Committee of Council Item F3 for February 16, 2011Committee of the Council of
The Corporation of the City of Brampton
Date: February 2, 2011 COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
DATE: Febfuofu Ife/XollFiles: A42.TE and P46SI
Subject: RECOMMENDATION REPORT Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - Revisions to existing Council approved Protocol and Guidelines
Contact: Allan Parsons, Manager, Planning Design and Development Department Ann Pritchard, Manager, Realty Services
Overview:
• In 2001 Council approved a Protocol and Guidelines for Establishing Telecommunication Facilities (i.e. antennas and towers) within the City of Brampton.
• The City has recently received requests from telecommunication companies to construct antennas and towers on City-owned lands and/or facilities.
• This report recommends revisions to the City's Telecommunication Facility Protocol to identify a standard process for evaluating requests to locate telecommunication antennas and towers on City owned lands and facilities.
• Additional revisions to the Protocol are recommended to reflect changes made by the Federal Government (Industry Canada) to their telecommunication regulations.
• Granting permission for the installation of telecommunication facilities on City-owned sites would provide the City with an additional source of revenue.
Recommendations:
1. THAT the report from Allan Parsons, Manager, Planning Design and Development Department, and Ann Pritchard, Manager, Realty Services, dated February 2,2011 to the Committee of Council Meeting of February 16, 2011 re: Wireless Telecommunication Facilities - Revisions to existing Council approved Protocol and Guidelines, (Files: A42TE and P46SI), be received;
2. THAT City Council support the review by appropriate staff of applications to construct telecommunication facilities on City lands; and
THAT City Council approves in principle the attached "Protocol and Guideline for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities within the City of Brampton".
Staff has recently received requests from telecommunication companies to install telecommunication facilities (antennas and towers), on City-owned lands. Specifically, inquiries have been received from Rogers Telecommunication and Turris Sites Inc. (see attached letters, Appendix 1 and 2). The City's existing"Protocol and Guidelines for Establishing Telecommunication Facilities within City of Brampton" (see Appendix 2) as approved by Council in 2001 (PB296-2001) to deal with telecommunication facilities, does not address specific protocol for evaluating requests for antennas/towers on City- owned lands. The creation of a specific process which would be used to consider telecommunication facilities on City-owned sites would help ensure a comprehensive review of those applications is completed, and that all appropriate City Departments and Divisions are consulted.
Revisions to the City's Telecommunication Protocol are also recommended in order to comply with current Federal telecommunication regulations (see Appendix 3). The City's existing (2001) Protocol (Appendix 4) was based on the previous Federal telecommunication regulations, circa 1995. The Federal regulations were updated in January 2008.
Background
In 2001, City Council adopted the existing Protocol and Guidelines document for the establishment of telecommunication facilities in the City of Brampton. The document recognizes that telecommunication in Canada is regulated by Industry Canada, a federal authority having jurisdiction over lower tier governments for the location and installation of telecommunication facilities. Industry Canada, however, does require telecommunication companies to consult with the local land-use authority to allow input on the location and design of facilities.
The current City of Brampton Council-adopted Protocol sets out a procedure for the local land-use authority input. It consists of a preliminary consultation stage and a formal consultation stage. At the preliminary stage, the telecommunication proponent meets with City staff to inform us of their operational needs, and facilitate discussion regarding their intended location, design, and any functional impacts to the site. At the formal consultation stage, the proponent finalizes the site selection and submits a site plan application. At that stage, City staff circulates the proposal to affected agencies or adjacent municipalities (within 500 metres) and the applicant provides formal notification to all residential property owners within 120 metres of the site. City staff considers all
Fl-3
comments received and continues to work with the applicant toward resolving any issues. Ifany concerns (either from the City or notified landowners) cannot be resolved, the City informs Industry Canada and Industry Canada then makes the final decision on the approval for the site.
The current protocol also identifies guidelines to be considered by the applicant when making a submission. These guidelines generally include the following issues:
• New telecommunication towers are to be constructed on an as-needed basis.
Telecommunication companies need to demonstrate that existing towers or structures cannot be utilized.
• Towers should not be constructed in prominent locations and should be setback from residential developments.
• The style of a tower should be chosen through the consideration of the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, and appropriate landscaping is to be installed.
• Towers are to be designed to allow co-location (installation of antennas by other parties, institutions, telecommunication companies, including the City of Brampton).
Current Situation
Updating the Protocol
Revisions to the City's Protocol are recommended to reflect the most recent version of Industry Canada's regulations for telecommunication facilities (circa 2008), as well as create a standardized process for evaluating tower proposals on City-owned properties.
Industry Canada's regulations were updated in 2008 to add and revise requirements with respect to:
• Public consultation - circulation to all property owners within 3-times the height of the tower, (ie. 105m circulation radius for a 35m tall tower) is required,
• Co-location - companies are required to accommodate antennas from multiple telecommunication companies on their proposed telecommunication towers, and
• Exemptions from consultation with local authorities - the following facilities are exempt from municipal consultation:
F2>-«r
o Additions or modifications of an antenna system or antenna-supporting structure to existing infrastructure (ie. building, water tower) provided it does not result in an overall height increase above the existing structure of 25% of the original structure's height.
o Installation, for a limited duration (typically not more than 3 months), of an antenna system that is used for a special event, or governmental emergencies.
o New antenna systems, including towers, with a height of less than 15 metres above ground level.
The recommended changes to the City's Protocol (see Appendix 5 for recommended Protocol) are intended to ensure that City requirements take advantage of, and are consistent with those of Industry Canada's. Protocol revisions include:
• The addition of detailed directions for all notifications to area property owners and other telecommunication carriers to ensure their comments are duly considered through the review process.
• A request that the City be consulted regarding the installation of antennas to existing structures. Although telecommunication companies are not required to consult with municipalities for this type of installation, Industry Canada does encourage companies to complete this consultation, particularly if there are any community sensitivities.
• New references to Planning, Design and Development Department processes that were created since establishing the 2001 Protocol, including references to the Pre- Consultation Application process and the associated application fees.
The City's current Protocol does contemplate telecommunication facilities on City- owned lands, but does not provide a specific process to use to evaluate those requests. For this reason, although the recent proposals by Rogers and Turris can be entertained at this time, it is recommended that the Protocol and Guidelines be up-dated to include more detailed consideration for City-owned properties to protect public interest and ensure an appropriate standard is set. In considering the following criteria, it is important to note that although Industry Canada is the governing body with respect to telecommunication tower and antenna installations, the City of Brampton has the authority to either accept or decline any requests to locate telecommunication facilities on a City owned site, and dictate the terms of lease arrangements for any such installations.
Fi-5
At this time, the following additional criteria for City-owned lands are identified for up dating the Protocol:
• The submission of Pre-Consultation Applications to the City's Real Estate Coordinating Team for review, which will provide an opportunity for input from all affected departments. Applicable departments and issues to be reviewed include, but are not limited to:
o Works and Transportation Department to review operational impacts of a tower proposal within or near Works facilities where there may be GPS interference,
o Community Services Department to review operational impacts of a tower proposal within a city-owned park,
o Fire Services to review impacts of any tower location proposal within proximity to a fire station,
o Planning Design and Development Department to review integration of tower facility with any future plans for the site and urban design considerations,
o Buildings and Property Management Department to review potential impacts of towers on property usability, value, development potential;
o Financial Department, Information Technology Division to review potential interference with the City's Corporate Radio Solutions and Wireless data communications to ensure no conflicts with existing or planned City facilities.
• Ensuring that telecommunication facilities shall not be installed in locations that would create electromagnetic interference with the City's wireless communication/security systems, i.e. near fire stations and other emergency service facilities, municipal communications facilities. Telecommunication companies are to take Radio Frequency interference mitigation measures or in the case of interference remove their equipment that is causing interference.
• Telecom facility proposals for City-owned sites should, in general, avoid the use of parklands and recreational open space. When proposing the use of City-owned lands, including parklands, for telecom facilities, telecom providers shall provide an evaluation of other potential antenna and tower locations within the area to be served by the proposed facilities that demonstrates other potential locations are not suitable or viable.
