feet from the mono-pine. Although these nine evergreen trees are proposed for planting at 15 <br />to 20 feet in height, it will take many years to reach 75 feet in height. It is staff’s opinion that <br />the chosen site location creates a challenge when trying to mitigate the offsite impacts of the <br />proposed facility through design techniques and screening. As previously discussed in the case <br />of the Oakway Golf Course property, this site does not have the same benefit of expansive <br />setbacks from nearby residences and public rights-of-way nor as in the Rest Haven case (see SR <br />13-5), the benefit of a mass of 100-foot tall confer trees in close proximity, virtually surrounding <br />the cell tower site and effectively screening it from view. <br /> <br />For all of these reasons, the visual impact of the proposed mono-pine has not been adequately <br />mitigated due to inconsistent submittal materials and photo simulations, and a lack of tall <br />mature varietal trees in close proximity to the proposed mono-pine site. <br /> <br />Radio Frequency (RF) Exposure – The telecommunications standards set forth in EC 9.5750 <br />require the submittal of documentation that demonstrates compliance with Federal <br />Communication Commission (FCC) standards regarding non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation <br />emissions. The applicant provided a non-ionizing electromagnetic exposure analysis (aka: <br />Radiofrequency, or “RF”) by Hatfield & DawsonConsulting Electrical Engineers (see Attachment <br />12). This analysis indicates that the maximum calculated power density of the antenna will <br />produce only 1.3 percent of the applicable FCC exposure limit at two meters above ground (the <br />average head height of a person) in all locations within the vicinity of the tower. The FCC <br />exempts such facilities from conducting an environmental assessment when the calculated RF <br />emissions are less then 5 percent of the permissible standard. As such, the proposal appears to <br />meet applicable standards related to RF exposure. <br /> <br />Lighting/Glare – The applicant submitted a letter from the Oregon Department of Aviation <br />dated January 24, 2014 (see Attachment 13). Their review of the proposed facility found that <br />noticing to the Federal Aviation Administration is not required and that lighting on the tower is <br />also not necessary. The applicant has indicated that no outside lighting is proposed. As such, <br />there would be no impact to neighboring properties regarding glare from lighting. <br /> <br />Noise from Ancillary Facilities – Since the applicant has proposed locating ancillary facilities <br />above ground, a variance is required per EC 9.5750(8). In staff’s review of the proposed <br />variance, there is concern with associated noise issues from the proposed emergency generator <br />and ventilation equipment. The applicant has submitted an acoustical report from SSA <br />Acoustics dated October 22, 2014, along with several amendments to the initial report (see <br />Attachments 14 & 15). Three sources of sound are discussed in the report, including one <br />emergency generator and two air conditioning units. The telecommunication standard for noise <br />reduction at EC 9.5751(7)(f) limits noise being received on adjacent R-1 residential property <br />lines to 45dBa. The SAA Acoustics analysis has taken into account sound absorption from the <br />enclosure walls and distance measurements to neighboring properties and made sound <br />mitigation recommendations which are summarized as follows: <br />Install low noise blower kits on each air conditioning unit; <br />Install a louver equivalent to Vibro Acoustics ALV-MV-8 at the air discharge for the <br />generator; <br />HO Agenda - Page 14 <br />