
B. Time/Day of Week Commercial Noise Occurs
Following a different pattern to previous years, data for Q4 2013 reflected a slight shift in
the amount of commercial cases opened/reported between 7 AM to 11 PM (184 cases —
61.1%) and those cases opened/reported between 11 PM and 7 AM (117 cases —
38.9%). Historically, the 8-hour period between 11 PM and 7 AM accounted for about the
same number of noise for the 16-hour period between 7 AM and 11 PM. It is also
important to denote that part of the reason for the slight shift is the number of calls
received from the aforementioned property that is in litigation with its neighboring building
(where 68 of the 184 cases received between 7 AM to 11 PM were deemed related to this
location).
During the current rating period, there has been an increase in the number of commercial
cases during the day period. This may be as a result of an increase in construction activity.
Attachment B provides detailed data regarding this experience.
As it relates to the day of the week when a noise case from a commercially zoned area is
incidence of commercial
received / addressed, Saturday remains the day with the highest in c
noise violations, followed closely by Friday and then Sunday. These three (3) days
account for nearly half (48.9%) of all the noise cases. For a more detailed breakdown,
please see Attachment B.
LTC—Q4 2013 Noise Report Page 5 of 6
(October 2013—December 2013)
C. Response Time
Response time is determined by information obtained from the Dispatch Division at the
City's Parking Department. The collected data reflects the time a call is received from a
complainant and the time a CCO reports their arrival. Below is a chart reflecting the
average time for a CCO to arrive, broken down by establishment type and status outcome
for 911 cases (89% of all noise cases within the rating period). It is important to reflect
that there were 113 cases where either received time or dispatched time was not captured
by the system. On average, Code staff responds to a noise complaint well within 30
minutes of a complaint being received by Dispatch.
Average Response Time for Code Officer on Noise Complaints(Q4-2013)
Average Time
Overall Number from Call
Number of Establishment Average Received by
Cases* Type Response Status of * Dispatch to
Time
Cases Code Officer's
Arrival
R@s1d 0:23:56 '.. ' . ..
NON-VALID 424 0:24:04
911 Comimercal : 0:25:02llt!0 tt :
NON-VALID 218 0:26:13
0:29:12
NON-VALID 84 0:29:39
A11 Cas�S 0:24:50 Y
NON-VALID 726 0:25:22
*Average Time Calculated using those cases with valid time data for both "Time Call Received by Dispatch" and "Time of
Arrival by Code Officer'
It is worth mentioning that response times for commercial cases were within the set goal of
20 minutes or less. The validity rate for commercial cases was higher than it has been in
the past; indicating that there may be a direct correlation between validity rates and
response time.
V. MAJOR/ SPECIAL EVENTS
Within the rating period, there were multiple major events within the City of Miami Beach, including
Art Basel and New Year's Eve. However, Art Basel is not a music-related event, and therefore it
does not generate noise-related incidents.
Permits Plus database research reflects that the level of incidence for New Year's Eve noise
complaints marginally decreased relative to the past few years; while the ratio of valid noise
complaints has been in the mid 20 percent (with the exception of 2012 where 50% of noise cases
were identified to be valid). The chart below illustrates the data for the past five (5) years.
NEW Y CIDE
TQT&L N 5 47 52 74 68 42
CQUII MU51C 39 46 71 66 40
OTAL MID 11 26 22 15 9
LTC—Q4 2013 Noise Report Page 6 of 6
(October 2013—December 2013)
VI. NOISE ORDINANCE EXEMPTIONS
During the rating period there were a number of requests for extended work hours by construction
companies for after hours, weekends, or holidays. The majority of the requests were denied, but
four (4) were granted to work extra hours after proper coordination through the Building
Department, Public Works, and the Office of the City Manager.
VII. SPECIAL MASTER APPEAL HEARINGS
Between the period of October 1 through December 31, 2013, there were a total of 24 appeals
heard or filed with the Special Master for noise-related cases. As of the date of this LTC, three (3)
cases were adjudicated guilty, one (1) was dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and
one (1) was withdrawn by the petitioner and the fine was paid. The remaining 19 cases are either
yet to be heard or requested a continuance. Detailed status on the 24 cases is reflected in
Attachment C.
