5154 Sooke Rd - Freedom Mobile Telecommunication Tower
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
5154 Sooke Rd - Freedom Mobile Telecommunication Tower RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council recommend that a letter of concurrence or non-concurrence be issued to Freedom Mobile and Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada for the proposed telecommunications tower at 5154 Sooke Rd. Report Summary: Cypress Land Services, on behalf of Freedom Mobile, has submitted the attached Information Package (Attachment 1) to locate a 45m tall monopine tower at 5154 Sooke Road (Attachment 2), for the purposes of improving wireless coverage in Sooke and surrounding areas. Under the Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems procedures (Attachment 3), Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada (ISED) has exclusive jurisdiction in the licensing of telecommunication sites, but proponents must consult with the local land use authority and the public. The feedback provided to ISED from the community will be weighed in the decision-making process. The District's consultation process is outlined by the Communications Antenna Policy - Policy 11.4 (Attachment 4), and requires the proponent to undertake public and municipal consultation as part of the application process. Previous Council Action: Freedom Mobile previously proposed a telecommunications tower at this location in 2017. The proposal was heard before Committee of the Whole (COW) on June 19, 2017. At this meeting several residents expressed their concerns related to view obstruction, potential health concerns, well and water issues, and a lack of consultation about the tower (Attachment 5). COW recommended to Council that Freedom Mobile compile and address concerns from the COW and the community in a package to staff, and that a report be brought forward on July 10, 2017. As per the recommendation a report was brought forward by Forbes Bros Ltd, Freedom Mobile's Consultant, on July 10, 2017 addressing the concerns (Attachment 6). At this meeting a petition of 20 signatures was received by Council, and a recommendation of non-concurrence issued to both ISED, and the proponent. Report: Community Context The subject property (5154 Sooke Rd) is approximately 4.6 hectares in size, and is located near the eastern boundary of the District (Attachment 2). It has moderately steep and hilly terrain, is predominantly treed, and contains 3 dwellings. The surrounding property uses to the north and east are RU2 Rural, and primarily RU4 Rural Residential to the south, across Sooke Rd, and to the West along Glinz Lake Rd. Planning File No. 3220-20 Regular Council - January 28, 2019 - RPT -2018-0152 N/A
Official Community Plan, 2010 The proposed communication tower is located outside of the Sooke Community Growth Area and is on property designated as Rural Community Residential (RR). The Rural Community Residential designation is an area within which the lowest density residential growth will occur in the District, and it is meant to preserve the rural and agricultural character of lands outside of the Community Growth Area. Bylaw No. 600, Sooke Zoning Bylaw, 2013 The proposed location of 5154 Sooke Road is zoned RU2 Rural (Attachment 7). The Zoning Bylaw addresses antenna systems in two ways. Section 3.12(a) states that there is no height restriction for antenna or federally regulated communication towers provided that the structure occupies no more than 5% of the lot (Attachment 8) and Section 3.19(a) states that communication towers and antennas are exempt from setback requirements (Attachment 9). Community Feedback At the time of report publication three phone calls, two emails (Attachment 10) and one letter have been received by staff from residents in opposition to the proposed communications tower. Concerns raised by residents have primarily been related to the location and siting of the tower (i.e. obstruction of views), potential health issues, and the aesthetics of the tower. Despite the updated design several residents have commented that the "monopine" design represents only a minor, cosmetic improvement over the previous proposal, and that more substantial concerns expressed previously have not been adequately addressed by the proponent. Residents located outside of Freedom Mobile's required notification radius (see Legal Impacts) felt that they did not receive adequate notification. Legal Impacts: As per the public notification requirements of the Radiocommunications and Broadcasting Systems procedures (Attachment 3) the proponent has notified owners and occupants of properties within a radius of three times the tower height of 45m (135m), as measured from the base of the proposed tower (Attachment 11). It has advertised the proposed antenna system, as well as the date and time of the Committee of the Whole meeting, in two issues of the Sooke News Mirror (Attachment 12). The proponent has also ensured that 30 days have been provided for written public comment, and that they have responded to all public comments following ISED procedure. As per the District's Communications Antenna Policy (Attachment 4), the District has notified owners and occupants of properties within 100m of the proposed tower site of the Committee of the Whole meeting. Unlike the Federal requirement, the District measures this distance from the edge of the subject property (5154 Sooke Rd), meaning that some neighbours only received a notification from the District. The ultimate role of the municipality is to issue a statement of concurrence or non- Planning File No. 3220-20 Regular Council - January 28, 2019 - RPT -2018-0152 N/A
concurrence to the proponent and to Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada. Frequently Asked Questions: Health and Safety of Communications Towers Health Canada is responsible for determining safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency energy. It monitors the scientific literature on this issue on an ongoing basis. These science-based standards are consistent with those used in other parts of the world, and provide protection against all known adverse health effects. ISED has adopted Health Canada's radiofrequency exposure guidelines (known as Safety Code 6) and ensures that exposure from cell phone towers does not exceed the specified limits of this code. Attached Documents: Attachment 1 - Freedom Mobile Information Package Attachment 2 - Subject Property Map Attachment 3 - Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Attachment 4 - DOS Communications Antenna Policy Attachment 5 - June 19, 2017 COW Minutes Attachment 6 - July 10, 2017 Report to Council Attachment 7 - RU2 Zone Attachment 8 - Zoning Bylaw Section 3.12(2) Attachment 9 - Zoning Bylaw Section 3.19(2) Attachment 10 - Public Comment (Email) Attachment 11 - Affidavit of Notification Attachment 12 - Freedom Mobile Newspaper Ad Planning File No. 3220-20 Regular Council - January 28, 2019 - RPT -2018-0152 N/A
December 11, 2018 BVI0063D
Invitation for Public Input
Proposed Freedom Mobile 45.0 Metre Monopine Wireless Antenna Installation
located at 5154 A Sooke Road, Sooke, BC
Dear Neighbour,
Freedom Mobile (“Freedom”) is striving to provide high quality wireless communications services to
Canadians. Increasingly, Canadians depend on wireless voice, data and internet communications for
business, personal and emergency needs. In order to launch Freedom Mobile’s wireless service in the
South Vancouver Island area, Freedom is proposing the construction of a new radiocommunications
installation. Freedom has commenced consultation in accordance with District of Sooke’s Communications
Antenna Policy 11.4 for one of these new facilities.
