HomeMy WebLinkAboutAVAGO TECHNOLOGIES BLDG. 4 WEST EXPANSION - MJA/FDP - FDP130006 - REPORTS - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGAs noted by another homeowner: "Had we left the March 25`s meeting with knowledge
of the 6 new cooling towers, we would have been meeting with Avago on March 26's to
discuss mitigation."
At this point all we can say is we are sorry for the confusion, and stand
certain we had no intention of misleading anyone as we felt the
conversation clearly discussed and vetted the cooling tower as well as
many of the other elements and improvements of the project.
Applying great restraint, I will close on this topic by simply stating the homeowners were
not given adequate information, critical details were omitted, and elusive responses were
given to important questions. A great opportunity to build rapport, trust, and proactive
dialogue between the homeowners and Avago was missed. Also the opportunity was
missed to be proactive, methodical, and thorough in designing and documenting an
effective mitigation plan.
Avago respectfully disagrees and wishes no ill will toward the neighbors.
Avago has been and will continue to be a good neighbor and corporate
citizen for the City of Fort Collins and look forward to many more years of
progress and success.
Thank you for your time and please let us know if you need anything
further on this matter.
The document referenced here is a materials board required by the city
review process to show the intended material, color, and patterns of the
building. The cooling towers were not part of that pallet and were
therefore not included.
Likewise a comprehensive verbal review of the expansion plans reasonably should have
covered this critical information. Disclosure of the relevant information was avoided.
Avago takes strong exception to the premise that any information was
"avoided". Until the meeting on May 9th we were unaware that the
neighbors had no knowledge of the cooling towers. Again, our belief as
shown in the Neighborhood Meeting Summary was that the cooling
towers were discussed and disclosed and that there was adequate
dialogue about why they were located where they were.
Whether considered individually or in total, these missed opportunities to educate and
properly inform the homeowners, at minimum, is a severe oversight which greatly
diminishes or even negates what otherwise could have been a very informative meeting.
We've identified what we believe happened during the neighborhood
meeting and regret the misunderstanding, but do not agree we were
negligent in sharing the information that was required of us by the City to
inform the neighbors of the project's intent.
In the meeting notes there is an inquiry about new cooling towers and a comment in
which a homeowner expresses that he would prefer to see the loading dock to the North
and any noisy equipment to the South. The person who made those comments is the
author of this summary, me. I was specifically talking about the cooling towers to the
East of Building 4 because I know they have been an existing nuisance. My
understanding was the existing coolingfacility acility on the East side is where any expansion of
cooling capacity would occur. This question should have resulted in disclosure of the
plan for 6 new towers which would be placed to the North, and the abrupt answer of
"yes" is clearly evasive. The community expressed interest in an important topic and the
associated facts were not disclosed. Based on the information disclosed (or not
disclosed), I absolutely had no comprehension of the NEW towers to be placed on the
North and if I had, action on behalf of the homeowners would have begun immediately.
Though we are sorry Mr. Welch misunderstood the answer to his
question, it was in fact a direct and certainly not evasive answer. There
was no reason to believe there was any action to be taken that would
expand the existing towers which were clearly separated from the
expansion by the existing building.
B) On a 24"x26" poster, there are comparison photos of "Existing Conditions'
and a photo -shopped photo to show what the facility will look like "With
Expansion". Photo -shopped into the picture are: the new building, berm, and
even trees. However, in the same area where the trees were added, the
cooling towers are NOT represented. Again we strongly believe the towers
should have been visually represented herein and this was another failed
opportunity to inform the community of the single most impactful element of
the expansion.
The intent of the image reference above was to show the mass and scale
of the building. In fact when we first saw this image we were very
pleased at how low key and compatible the new building was in relation
to the existing building. Depicting the cooling towers was not the focus
of this image and therefore was not included.
C) On a 24"x26" poster was a drawing depicting a view from 10,000 feet looking
down onto the facility. There are several boxes just to the N of the building.
They are NOT identified as cooling towers and no one from the community
viewed these as anything more than small external storage sheds or dumpsters.