JLM /RSrfm
A c m nts
Attachment A- Noise Data—10/01/2013 through 12/31/2013
Attachment B—Commercial Noise Cases- 10/01/2013 through 12/31/2013
Attachment C—Special Master Appeal Hearings-(10/01/2013 through 12/31/2013)
F:\CODE\$ADM\Robert\NOISE REPORTS\Q4-2013\Q4-2013 LTC-2-3-2014.docx
N M
r N
N N 00 (D G N O
N M h N N Go
r r
M
O
d
0 L
' � U
n o U)
• o . a co
U m O U
U) o
U a N U.
m
U - Q m
• c a a? U = c
U >C) Z X 32> Z
C
• 2
a
e
co
ca
a a
� V �
M o
O �" o o a o ° o 0 0 o a
ar d O M M LO O M O O --t I- O
N m I- co � to m O, N N T O L6 O t` O
m V
m a a
O �^
N '. m
` yi
W M O �N O ONO ;n00� v CN
r 00
N
Vn r CN
U O
Q a
O o 0
QO O O O O O O O O
a) '-� O> O 6) CO CO N o0 N O
OG C N E CD "t O O m N N O N N
1:T
O Q m o m m d
O 3OL
o
M N N ^.B O O t tt N N
(D O N
• N N N
Z m a '>
co. V a
L N
Uco 'a Z'
• M a 0 0 0 \ Al 0 0 0
N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U d to p 01 (O It O p O CO N '0 CO O I- u7 Qy O 0
Cj• j co O C r !�N N O U :.` N M M N N(O 0 0 0
* M m +�
_ h ` c
•
U
tD
L
25 :.
_ M
• 07 00 O �,.� r O r M N w M`- O M O N
L (O N • �;_a)O N O N t :`N M M N L O U7 O O O
C �
Q r;?
• • LT O a
• a�_ iz
Q y °a y
' • u U F° �
W u W
�
U N
_ _ _
Ci • N cr, J OL m N
m t M
C Q t7 _
a W • C O II �I a O Q p
@ 1► _m @
U)00 0
m ° E m0mwwF- Qwz
o m o ai o a Q �000F- ww0 Z
Q > > U O c U O Q m U U U S O Q S S
M
w
O
N
O
co
CL
0 0 0 0\° 0 o \ o
o \ \\o \ \ e \\\\\o \ e r \\\\o \ e \0 0 0 0 0 0 o r} 0 0 o e
0 0 0 0 0 0
{
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a pl.:
7+�; t0
7 N M N Lo O (!7 - - M M O (n M N CO ,r O Cl) CD (n 00 O (O �' t� 7 (n O O"t O �
(D N CO O Of O CD >"� h �"x •t r- C, W
O !� O O M(n n -O N M � O co(D n t�
H N /� M N r�F M F N M
to JE
IN _ O (n N N It �O n L M � O O M O O CD O (0 O N N M (C) O
N O N Cl)O co r- M to d f` O �O -4 N O N r- M"t M 4 (n(n M M N LO M •Q'
i ' •, a `� O
r U)
;y
0 0 o o e Z
0 \o \ \ \ \ 3' a° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \
\\\\\ \ o e o e \\\ o Cl)
0 0 0 0 0 0 .o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O CD O 4 s p 7 t'_ — O O M 00 O 'It
r
O 00 O O O CO COO CD x N O(n N ,„y,s N Cn O (D
(D t-- (D O� 6 0 "' O d Cn (A� M a'' - l�O O f� O O N M CO c6 O O
N CD r M tr.:z tD CO r CD N
N O O Co CO O CO N O }N CD M M O CD O '�,O N N ti O(n O O co O O
(A O O LOO N CO CO CO r- M N O r N (T N .- to 0 r— (n co(A co co O 00 �
n
4
}
0 o e \0\o\°\°\o\0 \o 0 0 0 0\o\\ \o o �"�e\\o\\\ \ o 0 0
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a c o 0 0 0 0 ,k y.- 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e
O o 0 0 o o O ::O CA N n CD N O O Cn O(D In O N t� O (O 0 0
N h N O (D
O - O N O N O O O(1')M N O N M N O O { F 00 (A N O
{ _ r
� �• �.�-tea.
