Attachment B <br />antennas it is designed to accommodate. <br />The explanation to this standard (page 8 of the applicant's written statement) appears to only <br />discuss carriers, not the number and type of antennas. Please provide more information about <br />the full extent of collocation and what those visual impacts might be with the maximum <br />amount of collocated antennas. <br />RESPONSE. The proposed monopine is designed to accommodate two carriers. The proposed <br />. <br />project includes 12-panel antenna array (3 sectors at 4 antennas each) at an antenna tip height of <br />70 feet, and a smaller microwave antenna below. See Att. 04 (Site Plan, Sheets A-3.0 and A-3.1). The <br />proposed monopine could accommodate an additional carrier's 12-panel antenna array and an <br />additional microwave antenna below. The design and type of antennas would be chosen by the <br />additional carrier and would be subject to the permitting process and the city's evaluation of the <br />visual impacts at that time. <br />3. Documentation demonstrating compliance with non-ionizing <br />electromagnetic radiation (NIER) emissions standards as set forth by the <br />Federal Communications Commission (FCC). <br />Submitted report from Hatfield & Dawson, Consulting Electrical Engineers. <br />No additional response. <br />4. A signed agreement, as supplied by the city, stating that the applicant <br />will allow collocation with other users, provided all safety, structural, <br />and technological requirements are met. This agreement shall also state <br />that any future owners or operators will allow collocation on the tower. <br />Applicant states that they will sign an agreement if supplied by the City. <br />No additional: response. <br />S. Documentation that the ancillary facilities will not produce sound levels <br />in excess of those standards specified in subsection (7) of this section, <br />or designs showing how the sound is to be effectively muffled and <br />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 4S 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 />Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless - Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) 22 <br />