EZ- RECOMMENDATION REPORT Telecommunication antennas/towers: Proliferation, and Federal and Regional response to public safety.

Transcription

1 BRAMPTON EZ- Report Planning, Design and bramptonca FlOWef City Development Committee Committee of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Brampton Date: March 5, 2013 File: CI PLANNING. DESIGN &DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Subject: Contact: RECOMMENDATION REPORT Telecommunication antennas/towers: Proliferation, and Federal and Regional response to public safety. Allan Parsons, Manager, Planning Design and Development Department (905) Overview: This report is provided in response to a Planning, Design and Development Committee discussion item, on December 10, 2012, to invite representatives of the telecommunication industry to a future Committee meeting to facilitate a discussion regarding the siting of new telecommunication towers/antennas within the City. Invitations for this purpose were provided to Industry Canada (Federal Agency responsible for regulating telecommunications), each of the telecommunication carriers (i.e. Bell, Rogers), and local Members of Parliament. Staff recommends that one of the items for discussion with industry representatives be the current exemption of towers less than 15 metres (50 feet) in height from any municipal or public consultation, as per Industry Canada's governing policies. Staff's concerns with this exemption are identified within the report. This report also forwards responses on matters of public safety associated with telecommunication towers/antennas that were requested from the Federal Minister of Health, and the Regional Medical Officer - as per direction from the Planning, Design and Development Committee (PDD ). Both agencies advise that there is no evidence of negative health effects associated with permitted radiofrequency exposure limits from telecommunication antenna/towers (Appendix 3 and 4).

2 2-2. RECOMMENDATION: 1. THAT the report from Allan Parsons, Manager, Planning Design and Development Department, entitled "RECOMMENDATION REPORT Telecommunication antennas/towers: Proliferation, and Federal and Regional response to public safety, dated March 5, 2013, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of March 18, 2013, File: CM 2.019, be received. 2. THAT staff be directed to make the responses received from the Federal Minister of Health and Regional Medical Officer of Health, on public safety matters associated with exposure to radio frequency emissions from telecommunication antennas/towers, available to the public. 3. THAT staff be directed to request that Industry Canada (Federal Agency governing telecommunication antennas/towers) remove from their governing telecommunication policies an exemption from municipal consultation for towers that are less than 15 metres (50 feet) in height. STANDING DIRECTION: This report is provided in response to two (2) directions from the Planning, Design and Development Committee with respect to telecommunication towers/antennas, as follows: 1. Direction from the Planning, Design and Development Committee, as a discussion item at the December 10, 2012 Committee meeting, for staff to bring the matter of telecommunication towers/antennas to a future Committee meeting and invite representatives of the telecommunication industry (including Industry Canada, the telecommunication carriers, and local Members of Parliament) to facilitate a discussion regarding the siting of new telecommunication towers/antennas within the City. 2. Direction from the Planning, Design and Development Committee (PDD ) to solicit responses from the Federal Minister of Health, and the Regional Medical Officer with respect to matters of public safety in association with telecommunication facilities.

3 E2.-3 BACKGROUND: In relation to 'Standing Direction #1' Industry Canada is the Federal Agency responsible for regulating telecommunications and broadcasting 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). Industry Canada's policies for telecommunication facilities are contained within a document that is entitled "Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Issue 4, released June 2007, effective January 1, 2008" (See Appendix 1). Policies within that document identify that the local land-use authority (i.e. City of Brampton) is to be consulted prior to the building of particular types of telecommunication antennas/towers. Specifically, the document requires telecommunication carriers (i.e. Bell, Rogers) to follow the land use consultation process established by the local land use authority, whereby municipalities would have an opportunity to influence the location and treatment of certain types of towers/antennas. In this regard, telecommunication carriers are to follow the City Council approved (February 2011) "Protocol and Guideline for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities within the City of Brampton" (referred to as Telecommunication Protocol hereafter) (see Appendix 2). However, Industry Canada's policies include exemptions from municipal and public consultation for the following tower/antenna types (see Section 6 of Industry Canada's Telecommunication Policy document): applications related to temporary installations (usually less than 3 months), height extensions, being less than 25% of an existing tower's height, maintenance activities, and towers less than 15 metres in height (referred to as 14.9m tall towers hereafter). In relation to 'Standing Direction #2' Residents have raised concerns about safety implications associated with exposure to radio frequency emissions where telecommunication towers have been sited close to sensitive land uses (i.e. residential, day cares, schools). Although Health Canada sets limits of acceptable radiofrequency field emissions to protect the health and safety of Canadians, as referenced in the document entitled Safety Code 6 (specifications which are adopted by Industry Canada), the document is

