I "While the hearings official did not more specifically address noise as a health <br />2 and safety issue under the discretionary PUD approval criteria as the appellant <br />3 suggests is needed, the decision thoroughly addresses the issue of noise <br />4 impacts in context with other more specific governing standards and approval <br />5 criteria for telecommunications facilities, including federal standards. <br />6 "With the additional findings and modified conditions of approval addressing <br />7 noise impacts and requirements for undergrounding ancillary equipment <br />8 above, and to the extent that noise impacts may also be relevant under EC <br />9 9.8320(6), the Planning Commission concludes that [EC 9.8320(6)] is met." <br />10 Record 16. <br />11 We understand the findings quoted above to take the position that noise levels from the <br />12 telecommunications facility do not pose a risk to public health and safety as long as the noise <br />13 levels do not exceed the noise standard set out in EC 9.5750(7)(f). We do not think that a <br />14 noise study is required in order for the city to conclude, as we understand it to have <br />15 concluded, that noise levels that meet the EC noise standard do not pose a significant risk to <br />16 public health and safety. <br />17 The third assignment of error denied, in part.7 <br />18 The city's decision is remanded. <br />19 <br />7 We deny the third assignment of error in part because, as explained in the text of the opinion, we do not <br />reach part of the third assignment of error <br />Page 18 <br />