Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAVAGO TECHNOLOGIES BLDG. 4 WEST EXPANSION - MJA/FDP - FDP130006 - CORRESPONDENCE - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARING (3)13 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. 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. Likewise a comprehensive verbal review of the expansion plans reasonably should have covered this critical information. Disclosure of the relevant information was avoided. 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. 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 existingcooling oolin facility 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. As noted by another homeowner: "Had we left the March 25th meeting with knowledge of the 6 new cooling towers, we would have been meeting with Avago on March 26th to discuss mitigation." 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. v (*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 expanded and reasonable mitigation plan to be thoroughly reviewed and documented prior to the formal P&Z meeting scheduled for May 16`h. 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 251h 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. 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. 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 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 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.) 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. 4. More landscaping on the beim. • Multiple layers of trees. • Addition of substantial bushes. 5. Higher Berm. 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. 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. #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. #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. #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. For these reasons, mitigation of the cooling towers is the 41 concern for the neighboring homeowners and we clearly expressed this to Avago in our recent correspondences and via the in -person meeting inititated 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: 1. 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 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 16"i. 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. Concerning the current proposed mitigation plan, our unsatisfactory assessment is based on: 41 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. 42 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.