• The requirement for telecommunication companies to enter into a market value
based license agreement with the City that specifies the terms and conditions of the provider's occupancy of City property (including length of term, rent payable,
Fi-t
insurance requirements, indemnity, co-locates, site location and access, design of facility, letter of credit, etc.).
• Requirements for urban design considerations including the encouragement of innovative tower and antenna types that incorporate architectural elements such as flag poles, clock towers, faux water towers, extended light standards, and roof parapets. Please refer to the Appendix 6 which identifies potential antenna and tower types that are offered by Rogers Telecommunication.
• When reviewing the location of proposed telecommunication facilities consideration is to be given to the planned development or redevelopment on a site, and the intent to minimize impacts of the facility on the intended character of the area.
Existing Telecommunication Facilities on City-Owned Properties
The City is currently participating in lease agreements with telecommunication companies for telecommunication facilities (towers and antennas) located on the following City-owned properties. The total annual revenue generated from these existing facilities is currently $70,200.
Existing Telecommunication Facilities on City-Owned Properties
Year
Centre Parkway Tower 2003 $28,000 Williams Parkway &
1945 Williams Pkwy Chrysler Drive Tower 1990 $9,000 North-east Corner of
McVean Drive and McVean Drive & Castlemore
Castlemore Road Road Tower 2008 $8,000 Donald Gordon Bramalea Road & Queen Chinguacousy Park Street East rooftop 2007 $2,100
McLaughlin Road between Chris Gibson Recreation Williams Parkway & Queen Centre Street West rooftop 2007 $2,100 Earnscliffe Recreation Torbram Road & Clark
Centre Boulevard rooftop 2007 $2,100 Elliott Street & Queen
Memorial Arena Street West rooftop 2007 $2,100 Terry Miller Recreation Bramalea Road & Williams
Centre Parkway rooftop 2007 $2,100 Greenbriar Recreation Bramalea Road & Central
Centre Park Drive rooftop 2007 $2,100
F2-1
Jim Archdekin Sandalwood Parkway East Recreation Centre & Conestoga Drive rooftop 2007 $2,100
South Fletchers Ray Lawson Boulevard & Sportplex McLaughlin Road roof top 2007 $2,100
Dixie Road & Sandalwood
Brampton Soccer Centre Parkway East roof top 2007 $2,100
Ken Giles Recreation Kennedy Road South & Centre Steeles Avenue East roof top 2007 $2,100
Cassie Campbell Chinguacousy Road & Community Centre Sandalwood Parkway West rooftop 2007 $2,100
Century Gardens Rutherford Road North &
Recreation Centre Vodden Street East roof top 2007 $2,100
Total Annual Rent $70,200
Rogers Telecommunication has requested the City's consideration for the installation of towers on each of the site identified below.
1. Creditview/Sandalwood City Park - located at the south-west corner of Sandalwood Parkway and Creditview Road.
2. Flower City Community Campus - located at the south-west corner of McLaughlin Road and Queen Street.
3. Sesquicentennial City Park - located at the north-east corner of Bramalea Road and Countryside Drive.
4. Former Siemens site, 2719 Highway 7 (Bovaird Drive) East, Bovaird Drive and Heritage Road.
Turris Sites Inc. has also asked the City to consider the installation of a tower on the following site:
5. Cassie Campbell Recreation Centre - located at the north-west corner of Chinguacousy Road and Sandalwood Parkway.
The Real Estate Co-ordinating Team (RECT) is currently reviewing the merits of each of the 5 City-owned sites that are requested for tower installation by Rogers and Turris. Formalized comments are forthcoming from RECT, however some general comments received to date include:
The installation of any telecommunication antennas in proximity to transit wireless networks, fire station or emergency response sites, or any other City site for which wireless communication services cannot be compromised, are not considered as
Fl-8
eligible sites. City staff requires additional technical information to determine appropriate distances between telecommunication facilities and wireless City communication systems.
• City staff will need to ensure that wireless communication facilities do not create radio frequency interference with any of the City's wireless services including "Wi-Fi" operating in an unlicensed spectrum.
• Perceptions by the general public regarding health and safety concerns related to wireless communication facilities may generate inquiries to Citystaff regarding towers erected on City properties. It will be necessary to implement a process to ensure a consistent response to such inquiries is given byappropriate staff.
• Location considerations at each site will need to have regard for planned or pending redevelopment at the site. This is particularly relevant to the Creditview/Sandalwood City Parkand Flower City Community Campus locations.
• Occupancy agreements with telecommunication companies should contain a provision identifying that the City may require the removal or relocation of a tower at no cost to the City, if necessary in light of redevelopment of the City site.
Health Implications from Telecommunication Facilities:
The Government of Canada has prepared a document entitled "Wireless Communication and Health- An Overview" to identify health safety issues related to the radiofrequency (RF) fields that are created by wireless communication facilities (see Appendix 7). The document outlines that Health Canada has prepared RF exposure guidelines for the purpose of protecting individuals from unsafe levels of RF exposure and that Industry Canada, the federal agency responsible for regulating wireless communications equipment in Canada, requires all wireless telecommunication facilities to comply with RF exposure requirements. The document concludes that "the Government of Canada has determined that the use of cell phones and cell sites is safe for individuals and society alike provided that Canadian guidelines and standards are met."
Conclusion:
This report recommends approval ofthe attached "Protocol and Guideline for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities within the City of Brampton".
Pi-S
nning, Design Commis8t6nc|r, Buildings and Property and Development Management
Authored by: Allan Parsons and Ann Pritchard
EMINETTO
Appendix 2: Letter from Tunis Site Inc.
Appendix 3: Federal Telecommunication Regulations
Appendix 4: Current Council-adopted Protocol and Guidelines for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities with the City of Brampton
Appendix 5: Proposed Protocol and Guidelines for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities within the City of Brampton
Appendix 6: Rogers Telecommunication Tower Design Portfolio
Appendix 7: "Wireless Communication and Health - An Overview" by the Government of Canada
10
FVU
11
Fi-n.
f ^ ROGERS %# CABLE
July 26, 2010
Mr. John Corbett
Commissioner of Planning, Design and Development City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street West Brampton, Ontario L6Y 4R2
RE: ROGERS COMMUNICATION TOWERS
Thank you for the opportunity you provided us to meet with your staff on July 14th 2010. In attendance were Mr. Dan Krazewski, Mr. Allan Parsons, Mr. Rick Bino, Ms. Michelle Vivar from Rogers and myself.
As you know, there is an increased demand for reliable, high-speed wireless communications in Brampton and all major North American cities. Rogers Communications Inc. is doing its utmost to provide enhanced service to the business and residential communities of Brampton. With the increasingdemand for wireless communication services comes the requirement for additional communication infrastructure [towers] to be installed to provide the necessary coverage. Your staffhas been most helpful in assisting us to obtain sites located on private property. The list of new, required infrastructure sites is becoming shorter with thanks to Mr. Krazewski and Mr. Parsonswho are both working very hard with Rogers to complete the required municipal approvals processes. Criteria have been set up for preferred locations and we are able to work with these satisfactorily.
At our meeting on July 14th we brought to the attention of staff the desire and necessity for communication towers to be located on Public Lands such as fire halls, parks and community centres. This would ofcourse require notonly municipal concurrence, buta Lease Agreement made between the City of Brampton and Rogers Communications. Herein we are requesting two specific approvals
1. There are 3 sites that are currently a priority with Rogers. These priority sites werediscussed with staff and comments were made with respect to aesthetic appearance and precise location on the selected properties.
# FV'-i #
The 3 sites are:
a) The fire station located in the new park at Sandalwood Parkway and Creditview Road
b) The fire station located at Queen Street and McLaughlin Road c) The park at Countyside and Torbram Road
(Please see the attached drawings that depict each of the above proposals.)
These aforementioned siteswould be significant in that placement at these locations would negate the need for more, smaller towers to be located within the nearby neighbourhoods. The towers would of course be combined with either elevated light fixtures within the parking lots or perhaps constructed as part of a flag pole thus providing a certain aesthetic appeal that would ordinarily not be present.
Rogers requests that approval be provided for tower locations at theabove 3 locations and staff at the City ofBrampton begiven authority to review the specifics ofthe location and create criteria for the installation. It has become an urgent matter for Rogers to have these locations approved assoon as possible in order to satisfy the client requirements for enhanced high speed wireless communication services.
