I sources of noise and that if the noise from all sources would exceed 45 dba at the property <br />2 line then the city is required to deny the application for the proposed facility. Petition for <br />3 Review 24. <br />4 Intervenor responds that the planning commission's interpretation is correct. We <br />5 agree with intervenor that the city's interpretation of EC 9.5750(7)(f) as only applying to the <br />6 "noise generating equipment" related to the telecommunications facility that is the subject of <br />7 the application is correct. EC 9.5750(7)(f) imposes a special noise standard on <br />8 telecommunications facilities, and requires that a telecommunications facility's "noise <br />9 generating equipment" must be "sound buffered" "to reduce sound level measured at the <br />10 property line to 45 dBa." The mechanism EC 9.5750(7)(f) requires that an applicant employ <br />11 to achieve the 45 dBa standard is "sound buffering." While sound buffering on the <br />12 telecommunication facility site could be effective to reduce sound from the <br />13 telecommunication facility's noise generating equipment measured at the property line, <br />14 sound buffering to reduce the sound at the property line from off-site sources would have to <br />15 be located off-site to be effective. We believe the EC 9.5750(7)(f) sound buffering <br />16 requirement is logically understood to mean sound buffering on the telecommunication <br />17 facility site, which the applicant likely owns or leases. We do not think EC 9.5750(7)(f) is <br />18 correctly interpreted to require sound buffering on adjacent sites, which the applicant likely <br />19 does not own, lease or otherwise have control over. We also conclude it is unlikely that the <br />20 drafters of EC 9.5750(7)(f) intended that an application for a telecommunication facility must <br />21 be denied where the sound from the telecommunication facility's noise generating equipment <br />22 does not exceed 45 dBa at the property line, simply because the sound from unrelated off-site <br />23 sources, which the applicant likely has little or no ability to sound buffer, makes the <br />24 composite of all noise at the property line exceed 45 dBA. We also agree with the planning <br />25 commission that EC 9.5750(6), which is referenced in the planning commission's findings, <br />26 appears to be directed at the telecommunications facility under review by the city, not on <br />Page 12 <br />