(2) The general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennas it is <br />10 <br />designed to accommodate. <br /> The applicant has not submitted sufficient information necessary to demonstrate that this <br />standard has been satisfied. The applicant has not demonstrated that collocation is possible. <br />First, the applicant has not demonstrated that the addition of any collocation noise-producing <br />equipment would satisfy the noise standards, given that just the <br />exceed applicable noise standards. See exhibits E, (Sound Report from Arthur Noxon, <br />Acoustical Engineer) exhibit F (Response Sound Report from Arthur Noxon), exhibit G <br />(Overview of Sound Report from Arthur Noxon). Second, the applicant has not demonstrated <br />that the tower is structurally capable itself (without even considering the accompanying <br />monopine branches intended to disguise the tower) of allowing for a collocated carrier. Finally, <br />the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient visual simulations of the proposed monopine <br />11 <br />containing additional antennae from a second carrier that must be permitted. <br /> <br />(5) Documentation that the ancillary facilities will not produce sound levels in excess of <br />those standards specified in subsection (7) of this section, or designs showing how the <br />12 <br />sound is to be effectively muffled and reduced pursuant to those standards. <br />Friends is concurrently submitting two sound reports and one summary of sound issues <br />(exhibits E, F, G). In summary, the sound reports find significant shortcomings with the <br />-generating equipment, including the following: <br /> <br />Neighborhood mid-day background noise is reported by the applicant to be 49 dBA, <br />the background nose at 2am to be 31 dBA, which suggests that at the noise sensitive time <br />of day, the ambience is very quiet. <br /> <br />10 <br /> Friends contend that this requirement is a mandatory approval criteria because it is necessary <br />to determine compliance with standards located in 9.5750(7), (11) and applicable Metro plan <br />policies. See Bauer v. City of Portland, 44 Or LUBA 210 (2003); Hausam v. City of Salem, 39 <br />Or LUBA 51 (2000); Le Roux v. Malheur County, 32 or LUBA 124 (1996). <br />11 <br /> It would make little sense for a carrier to be required to allow collocation, but, at the same <br />time, make collocation impossible given the anticipated noise impacts, aesthetic impacts, and the <br />inability of the monopine to function in a disguised manner. In other words, effectively <br />precluding collocation from the above amplified impacts of two carriers would render the <br />requirement to allow for collocation a superfluity. <br />12 <br /> Friends contend that this requirement is a mandatory approval criteria because it is necessary <br />to determine compliance with standards located in 9.5750(7), (11) and applicable Metro plan <br />policies. See Bauer v. City of Portland, 44 Or LUBA 210 (2003); Hausam v. City of Salem, 39 <br />Or LUBA 51 (2000); Le Roux v. Malheur County, 32 or LUBA 124 (1996). <br />6 <br /> <br />