On a go forward basis, we will be examining other sites within parks, fire halls and community centres. We request that a general consensus and authorization be provided by the City ofBrampton's Council thatwould allow staff to examine each application on its own merits in order to determine appropriate standardsfor the installation. Rogers is most amenable to conducting design meetings with involved City staff in order to create the most successful installations relative to the surrounding land uses.
Rogers is most anxious to begin installation ofour towers at the above 3 locations immediately and to submit applications for other sites. We would appreciate any action you can initiate to assist in Rogers achieving these objectives. Would you please call me with respect to anticipated schedules and timelines.
If there is any information you require that would assist you in proceeding with any reports to committee or delegations to Council, pleasedo not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully Submitted,
Fi-««­
12
Fi-iS
C _ §MM n n ff gTM 70 Todd Road P: +1905 8778885 Georgetown, Ontario F: +1 905 877 8835 L7G4R78 CANADAlURRIS
August 27, 2010 VIA EMAIL
Mr. Allan Parsons
Dear Mr. Parsons,
Re: Turris Sites Multi-tenant Telecommunication Tower Proposal , ^ Cassie Campbell Center - 1050 Sandalwood Parkway W(KM ca**r S^cLAo^£fc^aceu*^).
Thank you for meeting with me last week in regard to several potential telecom sites in the City of Brampton. One of the proposed sites we spoke about is located on a retail centre on the northeast corner of Sandalwood Parkway and Chinguacousy Road. While this property is suitable for our purposes, we believe the Cassie Campbell Community Center is a far superior location due to its location, the size of the property providing a much larger buffer to residential areas, as well as creating a revenue opportunity for the City.
Asdiscussed at our meeting, it would be Turris' intention to engineer, construct and operate a multi- tenant facility at this location utilizing a tripole design as shown in Appendix A. While it would be our preference to install a lower cost lattice version, we recognize the significance of the area and understand the City's requirement of the tubular tripole design with the aesthetic panels at the top. This type of tower increases our costs significantly, but it mayprovide a signageopportunity for the Centre as well as minimize the overall impactof the tower on its surroundings. We have attached a preliminary profile of the proposed tower and compound area for your review.
In terms ofthe contractual relationship between Turris and the City of Brampton, we are envisioning a land lease with terms and conditions typical to the industry with other clausesspecific to the City's requirements. Given the large capital investment in the tower, Turris desires a 20 year commitment comprised of4 - 5 yearterms. It is Turris' intention to provide additional capacity in the towet for up to 5 carriers and sub-lease this space - and the associated ground space - to both the incumbent carriers and other new entrants. Turris proposes to lease sufficient ground space for a base rent of $15,000 (plus applicable taxes) per annum (payable in a lump sum annually). Turris also offers additional rent in the amount of 53,500 (plus applicable taxes) per annum per collocated carrier. We have attached a draft copy of a typical industryground lease for your consideration. Turris is not adverse to a City lease provided the key terms can be accommodated.
Turris Sites Inc. www. turris-group.com
We trust this information is sufficient to commence detailed discussions with the City. Iwould very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss the proposal in more detail once you have had an opportunity to consider the draft lease.
Ilook forward to hearing from you. Should you require any additional information, please contact me at 416-937-3500 or dbhahn@sympatico.ca
Yours truly,
c.c. Rick Sullivan
Fvn
70 Todd Road P: +19058778885 Georgetown, Ontario F: +1 905 877 8835 L7G4R78 CANADA
<£ lURRIS
Simulation of Profile
i w
.i »
s
- F
- .i
* L
* i7
( O
13
Canada Canada
Aussi disponible en frangais - CPC-2-0-03 Canada
PV21
Comments and suggestions may be directed to the following address:
Industry Canada Radiocommunications and
Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C8
All Spectrum Management and Telecommunications publications are available on the following website at: http://strategis.gc.ca/spectrum.
1. Introduction 1 1.1 Mandate 1 1.2 Application 1 1.3 Process Overview 1
2. Industry Canada Engagement 2
3. Use of Existing Infrastructure (Sharing) 2
4. Land-use Authority and Public Consultation 3 4.1 Land-use Authority Consultation 4 4.2 Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process 5 4.3 Concluding Consultation 7
5. Dispute Resolution Process 8
6. Exclusions 9
7. General Requirements 10 |gfc 7.1 Radio Frequency Exposure Limits 10 4SP 7.2 Radio Frequency Immunity 10
7.3 Proximity of Proposed Structure to Broadcasting Undertakings 11 7.4 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 11 7.5 Aeronautical Safety 13
Appendix 1 - Consultation Flow Chart 14
Appendix 2 - Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process - Public Notification Package 15
/'m
1. Introduction
Radiocommunication and broadcastingservices are important for all Canadiansand are used daily by the public, safetyand security organizations, government, wireless service providers, broadcasters, utilities and businesses. In order for radiocommunication and broadcastingservices to work, antenna systems including masts, towers, and other supportingstructures are required. There is a certain measure of flexibility in the placement of antenna systems which is constrained to some degree by: theneedto achieveacceptable coverage for the service area; the availability ofsites; technical limitations; and safety. In exercising its mandate, Industry Canada believes that it is important thatantenna systems be deployed in a mannerthat considers the local surroundings.
1.1 Mandate
Section 5 of the Radiocommunication Act states that the Minister may, taking intoaccount all matters the Minister considers relevant forensuring the orderly development andefficient operation of radiocommunication in Canada, issue radioauthorizations and approve each site on which radio apparatus, including antenna systems, may be located. Further, the Minister may approve theerection of all masts, towers and other antenna-supporting structures. Accordingly, proponents must follow the process outlined in this document when installing or modifying an antennasystem. Also, the installation of an antenna system or the operation ofa currently existing antenna system that is not in accordance with this process may result in its alteration or removal and other sanctions against the operator in accordance with the Radiocommunication Act.
1.2 Application
The requirements ofthisjdocumejjt apply to anyone (referred to in this document as the proponent) who is planning to install at mn^fy an antenna system regardless of the typeof installation or service. This includes, amongst others, Personal Communications Services (PCS) and cellular, fixed wireless, broadcasting, land-mobile, licence-exempt and amateur radio operators. As well, parts of this process containobligations that apply to existingantenna systemoperators.
1.3 Process Overview
This document outlines the process that must be followed by proponents seeking to install ormodify antenna systems. The broad elements of the process are as follows:
1. Investigating sharing orusing existing infrastructure before proposing new antenna-supporting structures.
2. Contacting the land-use authority (LUA) todetermine local requirements regarding antenna systems.
3. Undertaking public notification and addressing relevant concerns, whether by following local LUA requirements or Industry Canada's default process, as is required andappropriate.
4. Satisfying Industry Canada's general and technical requirements.
I'TJ
F*-2S Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
It is Industry Canada's expectation that steps (2) to (4) will normally be completed within 120 days. QffaoJtho Some proposals may beexcluded from certain elements ofthe process (see Section 6). It is Industry Canada's expectation that all parties will carry outtheirroles and responsibilities ingood faith and ina manner that respects the spirit of this document.
2. Industry Canada Engagement
There are a number of points in the processes outlined in this document where parties must contact Industry Canada toproceed. Further, anyone with any question regarding the process may contact the local Industry Canada office1 for guidance. Based on a query by an interested party, Industry Canada may request parties to provide relevant records and/or may provide direction to one or more parties to undertake certainactions to help move the process forward.
3. Use of Existing Infrastructure (Sharing)
Thissection outlines theroles of proponents andowners/operators of existing antenna systems. In all cases, parties should retain records (such as analyses, correspondence and engineering reports) relating to this section.
Before building a new antenna-supporting structure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options:
• consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary;
• locate, analyze andattempt to useany feasible existing infrastructure suchas rooftops, watertowers etc.
Proponents are not normallyexpected to build new antenna-supporting structureswhere it is feasible to locate their antenna on an existing structure, unless a newstructure is preferred by land-use authorities.
