Attachment B <br />As noted previously, it is unclear whether the requested underground variance would be <br />granted without more information to justify the request, particularly related to noise and visual <br />impacts in a residential area. In any event, it seems critical to have comparative evidence about <br />the effects of undergrounding. For example, would undergrounding require other noise <br />generating equipment like an elevator? This would also need to be measured and addressed in <br />the event that undergrounding may be required; alternatively, the applicant should consider an <br />underground vault design that does not require additional sound generating equipment, or <br />provide additional sound buffering as necessary. <br />In another recent case (AT&T at Oakway Golf Course, a.k.a. Northgreen Properties v. City of <br />Eugene), the variance for undergrounding ancillary facilities was denied; as such, the applicant <br />was required to submit a revised noise study to demonstrate compliance without the variance. <br />Assuming that could happen in this case, please provide noise studies under both scenarios. <br />That could be definitive evidence about the basis for a variance. <br />RESPON k: The proposed ground equipment includes AC units and an emergency generator, which <br />would both be fully enclosed within a sound-baffled equipment shelter, built to look like a seamless <br />extension of the church building. The AC units would run intermittently to cool equipment. The <br />emergency generator would run only in emergencies and for about 10 consecutive minutes during <br />monthly testing. The proposed design incorporates additional baffling sufficient to reduce the sound <br />from the AC units to 35 dBA, well below the 45 dBA code limit for R-1-zoned properties. Because the <br />proposed generator would run for such a short amount of time during daytime hours, it would not <br />be considered a noise disturbance under the code even if the noise level briefly exceeds 45 dBA. (Per <br />Matt Denberg, City of Eugene Code Compliance, Oct. 22, 2014. See generally, EC 6.750(b).) <br />However, to minimize the noise levels from the generator, it would be enclosed within the sound- <br />baffled equipment shelter. See Att. 07 (Sound Study) and Att. 04 (Site Plan, Sheet A-2.0). <br />6. A landscape plan drawn to scale showing proposed and existing <br />landscaping, including type, spacing, size and irrigation methods. <br />The proposed landscaping around the tower is shown, but it does not appear adequate to <br />meet the screening requirements. The landscape of the surroundings needs better <br />illustration, particularly if this tree design is intended to blend in with surroundings, which <br />would typically mean other trees. Is there a more vegetated portion of the site that would be <br />a better location? <br />RESPONSE: There is not a more vegetated portion of the site. The majority of the trees stand <br />individually and not in groupings. By placing the monopine near the existing church, it sits <br />individually on the site just as all the other trees do. Having it stand along the reference point <br />of other trees to this tree is more at a distance and stands to allow the tree to fade into the <br />less focused field of view. The proposed 75 foot monopine location is adjacent to 4 other stand- <br />alone mature pine trees, at 100, 63, 50, and 48 feet tall, making the location favorable for <br />mitigating visual impact. <br />The base of the monopine and equipment room are screened by both the existing topography <br />Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless - Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) 23 <br />