4 2~M prepared as a technical reference and is not a good resource to respond to the public's concerns. In order to better address questions and concerns regarding public safety from the public, Council requested responses from the Federal Minister of Health, The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P., and the Regional Medical Officer of Health, Dr. David Mowat, to state their position on health and safety issues related to radiofrequency field signal exposure associated with telecommunication antennas/towers and their proximity to residential properties. CONCERNS WITH INDUSTRY CANADA EXEMPTIONS FOR 14.9m TALL TOWERS The City's Telecommunication Protocol is considered to be a thorough document that has been reasonably effective in regulating towers within the City, given the limited parameters within which local municipalities can impose requirements on telecommunication towers. However, staff has significant concerns that key objectives of the City's Telecommunication Protocol cannot be achieved due to Industry Canada's policies which exempt 14.9 metre tall towers. Due to the exemption that exists for 14.9 metre tall towers, the intent of the City's Telecommunication Protocol cannot consistently achieved, including: limiting the number of towers to the greatest reasonable extent, and locating towers away from sensitive land uses (residential uses, day cares, schools), and prominent locations within the City. Details are provided below with respect to the two main problems created by the Industry Canada exemptions. 1. Proliferation of towers in the City. o Although staff has been diligently working with certain telecommunication carriers to ensure that towers (greater than 15 metres) can accommodate the maximum amount of telecommunication antennas / collocation (antenna installations from a multitude of carriers on a single tower), other carriers are impeding these efforts by installing 14.9 metre tall towers (exempt from any municipal consultation) for their exclusive use. This practice has increased the total number of towers that have been installed, and will continue to be established within the City. o Carriers do not have to demonstrate to the local municipality that no other preferred options for a facility are available, such as locating an antenna on an existing structure, or a tower that is in the planning stages. o One example of this problem exists in proximity to the City's Flower City Community Campus at Mclaughlin Road and Queen Street. In that case, although staff was actively processing a request for a 25 metre tall tower

5 u.-% on a property located to the south and east of the intersection, a different telecommunication carrier erected a 14.9 metre tall tower on the property located at the north-west of the intersection (see Figures 1 and 2 below). 2. Towers being established in proximity to prominent roads (including intersections) and sensitive uses (residential and day care uses). o o Locating towers adjacent to residential areas and other sensitive land uses (i.e. daycares, schools) with minimal setbacks are resulting in a growing concern among residents about the safety of radio frequency emissions, imposing views from their homes, and a general opposition to towers. An example of this situation exists at the north-west corner of the intersection of Dixie Road and North Park Drive, whereby the tower is located very close to the intersection, and is also located close to a children's day care centre (see Figures 3 and 4 below). Figure 1 - Aerial photo showing proximity of 25 m tall tower located to the south and east of the Queen St. W. and McLaughlin intersection, and the 14.9 m tall tower located north and west of the intersection.

6 gz-k Figure 2 - Photo of 14.9 m tall telecommunication tower in proximity to McLaughlin Rd. Figure 3 - Aerial photo of tower in proximity to the intersection of Dixie Road and North Park Drive

7 m/\ Figure 4 - photo of telecommunication tower in proximity to the north-west corner of the Dixie Road and North Park Drive Intersection. RESPONSE REGARDING SAFETY CONCERNS Responses to City staff's request for comment on public safety issues associated with towers and radio frequency transmissions are received from the Federal Minister of Health, The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, P.C., M.P., and the Regional Medical Officer, Dr. David Mowat (see Appendix 3 and 4). Both of the responses received advise that based on scientific literature by national and international scientific and regulatory bodies, there is no evidence of any negative health effects associated with the radiofrequency exposure limits that are permitted from telecommunication antenna/towers. Further, both agencies state that their findings are consistent with the science-based standards used in most countries around the world (i.e. the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand).

8 E2-** CONCLUSION: This report recommends that the Planning, Design and Development Committee provide direction to staff to communicate a formal request to Industry Canada for changes to the Federal policies to remove exemptions for 14.9 metre tall towers from municipal consultation. Removing this exemption criterion will help to ensure that all future towers installations and associated equipment is adequately sited and designed to fit within established communities. This report also recommends that in order to better address questions and concerns received from the public related to the perceived health risks associated with the proximity of telecommunication antennas/towers to sensitive land uses, the Planning, Design and Development Committee directs staff to make available to the public the responses that are received from the Federal Minister of Health and Regional Medical Officer of Health on this matter. In reviewing the City's telecommunication protocol, planning staff are satisfied with the current guidelines and recommend that no amendments are required to the current version of the protocol. Respectfully submitted: Dan Kraszewski, MCIP, RPP Acting Commissioner, Planning, Design and Development Z^ Patfl Snar/eyMCIP, RPP Acting Director, Planning, Design and Development Report authored by: Jeffrey Sondic, Project Manager, Site Plans (ICI)

9 2-i APPENDICES Appendix 1: Industry Canada Procedures Circular entitled "Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Issue 4, released June 2007, effective January 1,2008" Appendix 2: City of Brampton Council approved the "Protocol and Guidelines for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities" Appendix 3: Copy of letter sent to the Federal Minister of Health and copy of letter received in response. Appendix 4: Copy of letter sent to the Regional Medical Officer of Health and copy of letter received in response.