Owners and operators ofexisting antenna systems are to respond toa request to share ina timely fashion and to negotiate ingood faith to facilitate sharing where feasible. It is anticipated that 30days is reasonable time for existing antenna system owners/operators to reply to a request by a proponent in writing with either:
• a proposed setof reasonable terms to govern thesharing of the antenna system; or
• a detailed explanation of why sharing is not possible.
i Please refer to Radiocommunication Information Circular 66(RIC-66) for a list of addresses and telephone numbers for Industry Canada's regional and district offices. RIC-66 is available via the Internet at: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/cpic/intcrnct/insmt-gst.nsf/cn/sfDl 742e.html.
4. Land-use Authority and Public Consultation
Contacting the Land-use Authority
Proponents mustalways contact the applicable land-use authorities to determinethe local consultation requirements unless their proposal falls within theexclusion criteriaoutlined in Section 6. If the land- use authority has designated an official to deal with antenna systems, then proponents are to engage the authority through that person. Ifnot, proponents must submit their plans directly to the council, elected local official or executive. Proponents areexpected to establish initial formal contact with the land-use authority in writing in order to mark the official commencement ofthe 120-day consultation process.
Proponents should note that there may be more than one land-use authority with an interest in the proposal. Where no established agreement exists between such land-use authorities, proponents must, as a minimum, contact the land-use authority(ies) and/or neighbouring land-use authorities located within a radius ofthree times the tower height, measured from the tower base orthe outside perimeter ofthe supporting structure, whichever is greater. As well, in cases where proponents are aware that a potential Aboriginal ortreaty right orland claim may be affected by the proposed installation, they must contact Industry Canada in order to ensure that the requirements forconsultation are met.
Following the Land-use Authority Process
Proponents must follow the land-use consultation process for the siting ofantenna systems, established by the land-use authority, where one exists. In the event that a land-use authority's existing process has no public consultation requirement, proponents must then fulfill the public consultation requirements contained in Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process (see Section 4.2). Proponents are not required to follow this requirement if the LUA's established process explicitly excludes their type of proposal from consultation or it isexcluded by Industry Canada's criteria. Where proponents believe the local consultation requirements are unreasonable, they may contact the local Industry Canada office in writing for guidance.
Broadcasting Undertakings
Applicants for broadcasting undertakings are subject to Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications (CRTC) licensing processes in addition to Industry Canada requirements. Although Industry Canada encourages applicants to consult as early as practical in the application process, in some cases itmay not be prudent for the applicants to initiate public and municipal/land-use consultation before receiving CRTC approval, asapplication denial by the CRTC would result in unnecessary work for allparties involved. Therefore, assuming that the proposal is not otherwise excluded, broadcasting applicants may opt to commence land-use consultation after having received CRTC approval. However, broadcasting applicants choosing this option are required, at the time ofthe CRTC application, to notify the land-use authority with a Letter of Intent outlining a commitment to conduct consultation after receiving CRTC approval. If the land-use authority raises concerns with the proposal as described in the Letter of Intent, applicants are encouraged toengage in discussions with the land-use authority regarding their concerns and attempt to resolve any issues. See Broadcasting Procedures and Rules, Part 1 (BPR-1), for further details.
Fi-2T Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
4.1 Land-use Authority Consultation
Industry Canada believes that any concerns or suggestions expressed by land-use authorities are important elements to be considered by proponents regarding proposals to install, or make changes to, antenna systems. As part of their community planning processes, land-use authorities should facilitate the implementation of local radiocommunication services byestablishing consultation processes for the siting of antenna systems.
Unless the proposal meets the exclusion criteria outlined in Section 6, proponents must consult withthe local land-use authority(ies) on any proposed antenna system priorto any construction withthe aim of:
• discussing site options;
• ensuring that local processes related to antenna systems are respected;
• addressing reasonable and relevant concerns (see Section 4.2) from both the land-use authority and the community they represent; and
• obtaining land-use authority concurrence in writing.
Land-use authorities areencouraged to establish reasonable, relevant, andpredictable consultation processes2 specific to antenna systems that consider such things as:
• the designation of suitable contacts or responsible officials;
• proposal submission requirements;
• the establishment ofmilestones toensure consultation process completion within 120 days.
Where they have specific concerns regarding a proposed antenna system, land-use authorities are expected todiscuss reasonable alternatives and/or mitigation measures with proponents.
Under their processes, land-use authorities may exclude from consultation any antenna system installation in addition to those identified by Industry Canada's own consultation exclusion criteria (Section 6). For example, an authority may wish to exclude from public consultation those installations -&C located within industrial areas removed from residential areas, low visual impact installations, orcertain types ofstructures located within residential areas. . » . 0
2 Industry Canada is available to assist land-use authorities in the development oflocal processes. In addition, land-use authorities may wish toconsult Industry Canada's guide for the development of local consultation processes.
4
4.2
Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process
Proponents must follow Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process where the local land-use authority does not have an established and documented public consultation process applicable to antenna siting. Proponents are not required to follow Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process if the land-use authority's established process explicitly excludes their type of proposal from public consultation or it is excluded by Industry Canada's criteria (see Section 6). Industry Canada's default process has three steps whereby the proponent:
1. provides written notification to the public, the land-use authority and Industry Canada of the proposed antenna system installation or modification (i.e. public notification);
2. engages the public and the land-use authority inorder to address relevant questions, comments and concerns regarding the proposal (i.e. responding to the public); and
3. provides an opportunity to the public and the land-use authority to formally respond in writing to the proponent regarding measures taken to address reasonable and relevant concerns (i.e. public reply comment).
Public Notification
1. Proponents must ensure that the local public, the land-use authority and Industry Canada are notified ofthe proposed antenna system. As a minimum, proponents must provide a notification package (see Appendix 2) tothe local public (including nearby residences, community gathering areas, public institutions, schools, etc.), neighbouring land-use authorities, businesses, and property owners, etc. located within a radius of three times the tower height, measured from the tower baseor the outside perimeter ofthe supporting structure, whichever isgreater. For the purpose ofthis requirement, the outside perimeter begins at the furthest point ofthe supporting mechanism, be itthe outermost guy line, building edge, face of the self-supporting tower, etc.
2. It is the proponent's responsibility toensure that the notification provides at least 30days for written public comment.
3. Inaddition to the minimum notification distance noted above, inareas ofseasonal residence, the proponent, in consultation with the land-use authority, is responsible for determining the best manner to notify such residents to ensuretheir engagement.
4. In addition to the public notification requirements noted above, proponents ofantenna-supporting structures that are proposed to be30 metres or more inheight must place a notice ina local community newspaper circulating in the proposed area.5
The notice must be synchronized with the distribution ofthe public notification package. It must be legible and placed in the public notice section ofthe newspaper. The notice must include: adescription ofthe proposed installation; its location and street address; proponent contact information and mailing address; and an invitation to provide public comments to the proponent within 30days of the notice. In areas without alocal newspaper, other effective means of public notification must be implemented. Proponents may contact the local Industry Canada office for guidance.
Fl-il Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
Responding to the Public
Proponents are to address all reasonable and relevant concerns, make all reasonable efforts to resolve them in a mutually acceptable manner and must keep a record of all associated communications. If the local public or land-useauthority raises a question, comment or concern relating to the antenna system as a result of the public notification process, then the proponent is required to:
1. respond to the party in writing within 14 days acknowledging receipt of the question, comment or concern and keep a record of the communication;
2. address in writing all reasonable andrelevant concerns within 60days of receipt or explain why the question, comment or concern is not, in the view of the proponent, reasonable or relevant; and
3. in thewritten communication referred to in the preceding point, clearly indicate that the party has21 days from the dateof the correspondence to reply to theproponent's response. Theproponent must providea copy ofall public reply comments to the local IndustryCanada office.
Responding to reasonable andrelevant concerns may include contacting a party by telephone, engaging in a community meeting or having an informal, personal discussion. Between steps 1 and 2 above, the proponent is expected to engage the public in a manner it deemsmost appropriate. Therefore, the letter at step 2 above may be a record of how the proponent and the other party addressed the concern at hand.
Public Reply Comments
As indicated in step 3 above, the proponent must clearly indicate that the party has 21 days from the date of the correspondence to reply to the response. The proponent must also keep a record of all correspondence/discussions that occurred within the 21-day public reply comment period. This includes records of any agreements thatmay have been reached and/or anyconcerns that remain outstanding.