Please be advised that this proposal will be discussed at the Regular Council Meeting held in
District of Sooke Council Chambers at 2225 Otter Point Road, Sooke, BC on January 28, 2019
commencing at 7:00 pm.
PROPOSAL DETAILS:
Freedom is proposing to install a 45.0 metre monopine tower at 5154 A Sooke Road, Sooke, BC. In 2016
Freedom Mobile completed a consultation for the installation of a 45 metre monopole. At that time, there
were concerns expressed by the public regarding visibility of the monopole. As Such, Freedom Mobile has
modified its design of the facility to a monopine to best blend in with the existing treed setting. The subject
site is a large, well treed, RU2 zoned property consisting of a home and a few accessory outbuildings. The
land uses immediately adjacent to the subject site are similar in use. The proposed installation consists of
a monopine tower 45.0 metres in height with eight (8) flush mounted antennas and three (3) microwave
dishes.
Monopine cell towers provide a skillfully-disguised tree like look to ensure they blend into the surrounding
landscape in an aesthetically pleasing way. The equipment will be located at the base of the monopine
and enclosed by an 8’ tall cedar post fence, occupying an area of 3.0 by 4.0 metres. The installation is
required to support Freedom’s antennas in order to provide wireless communication service within a few
kilometres of the proposed location and to complete our contiguous coverage along Highway 14/Sooke
Road.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY:
Telecommunication providers are required by Innovation, Science, and Economic Development Canada
(ISED), formerly Industry Canada, to consult with the local municipality and the general public regarding
new installations. Freedom is committed to meaningful consultation with the District of Sooke and the
public. The District of Sooke has adopted Communications Antenna Policy 11.4. The objective of this policy
is to encourage dialogue between the applicant and the District of Sooke with respect to the location, height
and output of communication antennae and their associated structures so as to ensure that such structures
fit with the form and character of the surrounding area.
This letter provides written notification to adjacent landowners and stakeholders with an opportunity to
engage in reasonable, relevant, and timely communication regarding this proposal. You have received a
copy of this notification package because your property, or a property you have an interest in, is located
within 135.0 metres or less from the proposed installation. The closing period for written comments
regarding the proposal is January 25, 2019; however, you can make comments in person at the Regular
Council meeting on January 28, 2019 which begins at 7:00pm. Any inquiries that are received as a result
of this notification will be logged and submitted to the District of Sooke as part of our application process.
1|Page
December 11, 2018 BVI0063D Purpose The purpose of the proposed facility is to help Freedom provide wireless coverage in Sooke and surrounding areas. Currently, there are no existing antenna support structures or other feasible infrastructure that can be utilized; as a result, this new antenna support structure is required. An aerial photo of the proposed location and a photo-simulation depicting a typical monopine image of the proposed facility is included as part of this notification package. Location The tower will be located at the coordinates N 48.396806°, W -123.633500°. It is proposed to be located at 5154 A Sooke Road, Sooke, BC in a treed area on the north side of the property. The installation is well setback, in the middle of a wooded area and will be minimally visible from Sooke Road and surrounding properties. Health & Safety of Wireless Facilities ISED manages the radio communications spectrum in Canada and requires cellular telecommunications facilities to comply within the guidelines set by Health Canada in order to protect people who live or work near these facilities. These Health Canada safety guidelines are outlined in their ‘Safety Code 6’ document and are among the most stringent in the world. All Freedom facilities adhere to and are generally well within these standards. Freedom attests that the radio installation described in this notification package will be installed and operated on an ongoing basis so as to comply with Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 for the protection of the general public including any combined effects of nearby installations within the local radio environment. Site Access Access will be along an existing road that runs along the rear perimeter of the subject property. Construction is anticipated to take 30 to 45 days. Once complete, the site will only be accessed for routine maintenance visits which typically occur once or twice a month. To safeguard the site from the general public, the tower base and equipment shelter will be enclosed by a fence. Environment Freedom confirms that the installation is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Design The proposal is for a 45.0 metre monopine tower with eight (8) flush mounted antennas and three (3) microwave dishes placed amid the branches. Monopine cell towers provide a skillfully-disguised tree look to monopole towers to make them blend into the surrounding landscape in an aesthetically pleasing manner. The equipment will be located at the base of the monopine and enclosed by an 8’ tall cedar post fence, occupying an area of 3.0 by 4.0 metres. A preliminary design of the site plan, equipment plan, and monopole profile are included in this notification for your reference. Transport Canada The installation will be marked in accordance with Transport Canada and NAV Canada requirements. Comments are pending. Structural Considerations Freedom confirms that the antenna structure described in this notification package will apply good engineering practices including, structural adequacy during construction. The facility will be built to the National Building Code as well as the BC Building Code. 2|Page
December 11, 2018 BVI0063D Local Municipality The District of Sooke’s Communications Antenna Policy 11.4 objective is to encourage dialogue between the applicant and the District of Sooke with respect to the location, height and output of communication antennae and their associated structures so as to ensure that such structures fit with the form and character of the surrounding area. General Information General information relating to antenna systems is available on ISED’s Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/h_sf01702e.html Contacts Freedom Mobile c/o Tawny Verigin of Cypress Land Services Inc. Agents for Freedom Mobile Suite 1051, 409 Granville Street Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2 Telephone: 1-855-301-1520 Fax: 604-620-0876 Email: publicconsultation@cypresslandservices.com District of Sooke’s Contact Information If you have questions regarding the District of Sooke’s Communications Antenna Policy 11.4 please contact: Nicholas Deibler, Planner 1, by email at ndeibler@sooke.ca. ISED Vancouver Island Office 1230 Government Street, Room 430 Victoria, BC V8W 3M4 Telephone: 250-363-3803 Fax: 250-363-0208 Email: ic.spectrumvictoria-victoriaspectre.ic@canada.ca (By appointment only) 3|Page