These would easily be mitigated by the berm which was discussed in the
meeting. Also the "boxes" do not even remotely look like a cooling tower
such as the existing cooling towers which are depicted on the drawing slightly
to the East of the Existing Building 4. We strongly believe the towers should
have been clearly marked and this was another failed opportunity to inform
the community of the single most impactful element of the expansion.
The image as described was an attempt to show the location of the
cooling towers in plan view. As noted there was discussion about the
cooling towers and it was our understanding at the time of the
neighborhood meeting that these "boxes' as described above, were
identified as cooling towers that could not be moved to the south side of
the building. In fact, as noted, there was a request to switch the location
of the loading dock (located on the south side of the building) with the
cooling towers, and several folks emphatically stated "no" they prefer the
loading dock was situated were it was. So from that dialogue we thought
we were doing the right thing and the audience understood what was
occurring.
D) Another poster marked as "Architectural Materials' covers numerous colors,
materials, textures, and visual elements, yet it does not mention a significant
deviation from these viewable items, ie the "Mechanical Cooling Towers with
Galvanized Metal Finish." This was another failed opportunity to inform the
community of the single most impactful element of the expansion.
Avago is committed to working with the neighbors to be a good neighbor
and corporate citizen. We hope our efforts are appreciated and look
forward to a long term relationship with the Woodland Park
homeowners.
(*1) = This footnote documents a serious concern by the homeowners. It is being placed
as a footnote rather than in the main body because it is our hope that the active dialogue
begun this week between Avago and the homeowners will continue and result in an
prior to the formal P&Z meeting scheduled for May 16". We appreciate the opportunity
to meet with Avago today. We feel they did a very good job of listening to our concerns
and we are hopeful that action to our mutual benefit will be taken. However, in the
absence of significantly improved and documented mitigation plan, the potential for
detrimental impact of the Avago expansion on our homes and our welfare is so great, we
feel the need for caution and believe these concerns should be documented. Hopefully,
the positive relationship we experienced today will continue and the concerns expressed
below will become become a minor footnote in an ongoing positive relationship.
Concerning the March 25t' neighborhood information meeting. No one from Woodland
Park left that meeting realizing that there would be 6 new cooling towers placed between
the building and the homeowners or anything perceived to be even remotely as impactful.
There were 4 documents presented in the meeting which could have reasonably/properly
informed the community about the towers: (slides of A, B, C, and D are attached.)
A) The Building 4 West Annex Architectural Elevations document shows an
Elevation North, an Elevation South, and an Elevation West. It was presented
on a 24"x26" poster in a very detailed, life -realistic set of images which imply
it represents the design features which should be of highest interest. It seems
to be designed to put your mind at ease that there are no surprises. However,
the cooling towers are invisible on this document. You see right through
them. We strongly believe the towers should have been visually represented
on this document and it was failed opportunity to inform the community of the
single most impactful design element of the expansion.
Again it is extremely unfortunate that the three noted references to
cooling towers in the Neighborhood Meeting's minutes were not picked
up by the Homeowners. The image referenced above was intended to
depict the materials, scale, and architectural character of the building.
The cooling towers were shown as dashed lines because they were not
the primary purpose of the image and the details of the type, size, and
location of the cooling towers was still being investigated by the design
team. There were other images that showed the location of the cooling
towers.
3. Place trees (many) close to the North Avago property line. Due to "line of site"
such trees would provide more visual screening for the homeowners than trees
which are further away.
Avago has agreed to this specific request. We will be planting 15 trees
along Avago's north property line, filling in the gaps between the trees
that exist there today. The plan is to have 40 trees planted on the berm
and 15 trees along the north property line — greatly increasing the
number of trees shown at the neighborhood meeting.
4. More landscaping on the berm
• Multiple layers of trees.
• Addition of substantial bushes.
Avago has indicated with the current plans to plant 55 new trees on the
berm and along the north property line in response to this request. The
plans shown at the neighborhood meeting had appx half of this amount
shown.
5. Higher Berm
Avago is working on how to best sculpt the berm to maximize its affect to
improve the visual perspective from the neighbors property and provide
an additional measure of noise mitigation.