The factors thatwill determine whether a concern is reasonable or relevant according to this process will vary but will generally be considered if they relate to the requirements of this document and to the particular amenities or important characteristics of theareasurrounding the proposed antenna system. Examples ofconcerns that proponents are to address may include:
• Why is the use of an existing antennasystem or structure not possible?
• Why is an alternate site not possible?
• What is the proponent doing toensure that the antenna system is not accessible to the general public?
• How is the proponent trying to integrate the antenna into the localsurroundings?
• What options are available to satisfy aeronautical obstruction marking requirements at this site?
• What are the steps the proponent took to ensure compliance with the general requirements of this document including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), SafetyCode 6, etc.?
4.3
Concerns that are not relevant include:
• disputes with members of the public relating to the proponent's service, butunrelated to antenna installations;
• potential effects that a proposed antenna system will have on property values or municipal taxes;
• questions whether the Radiocommunication Act, this document, Safety Code 6, locally established by-laws, other legislation, proceduresor processes are valid or should be reformed in some manner.
Concluding Consultation
The proponent may only commence installation/modification of an antenna system after the consultation process has beencompleted by the land-use authority, or Industry Canadaconfirms concurrence with the consultation portion of this process, and after all other requirements under this process have been met. Consultation responsibilities will normally be considered complete when the proponent has:
1. concluded consultation requirements (Section 4.1) with the land-use authority;
2. carried out public consultation either through the process established by the land-use authority orthe Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process where required; and
3. addressed all reasonable and relevant concerns.
Concluding Land-use Authority Consultation
Industry Canada expects that land-use consultation will becompleted within 120 days from the proponent's initial formal contact with the local land-use authority. Where unavoidable delays may be encountered, the land-use authority isexpected to indicate when the proponent can expect a response to the proposal. Ifthe authority is not responsive, the proponent may contact Industry Canada. Depending on individual circumstances, Industry Canada may support additional timeor consider the land-use authority consultation process concluded.
Depending on the land-use authority's own process, conclusion of local consultation may include such steps as obtaining final concurrence for the proposal via the relevant committee, a letter or report acknowledging that the relevant municipal process orother requirements have been satisfied, orother valid indication, such as the minutes ofa town council meeting indicating LUA approval. Compliance with informal city staffprocedures, orgrants ofapproval strictly related to zoning, construction, etc. will not normally be sufficient.
Industry Canada recognizes that approvals for construction (e.g. building permits) are used by some land-use authorities as evidence of consultation being concluded. Proponents should note that Industry Canada does not consider the fact a permit was issued as confirmation of concurrence, as different land-use authorities have different approaches. As such, Industry Canada will only consider such approvals as valid when the proponent can demonstrate that the LUA's process was followed and that the LUA's preferred method ofconcluding LUA consultation is through such an approval.
Fi-il Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
Concluding Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process
Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process will be considered concluded when the proponent has either:
• received no written questions, comments or concerns to the formal notification within the 30-day public comment period; or
• if written questions, comments or concerns were received, the proponent has addressed and resolved all reasonable and relevant concerns and the public has not provided further comment within the 21-day reply comment period.
In the case where the public responds within the 21-day reply comment period, the proponent has the option ofmaking further attempts to address the concern on its own, or can request Industry Canada engagement. Ifa request for engagement is made at this stage, Industry Canada will review the relevant material, request any further information it deems pertinent from any party and may then decide that:
• the proponent has met the consultation requirements of this process and that Industry Canada concurs that installation or modification may proceed; or
• the parties should participate in further attempts to mitigate or resolve any outstanding concern.
5. Dispute Resolution Process
The dispute resolution process is a formal process intended to bring about the timely resolution where the parties have reached an impasse.
Upon receipt ofa written request, from a stakeholder other than the general public, asking for Departmental intervention concerning a reasonable and relevant concern, the Department may request that all involved parties provide and share all relevant information. The Department may also gather or obtain other relevant information and request that parties provide any further submissions if applicable. The Department will, based on the information provided, either:
• make a final decision on the issue(s) in question, and advise the parties of its decision; or
• suggest the parties enter into an alternate dispute resolution process in order to come to a final decision. Should the parties be unable to reach a mutually agreeable solution, either party may request that the Department make a final decision.
Upon resolution of the issue under dispute, the proponent is to continue with the process contained within this document as required.
t®
6. Exclusions
For the following types of installations, proponents are excluded from the requirement to consult with the LUA and the public, but must still fulfill the General Requirements outlined in Section 7:
• maintenance of existing radioapparatus including the antenna system, transmission line, mast, tower or other antenna-supporting structure;
• addition or modification ofan antenna system (including improving the structural integrity of its integral mast to facilitate sharing), the transmission line, antenna-supporting structure or other radio apparatus to existing infrastructure, a building, water tower, etc. provided the addition or modification does not result in an overall height increase above the existing structure of 25%of the original structure's height;
• maintenance of anantenna system's painting or lighting in order to comply with Transport Canada's requirements;
• installation, for a limited duration (typically notmore than 3 months), ofanantenna system that is used for a special event, or one that is used to support local, provincial, territorial or national emergency operations during the emergency, and is removed within 3 months after the emergency or special event; and
• newantenna systems, including masts, towers orother antenna-supporting structure, with a height of less than IS metres above ground level.
Individual circumstances vary with each antenna system installation and modification, and the exclusion criteria above should be applied in consideration of local circumstances. Consequently, it maybe prudent for the proponents to consult the LUA and the public even though the proposal meets an exclusion noted above. Therefore, when applying the criteria forexclusion, proponents shouldconsider such things as:
• the antenna system's physical dimensions, including the antenna, mast, and tower, compared to the local surroundings;
• the location of the proposed antenna system on the property and its proximity to neighbouring residents;
• the likelihood ofan areabeing a community-sensitive location; and
• Transport Canada marking andlighting requirements for the proposed structure.
Proponents whoare not certain if their proposed structure is excluded, or whether consultation maystill be prudent, are advised to contact the land-use authority and/or Industry Canada for guidance.
Fi-4£ Radiocommunication and Broadcasting AntennaSystems CPC-2-0-03
7. General Requirements
7.1 Radio Frequency Exposure Limits
Health Canada has established safety guidelines for exposure to radio frequency fields, in its Safety Code 6 publication, entitled: Limits ofHuman Exposure toRadiofrequency Electromagneticfields in the Frequency Rangefrom 3 kHz to300 GHz.4 While the responsibility for developing Safety Code 6 rests with Health Canada, Industry Canada has adopted this guideline for the purpose ofprotecting the general public.Current biomedical studies in Canadaand other countries indicatethat there is no scientific or medical evidence that a person will experience adverse health effects from exposure to radio frequency fields, provided that the installation complieswith Safety Code 6.
It is the responsibility of proponents and operators of installations to ensure that all radiocommunication and broadcasting installations comply with Safety Code6 at all times, including the consideration of combined effects of nearby installations within the local radio environment.
Forall proponents following Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process, theproponent's notification package must provide a written attestation that there will be compliance with Safety Code 6 for the protection of the general public, including consideration of nearby radiocommunication systems. The notification package mustalso indicate any Safety Code 6 related signage andaccess control mechanisms that may be used.
Compliance with Safety Code 6 isan ongoing obligation. Atanytime, antenna system operators may be required, as directed by Industry Canada, to demonstrate compliance with Safety Code6 by (i) providing detailed calculations, and/or (ii) conducting site surveys and, where necessary, by implementing corrective measures. Proponents andoperators of existing antenna systems must retain copiesof all information relatedto SafetyCode6 compliance such as analyses and measurements.
7.2 Radio Frequency Immunity
All radiocommunication and broadcasting proponents and existing spectrum users are to ensure that their installations are designed and operated in accordance with Industry Canada's immunity criteria as outlined in EMCAB-25 in order to minimize the malfunctioning of electronic equipment in the local surroundings. Broadcasting proponents and existing undertakings should refer to Broadcasting
•I Safety Code 6 can be found on Health Canada's website at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/99ehd-dhm237/index_e.html.
s For more information see EMCAB-2. entitled: Criteria for Resolution ofImmunityComplaints Involving Fundamental Emissions ofRadiocommunications Transmitters available on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website at: www.stratcgis.ic.gc.ca/cpic/intcrnct/insmt-gst.nsf/cn/sfDt005e.html.