December 11, 2018 BVI0063D
Aerial Photo
Proposed
location
Photo of Monopine
Typical Monopine
4|PageDecember 11, 2018 BVI0063D
Site Plan
Layout
5|PageDecember 11, 2018 BVI0063D
Tower Profile
6|PageDecember 11, 2018 BVI0063D
COMMENT SHEET
PROPOSED RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS TOWER
5154 A SOOKE ROAD, SOOKE, BC
FREEDOM MOBILE SITE: BVI0063D
1. Do you feel this is an appropriate location for the proposed facility?
Yes
No
Comments
2. Are you satisfied with the appearance / design of the proposed facility? If not, what changes
would you suggest?
Yes
No
Comments
3. Additional Comments
Please provide your name and full mailing address if you would like to be informed about the status of this
proposal. This information will not be used for marketing purposes; however, your comments will only be
used by Freedom Mobile in satisfying the District of Sooke’s Communications Antenna Policy 11.4.
Name
(Please print clearly)
Email Address
Mailing Address
Freedom Mobile c/o Cypress Land Services Inc.
Suite 1051, 409 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2
Attention: Tawny Verigin, Municipal Affairs Specialist
Thank you for your input.
7|PageSUBJECT PROPERTY MAP File: 5154 Sooke Rd
5016 2
3
6
503
PT 2
GLINZ LAKE
5154B
5008
ROAD
A
5154A 1
A PT A
B
42
51
1
5004
A
5148
5154C
500
1 4)
42
A
WY 1
0
5154
51
O AD (H PT B
S OOKE R
51
5153
58
5155
B
51
A
59
A
516
2 C
A
4
516
3
A
201
´
1
8
516
5 5
A 13 PT 1
202
6
4
40
0 20 40 60 80 100
01
Subject Property MetresCPC-2-0-03
Issue 5
Released: June 26, 2014
Effective: July 15, 2014
Spectrum Management and Telecommunications
Client Procedures Circular
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting
Antenna Systems
Aussi disponible en français – CPC-2-0-03i
C
Contents
1. Intr oduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Industr y Canada Engagement ..................................................................................................... 4
3. Use of Existing Infr astr uctur e (Shar ing) .................................................................................... 4
4. Land-use Author ity and Public Consultation ............................................................................ 5
5. Dispute Resolution Pr ocess ........................................................................................................ 11
6. Exclusions .................................................................................................................................... 11
7. Gener al Requir ements................................................................................................................ 12
Appendix 1 – Industr y Canada’s Default Public Consultation Pr ocess - Public Notification
Package .................................................................................................................................................... 17
iiRadiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
1. Intr oduction
1.1 Mandate
Radiocommunication Act
Radiocommunication Act.
1.2 Application
1.3 Pr ocess Over view
3Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
120 days
2. Industr y Canada Engagement
3. Use of Existing Infr astr uctur e (Shar ing) 4
•
Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and Antenna Tower and
Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements
4Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
•
•
•
4. Land-use Author ity and Public Consultation
Contacting the Land-use Author ity
Following the Land-use Author ity Pr ocess
5Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
Br oadcasting Under takings
4.1 Land-use Author ity Consultation
•
•
•
•
6Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
•
•
•
•
• 120 days
4.2 Industr y Canada’s Default Public Consultation Pr ocess
Public Notification
7Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
Responding to the Public
14 days
60 days
21 days
30 days
8Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
Public Reply Comments
21 days
21-day
•
•
•
•
•
•
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
•
•
• Radiocommunication Act
4.3 Concluding Consultation
9Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
Concluding Land-use Author ity Consultation
120 days
Concluding Industr y Canada’s Default Public Consultation Pr ocess
• 30-day
•
21-day
21-day
10Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
•
•
4.4 Post-Consultation
5. Dispute Resolution Pr ocess
•
•
6. Exclusions
•
11Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
•
•
•
• New Antenna Systems
• Existing Antenna Systems
• Non-Tower Str uctur e
• Tempor ar y Antenna Systems
7. Gener al Requir ements
12Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
7.1 Radio Fr equency Exposur e Limits
Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in
the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz
Radio Frequency (RF) Fields – Signs and Access Control.
13Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
7.2 Radio Fr equency Immunity
General Rules
7.3 Pr oximity of Pr oposed Str uctur e to Br oadcasting Under takings
7.4 Canadian Envir onmental Assessment Act
Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, 2012
Regulations Designating Physical Activities
Criteria for Resolution of Immunity Complaints Involving Fundamental
Emissions of Radiocommunications Transmitters
14Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999,
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 Species at Risk Act
7.5 Aer onautical Safety
15Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
Refer ences and Details
16Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
Appendix 1 – Industr y Canada’s Default Public Consultation Pr ocess - Public Notification
Package
30 days
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
name of individual or representative of company
17Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
c
30 days
18Policy 11.4
September 9, 2002
Communications Antenna Policy
Policy Statement:
1. This policy applies to telecommunication carriers (antennae) subject to
Industry Canada Policy CPC-2-03. This policy does not include residential
T.V. antennae, satellite dishes, small antennae affixed to buildings, or
amateur ham radios.