10 EMO Appendix 1: Industry Canada Procedures Circular entitled "Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Issue 4, released June 2007, effective January 1,

11 Industry Canada Industrie Canada E2-H CPC Issue 4 Released: June 2007 Effective: January 1, 2008 Spectrum Management and Telecommunications Client Procedures Circular Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Formerly CPC Environmental Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land-Use Consultation) Aussi disponible en francais - CPC Canada

12 a-i*~ Comments and suggestions may be directed to the following address: Industry Canada Radiocommunications and Broadcasting Regulatory Branch 300 Slater Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C8 Attention: DOSP Via All Spectrum Managem ent and Te lecommunications publications are available on the following website at:

13 L-fc Contents 1. Introduction Mandate Application Process O/erview 1 2. Industry Canada Engagement 2 3. Use ofexisting Infrastructure (Sharing) 2 4. Land-use Authority and Public Consultation Land-use Aithority Consultation Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process Concluding Consultation 7 5. Dispute Resolution Process 8 6. Exclusions 9 7. General Requirements Radio Frequency Exposure Limits Radio Frequency Immunity Proximity of Proposed Structure to Broadcasting Undertakings Canadian Environmental Asessment A;t Aeronautical Safety 13 Appendix 1 - Consultation Flow Chart Appendix 2 - Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process - Public Notification Package in

14 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Introduction Radiocommunication andbroadcasting services are important for all Canadians and are used daily by thepublic, safety andsecurity organizations, government, wireless service providers, broadcasters, utilities and businesses. In order for radiocommunication and broadcasting services to work, antenna systems including masts, towers, and other supporting structures are required. There is a certain measure offlexibility in the placement of antenna systems which is constrained to some degree by: the need to achieve acceptable coverage for the service area; the availability ofsites; technical limitations; and safety. In exercising its mandate, Industry Canada believes that it is important that antenna systems be deployed in a manner that considers the local surroundings. 1.1 Mandate Section 5 of the Radiocommunication Act states that the Minister may, taking into account all matters the Minister considers relevant for ensuring the orderly development and efficient operation of radiocommunication in Canada, issue radio authorizations and approve each site on which radio apparatus, including antenna systems, may be located. Further, the Minister may approve the erection of all masts, towers and other antenna-supporting structures. Accordingly, proponents must follow the process outlined in this document when installing or modifying an antenna system. Also, the installation of an antenna system or the operation of a 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 of this document apply to anyone (referred to in this document as the proponent) who is planning to install or modify an antenna system regardless of the type of 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 contain obligations that apply to existing antenna system operators. 1.3 Process Overview This document outlines the process that must be followed by proponents seeking to install or modify antenna systems. The broad elements of the process are as follows: 1. Investigating sharing or using existing infrastructure before proposing new antenna-supporting structures. 2. Contacting the land-use authority (LUA) to determine 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 and appropriate. 4. Satisfying Industry Canada's general and technical requirements.

15 EMS" Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC It is Industry Canada's expectation that steps (2) to (4) will normally be completed within 120days. Some proposals may be excluded from certain elements ofthe process (see Section 6). It is Industry Canada's expectation that all parties will carry out their roles and responsibilities in good faith and in a manner that respects the spirit ofthis document. 2. Industry Canada Engagement There are a number of points in the processes outlined in this document where parties must contact Industry Canada to proceed. 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 certain actions to help move the process forward. 3. Use of Existing Infrastructure (Sharing) This section outlines the roles of proponents and owners/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 and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers etc. Proponents are not normally expected to build new antenna-supporting structures where it is feasible to locate their antenna on an existing structure, unless a new structure is preferred by land-use authorities. Owners and operators of existing antenna systems are to respond to a request to share in a timely fashion and to negotiate in good faith to facilitate sharing where feasible. It is anticipated that 30 days is reasonable time for existing antenna system owners/operators to reply to a request by a proponent in writing with either: a proposed set ofreasonable terms to govern the sharing ofthe antenna system; or a detailed explanation of why sharing is not possible. i Please refer to Radiocommunication Information Circular66 (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:

16 HU Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Land-use Authority and Public Consultation Contacting the Land-use Authority Proponents must always contact the applicable land-use authorities to determine the local consultation requirements unless their proposal falls within the exclusion criteria outlined in Section 6. If the landuse authority has designated an official to deal with antenna systems, then proponents are to engage the authority through that person. If not, proponents must submit their plans directly to the council, elected local official or executive. Proponents are expected to establish initial formal contact with the land-use authority in writing in order to mark the official commencement of the 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 radiusof three times the tower height, measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter ofthe supporting structure, whichever is greater. As well, in cases where proponents are aware that a potential Aboriginal or treaty right or land claim may be affected by the proposed installation, they must contact Industry Canada in order to ensure that the requirements for consultation 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 is excluded 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 it may not be prudent for the applicants to initiate public and municipal/land-use consultation before receiving CRTC approval, as application denial by the CRTC would result in unnecessary work for all parties 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 of the 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 to engage 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.

17 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Land-use Authority Consultation Industry Canada believes that any concerns or suggestions expressed by land-use authorities are important elements to be considered byproponents 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 by establishing consultation processes for the siting of antenna systems. Unless the proposal meets the exclusion criteria outlined in Section 6, proponents must consult with the local land-use authority(ies) on any proposed antenna system prior to any construction with the 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 are encouraged to establish reasonable, relevant, and predictable consultation processes2 specific to antenna systems thatconsider such things as: the designation of suitable contacts or responsible officials; proposal submission requirements; public consultation; documentation of the concurrence process; and the establishment of milestones to ensure consultation process completion within 120 days. Where they have specific concerns regarding a proposed antenna system, land-use authorities are expected to discuss 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 located within industrial areas removed from residential areas, low visual impact installations, or certain types ofstructures located within residential areas. 2 Industry Canada is available to assist land-use authorities in the development of local processes. Inaddition, land-use authorities may wish to consult Industry Canada's guide for the development of local consultation processes.

18 Mr Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC 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 anestablished and documented public consultation process applicable to antennasiting. 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 in order to address relevant questions, comments and concerns regarding the proposal (i.e. responding to thepublic); 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 of the proposed antenna system. As a minimum, proponents must provide a notification package (see Appendix 2) to the 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 base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure, whichever is greater. For the purpose of this requirement, the outside perimeter begins at the furthest point of the supporting mechanism, be it the outermost guy line, building edge, face of the self-supporting tower, etc. 2. It is the proponent's responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at least 30 days for written public comment. 3. In addition to the minimum notification distance noted above, in areas of seasonal residence, the proponent, in consultation with the land-use authority, is responsible for determining the best manner to notify such residents to ensure their engagement. 4. In addition to the public notification requirements noted above, proponents of antenna-supporting structures that are proposed to be 30 metres or more in height must place a notice in a local community newspaper circulating in the proposed area.3 3 The notice must be synchronized with the distribution of the public notification package. It must be legible and placed in the public notice section ofthe newspaper. The notice must include: a description 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 30 days of the notice. In areas without a local newspaper, other effective means of public notification must be implemented. Proponents may contact the local Industry Canada office for guidance.

19 E2H1 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Responding to the Public Proponents are to address all reasonable and relevant concerns, make all reasonable efforts to resolve them in a mutually acceptable mannerand 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 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 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; and 3. in the written communication referred to in the preceding point, clearly indicate that the party has 21 days from the date of the correspondence to reply to the proponent's response. The proponent must provide a copy of all public reply comments to the local Industry Canada office. Responding to reasonable and relevant 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 deems most 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 that may have been reached and/or any concerns that remain outstanding. The factors that will 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 the area surrounding the proposed antenna system. Examples of concerns that proponents are to address may include: Why is the use of an existing antenna system or structure not possible? Why is an alternate site not possible? What is the proponent doing to ensure that the antenna system is not accessible to the general public? How is the proponent trying to integrate the antenna into the local surroundings? 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), Safety Code 6, etc.?

20 VsV> Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Concerns that are not relevant include: disputes with members of the public relating to the proponent's service, but unrelated to antenna installations; potential effects that a proposed antenna system will have on property values or municipal taxes; questions whether theradiocommunication Act, thisdocument, Safety Code 6, locally established by-laws, other legislation, procedures or processes are valid or should be reformed in some manner. 4.3 Concluding Consultation The proponent may only commence installation/modification of an antenna system after the consultation process has been completed by the land-use authority, or Industry Canada confirms 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 eitherthrough the process established by the land-use authority or the 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 be completed 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 is expected to indicate when the proponent can expect a response to theproposal. If the authority is not responsive, the proponent may contact Industry Canada. Depending on individual circumstances, Industry Canada may support additional time or 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 or other requirements have been satisfied, or other valid indication, such as the minutes ofa town council meeting indicating LUA approval. Compliance with informal city staff procedures, or grants of approval 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 ofconsultation 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 of concluding LUA consultation is through such an approval.

21 Or1\ Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC 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 of making further attempts to address the concern on its own, or can request Industry Canada engagement. If a 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 of a 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 otherrelevant information and request thatparties 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.

22 E2-2Z Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC 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 radio apparatus including the antenna system, transmission line, mast, tower or other antenna-supporting structure; addition or modification of an 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 an antenna system's painting or lighting in order to comply with Transport Canada's requirements; installation, for a limited duration (typically not more than 3 months), of an antenna 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 new antenna systems, including masts, towers or other antenna-supporting structure, with a height of less than 15 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 may be 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 for exclusion, proponents should consider 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 of an area being a community-sensitive location; and Transport Canada marking and lighting requirements for the proposed structure. Proponents who are not certain if their proposed structure is excluded, or whether consultation may still be prudent, are advised to contact the land-use authority and/or Industry Canada for guidance.

23 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC General Requirements In addition to roles and responsibilities for site sharing, land-use consultation and public consultation, proponents must also fulfill other important obligations including: compliance with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 guideline for the protection of the general public; compliance with radio frequency immunity criteria; notification of nearby broadcasting stations; environmental considerations; and Transport Canada/NAV CANADA aeronautical safety responsibilities. 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 to Radiofrequency Electromagneticfields in the Frequency Rangefrom 3 khz to 300 GHz.4 While the responsibility for developing Safety Code 6 rests with Health Canada, Industry Canada has adopted this guideline for the purpose of protecting the general public. Current biomedical studies in Canada and other countries indicate that 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 complies with Safety Code 6. It is the responsibility of proponents and operators of installations to ensure that all radiocommunication and broadcasting installations comply with Safety Code 6 at all times, including the consideration of combined effects of nearby installations within the local radio environment. For all proponents following Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process, the proponent'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 must also indicate any Safety Code 6 related signage and access control mechanisms that may be used. Compliance with Safety Code 6 is an ongoing obligation. At any time, antenna system operators may be required, as directed by Industry Canada, to demonstrate compliance with Safety Code 6 by (i) providing detailed calculations, and/or (ii) conducting site surveys and, where necessary, by implementing corrective measures. Proponents and operators of existing antenna systems must retain copies ofall information related to Safety Code 6 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 inorder to minimize the malfunctioning of electronic equipment in the local surroundings. Broadcasting proponents and existing undertakings should refer to Broadcasting Safety Code 6 can be found on Health Canada's website at For more information see EMCAB-2, entitled: Criteriafor Resolution ofimmunity Complaints Involving Fundamental Emissions ofradiocommunications Transmitters available on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website at: 10

24 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Procedures andrules - Part 1, General Rules (BPR-1) for additional information and requirements6 on this matter. Proponents are advised to consider the potential effect that their proposal may have on nearby electronic equipment. In this way, they will be better 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 and owners of broadcasting undertakings of plans for the expansion or development of nearby residential and/or industrial areas. Such expansion or development generally results in the introduction of more electronic equipment in the area and therefore an increased potential forelectronic equipment to malfunction. By keeping broadcasters aware of planned developments and changes to adjacent land-use, they will be better able to work with the community. Equally, land-use authorities have a responsibility to ensure that those moving into these areas, whether prospective residents or industry, areaware of the potential for their electronic 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 would result in a structure that exceeds 30 metres above ground level, the proponent is to notify operators of AM, FM and TV undertakings within 2 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 of antenna 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 view the current CEAA exclusion list7 to see if their proposed installation meets the requirements to be excluded from assessment under the CEAA. 6 BPR-1 - Part 1: General Rules can be found on the Spectrum Management andtelecommunications website at: 7 The CEAA exclusion list can be found at 11

25 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC If not excluded, the proponent must first notify the local Industry Canada office which will direct the proponent onhow to proceed with anenvironmental 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 must either: abandon the proposal; or participate in the environmental assessment process as established under the CEAA. Should the environmental assessment identify thatthere is the potential for an adverse environmental effect, the proponent will be required to describe the effect and propose 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 allproponents following Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process, the proponent's notification package mustprovide 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 to ensure 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 the project, and identify the project proponent(s) and federal department(s) directly involved in the assessment. Otherpertinent documents will be placed on the Internet site as the assessment proceeds, including all public notices, decisions and information about follow-up programs. Should mitigation measures 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 that antenna 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 the Species at Risk Act, where applicable. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry website can be found at: 12

26 n-v* Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Aeronautical Safety Proponents must ensure their proposals for any antenna system are 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 andother services located oft-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 Canada marking requirements in the public notification package; 4. install and maintain the antenna system 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 ofany 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 Canada Aviation Group Office. Both theaeronautical Obstruction Clearance form (# ) and a list of Transport Canada Aviation Group regional offices are available on the Transport Canada website.9 Completed forms are to be submitted directly to the nearest Transport Canada Aviation Group office. (Refer to Canadian Aviation Regulations, Standard , Standards Obstruction Markings). Land-use Proposal Submission forms are available from NAV CANADA10 and completed forms are to be sent to the appropriate NAV CANADA General Manager Airport Operations (GMAO) office, East or West. ' TheTransport Canada websile can be found at: 10 Search keywords "Land-use Proposal" on the NAV CANADA website at: 13

27 ZL'll Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Appendix 1 - Consultation Flow Chart Invosligato fonsibility of sharing' using existing infrastructures Consul! with LUA to uiscuss site options preferences &determine local antenna system siting requirements/process to ue followed Installation cannot proceed until Section 7 requirements are mot Submit licence application or. proceed with installation/modification ( E"d ) 14

28 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC Appendix 2 - Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process - Public Notification Package (See Section 4.2) The proponent must ensure that at least 30 days 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 ofthe 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) the proposed antenna system's purpose, the reasons 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) the proposed location within the community, the geographic co-ordinates and the specific property or rooftop; (3) an attestation1 that the general public will be protected in compliance with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 including combined effects within the local radio environment at all times; (4) identification of areas accessible to the general public and the access/demarcation measures to control public access; (5) the project's status under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act2; (6) a description ofthe proposed antenna system including its height and dimensions, a description of any antenna that may 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, the proponent'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 to any applicable local land-use requirements such as local processes, protocols, etc.; 1 Example: I, (name of individual or representative ofcompany) attest 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, as may be amended from time to time, for the protection ofthe general public including any combined effects ofnearby installations within the local radio environment. 2 Example: I,(name of individual or representative ofcompany) attest that the radio antenna systemdescribed in this notification package is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 15

29 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC (10) notice that general information relating toantenna systems is available on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website ( (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 30 days from receipt of notification). 16

30 ll~?p Appendix 2: City of Brampton Council approved the "Protocol and Guidelines for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities" 11

31 m\ Protocol and Guideline for Establishing Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Within City of Brampton (February 2002) (Revised, January 2011) council approval CWO ( KeVISed, February 2011) revisions completed to change reference from "Site Plan Agreement* lo "Letter of Undertaking", and reference Planning Actregulations are notapplicable. 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.

32 Procedure for Municipal Consultation Regarding Non-Citv-Owned Properties 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 Antennas Affixed to New Structures Preliminary Consultation The Planning, Design & Development Department requires proponents to preconsult 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 Formal Consultation When a telecommunication company finalizes the site selection, the proponent shall submit a site plan application to the City. City staff acknowledges however that the site plan application will not be subject to the regulations of the Planning Act, and rather Industry Canada policies are to apply to structures dedicated to wireless telecommunication antennas. 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

33 &.'& 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. 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 City will issue a municipal concurrence (site plan approval) and advise of any conditions ofapproval which may be facilitated through a letter of undertaking. Subsequent to issuance of site plan approval and completion of any letter of undertaking 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-City-Owned Properties 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 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

34 &2-3H 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 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 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 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 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) 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 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. 3. 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 Cityowned 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.

35 Q-& 3.1 Guidelines Regarding City-Owned Properties The proponent shall follow the same guidelines as described in Clause 2, and shall consider the additional guidelines described in this clause 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 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 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 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 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 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 Telecom providers are required to provide technical specifications of all radio equipment to be used on the premises Telecom providers are to conduct preliminary radio frequency study reports confirming that the intended wireless services will not interfere with any of

36 924^ the City's wireless services. City staff will provide technical information regarding the City's wireless systems when required Telecom providers are required to provide updated technical information when installing additional antennas/wireless services on an existing tower 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.

37 &Wr Appendix 3: Copy of letter sent to the Regional Medical Officer of Health and copy of letter received in response. 12

38 111?! RRAMPTOM p,anning. Design and Development mffi KUnV. Ul1 Development Services bramploruci HOWef City June 14,2012 Dr. David Mowat, Medical Officer of Health Peel Public Health 7120 Hurontario Street, P.O. Box 630 Mississauga, ON L5M 2C5 RE: Telecommunication Towers and Perceived Public Risk City of Brampton Council Directive, September 19, 2011 In association with direction received by City of Brampton Council, this letter is provided to request formal comments from the Peel Public Health Department on the issue of health and safety related to exposure from radio frequencies (RF) emitted from telecommunication antennas. As you are likely aware, there has been a significant number of wireless telecommunication antennas and towers that have been both installed and proposed by wireless carriers within the urban environment. These antennas/towers are often being located in proximity to residential areas & other sensitive uses (i.e daycares, schools). Due to the governing Federal provisions applying to these facilities, municipalities have very little ability to determine their final locations. Notwithstanding this, City Staff & Council need to deal with the impacts of these towers from a land use planning prospective. Your opinion on the social well being/public health standpoint is an important piece of the feedback that Council can provide to its residents. The City of Brampton staff would like to be able to address questions and concerns from the public with respect to Health and Safety implications. We ask for your assistance on this matter by providing a response to this letter which provides Peel Public Health's position on the issue of health and safety directly related to the Federal Safety Code 6 document as it relates to exposure to RF signals associated with telecommunication antennas/towers within the Reqion of Peel.

39 ZLW Further, I ask that you please provide us with any recent studies or statistics that are supported by Peel Public Health, related to RF and Public Health Concerns. Commissioner of Planning, Design and Development JohVi.Corbett brampton.ca C. Dan Kraszewski, Director of Land Development Services, City of Brampton Deborah Reader, Executive Assistant, Government Relations, City of Brampton Allan Parsons, Manager of Land Development Services, City of Brampton

40 kz'4 August 1,2012 Health Effects of Radiofrequency Energy Report to the City of Brampton The City of Brampton Council and the Department of Planning, Design, and Development has asked Peel Public Health to comment on the issue of health and safety related to exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy emitted from telecommunications antennae, and specifically to Safety Code 6, "Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 khz to 300 GHz" (Health Canada 2009). This report includes a review of Safety Code 6, as well as the results of a broader review of the current research regarding the potential health effects of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency Energy Radiofrequency (RF) energy refers to the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that can be readily used for radio communications. The electromagnetic spectrum covers the entire range of energy that is emitted from a variety of natural and manmade sources: from low frequency (long wave length), low energy heat waves and radio waves, through microwaves, infrared light, visible light and ultraviolet light, to high frequency (short wave length), highenergy x-rays and gamma radiation. It includes both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Radiofrequency energy is non-ionizing radiation, meaning that, unlike ionizing radiation, it does not have sufficient energy to create ions (charged atoms or molecules) which can cause DNA damage, break chemical bonds in cells, and create free radicals which can also be damaging to cells. RF energy includes frequencies ranging from 3 khz to 300 GHz, below that of visible light and infrared radiation and above that of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation, the energy emitted from overhead power lines and anything else with electricity flowing through it. RF energy is produced by mobile (cell) phones and base stations, radio and television broadcasting facilities, radar, microwaves and a variety of other electronic devices. People are exposed to RF energy both from localized sources very close to the body (e.g. mobile phones) that focus the energy over a small area, and sources at a distance greater than one wave-length (e.g. base stations) that result in relatively uniform whole-body exposure. Both types of exposure are addressed in Safety Code 6; however, the focus of this report will be on far-field whole-body exposures such as those from mobile phone base stations. Regulation in Canada Safety Code 6, "Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 khz to 300 GHz," is a guideline for exposure to radiofrequency fields prepared by Health Canada's Consumer and

41 B2-m Clinical Radiation Protection Bureau. It was first published in 1999 and was updated in The specified exposure limits apply for workers and visitors to all federally regulated sites, but may be adopted by provinces and territories, industry, or other regulatory bodies. Industry Canada regulates all radio-communications and broadcasting equipment in Canada, including mobile phone base stations. Industry Canada has adopted Safety Code 6 for the purpose of protecting the health of the general public, and requires that operators comply with the specified limits at all times, including the consideration of the combined effects of nearby installations and any new updates. The exposure limits specified by Health Canada in Safety Code 6 are developed by means of a thorough evaluation of peer-reviewed studies on the thermal and possible non-thermal effects of RF energy on health. This process involves a weight-of-evidence approach, where both the quantity of studies and, more importantly, their quality, are taken into account. Poorly conducted studies are given less weight than those that use more rigorous methods. Exposure limits are set based on the lowest level at which scientifically-established health hazards occur, with a safety factor built in for additional protection. Other scientific bodies internationally use a similar weight-of-evidence approach to develop exposure limits and therefore the basic restrictions in Canada are similar to standards adopted by other countries. Exposure to Radiofrequency Energy In contrast to ionizing and ultraviolet radiation, where the greater proportion of exposure is from natural sources, most RF energy exposure is from man-made sources. The use of electrical energy and telecommunications technology has increased substantially over the past several decades, and it is clear that exposure of the general population has increased substantially. The absorption of RF energy depends on power density, which in turn depends on the power output of the device and the configuration of the transmitting antenna, distance from the source, frequency, volume and duration of the exposure, and characteristics of the affected tissues. At frequencies between 100 khz and 6 GHz, RF energy absorption is usually described in terms of the specific absorption rate (SAR). The SAR is a measure of the rate of energy deposition per unit of mass of body tissue and is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg). The SAR cannot be easily measured in humans and is usually estimated from simulations or computer-based models. Several researchers have conducted surveys of exposure levels around mobile phone base stations, including some studies using personal exposure meters, to characterize the distribution of exposure to RF energy in the general population. Average exposures were generally less than 1% of the recommended reference

42 sw level1, and peak exposures were less than 10% of the reference level (HPA 2012). Health Effects The established negative health effects associated with RF energy relate to tissue heating. These include burns, the potential for impaired fertility due to whole body heating or localized heating of reproductive organs, and impaired cognitive performance from whole-body heat stress (ICNIRP 2009a). Exposure limits, including those in Safety Code 6, have been developed to avoid these effects. Recent research has focused on determining whether there are any health effects associated with exposures to RF energy at levels below those required to induce thermal effects, and therefore below established guidelines. Multiple, mostly non-specific symptoms have been attributed to low-level exposures, such as headache, fatigue, sleep disturbances, and difficulty concentrating. There has also been concern whether there is any increased risk of cancer at these exposure levels, although this concern is largely related to direct exposures through mobile phone handset use. Following a review of the literature in the most recent update of Safety Code 6, Health Canada concluded that there is no evidence of negative health effects from exposure to low-intensity RF energy (i.e. below the threshold required to heat tissue), or any evidence of chronic and/or cumulative health risks from RF energy at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6 (Health Canada 2009). Health Canada does not provide details of the specific methods used to identify and evaluate the literature that was reviewed in the development and subsequent updates of Safety Code 6. Peel Public Health conducted an additional review of the most recent peerreviewed literature, focusing on systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Three recent reviews were found2, only one of which (Roosli M, et al. 2010) was conducted systematically and assessed to be of high quality using the Health Evidence Critical Appraisal Tool (published in Dobbins, et al. 2010). Roosli, et al. (2010) completed a high quality systematic review and meta analysis, in which the authors reviewed and evaluated the recent literature on the health effects of exposure to RF fields from mobile phone base stations. Out of 134 potentially eligible articles identified in the initial search, 17 studies meeting strict inclusion and quality criteria were included in the review. These were a ' Most studies reference the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) guideline (ICNIRP 2009), which is the guideline that has been adopted by most countries outside of North America, including most of Europe. Note that the Health Canada guidelines are somewhat more stringent that the ICNIRP guideline for some localized tissue exposures, but are the same for whole-body SAR: 0.08 W/kg. 2Khurana V, etal. (2010), Rodsli M, et al. (2010), and Moulder J, et al. (2005).

43 E2-4* combination of randomized trials and epidemiological studies, and most examined non-specific symptoms. Based on the data from all of the studies considered together, the authors make the following conclusions: No single symptom or symptom pattern is found to be consistently related to RF energy exposure, even among individuals who identify themselves as hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields Some studies using the distance that subjects live from a mobile phone base station as a proxy for estimated RF energy exposure did show an association with reported symptoms, but the association was rarely present in studies using objective measurements of RF energy exposure with local or personal energy meters There is no evidence of a negative effect on cognitive function with base station exposure Research investigating the association between RF energy and cancer is limited, but to date there is no evidence of genetic effects (chromosomal aberrations, DNA damage) or an increase in overall cancer risk with RF exposure. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Syndrome Electromagnetic hypersensitivity Syndrome (EHS) is characterized by a variety of non-specific symptoms, which affected individuals attribute to electromagnetic field exposure. The most frequent symptoms include non-specific symptoms such as fatigue, concentration difficulties, nausea, heart palpitations, digestive disturbances, tingling, rashes, and muscle aches. EHS is part of a group of similar syndromes for which there is no known toxicological or physiological basis, collectively referred to as Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance (IEl). The World Health Organization (WHO) convened a workshop on EHS on 2004 as part of the WHO International Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Project in order to conduct a thorough review of the scientific evidence to determine if there is a relationship between EMF exposure and reported symptoms, and what further research is necessary to fill any gaps in knowledge. The group reported that the majority of studies show that affected individuals do not seem to be able to detect EMF fields more accurately than unaffected individuals, and large well-controlled double-blind studies have shown that symptoms in affected individuals do not seem to be related to EMF exposure. While the symptoms experienced by affected individuals are certainly real, and can be debilitating, there is no scientific basis to connect them to EMF exposure. (WHO 2006) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification The World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) provides government authorities with expert, independent, scientific opinion on environmental exposures that may increase the risk of cancer. An interdisciplinary working group of expert scientists reviews and evaluates all of

44 E2-HM the published studies on a particular agent in humans and animals, including laboratory studies, and the agent is classified in terms of its potential carcinogenicity based on a weight of evidence approach. IARC categories refer only to the strength of evidence that an exposure is carcinogenic and not to the extent of an agent's carcinogenic activity or potency. In 2011, IARC classified RF electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B), based on an increased risk of glioma, a type of malignant brain tumour, associated with mobile phone handset use in the heaviest phone users in one large study examining mobile phone handset use (INTERPHONE Study Group 2010), and which did not include base station exposures. It is important to note that the evidence overall was assessed by IARC to be "limited" among all users of mobile phones (i.e. not just the heaviest users), and that the evidence from environmental or occupational exposures (i.e. generalized, lowlevel exposures, such as those from base stations) was judged to be "inadequate" to draw conclusions (See Table 1 for IARC classifications and definitions). Many common exposures, including caffeine and medications such as phenytoin (an anti-seizure medication) and oxazepam (an anti-anxiety medication), have been classified in this group. (IARC 2011a, IARC 2011b) Table 1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categories of overall carcinogenicity of exposures. IARC Group Group 1 Group 2A Group 2B Group 3 Group 4 Description The agent is carcinogenic to humans The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans International Consensus Health Canada's exposure limits in Safety Code 6 are similar to those established by other international and national scientific and regulatory bodies. The following scientific and regulatory bodies have published statements on the health effects of RF energy: 3Full descriptions ofthe IARC groups can be found inthe IARC Preamble (IARC 2006).

45 E2-H5* Table 2. Summary statements from international and national scientific and regulatory bodies on the health effects of RF energy from mobile phone base stations. Agency Health Canada, Safety Code 6(2010) US Food and Drug Administration, Consumer Update (2010) UK Health Protection Agency, Independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (2012) World Health Organization, Fact Sheet 304 (2006) International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Statement on "Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time- Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300GHz)" (2009b) Summary Statement "Based on scientific evidence, Health Canada has determined that exposure to low-level radiofrequency energy, such as that from Wi-Fi equipment, is not dangerous to the public." "Although research is ongoing, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that available scientific evidence...shows no increased health risk due to radiofrequency (RF) energy" (mobile phones only) "In summary, although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children." "Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects." "Epidemiological data on possible health effects of chronic, low-level, whole-body exposure in the far-field of radiofrequency (RF) transmitters are poor, especially because of lack of satisfactory individual exposure assessment. The few studies with adequate exposure assessment did not reveal any health-related effects." The World Health Organization has established the International Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Project, mentioned earlier, in order to provide a coordinated international response to concerns about potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, including radiofrequency energy. This group, among the others mentioned in this report, will continue to monitor the scientific literature and provide advice about possible hazards.

46 E2-H6* Radiofrequency Energy and the Precautionary Principle The precautionary principle arose out of modern environmental policy, and has also been used in public health policy. It states that complete evidence of harm is not required before taking action to mitigate the effects of a potential risk. Application of the precautionary principle is not straightforward. The appropriateness of applying it to public health risks increases as more of the following criteria are met: the exposure or harm is widespread, the incidence of the harm (i.e. observed health effect) is increasing and otherwise unexplained, the suspected harm associated with the risk is serious, the suspected harm associated with exposure is not easily reversible or treatable, economic or social costs of removing the exposure are small relative to the suspected risk, the health costs of removing the exposure are minimal, and when there are known health, economic, or social harms associated with the exposure, in addition to the new suspected harm (Weir et al, 2010). There is no evidence in the scientific literature at this time to suggest that there are any negative health effects associated with exposure to radiofrequency energy from mobile phone base stations. Although this exposure is widespread, there is no evidence of potential harm and it would not be appropriate to apply the precautionary principle in this case. Summary and Conclusions Safety Code 6, "Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 khz to 300 GHz," is a guideline for exposure to radiofrequency fields prepared by Health Canada, and adopted by Industry Canada in the regulation on telecommunications equipment, including mobile phone base stations, to for the purpose of protecting the health of the general public. These guidelines are similar to those used in the US and internationally. Several recent extensive reviews of the scientific literature by national and international scientific and regulatory bodies have all concluded that there is no evidence of any negative health effects associated with radiofrequency energy from mobile phone base stations. Peel Public Health will continue to monitor this area of research and provide updates as necessary. Prepared by: Dr. David L. Mowat, Medical Officer of Health, Region of Peel Dr. Kate Bingham, Senior Medical Resident, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Toronto