<br />As noted previously, the applicant is requesting a variance to the undergrounding requirement <br />of EC 9.5750(8) for ancillary equipment. Initially, the applicant submitted an acoustical report <br />from SSA Acoustics (dated October 22, 2014, see Attachment14). This report indicates that the <br />proposed above ground ancillary equipment would not violate the 45dBa limit during normal <br />operation. However, during emergency operations and monthly testing, the sound level was <br />initially predicted to exceed the decibel limit. The report recommended several mitigation <br />measures; however even with these measures in place the operation of the emergency <br />generator was predicted to exceed the limit by one decibel. Based on this predicted sound <br />level, staff indicated to the applicant that the variance could be denied since the report could <br />not predict the facility could meet the Eugene Code standard at all times. <br /> <br />Based on the concerns expressed by staff about exceeding the noise limit, the applicant then <br />submitted a revised report (dated April 20, 2015, see Attachment 15) which described an <br />additional mitigation measure, predicting that sound levels at all times would not exceed <br />45dBa. However, after comparing the two reports, staffhad concerns that the only additional <br />mitigation measure was a metal hood and 1-inch liner on the air discharge stack. However, the <br />revised report showed changes in building and noise factors and the overall dBa levels not only <br />for the noise from the air discharge stack but also for the engine exhaust stack and the air <br />intake stack. The SSA Acoustics report gave no explanation on how this was possible. <br /> <br />Staff then contacted Environalysis and requested a further review of the revised SSA report(see <br />Attachment 4). Environalysis concluded via direct communication with SSA Acoustics engineers, <br />that the emergency generator, with the additional mitigation measure of an insulated hood for <br />the air intake, will meet the City’s 45dBa standard. <br /> <br />In the event of an approval, staff would recommend conditions to require the applicant to <br />conduct on-site sound level testing at all receiving property lines, to provide evidence of <br />compliance upon construction of the facility, and to explicitly ensure that the facility would not <br />be allowed to exceed the 45dBa standard at any time. <br /> <br />6. A landscape plan drawn to scale showing proposed and existing <br />landscaping, including type, spacing, size and irrigation methods. <br /> <br />The applicant provided landscape plans that show existing and proposed landscaping (see <br />Attachment 10, Sheets L-1.0 and L-2.0). Three additional maple trees and 54 various shrubs are <br />proposed for planting around the base of the tower structure and the ancillary equipment <br />building addition. As proposed, the landscaping meets the applicable standards. However, staff <br />suggested the applicant consider providing additional large caliper trees, strategically placed to <br />help screen and buffer the view of the mono-pine from off the property. The applicant has <br />submitted revised landscape plans (see Attachment 16) showing nine additional evergreen <br />trees, 15 to 20 feet in height at time of planting, to provide additional screening. <br /> <br />7. Plans showing the connection to utilities/right-of-way cuts required, <br />ownership of utilities and easements required. <br />HO Agenda - Page 23 <br />