2. The objective of this policy is to encourage dialogue between the applicant
and the District of Sooke with respect to the location, height and output of
communication antennae and their associated structures so as to ensure
that such structures fit with the form and character of the surrounding
area.
3. The applicant must consult with the Development Services Department
prior to construction of the structure.
4. The applicant must submit for discussion purposes the following:
a. Expected time of construction
b. Plans indicating size, location and type of antenna structure
proposed.
5. The Municipal Planner shall prepare a report to the Committee of the
Whole regarding the proposed development.
6. Owners and tenants in occupation of each parcel that is within 100 metres
of the subject site must be notified of the Committee of the Whole
meeting.
7. The recommendations of the Committee of the Whole shall be forwarded
to Council.
8. The Development Services Department shall forward Council’s
comments and recommendations concerning the application to the
Federal Agency (Industry Canada) and the applicant.Minutes for the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the District of Sooke - June 19,
2017
3. Trevor Krenbrink, Sooke Resident, spoke in opposition of cell towers in areas where
homes are located.
4.2. 5154 Sooke Road - Freedom Mobile Telecommunication Tower
Council Pearson declared a con?ict and left the meeting at 8:01 p.m.
Sean Ogilvie, Forbes Bros Ltd. and an agent for Freedom Mobile |nc., provided a
PowerPoint presentation of the proposed cell tower plan, and location, highlighting the
following:
a Proposed 45m tall shrouded monopole style tower;
Fillingthe gap in cell coverage on Sooke Road;
Location will be in a rural residential area, 230 meters away from Sooke Road;
Equipment will be placed on the inside of the pole;
Painted green to blend into the surrounding area;
Sightline constraints;
Rogers tower, located 4.5 km north east, could have been used but does not
reach the area coverage sought;
Noti?cation was sent to residents within 135m radius; no letters were returned.
o Health Canada] Industry Canada no scienti?c evidence to have stricter limits,
guidelines set will be followed.
Committee Discussion:
c View from Mr. Saunders window, his concerns, suggested Freedom Mobile
work with property owner.
Public Input:
1. Stephen Saunders, Sooke Resident, spoke in opposition of telecommunication
towers in the proposed location. Mr. Saunders expressed concern with radiation and
frequency, and the decreased property value with a tower, obstructing his current
view. Mr. Saunders provided an overview of the information that he submitted by
email, located in the New Businessl Supplementary Information section of the agenda.
2. Marlene Erickson, tenant in Sooke, spoke in opposition of the telecommunication
towers anywhere in the District of Sooke. Ms. Erickson provided an overview of
potential health concerns and issues that have been generated by past personal
experiences, as well identifying studies completed on affects of exposure to radiation
omitted from such towers. Ms. Erickson questioned why Freedom Mobile is targeting
Sooke for expansion and expressed concern with possibility of well, and water,
Issues.
3. Anna Saunders, Sooke Resident, spoke in opposition of the telecommunication
towers. Ms. Saunders addressed Council, reminding them of their legal responsibility
as representatives of the community, to protect and uphold the best interests of the
people. Ms. Saunders expressed concern regarding the inadequate research from
Freedom Mobile for this site, and future consultations for further sites.
Page 3 of 6Minutes for the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the District of Sooke - June 19,
2017
4. Devin Banalki, tenant in Sooke, spoke in opposition of telecommunication towers
anywhere in the District of Sooke. Mr. Banalki was concerned with the limited
consultation requirement, as he lives 200m away from proposed location and was not
contacted. Proposed shrouding, or set backs, willnot be enough to disguise the tower
ultimately leading to potential decreased property value.
5. Marlene Erickson, spoke a second time, inquiring into location selection.
6. Stephen Saunders, spoke a second time, commenting on adequate cell coverage
for the area.
7. James Duggan, Sooke Resident, spoke in general opposition of cell towers and the
issues related to radiation exposure.
8. Mike Herrling, Sooke resident, spoke in opposition of telecommunication towers.
9. Maureen Sims, Sooke resident, spoke in opposition of telecommunication towers.
Committee Discussion:
o Public should be in contact with their MP, with concerns regarding
communications towers, as it is federally regulated.
o Municipalities position on legislation;
o Radiation levels from cell phones versus the towers themselves;
o This community allows, thus far, for limited electromagnetic waves which could
be a key reason residents live in the area(s);
o Suggestion for a non-concurrence, as it wouldn't assist in the development of
the core area;
o Desire to decrease more towers, instead more use of existing locations;
c There are complaints in the community regarding lack of cell phone coverage
and a desire for increase coverage, but while also ensuring the protection of
public;
Timeline process and the turn around;
Alternative locations, ?exibility of proponent for changes;
Camou?age options;
Health and safety concerns;
Responsibility moving forward;
Motions to Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM, on the importance of
land usage in own communities.
MOVED by Councillor Kasper
THAT Committee of the Whole recommends to Council, that Freedom Mobile compile
and address the Committee and community concerns, in a package to staff, regarding
the proposed telecommunication tower at 5154 Sooke Road.
ANDTHAT a report be brought fon/vard to the July 10, 2017 Regular meeting of
Council.
CARRIED.