6. This item is not a high priority, but it would be perceived as a positive effort on
part of Avago to be a good neighbor: Blacken the windows on the North side of
the existing building to correct design deficiencies relating to the emission of an
excessive amount of light. Avago noted that the new building is designed without
that set of windows. `Blacken" means overlay the windows with something
permanent with prevents the transmission of light.
Though this request does not affect the proposed new improvements,
Avago has agreed to address this concern by way of lowering the lights
that are visible through these windows. A project will be started to look
at the feasibility of accomplishing this goal. This is another example of
the concern and willingness of Avago to address the concerns their
facilities have on their properties.
In summary, for the reasons documented herein, the neighboring home owners
assessment of the current Avago mitigation plans is that they are inadequate and
unsatisfactory. Avago has agreed to meet with us early next week at which time it is our
hope they will share and commit to executing an improved mitigation plan which takes to
heart the interests and significant concerns of their neighboring home owners.
via the in -person meeting initiated by the homeowners and held on Thu, 5/9/13 at the
Avago site. Prior to meeting with Avago, effected homeowners discussed and agreed on
a prioritized list of potential mitigation opportunities. These priorities where then
discussed in our meeting with Avago. The list of priorities shared with Avago is:
Priorities for mitigation:
I. Move the cooling towers. A potential suggestion is to move them around the
corner... to the West and then to the South so they end up on the West side of the
building. Thus, placing them on a North -South line rather than their proposed
East-West line. This will enable more of the noise to be propagated to the West
toward Ziegler Ave rather than toward the homeowners on the North. Currently
they are set to be parallel to the homeowners which exposes maximum surface
area whereas placing on the West side of the building would set them
perpendicular to the homeowners and minimize the surface area facing the
homeowners. An added benefit is the noise reflected off the building will when
be directed to the West rather than to the North where the homeowners reside.
Wes
This is not practical or feasible as it does not work best with current
Building 4 operations, and would inhibit the ability for any future
expansion of the buildings to the west within Avago's property.
2. Incorporate direct and substantial sound and visual mitigation of the 6 new
cooling towers?
• Acoustic wall
• Select towers which have the best noise performance (ie. most quiet.)
• More towers, theorizing this would have more cooling surface and require
less fan/air speed and noise to achieve the same level of cooling. More
surface, less required air speed. (If indeed this would be quieter.)
Avago is looking at these as well as other options to ensure we meet the
50 dB level required by the code. Avago will continue to pursue options
to make improvements that have similar or greater impacts to noise as
the items listed above.
Specifically in regards to the acoustic wall, our engineers have illustrated
that a wall north of the cooling towers will reflect solar gain back onto
the cooling towers. That condition would require the units to operate
less efficiently and generate additional noise, which would be
counterproductive to the intended goal. We have, however, researched
and selected the cooling tower model that will have the best noise
performance.
and the addition of the berm effectively reduce the sound levels at the
north property boundary. In addition the testing being done by our
consultant is also considered as a 'worst case' scenario with all the
cooling towers in operation at the same time. So this provides for a basic
"margin of error" built into the model.
#5 There is no escaping noise. Our experience with the current cooling towers is they
don't knock you out of bed like a jack hammer, but the sound can emanate in a
continuous, evasive, relentless presence imposing the effective experience of a person
suffering from Minears Disease. Like a low grade infection which doesn't kill you, but it
is always there and never goes away. Unlike visual problems you cannot even turn away
to get some relief. If not mitigated at the source, sound will uncontrollably propagate.
Once "out of the bag", there is no possible mitigation which the local homeowners can
personally do to stop sound waves from penetrating, resonating, and intruding.
Until these recent discussions Avago has not received any complaints
about the exiting cooling towers. Based on City Code the noise level at
the property line of the Woodland Park properties can be no louder than
55 dB during the day and 50 dB at night. Our consultant has validated
that the current conditions are below those levels. As a means of
understanding what those measures mean, see the information below,
and remember, Avago is maintaining and will continue to maintain a level
at or below 50 dB.
Jet takeoff (at 305 meters), use of outboard motor, power lawn mower, motorcycle, farm
tractor, jackhammer, garbage truck. Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft)
before landing (106 dB); jet flyover at 1000 feet (103 dB); Bell J-2A helicopter at 100 It (100
dB).