O N - -:N N (n O O O Cn N _ r t„c' a0 (D p N 0) r M N
N N N (b O p N N N M ti N
N M(n O O O N O
CD N . N s
r r Wi•_ r • N'.k;.: to M
• (n Z y
F-
Z � I� • � � I►O � • Imo► �
• J Q • N
Z Z Q 3 •
Q O W O_ • a
y • Q U O
O �H �Z� W co co m ZtY
• H2ZZDZ < m m m o m m Q m h m (o ww �
m a m m D w cu
• b W �OZ = Z .J a � (nom (o� � (n -o (o ff Z c (nom m � °
a� c a> a c c
00 > Q W OHO o mr io S Q O OL m O O � OL c to Lu0
Z MUUO= :';<_ 2F- LL > �� � F- Licn (n z � � � � �(ncn Q10101
M
w
O
M
d
O
(0
IL
e o c o e
r,: Lo r _
tll ^ It N O
C14 r-d
N
ld
U
cD
Go N
O
a
m
• o
Z
O o 0 0
1� O It p
• �
N O 06 N.-r �
� d
h
W
`U
r 00 I� N
N O 00
N
•
o° o °o
ON
� N n Lo
L O Cl)
CN CD
H
d
c0
U
• io
•
I�—
C � cM0 M r
r
•
w
c0o ccu
C C
M O O
• a U o N
O Y M
U 3 E
o
• °
,n v,
• o o
E E m
.� c c N cg ° c
E
�� QQ EUa c:
N
0 0 o O
CO 11 CD
N 1� O
co m O)
co
• d
p M
N
•
' II
• ty
d
cn W
N c0
N U
• u) -Ua
co -
. U
c o
m O Z
> Z
iz
R
°
0 0 0 0 0 e
r 0 0 0 0 co N 0 0 03 0 I- q
0 ao o 0 0 — o o N (,)
N ti
CY
ti
f
W .moo
Cl) M
Q Y
5
U N N N U7 LO I- M CAM O O O O N M
N N
W d
Z o
0 0 0 0 0 0 \°
J M ; \ \ o o \ o °
(M O 1- O M (Y) M C) M O fl- O (M O CY)
r (M M (V (fl N O O O O 6 N O
O h' N
U
N It' � O
W O O o N CO LO
O O O (O
'D
CL
V •
N . O c° 8-0 £W c 0 0
cl O a°
^ \ 0 0 0 \ o o e
(O N p L M O (fl O (0 O — O M O LO 0 6 0
Z V N r O r O C) (0 O
w M � Cl)C N
•
Qv
r N to M M U7 O 0 0 * 0�0 O O O M O
• M r M
y , _
w Q
Z
+ Z Z
lV +� J w
M w H Q
• . H Z
_ O Q w p 0 U o
V h i z � C7 O CN
IQ► • C 00 C O Q J_ J ' W Z H Z M
m Im 1- Q w Y33: (n w Y
•
0 F- o
•
o O•
Q > > >
co 10101of Of 2 J J CO U U O =
N
w
O
N
N
0)
we
(0
d
O\
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e O o o
I� M O � O O M � O O O 00 O CO (- O m M "t CO O O O O O
LO 4 00 O lC) M O O N Q7 N CO co 00 CO M M ti M M M Lo O
S .
•
''. CO N O (0 r O O N O ti M LO to O O O CO 'm • N r �
M r O O O
vs 0
• N
.O
\° \
0 0 0 \ 0 0 0 \ o c \
c0 O M r-_O N O CV O (O N CV a0 O CO CO CO O O
N O () N O N Cl)
r-- O) f- CO
�x co O co CO N co In O r O CO tin ` � O � O O (0 � CO � co m N �
N N N N M M M N N N CO N O N
4 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 0 0 0 \ "'' 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e • -"�, o
c \ \ c c \ \ G 0
O O CO M (O O O) N qt r-� q O r it.. M O M CO Cf) LO O O • Y C LO O O) r
M M N M Lo O M 4 m c6 (O to a0 O O 00 N
r r - - • r M
M
f � k
•
• rh
O O CO 00 O M M 00 ay IT O O r- CO M LO M Cfl LO O) r
p O to O M N tG u� N M M N M M M • O ch N
N M t M qt (fl M a;'. N CO) r e-
f
Z
• z
v CD
p FO �O • �, >
• Z :.,, c U
y m c O
J R� rf d U O O
qt
(a U 3 m
En CU
J c U O D c J c0 N 7 w c Z N c +� O O c 0
J 0 s c Ca Q t c ca O N L c m = O c c ca 0 -,
Q f— H cq cn > H cn cn z H H LL cn U) " H Q Q E U 5
i
ATTACHMENT C
Information on •• • of by •• and by •icial (Q4-20
Date of '. 1s[ilasteir Cade- f r
Violation fly# a INtmtber N
1701 COLLINS SM 11/07/2013-On 10/29/13 attorney for the appeal
07/20/2013 07129/2013 JC13000483 CE13011484 1701 Collins Ave (MIAMI)OPERATING sent a letter withdrawing the appeal.