MOVED by Councillor Kasper
Page 4 of 6Minutes for the Committee of the Whole Meeting of the District of Sooke - June 19,
2017
THAT Committee of the Whole recommends to Council, that Freedom Mobile compile
and address the Committee and community concerns, in a package to staff, regarding
the proposed telecommunication tower at 2614 Otter Point Road.
AND THAT a report be brought forward to the July 10, 2017 Regular meeting of
Council.
CARRIED.
Councillor Pearson returned to the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
4.3. Rezoning and Development Application Forms
This item was referred to the Development and Engagement Committee, as noted in
the Approval of the Agenda.
4.4. Correspondence PolicyIProcedure
o The Acting Corporate Officer provided an overview of the written staff report,
highlighting the various changes, such as:
o Email direction change to council@sooke.ca, copies sent to the Chief
Administrative Of?cer andlor Corporate Of?cer, ensure that nothing is missed.
o Streamline the process would to limitpaper usage.
Council discussion:
a Loss of individual email addresses;
o Ef?ciency and duplication eliminated;
o Automatic response to ensure residents know their correspondence has been
received;
o Process and service.
0
MOVED by Councillor Reay
THAT the Committee provide feedback regarding a proposed policy regarding
Correspondence Addressed to Mayor and Council, and an operational procedure for
District Mail and Email Correspondence.
CARRIED.
5. NEW BUSINESS
There were no new items presented.
6. ADJOURNMENT
MOVED by Councillor Pearson
THAT the Committee of the Whole meeting be adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
CARRIED.
Page 5 of 6Report to District of Sooke Staff and Council
Freedom Mobile Telecommunication Site: BVI0063D
Sean Ogilvie, Real Estate & Government Affairs
Page 174 of 328July 4, 2017
VIA EMAIL
To: District of Sooke Municipal Council
CC: Tara Johnson, Planner II Development Services Department
RE: Freedom Mobile Inc. Report to District of Sooke Staff & Council
Legal: PID: 000-226-475
LOT 1, SECTIONS 59 AND 60, SOOKE DISTRICT, PLAN 33085
Freedom Mobile Site ID: BVI0063D
Site Address: 5154 A Sooke Road, Sooke, British Columbia
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Purpose
This report responds to a recommendation from District of Sooke Committee of the Whole
(“COW”) that Freedom Mobile compile and address concerns from the Committee and the
community in a package to staff, regarding the proposed telecommunications tower at 5154
Sooke Road.
Request:
That the District of Sooke Council through the Development Services Department provide a
recommendation of “Concurrence” for the proposed Freedom Mobile site BVI0063D at 5154
Sooke Road to the Spectrum Management branch of Innovation, Science and Economic
Development Canada (“ISED” formerly Industry Canada) and to the proponent Freedom Mobile
Inc.
Background:
Freedom Mobile Inc. (“Freedom”) has emerged as Canada’s fourth national mobile provider, a
truly Canadian company, owned and operated by Shaw Communications. In their efforts to
provide a competitive mobile offering to Canadian consumers, Freedom is in the process of
launching improved 3G and LTE network coverage in multiple markets across Canada.
Specifically in this case, Freedom has proposed a new wireless mobile base station installed on a
new tower toward the rear of the property at 5154 Sooke Road, Sooke, B.C. (Appendix 1. Location
Map) in order to fill in coverage along HWY 14 (Sooke Rd) in between approved sites BVI0047
and BVI0061 (Appendix 2. Coverage Map). This proposal along Sooke Road (HWY 14) will enable
Freedom to provide continuous coverage to customers along Sooke Road (HWY 14) from the
} 1
Page 175 of 328Town Centre / Milnes Landing eastward toward Langford and Victoria. To leave this coverage
area unaddressed is to entirely defeat the purpose of a mobile network. The benefit of
continuous mobile coverage is that customers receive reliable access to voice, text and data
(broadband) services as the end user moves freely through the network. Further to the obvious
convenience of these services, it also provides peace of mind to Freedom customers knowing
they have immediate access to emergency services.
As a federal undertaking, Freedom is required by ISED to consult with land-use authorities in siting
new wireless mobile base station tower locations. The consultation process established under
ISED’s authority is intended to provide the local land-use authorities an opportunity to address
land-use concerns while respecting the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction in the siting
and operation of wireless voice and data systems.
In proposing the mobile base station tower BVI0063D, Forbes Bros Ltd. on behalf of Freedom has
undertaken the land-use and public consultation process as described in the District of Sooke
Policy 11.4 Communications Antenna Policy. Beginning in April 2017, this process has consisted of
submissions detailing the proposed development to the District planning department, as well as
public consultation via mailed notification to surrounding property owners, public notices
placed in the local newspapers and presentations/public input at the Committee of the Whole
meeting that was held June 19, 2017.
This report summarizes and documents all Committee, community and staff input received to
date, and provides detailed responses to questions and concerns raised.
Committee, Public & Staff Comments:
The following section is a generalized report on the input received to date. Through the
comments at the Committee of the Whole, emails, and phone calls, common objections have
been received regarding perceived (negative) health effects, expected loss of property value
and poor choice of location. Much of the input received was repetitive in nature, as such we
have summarized these three categories of objection and our overall response below. For a
detailed list of all individual comments and responses please see the attached chart (Appendix 3
– Comments & Concerns)
Health Effects:
Risk Assessment vs. Risk Perception
A common theme emerged in the comments heard from the public at the Committee of the
Whole Meeting on June 19, 2017 as well as in the emails and phone calls received to date. The
concern is that wireless mobile base stations installed on towers or more colloquially “cell towers”
pose a significant threat to the health and well-being of Canadians and specifically to those
that live in close proximity to them.