Boeing 737 or OC-9 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power mower
(96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB). Newspaper press (97 dB).
Garbage disposal, dishwasher, average factory, freight train (at 15 meters). Car wash at 20 ft
i (89 d6); propeller plane flyover at 1000 ft (88 dB); diesel truck 40 mph at 50 It (84 68); diesel
train at 45 mph at 100 It (83 dB). Food blender (88 dB); milling machine (85 dB); garbage
li disposal (80 dB).
Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 It (77 dB); freeway at 50 ft from pavement edge 10 a.m. (76
dB). Living room music (76 dB); radio or TV -audio, vacuum cleaner (70 dB).
conversation In restaurant. office, background music, Air conditioning unit at 100 it
Whetsuburb, eanM5M11 nat bome.Lwyaelscblealtranararatare at 100ft
Library, bird calls (44 dB); lowest limit of urban ambient sound
Quiet rural area
Whisper, rustling leaves
Breathing
8 times as loud as 70 dB.
100
Serious damage possible In 8
hr exposure
90
4 times a$ loud as 70 dB.
Likely damage 8 hr exp
2 times as loud as 70 dB.
80
Possible damage in 8 hr
exposure.
Arbitrary base of comparison.
70
Upper 70s are annoyingly loud
to some people.
60
Half as loud as 70 dB. Fairly
quiet
50
One-fourth as bud as 70 dD.
40 One -eighth as loud as 70 dB
30 One -sixteenth as loud as 70
dB. Very Quiet
20
10 Barelyaudible
For these reasons, mitigation of the cooling towers is the #1 concern for the neighboring
homeowners and we clearly expressed this to Avago in our recent correspondences and
J
• Avago is taking steps to mitigate the noise emanating from the new
cooling towers. A 19,000 CY berm that is over 13 feet in height is being
installed. Cooling tower manufacturers and models have been evaluated
for their acoustical values and operating efficiency. And finally, Avago
has engaged the services of Geiler & Associates, an Acoustical
Engineering Consultant, to evaluate the noise generated from the
proposed cooling towers, ensure the noise ordinance is met, and suggest
options for minimizing the decibel level at the property line of the
Woodland Park homes. We have selected the quietest units on the
market today and are confident we will meet the noise requirements of
the City Code and not exceed the sound levels the neighbors experience
today.
#3 The homeowners also sought out professional input and assessments for sound
mitigation, especially as it relates to cooling towers. Attached is a packet of research and
references which provide insights on the physics of sound propagation and methods to
mitigate including design considerations, sound absorbing materials, physical barriers,
practical limitations, and even case studies on sound mitigation.
Avago has been made aware of the information and is in possession of
the packet referenced above. We are using the information in that
packet to evaluate, design, and consider options for the cooling tower
placement and noise mitigation.
#4 Avago's mitigation proposal focuses on using a berm and landscaping to provide
noise mitigation. The research informs us that sound propagates as a wave and sound
pressure can only be reduced via absorption or disruption.
• The impact of a berm on sound is nearly zero. Other than a minor increase in the
overall distance the sound will travel, a berm will provide zero disruption and
zero absorption; thus, a berm cannot be credited as providing any reasonable
sound mitigation.
Likewise, unless the trees are numerous, tall, and deep (ie. a dense forest), sound
waves will simply flow around them with only minor benefit.
Paragraph O in the P&Z plan states 3 mitigation actions: "noise generated by the
mechanical equipment will be attenuated by a combination of distance, earthen
berm and landscaping. " As noted above the berm and landscaping are not
effective sound barriers and the idea of creating distance is directly contradicted
by placing the noisiest of the external manufacturing components (cooling towers)
as the closest new structure to the homeowners.
Avago respectfully disagrees with some of the assertions listed above.
The sound modeling prepared by our acoustical consultant demonstrates
significant sound mitigation is achieved by the berm. The berm also
affords a visual barrier and was requested by several neighbors at the
neighborhood meeting. The modeling demonstrated that the distance
#1 The existing cooling towers have already, often been noted as extremely noisy and
intrusive by Woodland Park homeowners. Compared to the new cooling towers the
existing towers are:
• further away from the Woodland Park homeowners,
• are shielded by their placement on the other side of buildings,
• and have less surface area facing Woodland Park because they are in a North -
South line which is perpendicular to Woodland Park.
