The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLN 09-15 Cult 00 Report to = Planning & Development Committee PI KERI G Report Number: PLN 09-15 Date: September 14, 2015 • From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Rogers Communications Inc. 1822 Whites Road • Part of Lot 29, Concession 1, Parts 2 to 7, 40R-9979 Installation #63 Recommendation: 1. That Rogers Communications Inc. be advised that City Council does not object to the 14.9 metre high telecommunication tower located at 1822 Whites Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the application. Executive Summary: Rogers Communications Inc. has submitted an application to seek concurrence from the City of Pickering respecting a 14.9 metre high monopole telecommunication tower erected in July 2014 in the parking area on the Amberlea Shopping Centre lands located at 1822 Whites Road. Rogers Communications Inc. has completed the public consultation process in accordance with the City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol). The notification radius was expanded beyond the required minimum radius and an open house meeting was held. The applicant has advised that 14 comments were received as a result of the circulation with 13 comments in objection and 1 comment in support. In addition, the City has received two petitions in objection to the telecommunication tower (both petitions total approximately 860 signatures). The key concern expressed by the public was related to the perceived health impacts of cell towers and the radio frequencies they emit. City staff have reviewed the proposed installation against the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The proposed tower is located within a commercial plaza and has minimal impact on the existing development and minimal visual impact on the community. The cell tower meets the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location requirements, and is located with appropriate setbacks from the surrounding neighbourhood. Staff recommends that Rogers Communications Inc. be advised that Council does not object to the proposed telecommunication tower located at 1822 Whites Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the application. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Report PLN 09-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 2 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The cell tower is located in the parking area of the commercial plaza known as the Amberlea Shopping Centre, which is located at the northwest corner of Whites Road and Strouds Lane. The commercial plaza is owned by Valiant Rental Inc. The telecommunication tower has been erected immediately west of the TD Canada Trust Bank near the Whites Road entrance to the plaza (see Location Map and Submitted Plan, Attachments #1 and #2). The subject property is designated as "Mixed Use Area — Community Node" in the City's Official Plan, and zoned `CCA-2' — Community Central Area by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1340/81. A telecommunication tower is a permitted use under the public utilities exemption of Zoning By-law 3036. 1.2 Applicant's Initial Location In 2011, Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) initially proposed a 14.9 metre high telecommunication tower at the Amberlea Presbyterian Church, located at 1820 Whites Road. At that time, the City of Pickering did not have an established city protocol for cell tower proposals. Therefore, Rogers was obligated to follow Industry Canada's protocol (Client Procedures Circular- Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems— CPC-2-0-03 Issue 4). Industry Canada's protocol that was in effect at that time provided exemptions from public consultation for installations under 15.0 metres in height. Rogers conducted an informal courtesy meeting with the immediate neighbours and proceeded to commence construction on the church property. Upon commencement of construction, the City conveyed its objection to Industry Canada, and Rogers abandoned the project at this location. 1.3 Applicant's Proposal In response to the objections expressed by the City, Rogers began a search for a new location and the Amberlea Shopping Centre was looked at as a possible location for a telecommunication tower. Rogers advised that they finalized their lease with the landowner and commenced construction of the 14.9 metre high shrouded monopole tower on July 9, 2014. Given the close proximity of the tower to the existing residential neighbourhood surrounding the commercial plaza, the City felt that a public consultation process should have been conducted prior to the construction of the tower. The City of Pickering requested Industry Canada to investigate this matter. Rogers replied to Industry Canada and the City, indicating that they proceeded with the construction of the tower in accordance with Industry Canada's protocol in effect at the time of construction, which provided an exemption from public consultation for towers less than 15.0 metres in height. Report PLN 09-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 3 On July 15, 2014, Industry Canada's new protocol (Issue 5) came into effect. This version no longer exempted towers under 15.0 metres in height from • following the public consultation process of Industry Canada's Protocol. Rogers indicated that they proceeded with construction as Industry Canada provided a transition period for proposals already under construction, which permitted proponents to continue under the provisions of the previous protocol. Industry Canada advised Rogers Communications to cease construction and undertake a formal consultation process with the City of Pickering. However, the tower was substantially complete, but was not activated for service. In response to Industry Canada's instruction and the request of the City of Pickering, Rogers filed an application with the City in December 2014 to facilitate the public consultation process for the tower constructed at the Amberlea Shopping Centre. Rogers Communications has followed the consultation process prescribed within the City's protocol, which was adopted in September 2014, as Industry Canada requires applicant's to follow local protocols where they exist. 