Mobile wireless base stations installed on towers “cell towers” transmit and receive radio-
frequency (RF) signals or energy in order to connect with the nearby cell phones and other
mobile devices in the network. RF energy from cell towers is a form of “non-ionizing” radiation,
} 2
Page 176 of 328which means it is not strong enough to break chemical bonds. Common sources of RF exposure
include cell phones, cordless telephones, FM radio transmitters, baby monitors, WiFi routers and
of course cell towers
Most countries set exposure limits for RF at a national level. In Canada, the Ministry of Innovation,
Science and Economic Development Canada (“ISED” formerly Industry Canada) have adopted
Health Canada’s Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the
Frequency Range from 3kHz to 300 GHz (Safety Code 6 [2015]) – Health Canada’s RF exposure
guidelines. Ongoing compliance with Safety Code 6 is a mandatory condition of all Canadian
wireless carriers.
The exposure limits set in Safety Code 6 are based on an ongoing review of published scientific
studies, including both internal and external authoritative reviews of the scientific literature, as
well as Health Canada’s own research. The code is periodically revised to reflect new
knowledge in the scientific literature. The current version of Safety Code 6 reflects the scientific
literature published up to August 2014 and replaces the previous version published in 2009.
Health Canada reminds all Canadians that their health is protected from radiofrequency fields
by the human exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6. Health Canada has established
and maintains a general public exposure limit that incorporates a wide safety margin and is
therefore far below the threshold for potentially adverse health effects. Health Canada
continues to monitor and analyze scientific research on this issue and should new scientific
evidence arise demonstrating that exposure to radiofrequency fields poses a health risk to
Canadians, Health Canada will take the appropriate action to safeguard the health of
Canadians.
Despite Health Canada’s (and external agencies WHO, ICNIRP, Royal Society of Canada)
conclusion that as long as cell towers respect the limits set in Safety Code 6 there is no scientific
reason to consider towers dangerous to the public – many members of the public often raise the
issue of health concerns where a new cell tower has been proposed. Often these are the most
emotional comments/concerns raised by the public and are the most challenging of antenna
related issues to address.
In making decisions about potentially hazardous technologies, scientists and government policy
makers employ a sophisticated “risk assessment” analysis of cell tower and cell phone
technology, whereas members of the public tend to rely on their own intuitive judgement about
hazards called “risk perception”. Risk perceptions are usually based on media reports,
information and opinions found on the internet, the opinions of family members, friends and
other members of the community. The theory of risk perception would suggest that based on
current media and internet information many members of the public would perceive RF
exposure from cell towers as being a high risk technology.
} 3
Page 177 of 328The reason this is commonly perceived as a high risk activity/technology by the public is that:
· Low personal control over the risky activity (members of the public have little
control over where these facilities are proposed and needed)
· Worst possible consequences are perceived (cancer, DNA damage, etc.)
· The risk is not assumed voluntarily (they did not ask for the cell tower – or
purposefully move near one, despite the ubiquity of cell sites – located in almost
every community)
· Unfamiliar with the risky activity/technology (RF engineering is a specialized
discipline)
· A perceived risk for children or others who might believe they are more sensitive
A simple illustration of the risk perception attitudes were demonstrated at the June 19 COW
meeting. While many members of the public in attendance rose to speak to the apparent
dangers of RF exposure, several read their notes directly from a mobile phone device that was
transmitting and receiving RF energy in close proximity to their body. Additionally some
comments were made regarding the existing coverage in the area – not possible without some
degree of RF exposure. In the case of the mobile phone or device there is a high level of
personal control, a familiarity with the activity and an easily perceived benefit from the activity.
This risk perception is contrasted with risk assessment. The risk assessment is based on an
independent examination of the most current peer-reviewed scientific studies available. The risk
assessment is done principally by the scientists working in the radiation branch of Health
Canada. Based on the analysis of the risk assessments completed, Health Canada has created
RF exposure standards.
The limits in Safety Code 6 are science-based exposure limits that are consistent with the
science-based standards used in other parts of the world, including the United States, the
European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Large safety margins have been
incorporated into these limits to provide a significant level of protection for the general public
and personnel working near RF sources.
Internationally, a few jurisdictions (cities, provinces or countries) have applied more restrictive
limits for RF field exposures from cell towers, although Health Canada maintains there is no
scientific basis to support the need for such restrictive limits. Additionally, in many instances these
more restrictive limits are not applied to other wireless devices in these same jurisdictions.
Limits in Canada, the United States and most Western European countries (and many in other
parts of the world) follow the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard
C95.1-1999 or the similar International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
limits (Safety Code 6 limits are comparable) While the Russian Federation, China, Switzerland
and a few other countries have limits as much as 100 times lower – some of these lower limits are
“science-based” while others are “precautionary” based.
} 4
Page 178 of 328Country / Regulation Limit for general public exposure to RF (2000 Percentage of Safety
MHz) for extended periods of exposure, W/m2 Code 6
ICNIRP 10 100%
FCC (U.S.) 10 100%
Safety Code 6 10 The Canadian
Standard
China 0.1 1%
Russia 0.1 1%
Typical max. exposure 0.01 0.1%
from base station
BVI0063 at ground 0.0049 W/m2 @ 2100 MHz 0.1%
level
The Russian and Chinese (and many Eastern European) limits reflect the idea that long-term
exposure at levels below western limits result in adverse health effects. Russian and Eastern
European literature does contain reports of health-effects from low-level exposure to RF energy
(Chinese reports contain similar information) including references to a “microwave disease”
however, this disease is not recognized in Western medicine and its diagnostic criteria is
considered by many vague and non-falsifiable (unscientific). Further, many of the Russian
research reports lack crucial information (e.g. frequencies, intensity of exposure, SAR, description
of experimental design) Western health agencies and standard setting bodies generally only
consider studies that meet minimum standards reporting and methodology – likely many Russian
and Eastern European studies would be excluded from consideration or given very little weight
in the Western risk assessment process due to serious flaws and inadequate documentation.
