ambient noise level should be measured at the time of day when noise levels are lowest-i.e., <br />late at night when fewer cars, occupational activities and equipment, and other factors are <br />creating additional ambient noise. This is also the time of the day that most people are home, <br />and as Mr. Noxon described, are sleeping. SSA and Mr. Noxon used different sound meters, but <br />there is no explanation why this might be significant, so the hearing official does not attribute <br />any meaning to this. <br />Second, Mr. Noxon identified factors that the applicant's noise study did not address. For <br />example, Mr. Noxon factored in reflected noise from the building adjacent to the tower, <br />calculating that it could increase the noise level to 48 dB,A at the Northgreen property line (July <br />6, 2011 at 5). Mr. Noxon also used comparisons from other sites, carefully describing what he <br />measured and the limits of those observations. SSA noted that Mr. Noxon's calculations using <br />the noise level of equipment at other sites, "are not an accurate representation of noise levels <br />from this site" (July 12, 2011 at 2). But, SSA did not address the actual site condition that Mr. <br />Noxon considered-the reflection from the building to the south of the proposed cell tower <br />site. <br />Third, Mr. Noxon measured at different octaves; there is nothing in the SSA report to indicate <br />that it measured different octaves; perhaps measuring at different at octaves is standard <br />practice and SSA simply did not provide that level of data in its report. Nevertheless, Mr. Noxon <br />describes that even though the overall increase in noise level might be only +5 dB, there would <br />be a +13 dB increase (degradation in ambient levels) in the 4 and 8K octave range. This, he <br />opined, would violate OAR 340-035-0035(1)(b)(B)(i) and (ii). And, SSA did not address different <br />octaves, even after reviewing Mr. Noxon's report. <br />Fourth, the applicant proposed to enclose the equipment with a solid fence, which changed <br />much of the noise calculation. Mr. Noxon acknowledged this in his July 13, 2011 report, but <br />also pointed out that the SSA analysis did not address several of the comments that he <br />provided, including the problem of starting with a midday ambient noise level calculation and <br />opinion that the proposal would still violate the OAR cited above. <br />In short, the entirety of the evidence does not demonstrate that the noise level from the tower <br />equipment would comply with EC 9.5750(7)(f). The reports do show raw numbers that would <br />seem to comply with this standard, but they lack some of the analyses that Mr. Noxon <br />conducted. As such, Mr. Noxon's reports are the only ones in the record to address specific <br />aspects of noise level, such as those described above. As well, the hearing official is concerned <br />that the applicant's reports do not address several questions and formulae that Mr. Noxon <br />raised. The hearing official understands that engineering is as much art as it is science and that <br />professional engineers often differ in their conclusions, but here, where the applicant's <br />engineers do not explain their assumptions and calculations after another qualified person has <br />raised questions about them, the hearing official cannot conclude that those reports <br />demonstrate compliance. <br />Hearing Official Decision (PDT 10-2, CU 11-1) 37 <br />