COMPANY
CULINARY ARTS SM 11/07/2013 - City Bill issued CB#00043020/
08/07/2013 08/15/2013 JC13000553 CE13012180 1427 West Ave CATERING,LLC CUST#021184 Customer paid full amount at Finance
D/B/A BARTON G Department with Check#25814.Still on calendar for
SM ON 01/24/2014.
09/01/2013 09/09/2013 JC13000585 CE13013056 835 N Shore Drive IVAN DEL RIO& SM 10/10/2013-Guilty of a First Offense-Fine of
ELIGIO MOYA. $250 shall be paid by December 13,2013.
FRIENDS OF SM 11/7/2013-Case Dismissed. Violation not proven
09/24/2013 10/8/13. JC14000055 CE13013792 1140 ALTON RD LUBAVITCH OF FLA by clear and convincing evidence.
INC
09/08/2013 09/27/2013 JC14000070 CE13013266 6261 Collins Ave RP/WG Cabana SM 02/06/2014
Owners L.P.
09/09/2013 09/27/2013 JC14000071 CE13013314 6261 Collins Ave RP/WG Cabana SM 02/06/2014
Owners L.P.
09/10/2013 09/27/2013 JC14000072 CE13013318 6261 Collins Ave RP/WG Cabana SM 02/06/2014
Owners L.P.
09/20/2013 09/27/2013 JC14000073 CE13013637 6261 Collins Ave RP/WG Cabana SM 02/06/2014
Owners L.P.
09/19/2013 09/27/2013 JC14000074 CE13013634 6261 Collins Ave RP/WG Cabana SM 02/06/2014
Owners L.P.
10/06/2013 10/16/2013 JC14000098 CE14000188 1000 South Pointe La Piaggia,Inc. SM 03/13/2014
Drive
SM 01/09/2014-Violator not present at SM.
10/13/2013 10/22/2013 JC14000099 CE14000416 8109 Crespi Blvd Pedro Garcia Adjudicated Guilty of a First Offense. Fine of$250
imposed and shall be paid by 03/12/2014.
10/13/2013 10/22/2013 JC14000100 CE14000403 136 Collins Ave Amnesia International SM 03/13/2014
LLC/DBA Story
10/12/2013 10/23/2013 JC14000101 CE14000397 7300 Gary Ave Ivy Swanes SM 02/06/2014
1701 COLLINS
10/27/2013 10/29/2013 JC14000106 CE14000899 1701 Collins Ave (MIAMI)OPERATING SM 02/06/2014
COMPANY
10/24/2013 01/01/2014 JC14000119 CE14000797 242 Washington Ave Ibiza,2,Inc./Richard SM 03/13/2014
Silverman
11/10/2013 11/12/2013 JC14000120 CE14001299 1000 South Pointe La Piaggia,Inc. SM 03/13/2014
Drive
11/03/2013 11/12/2013 JC14000121 CE14001113 1000 South Pointe La Piaggia,Inc. SM 03/13/2014
Drive
Beach Hotel
10/27/2013 11/12/2013 JC14000150 CE14000903 1685 Collins Ave Associates LLC,d/b/a SM 03/13/2014
Bianca Delano
11/03/2013 11/12/2013 JC14000151 CE14001092 960 Ocean Drive SOBE USA,LLC d/b/a SM 03/13/2014
Ocean's Ten
11/17/2013 11/25/2013 JC14000183 CE14001540 960 Ocean Drive Ocean's Ten SM 03/13/2014
11/02/2013 11/08/2013 JC14000188 CE14001070 960 Ocean Drive SOBE USA,LLC d/b/a SM 03/13/2014
Oceans Ten
11/24/2013 12/02/2013 JC14000191 CE14001763 960 Ocean Drive SOBE USA,LLC d/b/a SM 03/13/2014
Ocean's Ten
12/06/2013 12/10/2013 JC14000194 CE14002134 1020 Ocean Drive 2K Clevelander Inc. SM 04/10/2014
01/01/2014 01/10/2014 JC14000241 CE14002988 27 Star Island Drive LLCboard Florida IV, SM 05/08/2014
01/27/2014 Q4 2013 Noise Report Code Compliance
i