Italy, Switzerland and a few other countries have recently adopted exposure limits that are
based on precautionary measures. Unlike the science-based limits (which are designed to avoid
identified hazards) these precautionary limits were designed to minimize the “yet unknown” risks
of RF exposure.
Regarding the precautionary principle the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends
“precautionary principle” be adopted only under the condition that scientific assessments of risk
and science-based exposure limits should not be undermined by the adoption of arbitrary
cautionary approaches. That would occur, for example, if limit values were lowered to levels
that bear no relationship to the established hazards or have inappropriate arbitrary adjustments
to the limit values to account for the extent of scientific uncertainty.”
While compliance with the limits of Safety Code 6 are the only applicable exposure limits in
Canada, Freedom Mobile’s proposed site BVI0063D in Sooke, BC has been calculated to have a
ground level (2m above ground) power density level of 0.0049 W/m2 or 0.1% of Safety Code 6 or
1000 times lower than the prescribed limits in an uncontrolled environment (public exposure).
Exposure levels at ground level may be substantially lower as the simulation tool is not well suited
to calculating levels below 0.1% as well it does not account for any objects that may attenuate
exposure in the environment (e.g. trees, buildings).
} 5
Page 179 of 328Location Choice:
The selection of a wireless communications site works similarly to fitting a piece into a puzzle. In
this case, the puzzle is a complex radio network. Client demand, radio frequency engineering
principles, local topography and land use opportunities working together direct the geographic
location of planned Freedom sites.
In identifying a potential tower location and design, Freedom examined the local area, assessed
the visibility of the structure and considered possible tower designs. Freedom evaluated the best
location for a new facility using the following criteria;
· Technical requirements - must be located geographically near or in the target
coverage area with sufficient deployment height to provide adequate coverage
range;
· Evaluation of existing structures – Freedom first investigates existing tower
structures prior to proposing a new free standing support structure. In this case the
closest existing structure is 4.5km (NE) away from Freedoms proposed location
and is not a feasible candidate to provide coverage to this area of Sooke
(Freedom will be collocating on that tower to provide coverage further east and
north of BVI0063);
· Land-use / surrounding amenity considerations – generally where a new cell
tower is required, first preference is given to possible locations in industrial or
business park areas – areas away from sensitive land use such as high density
residential developments. Where this is not possible, special design considerations
are proposed (e.g. the proposed site is setback 230m from the roadway under
heavy tree cover, the antenna equipment is shrouded and the structure painted
dark green to better blend in with the surrounding area);
· Willing land-owner – as important as any other consideration, it is not possible to
site new base station infrastructure without an agreement with a local land
owner. Two alternate locations were discussed with nearby land owners which
ultimately fell apart due to their unwillingness to lease space to Freedom.
The candidate selected (5154 Sooke Road) met all the criteria mentioned above. It provides a
mid-way location between planned sites that would enable Freedom to provide continuous
coverage along the roadways out of the Town Centre eastward toward Langford and Victoria.
The proposed location also has existing road access and proximity to power, which means little
or no tree clearing would be needed and there would be no impact on traffic (new access
construction).
Alternate locations suggested such as Mount Matheson, do not meet the network criteria and
are therefore considered not technically feasible. Relocating the site ~4.5km south of the
proposed location to Mount Matheson causes a large shift in the area covered due to distance
and terrain characteristics. While it may be possible for a large and powerful enough base
station to reach customers on the ground, the mobile devices they connect to would not be
powerful enough to reach back to the base station. The end user would experience a lack of
coverage including dropped calls, distorted or no voice connection and low or no data service
– defeating the purpose of the Freedom network.
} 6
Page 180 of 328Other alternates considered within the target coverage range were unsuccessful due to
unwilling landlords.
Property Value:
Some information on property value concerns reproduced from:
“Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review” Government of Canada, Innovation, Science and
Economic Development Canada, Office of the Deputy Minister, August 30, 2012. Web.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08353.html#antenna
On the Question of negative impact upon property values, it is clear that individual members of
the public are relying upon their intuitive sense of 'disamenity.' To them, if a structure appears
imposing and unattractive or blocks scenic view-scapes, then it must have a negative impact
on local property values. Land-use planners believe that the public's intuitive sense of disamenity
will be reduced to the extent that camouflaging, screening and landscaping techniques are
used to make the antenna less obtrusive and the installation is sited as sensitively as possible in
the circumstances.
In this specific case, the re-examined view-scapes determined the tower will be not at all or
barely visible from the neighboring property to the north (Appendix 4 – Site visit and photo rendering)
The tower will be painted green to better blend with the surrounding trees and the antenna
equipment is shrouded inside the pole rather than bolted to the outside as is more common for
towers – these mitigating measures incorporated into the design should alleviate concerns
regarding property value.
Of course, concerns about negative health effects influence concerns about negative impacts
upon local property values. Whether or not citizens truly have concerns for the health of their
own family and friends, they are worried that the market value of their property may be inversely
related to the general perceptions of negative health effects held by the public. Thus, as public
concern increases, the belief is that the market for their property will decrease and the (fewer)
willing buyers who are interested in their property will expect to pay less. Generally, this is known
as one form of stigmatic effect. Public concerns or fears (particularly of health effects such as
cancer) can have a negative effect on property values, even when those fears are found to be
unwarranted. However, according to Jaconetty (1996), "public fear can and will affect market
transactions [only] so long as market participants actually share those fears." A considerable
amount of research has been done on the stigmatic effect associated with electrical high
power transmission lines, contaminated lands and incinerators and their impact upon local
property values.
