Attachment B <br />electromagnetic radiation (VIER) emissions standards as set <br />forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). <br />Submitted report from Hatfield & Dawson, Consulting Electrical Engineers. <br />4. A signed agreement; as supplied by the city, stating that the <br />applicant will allow collocation with other users, provided all <br />safety, structural, and technological requirements are met. This <br />agreement shall also state that any future owners or operators <br />will allow collocation on the tower. <br />Applicant states that they will sign an agreement if supplied by the City. <br />5. Documentation that the ancillary facilities will not produce <br />sound levels in excess of those standards specified in subsection <br />(7) of this section, or designs showing how the sound is to be <br />effectively muffled and reduced pursuant to those standards. <br />The applicant submitted a report prepared by SAA Acoustics. It implies that the greatest sound <br />generator is from the air-conditioning unit. Are there other devices, like a generator? On <br />another case, the generator was the greatest sound producer. The noise level provided is 73 <br />dBA, which exceeds the 45 dBA code limitation. The factors for "predicting" noise level <br />reductions were just the building edge and distance. Even with those factors, the dBA is only <br />reduced to the maximum allowable. It seems like more sound mitigation is necessary. For <br />example, how much sound reduction would occur if the equipment were enclosed in a building <br />or installed underground? <br />As noted.previously, it is unclear whetherthe requested underground variance would be <br />granted without more information to justify the request, particularly related to noise and visual <br />impacts in a residential area. In any event, it seems critical to have comparative evidence about <br />the effects of undergrounding. For example, would undergrounding require other noise <br />generating equipment like an elevator? This would also need to be measured and addressed in <br />the event that undergrounding may be required; alternatively, the applicant should consider an <br />underground vault design that does not require additional sound generating equipment, or <br />provide additional sound buffering as necessary. <br />In another recent case (AT&T at Oakway Golf Course, a.k.a. Northgreen Properties v. City of <br />Eugene the variance for undergrounding ancillary facilities was denied; as such, the applicant <br />was required to submit a revised noise study to demonstrate compliance without the variance. <br />Assuming that could happen in this case, please provide noise studies under both scenarios. <br />That could be definitive evidence about the basis for a variance. <br />6. A landscape plan drawn to scale showing proposed and existing <br />landscaping, including type, spacing, size and irrigation methods. <br />Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 3 of 10 <br />