Procedures and Rules - Part 1, General Rules (BPR-1) for additional information and requirements6 on this matter.
Proponents areadvised to consider the potential effect that theirproposal may have on nearby electronic equipment. In this way, they will bebetter prepared to respond to any questions that may arise during the public and land-use consultation processes, or after the system has been installed.
Land-use authorities should be prepared to advise proponents andowners of broadcasting undertakings of plans for theexpansion or development of nearby residential and/orindustrial areas. Such expansion or development generally results in the introduction of more electronic equipment in the area and therefore an increased potential for electronic equipment to malfunction. By keeping broadcasters aware ofplanned developments and changes to adjacent land-use, they will be betterable to work with the community. Equally, land-use authorities have a responsibility to ensure that those moving intothese areas, whether prospective residents or industry, areaware of the potential for theirelectronic equipment to malfunction when located in proximity to an existing broadcasting installation. For example, the LUA could ensure that clear notification be provided to future prospective purchasers.
7.3 Proximity of Proposed Structure to Broadcasting Undertakings
Where the proposal wouldresult in a structure that exceeds 30 metres abovegroundlevel, the proponent is to notify operators of AM, FM and TV undertakings within2 kilometres, due to the potential impact the physical structure may have on these broadcasting undertakings. Metallic structures close to an AM directional antenna array may change the antenna pattern of the AM broadcasting undertaking. These proposed structures can also reflect nearby FM and TV signals, causing 'ghosting' interference to FM/TV receivers used by the general public.
7.4 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Industry Canada requires that the installation and modification ofantenna systems be done in a manner that complies with appropriate environmental legislation. This includes the CEAA and local environmental assessment requirements where required by the CEAA.
Proponents will ensure that the environmental assessment process is applied as early as is practical in the planning stages. This will enable proponents and other stakeholders to consider environmental factors in any decisions that may be made. As part of their environmental assessment, proponents are to give due consideration to potential environmental impacts including cumulative effects.
Proponents are advised to viewthe current CEAA exclusion list7 to see if theirproposed installation meets the requirements to be excluded from assessment under the CEAA.
6 BPR-I - Part I: General Rules can be found onthe Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website at: http://stratcgis.ic.gc.ca/cpic/internct/insmt-gst.nsf/cn/sfD1326e.html.
7 TheCEAA exclusion list can be found athttp://laws.justice.gc.ca/cn/C-l 5.2/SOR-94-639/index.html.
Fvas Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
i m If not excluded, the proponent must first notify the local Industry Canadaofficewhich will direct the proponent on how to proceed with an environmental assessment. At this point, the proponent must not proceed with any construction related to the proposal.
Where the proposal requires assessment under the CEAA, the proponent musteither:
• abandon the proposal; or
• participate in the environmental assessment process as established under the CEAA.
Should the environmental assessment identify that there is the potential for an adverseenvironmental effect, the proponent will be required to describe theeffect andpropose mitigation measures. Through an environmental assessment, careful consideration may be given to potential adverse environmental effects during the planning stages. This makes it possible to introduce measures which permit the project to proceed while protecting the environment.
Should any significant adverse environmental effect become apparent at any time during the installation, all construction must be stopped, regardless of whether the installation was excluded from environmental assessment.
For all proponents following IndustryCanada's Default Public Consultation Process, the proponent's notification package must provide written confirmation of the project's status under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
In those situations where an environmental assessment is required, Industry Canada will post a notification of the commencement of the assessment on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry website.8 This will help toensure that all interested parties, including the general public, are aware of an assessment from the outset. The notification will include the name, location and a summary description of theproject, and identify the projectproponent(s) and federal department(s) directly involved in the assessment. Other pertinent documents will be placed on the Internet site as the assessment proceeds, includingall public notices, decisions and informationabout follow-up programs. Should mitigationmeasures be identified further to the assessment, Industry Canada will ensure that the project does not proceed unless these measures are adequately addressed.
In addition, proponents are responsible to ensure thatantenna systems are installed and operated in a manner that respects the local environment and complies with other statutory requirements such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and theSpecies at Risk Act, where applicable.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Reeistrv website can be found at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/index_c.cfm.
12
7.5 Aeronautical Safety
Proponents must ensure their proposals forany antenna systemare first reviewed by Transport Canada and NAV CANADA.
Transport Canada will perform an assessment of the proposal with respect to the potential hazard to air navigation and will notify proponents of any painting and/or lighting requirements for the antenna system. NAV CANADA will comment on whether the proposal has an impact on the provision of their national air navigation system, facilities and otherservices located off-airport.
As required, the proponent must:
1. submit an Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance form to Transport Canada;
2. submit a Land-use Proposal Submission form to NAV CANADA;
3. include Transport Canadamarking requirements in the publicnotification package;
4. install and maintain the antennasystem in a manner that is not a hazard to aeronautical safety; and
5. retain all correspondence.
For those antenna systems subject to Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process, the proponent will inform the community of any marking requirements. Where options are possible, proponents are expected to work with the local community and Transport Canada to implement the best and safest marking options. Proponents should be aware that Transport Canada does not advise Industry Canada of marking requirements for proposed structures. Proponents are reminded that the addition of, or modification to, obstruction markings may result in community concern and so any change is to be done in consultation with the local public, land-use authority and/or Transport Canada, as appropriate.
References and Details
Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance forms are available from any Transport CanadaAviation Group Office. Both the Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance form (#26-0427) and a list of Transport Canada Aviation Group regional offices areavailable on theTransport Canada website.9 Completed forms are to be submitted directly to the nearest Transport Canada Aviation Group office. (Refer to Canadian Aviation Regulations, Standard 621.19, Standards Obstruction Markings).
Land-use Proposal Submission forms are available from NAVCANADA10 and completed forms are to be sent to the appropriate NAV CANADA General Manager Airport Operations (GMAO) office, East or West.
9 The Transport Canada website can be found at: http://www.tc.gc.ca.
10 Search keywords "Land-use Proposal" on the NAV CANADA website at: http://www.navcanada.ca.
) Appendix 1 - Consultation Flow Chart
Investigate teasblHy oi sharing using existing infrastructures
Consult wiDi LUA lo discuss s.'.e options preferences & determine local antenna system
siting requirements/process to be followed
Follow LUA Public
Endc D
Appendix 2 - Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process - Public Notification Package (See Section 4.2)
The proponent must ensure that at least 30days are provided for public comment. Notification must provide all information on how to submit comments to the proponent in writing. The proponent must also provide a copy of the notification package to the land-use authority and the local Industry Canada office at the same time as the package is provided to the public.
Notification must include, but need not be limited to:
(1) theproposed antenna system's purpose, thereasons why existing antenna systems or other infrastructure cannot be used, a list of other structures that were considered unsuitable and future sharing possibilities for the proposal;
(2) theproposed location within the community, the geographic co-ordinates and thespecific property or rooftop;
(3) an attestation1 that the general public will be protected incompliance with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 including combined effects within the local radio environment at all times;
(4) identificationofareas accessible to the general public and the access/demarcation measures to control public access;
(5) the project's status under the Canadian Environmental AssessmentAct1;
(6) a description of the proposed antenna system including its height and dimensions, a description of anyantenna thatmay be mounted on the supporting structure and simulated images of the proposal;
(7) Transport Canada's aeronautical obstruction marking requirements (whether painting, lighting or both) if available; if not available, theproponent's expectation of Transport Canada's requirements together with an undertaking to provide Transport Canada's requirements once they become available;
(8) an attestation that the installation will respect good engineering practices including structural adequacy;
(9) reference toany applicable local land-use requirements such as local processes, protocols, etc.;
1 Example: I, {name ofindividual or representative ofcompany) attest that the radio installation described in thisnotification package will beinstalled and operated onan ongoing basis so as tocomply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6,as may be amended from time to time, for the protection of the general public including any combined effects of nearby installations within the local radio environment.
% 2 Example: I, (name ofindividual or representative ofcompany) attest that the radio antenna system described in this —' notification package is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Act.