The most reliable evidence of the value of land is its market value as determined by the price
that a willing purchaser is willing to pay to a willing vendor in a free market. Some research
completed in New Zealand has used actual sales transaction data to attempt to determine
whether market price was negatively impacted by the presence of cellular base stations. Dr.
Sandy Bond of the Department of Property at the University of Auckland, in collaboration with
colleagues Karen Beamish (2004) and Ko-Kang Wang (2004), has conducted two parallel studies
about the effects of cell tower placement on local property values. As the principal research
} 7
Page 181 of 328activity, case studies were performed in four suburbs of Christchurch, New Zealand where a
cellular base station had been established. Survey data was collected on people's perceptions
about the impact of the base station on their property value and, most importantly, that data
was combined with actual housing price changes over time. Changes were determined using a
hedonic house price approach. The hypothesis of this research was:
In suburbs where there is a CPBS [cell phone base station] constructed, it will be possible to
observe that discounts are made to the selling price of homes located near these structures.
The survey data indicated that a major concern of people living proximately to a cell tower was
the effect of this tower on property values – a third of the respondents believed it would
decrease the price or rent they would be prepared to pay by between 1 to 9% and nearly a
quarter (24%) indicated that they believed it would decrease the price or rent by between 10
and 19%. The findings of the market study of actual home prices confirmed the opinion survey
results. In the two suburbs studied where towers were built in 2000, the effect of a tower on home
prices was a decrease of between 20.7% and 21%. Interestingly, in the two suburbs where the
towers were constructed in 1994, the effect was either insignificant or prices actually increased
by 12% due to the presence of the tower. A possible explanation for this difference was the
significantly increased media coverage and public controversy that surrounded the most recent
tower placements in the study. Also, two high profile legal cases, involving cell towers, were
decided after 1994 when the two earlier base stations were established.
Finally, the survey questionnaire provided respondents with the opportunity to indicate ongoing
concerns they have with cell phone base stations and their location. Based on these comments
the researcher concluded that:
In particular, there is the need for increasing the public's understanding of CPBSs [cell phone
base stations], of how radiofrequency transmitting facilities operate, and of the strict exposure
standard limits imposed on the telecommunication industry.
While arriving too late to be included in the data analysis, a recent empirical study of a site in
southwest London, Ontario, commissioned by Telus Mobility and conducted by R.W. Hughes &
Associates Inc. offers further evidence that property values, this time in a Canadian context, are
not impacted by proximity of communications towers. They state: "The quantitative data analysis
indicates that the proximity of the communication tower has no measurable effect on the
price/value of dwellings in close proximity to the tower." They go on to say: "The analysis of the
qualitative data indicates that a high percentage of the respondents in the study area do not
perceive the proximate communication tower as a negative influence on the quality of their
lives or on the price/value of their homes."
During public hearings, and other interactions between members of the public and antenna
proponents and local land-use authorities, those who will live in close proximity to an antenna
installation under consideration likely will raise concerns about the possible impact of the
proposal upon the value of their properties. These individuals should be permitted to voice their
concerns, but it should be explained that the principle purpose of consultations with the public
and/or land-use authorities is to consider the visual impact of the antenna proposal upon the
} 8
Page 182 of 328immediate environment. Negative impacts should be explored through discussions about the
potential for loss of the particular amenities or important visual characteristics of the area.
The impact (positive or negative) that a proposed antenna installation may have upon the
property values of particular parcels of land should not be the subject of an antenna
consultation.
Generally, land-use planning authorities are not required to take such impacts into account
when siting urban and rural infrastructure that concerned members of the public may find
objectionable. Almost every planning decision will produce positive and negative impacts upon
the value of land located in the immediate vicinity.
Authorities may receive representations about alleged impact of proposed telecommunications
development on property values. It is not for the planning system to protect the private interests
of one person against the activities of another. Although in a particular case, considerations of
public interest may serve to protect private interests, the material point of determination is not
whether a particular development would cause financial or other loss to owners or occupiers of
the neighbouring property, but whether the proposal would have a detrimental effect on the
locality generally, and on amenities that ought to be protected, in the public interest.
Network Benefits & the Freedom of Choice:
Anecdotal information from revised pricing offers of the incumbent cell phone service providers
is that when Freedom Mobile (formerly WIND Mobile) came into the marketplace in 2009/2010
across Canada, consumers began to save between ten and fifteen percent off of their billing.
Now, as the fourth national cell phone provider, this value to consumers continues. As we are in
the process of planning and acquisition efforts on the South Island on Vancouver Island, this
benefit will soon extend to the island communities and consumers. It may be true that the
neighbors to this proposed cell tower have acceptable service from their phones however, this
service is not being provided by Freedom as our network is not yet built and launched.
The addition of a fourth national carrier to the Canadian wireless market provides increased
choice for consumers. Freedom proudly offers lower rates for families students and small
business. As well, Freedom provides local and regional employment. Freedom currently employs
1,275 people in Canada and 115 in the lower mainland. As Freedom increases their customer
base, more retail and service jobs are created.
Conclusion:
Wireless mobile base station towers or “cell towers” are now commonplace in the Canadian
and worldwide landscape. In order to provide the benefits of wireless services to consumers this
infrastructure is required. As illustrated by Canadians demand and consumption of wireless
services (voice, text and data services) it does not appear wireless infrastructure development
and improvements will be slowing down any time soon.
} 9
Page 183 of 328You can also read
