school, library, or nursing home, noise generating equipment shall be sound- <br />buffered by means of baffling, barriers, or other suitable means to reduce sound <br />level measured at the property line to 45dBa. <br />The applicant originally provided an Acoustical Report with the PUD, and then provided an updated <br />version as Exhibit R (dated March 21, 2011), which includes documentation demonstrating <br />compliance with the standard that noise generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of <br />baffling, barriers, or other suitable means to reduce sound level measured at the property line to . <br />45dBa, as required. This report was subsequently reviewed by Environalysis LLC on behalf of the City <br />of Eugene. The review concluded that the noise impacts at the west and north property lines would <br />be 1 decibel level less than the report indicated, As a result, the noise levels at the two nearest <br />property lines would be less than 45dBA as measured at the property line, in compliance with this <br />criterion. <br />Testimony provided by Bill Kloos on behalf of the Oakway Neighbors asserts that the proposed use <br />can't be approved because it will aggravate the noise situation, which already exceeds the allowed <br />levels. He notes that the standard does not limit the noise of the equipment, but rather all noise <br />sources must be 45 dBA or less. The interpretation that all noise sources must be below 45 dBA is not <br />an accurate read of this standard. The standard to reduce the sound level measured at the property <br />line to 45 dBA refers directly to the action of reducing sound levels of "noise generating equipment" <br />by baffling, barriers or other suitable means. In the context of this standard, it does not include <br />reference to other existing noise sources. <br />The City's Telecommunications consultant Carl Bloom, from Environalysis LLC reviewed Mr. Kloos's <br />assertion and provided written feedback, noting that many municipalities and states define maximum <br />noise levels at the boundary between a noise-emitting property and a noise-receiving property. In all <br />cases that he has seen, these regulations specify that the maximum permitted noise level is that <br />coming from the emitting property only, not the total of background and emitting noise. He adds that <br />the reason for a code to be written and understood in this way is that it allows for the straightforward <br />calculation/modeling of noise impacts from equipment (whose noise "emissions" are documented) <br />and thus facilitates the determination of code compliance. <br />Additional testimony provided by Mr. Kloos, indicated that the noise analysis provided with the PUD <br />application did not include future cabinets or a generator (which was confirmed by Environalysis, <br />LI_C).The applicant provided a revised acoustical report from SSA Acoustics, LLC dated March 21 and <br />additionaLinformation upon submitting the CUP, which includes all existing and proposed cabinets <br />and confirmed that a generator is not proposed. <br />Given the findings above, the information provided by the applicant shows compliance with this <br />standard. <br />(g) Status of Location. No permit may be issued for the location of a new <br />telecommunications facility within an R-1 or C-1 zone unless the lot on which it is to <br />be placed is vacant or developed with a non-residential use at the time the permit <br />application is submitted. This restriction does not apply within other zones. <br />Staff Report <br />(PDT 10-2 & CU 11-1) June 2011 25 <br />Ha Agenda - Page 1 <br />