15
FV2fl
fl
(10) notice that general information relating to antenna systems is available on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/antenna);
(11) contact information for the proponent, land-use authorities and the local Industry Canada office; and
(12) closing date for submission of written public comments (not less than 30days from receipt of notification).
14
10/16/2007 10:17 FAX 905 874 2099 CITY BRAMPTON PLANNIN6 |fflU0Z/UO3
FVff
(dated September 2001 as approved in principle by Council PB296-2001)
1. Background
Industry Canada is responsible for regulating telecommunications in Canada and for authorizing the location oftelecommunication facilities. Industry Canada also recognizes that the local Jand­ use authority should have an opportunity to influence the location ofsuch facilities. Therefore, Industry Canada instituted procedures to ensure that municipalities are consulted prior to the building ofsignificant antenna structures. In their Publication Environment Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land-Use Consultation, Industry Canada set the general guidelines of 60 days for aparticipating land-use authority to "make views" to the applicant and of 120 days for the completion of the consultation process.
The purpose ofthis protocol and guidelines is to outline the process and guidelines for telecommunication companies to follow regarding the establishment facilities within the City of Brampton.
2. Procedure for Municipal Consultation
2.1. Preliminary Consultation
The proponent (a telecommunication company) shall discuss with City Urban Design staff and affected Councillors at the preliminary stage of site selection so that the City will have general understanding ofthe site search area and provide preliminary inputs for site selections such as land use compatibility, opportunity of public lands, sensitive visual areas and vistas, existing and proposed land uses, and any other potential impacts.
2.2. Formal Consultation
When atelecommunication company finalizes the site selection, theproponent shall submit asite plan application tothe City. The application shall include detailed plans showing the location, design, grading/drainage, and landscaping buffer ofthe telecommunication facilities. Upon receiving acompleted application, it is considered that the "land-use Authority Consultation" referred toby the Industry Canada has been initiated. The City willcirculate the submission to affected internal and external agencies, including abutting municipalities if the proposed location is within 500 metres of an adjacent municipalboundary.
If the location of a proposed telecommunication tower is within 120 metres of a residentially zoned property, the City shall provide alist of property owners within 120 metres of the proposed tower to the applicant whereas theapplicant shall provide written notification to these property owners. In the notification, the applicant shall outline the jurisdiction matter, the rationale for the selection of the designated site, and request that
0/16/2007 10:17 FAX 905 874 2099 CITV BRAMPTON PLANNING I0UUJ/UIM
comments should be sent to the applicant with a copy to the City ofBrampton. When aforementionedwritten notification has been appropriately sent, the applicant shall provide an affidavit to the City in this regard. Such affidavit shall be provided within 30 days of the application.
Within 60 days of the initiation of the "land-use Authority Consultation", the City will provideCity comments to the applicant. The applicant shall thenresubmit drawings and documents to respond the comments. Within 60 days of the resubmission, if the proposal is deemed acceptable, the City will issue a municipal concurrence (site plan approval) to the applicant so that the applicantcan apply forbuilding permits and an agreementand postingof securities for landscaping andengineering purposes may be required. If there are irresolvable concerns, the City will inform Industry Canada accordingly and the Industry Canadacan review the municipal consultation result from the City and decides whether to grantapprovalor not.
3. Guidelines
3.1 New communication towers should be justified on an as-needed basis. Any possibility to place equipmenton existing structures such as highrisebuildings,church steeples, hydro transmittingtowers, existing telecommunication towers, etc. is encouraged.
3.2 A tower shallnot be locatedat prominent vista, adjacent to residential developments, or frontages of major roads and highways.
3.3 Wherever feasible, the minimum setback of a telecommunication tower to a road right­ of-way shallbe the height of the tower andto a residential propertyshall be twice of the height of the tower.
3.4 The style of a tower shall be chosen to be most compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Generally, a monopole structureshall be provided whereas a lattice type structure shall be permitted only at the rear yards of industrial sites. Aesthetic alternative-design mounting structuresthat camouflage or conceal the presence of towersmay be requiredat more visualprominent locationswhere suitable.
3.5 The colour of a tower shall be such to make it less visually obtrusive. A non-reflective white or light grey colour shall be provided.
3.6 Groundlevel of telecommunication facilities shall be landscaped.
3.7 Towers shallbe designed to allow co-occupancy.
3.8 Otherthan a plaque to identify thecarrier(s), thereshall be no advertisement on the facilities.
F2H+2,
15
P2>-^
Within City of Brampton
Whereas in 2001 Brampton City Council approved a Protocol and Guidelines Document for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Within the City of Brampton ("Protocol Document"); and
Whereas there is an increasing number of requests since approval of the Protocol Document to establish wireless telecommunications facilities ("Telecom Facilities") on properties owned by the City of Brampton ("City"); and,
Whereas it is in the best interest of the City to amend the Protocol Document by adding specific guidance for the establishment of Telecom Facilities on property owned by the City ("City Property") as the protocol differs from the protocol for establishing Telecom Facilities on non-City-owned property;
Now therefore, the amended Protocol Document is as follows:
1. Background
Industry Canada is the Federal Government Department responsible for regulating telecommunications in Canada. Under the Radiocommunication Act, Industry Canada acts as the approval authority for the establishment of radiocommunication and broadcasting apparatuses such as antenna systems (this may include masts, towers, and other supporting structures).
The Industry Canada document entitled "Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Issue 4, released June 2007, effective January 1,2008" regulates antenna systems. Industry Canada recognizes that the local land-use authority should have an opportunity to influence the location of such facilities. Therefore, Industry Canada instituted procedures to ensure that municipalities are consulted prior to the building of antenna structures. Specifically, Industry Canada requires telecommunication carriers to follow the land use consultation process established by the local land use authority (i.e. City of Brampton). Industry Canada identified that the consultation process should typically be completed in 120 days.
The purpose of this City protocol and guideline is to clearly outline the land use consultation process to be followed by telecommunication carriers when submitting a proposal to modify or install a telecommunication tower within the City of Brampton for both non-City-owned properties and on City-owned properties. Subsequent to the City's land use consultation process final approval for antenna structures is granted by Industry Canada.
Pi-*?
2.1 .Antennas Affixed to Existing Structures
The Planning Design and Development Department requests that all installations of antennas on existing structures be subject to the City's expedited Site Plan Approval process (Site Plan Waiver process). Although some antenna installations may qualify for exemptions as per Industry Canada regulations, Industry Canada identifies that consideration of local circumstances and prudence in consulting with the local land use authority is appropriate.
2.2. Antennas Affixed to New Structures
2.2.1. Preliminary Consultation
The Planning, Design & Development Department requires proponents to pre- consult with Planning staff prior to the submission of a Site Plan Application for a new antenna structure. During the site selection stage, the proponent is to submit a completed Pre-Consultation Application with associated plans and background materials, and the applicable fees. The pre-consultation stage provides Planning staff the opportunity to meet with the proponent to discuss the proposal and understand the proposal and its location. Staff will offer preliminary feedback for the site selection such as land use compatibility, sensitive visual areas and vistas, existing and proposed land uses, and any other potential impacts.
2.2.2. Formal Consultation
When a telecommunication company finalizes the site selection, the proponent shall submit a site plan application to the City. The application shall include detailed plans showing the location, design, grading/drainage, and landscaping buffer of the telecommunication facilities. Upon receiving a completed application, it is considered that the land-use consultation, as referred to by Industry Canada regulations, has been initiated. The City will circulate the submission to affected internal departments and external agencies, including abutting municipalities if the proposed location is within 500 metres of an adjacent municipal boundary.
The City requires the proponent to circulate written notification of the application, with applicable background information, to all property owners within a radius of three times the tower height, measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure, whichever is greater. In the notification, the applicant shall outline jurisdiction matters, the rationale for the selection of the designated site, and request that any comments be sent to the applicant with a copy to be provided to the City of Brampton. It is the proponent's responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at least 30 days for written public comment.
Fi-m.
When the aforementioned written notification has been appropriately sent, the applicant shall provide an affidavit to the City in this regard. Such affidavit shall be provided within 30 days of the notification.