Avago has recently completed noise testing which confirms the existing
cooling towers are in full compliance with the City's noise ordinance. The
three bullet points above are accurate statements of what exists today
and has been in place for over 12 years. It is also Avago's belief and
understanding that previous dialogue and negotiations with the
neighbors have resulted in adjustments and mitigations that have
addressed the neighbors' concerns.
#2 By comparison the proposed new towers are:
• Significantly closer to the home owners,
• Closer to a greater number of homes,
• Are proposed to be aligned in an East-West line parallel to the homeowners; thus
exposing maximum surface area facing the homeowners. One homeowner notes
this as being "like a battleship lining up for a broad side."
• And they have a massive reflector behind them (ie, the new building) which will
reflect any noise which emanates to the South and redirect that noise back toward
the homeowners on the North. Thus, adding even more noise in the direction of
the home owners.
• The new cooling towers will be approximately 100 feet closer to the
northern property line, however they are still over 420 feet south of the
Avago property line and are screened from the neighbors by a new
19,000 CY berm that is over 13 feet above the base elevation of the
cooling towers. Note the Avago property line is approximately 60 feet
south of the Woodland Park neighbors' southern property line and the
homes are another 30 or so feet north of their property line.
• It is true the cooling towers are closer to the neighbors than the existing
cooling tower, but the existing cooling tower is not screened by a berm as
is planned for with the new building expansion and the sound abatement
technology has greatly improved since those units were installed.
• As noted the cooling towers will be aligned parallel to the north face of
the building. This location aligns best with our operations and allows for
future building expansion to the west. Therefore, the new cooling towers
will not be located along the west side of the building in a manner similar
to the existing cooling towers.
Woodland Park Home Owner
Assessment and Input on the Avago Expansion Project
Based on reviewing the "Avago Technologies Bulding Four Expansion, Major
Amendment, #FDP 130006" prepared for the P&Z, the neighboring homeowners assess
the mitigation proposals documented within to be totally unsatisfactory.
It was only through close review of the P&Z document (obtained by the homeowners this
week) that we became aware that the expansion includes 6 new cooling towers which are
proposed to be placed North of the new building making them the closest new structures
to our homes. Previously this information had not been disclosed to us. Thus, we
learned about the towers extremely late in the review process and we have had minimal
time to express our concerns and take steps to work with Avago to develop a working
relationship and an effective mitigation plan. A footnote is attached, (*1), which notes
some background concerns relating to communication and sharing of information. It is
placed as a footnote rather than in the main body because it is our hope that the active
dialogue begun this week between Avago and the homeowners will continue and result in
an expanded and reasonable mitigation plan to be thoroughly reviewed and documented
prior to the formal P&Z meeting scheduled for May 161s. We appreciate the opportunity
to meet with Avago (5/9/13) and we feel they listened to our concerns and we are hopeful
that action to our mutual benefit will result.
On March 25, 2013 Avago and their consultants attended a neighborhood
meeting hosted by Ted Shepard. As indicated in items 18, 21, and 25 of
the "Neighborhood Meeting Summary' prepared by Ted, the topic of
new cooling towers was discussed at the meeting, with no information
withheld. Avago representatives answered each question openly and
honestly, and it certainly was not the intent or desire to mislead the
homeowners about this issue. As indicated in this "Woodland Park Home
Owner Assessment and Input on the Avago Expansion Project" (OA)
Avago has taken steps to continue the dialogue by meeting with T.L.
Welch and Jim Rinella - who represented themselves as spokespersons
for the Woodland Park Home Owners (WPHO)- on Thursday, May 9th,
and Tuesday, May 14th. The meeting on May 9th was the first time
Avago became aware of this unfortunate misunderstanding, and they are
taking meaningful action to assure the WPHO that Avago has every
intention of working with them and fully comply with all City Codes,
especially with respect to noise and visual impacts on the neighbors to
the north.
Concerning the current proposed mitigation plan, our unsatisfactory assessment is based
on: