The City's Telecommunications consultant Carl Bloom, from Environalysis LLC, reviewed Mr. <br />Kloos's assertion and provided written feedback, noting that many municipalities and states <br />define maximum noise levels at the boundary between a noise-emitting property and a noise- <br />receiving property. In all cases that he has seen, these regulations specify that the maximum <br />permitted noise level is that coming from the emitting property only, not the total of <br />background and emitting noise. He adds that the reason for a code to be written and <br />understood in this way is that it allows for the straightforward calculation/modeling of noise <br />impacts from equipment (whose noise "emissions" are documented) and thus facilitates the <br />determination of code compliance. <br />Additional testimony provided by Mr. Kloos, indicated that the noise analysis provided with the <br />PUD application did not include future cabinets or a generator (which was confirmed by <br />Environalysis, LLC). The applicant provided a revised acoustical report from SSA Acoustics, LLC <br />dated March 21, 2011 and additional information upon submitting the CUP, which includes all <br />existing and proposed cabinets and confirmed that a generator is not proposed. <br />At the hearing and after the hearing, Arthur Noxon, PE, Acoustical Engineer, provided expert <br />information and opinion reviewing the applicant's noise studies and explaining how noise <br />measurement works, how noise affects individuals. The hearing official does point out that <br />some of Mr. Noxon's testimony seems to cross the line from helpful expert to project <br />opponent; however, Mr. Noxon's explanations of the how and why of noise measurement leads <br />the hearing official to conclude that on balance his testimony is both credible and helpful. The <br />hearing official especially appreciates Mr. Noxon's brief paragraph explaining Noise <br />Measurements (July 6, 2011 at 2) in which he explains: <br />Adding new cell tower noise to a pre-existing ambient noise floor will typically create a <br />new and louder ambient noise floor. There is more to sound, and particularly ambient <br />noise, than just sound level. In addition to sound level, sound tone quality, its spectral <br />content and temporal quality (its variations in time) are all relevant aspects of sound <br />with which the proposed cell tower must be measured. <br />Without reviewing each report in minute detail here, the hearing official makes a few <br />observations. First, there is a clear difference in opinion in the level of ambient conditions. This <br />seems to be related to when the various engineers conducted their measurements. SSA, for <br />the applicant, measured ambient conditions on April 29, 2010 at 11:00 am and found the <br />ambient noise level was "55 dB(A) Leq.i4 Mr. Noxon measured ambient noise on June 16-17, <br />2011 between midnight and 1 am and found 40 dB,A. It makes sense to the hearing official that <br />4 The Eugene Code and various reports in this matter use differing abbreviations for noise <br />measurement. For example, EC 9.5750(7)(f) uses "dBa"; SSA's July 1, 2011 report uses "dB(A) <br />Leq," "dBA," "LwA," and "dB(A)"; and Mr. Noxon's July 6, 2011 report uses "dB" and "dB,A." <br />These different acronyms may be meaningful to the engineers doing the reporting and <br />reviewing the reporting, but without explanation to the hearing official, the hearing official <br />assumes they are describing the same. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 36 <br />