Proponents are to address all reasonable and relevant concerns, make all reasonable efforts to resolve them in a mutually acceptable manner and must keep a record of all associated communications. If the local public or land-use authority raises a question, comment or concern relating to the tower as a result of the public notification process, then the proponent is required to:
1. Respond to the party in writing within 14 days acknowledging receipt of the question or comment or concern and keep record of the communication.
2. Address in writing all reasonable and relevant concerns within 60 days of receipt or explain why the question, comment or concern is not, in the view of the proponent, reasonable or relevant. The proponent shall provide a copy of the responses to the City of Brampton.
3. Address in any response letters that the party has 21 days from the date of correspondence to reply to the proponent's response with a copy provided to the City of Brampton.
Within 60 days of the land-use consultation being initiated (receipt of a site plan application), the City will endeavour to provide site plan comments to the applicant. The applicant shall then resubmit drawings and documents to respond to the comments. Within 60 days of the resubmission, if the proposal is deemed acceptable, the Citywill issue a municipal concurrence (site plan approval) and advise of any site plan agreement and financial securities that may be required. Subsequent to issuance of site plan approval and execution of any required agreement or posting of securities the site plan approved drawings will be released to the applicant to facilitate any required building permits. If there are irresolvable concerns, the City will inform Industry Canada accordingly. It is understood that Industry Canada will review the municipal consultation result and make a decision on the matter.
2.3. Guidelines Regarding Non-Cirv-Owned Properties
2.3.1 New communication towers should be justified on an as-needed basis. Any possibility to place equipment on existing structures such as high-rise buildings, church steeples, hydro transmitting towers, existing telecommunication towers, etc. is encouraged.
2.3.2 Towers shall be designed to allow co-occupancy and all tower owners are required to allow co-location on existing or planned towers by other telecommunication carriers. In association with any formal site plan application, a letter shall be sent to all other telecommunication providers indicating that you are pursuing a telecommunication tower on the subject site, and requesting confirmation whether the other carriers are interested in co-locating on the proposed tower. Copies of the letters and comments received are to be provided as part of a site plan application.
2.3.3 Towers shall not be located at prominent vista and shall be located away from residential developments or frontages of major roads and highways wherever possible.
2.3.4 Wherever feasible, the minimum setback of a telecommunication tower that does not mimic streetlights and other street furniture to a road right-of-way shall be the height of the tower, and the setback from a tower to a residential property shall be twice of the height of the tower.
2.3.5 The design of towers shall be to the satisfaction of the City. In general, the style of a tower shall be suited to the surrounding area. Generally, lattice style towers will not be permitted anywhere in the City, unless it is demonstrated that they will not be visible outside of an industrial area. Slim monopole tower design, with antennas that are flush mounted, will be the standard tower design required in the City. Where appropriate, design techniques, including but not limited to, camouflaging towers within church steeples, clock towers or flagpoles should be used in the design of a new telecommunication tower. The design of each tower will be reviewed on a site specific basis.
2.3.6 The colour of a tower shall be such to make it less visually obtrusive. A non-reflective white or light grey colour shall be provided. The City shall be informed if there is any other requirement by any agency (ie. Transport Canada and NAV Canada).
2.3.7 The ground level of telecommunication facilities shall be landscaped. Particularly, where equipment shelters are located on the ground, the visual impact of these shelters shall be mitigated through the use of colour, decorative fencing, screening and/or landscaping.
2.3.8 Other than a plaque to identify the carrier(s), there shall be no advertisement on the facilities. A small plaque must be placed at the base of the structure identifying the owner/operator and contact information. No third party advertising shall be permitted.
Procedure for Municipal Consultation Regarding City-Owned Properties
When the proponent's site search area includes a City-owned property, the above noted requirements will apply, except with respect to preliminary consultation. To initiate preliminary consultation, the proponent shall contact the Manager of the City's Realty Services Division. The preliminary consultation process for City- owned properties will include review and comment by the City's Real Estate Coordinating Team. These comments will be forwarded to the City's Planning staff within 30 days for additional comment and circulation to the proponent.
Pl-4*
4. Guidelines Regarding Citv-Owned Properties
The proponent shall follow the same guidelines as described in Clause 4, and shall consider the additional guidelines described in this clause.
4.1 Telecom facilities shall not be installed in locations that would create electromagnetic interference with the City's wireless communication/security systems, i.e. near fire stations and other emergency services facilities, municipal communications facilities. Telecom providers are to take Radio Frequency interference mitigation measures or in the case of interference remove their equipment that is causing interference.
4.2 In general, telecom facility proposals for City-owned sites should avoid the use of parklands and recreational open space. When proposing the use of City-owned lands, including parklands, for telecom facilities, telecom providers shall provide an evaluation of other potential antenna and tower locations within the area to be served by the proposed facilities that demonstrates other potential locations are not suitable or viable.
4.3 Telecom providers shall enter into a market value based license agreement with the City that specifies the terms and conditions of the provider's occupancy of City property, including but not limited to length of term, rent payable, insurance requirements, indemnity, co-locates, site location and access, design of facility, letter of credit.
4.4 Occupancy agreements with telecom providers should facilitate the removal or relocation of a tower at no cost to the City, if necessary in light of redevelopment of the City site.
4.5 Telecom providers will consult with the municipality to provide the most suitable location on the identified City owned site that takes into account planned development or redevelopment on the site, and so as to cause the least visual disturbance.
4.6 Telecom providers should be encouraged to design telecom tower facilities in a manner which incorporates upscale architectural elements such as flag poles, clock towers, and faux water towers.
4.7 Telecom providers are required to provide technical specifications of all radio equipment to be used on the premises.
4.8 Telecom providers are to conduct preliminary radio frequency study reports confirming that the intended wireless services will not interfere with any of the City's wireless services. City staff will provide technical information regarding the City's wireless systems when required.
4.9 Telecom providers are required to provide updated technical information when installing additional antennas/wireless sen/ices on an existing tower.
4.10 Telecom providers are required to work with city staff to mitigate any interference caused by their systems, including the removal of devices causing the interference to the City's wireless services if required.
FS-So
16
0 ROGERS
FVS1
This is an example of a church steeple extension project which was completed in Ancaster. Rogers equipment is disguised in the covered peak at the top of the steeple.
O ROGERS
FVS?b
This is an example of an historic church installation on the exterior of the existing bell tower. Rogers' antennas have been symmetrically flush-mounted to the pediment and painted to match the exterior stone of the building.
O ROGERS
PVS4
This is an example of another church steeple installation in Mississauga. Rogers' increased the height and presence of the steeple, ameliorating the curb appeal and improving the overall proportions of the building. The equipment and antennas have been flush-mounted to the interior of the new steeple.
0 ROGERS
Fi-55
This is an example of a clock-tower, commercial sign at a plaza in the Town of Oakville. The structure was designed in concert with the plaza owner, and the Town. The structure serves as a working clock, as well as commercial signage for the businesses within the plaza. Rogers' equipment is located behind the clock at the top of the structure. The structure measures 27m in height.
O ROGERS
-JjiJjtpth^ 'w
i
This is an example of a tri-pole installation at the Blue Mountain ski resort in the Town of the Blue Mountains.
The structure was designed in concert with the resort itself, and the Town. The structure features industrial grade canvas shrouding to hide the appearance of several wireless carriers' antenna equipment. The structure measures approximately 50m in height.
0 ROGERS
FJ-S1
This is an example of a flagpole installation in a residential neighbourhood within the Town of Oakville. The structure measures 40m in height.
0 ROGERS
Fl-52
This is an example of a lighting mast replacement telecommunications site in a commercial and residential
area of Western Mississauga. The lighting mast was replaced with a reinforced pole to accommodate Rogers' equipment. The pole was then painted to match the existing lighting masts. The structure measures 20m in height.
O ROGERS
Fl-S?
This is an example of a monopole installation in a rural/residential area of Burlington area. The structure measures 40m in height.
0 ROGERS
Pi-to
This is an example of a stealth installation utilizing existing pedestrian bridge infrastructure. Rogers' antennae and equipment were able to be installed on the support posts of the bridge, behind the 'Ontario Place' sign shrouding and painted white to match the bridge posts.
O ROGERS
Fl*U
This is an example of a slim-line monopole installation with the antennas mounted on the exterior of the structure
in a ski-resort area of