1.4 Proposal Details The tower and ground cabinet are located within the commercial parking lot, on a concrete island, west of the existing TD Canada Trust Bank. Access to the tower and ground equipment is provided from the surrounding parking area (see Submitted Plan, Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan, and Site Photos, Attachments #2, #3 and #4). 2.0 Comments Received 2.1 Public Notification of the revised proposal has been completed Rogers expanded the public notification at the City's request, beyond Industry Canada's minimum required radius, to include residents along Chiron Crescent, Miranda Court, Amberlea Road, Arcadia Square, Village Street, Sultana Square and Stonepath Circle. A total of 357 property owners were notified by mail; an ad was placed in the April 16, 2015 edition of the News Advertiser; and 3 public notification signs were installed on the property (one on each frontage). The applicant has advised that 14 comments were received as a result of the circulation, with 13 comments in objection and 1 comment in support (see Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report, Attachment#5). A Public Open House meeting was held on May 14, 2015 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre, and 15 members of the public signed in at the meeting. Rogers provided information boards and had representatives present to respond to questions from the public. The majority of the concerns expressed at the meeting were related to the potential health effects of cell towers. The City has also received two separate petitions in objection to the cell tower. The petitions contain approximately 860 signatures: Report PLN 09-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 4 The applicant has confirmed that the public consultation process has been completed in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol and Industry Canada's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Protocol. 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments Engineering & Public Works • no objections to the proposed tower 3.0 Planning Analysis 3.1 Design and location of tower comply with City Protocol City Development staff have completed the reviewed the constructed cell tower at Amberlea Shopping Centre against the provisions of the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The tower meets the City's preferred location requirements in that it is located on commercial property and is approximately 80 metres from the nearest residential property. The sightlines to the tower are minimized by the existing commercial buildings to the north and west. In addition, the tower is a shrouded monopole, which allows the antenna equipment to be screened from public view. This type of tower design is required by the City's Protocol, particularly when located near residential areas. 3.2 Co-location opportunities have been examined The applicant provided a justification report to the City Development Department in support of the tower. The applicant investigated the opportunity to co-locate their equipment in the immediate area. Rogers advised that there were five existing installations in the area that were considered for co-location. The closest site (at 1467 Whites Road) is approximately 1.3 kilometres away and cannot accommodate their network coverage requirements. Rogers has confirmed that the proposed tower provides limited co-location opportunities due to the small height and monopole design of the tower. 3.3 Majority of comments submitted were Health concerns The majority of the comments received including those expressed at the Public Open House were related to perceived concerns with the health impacts of cell towers and the radio frequencies they emit. The City of Pickering's Cell Tower Protocol does not address health related concerns respecting cell towers as this is not within our jurisdiction or expertise. The licensing of cell towers is regulated by the Radiocommunication Act through Industry Canada. Industry Canada requires all operators to meet the requirements of Safety Code 6, which is prepared by Health Canada. 9 September 14, 2015 Report PL N 09-15 p Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 5 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 indicates that they have established and maintain a general public exposure limit that incorporates a wide safety margin and is therefore far below the threshold for potentially adverse health effects. City staff have confirmed with the Region of Durham Health Department that they rely on the limits established by Health Canada in Safety Code 6. 4.0 Conclusion The proposal has been circulated and reviewed in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol, and is now before Council for consideration. Staff recommend that City Council endorse the recommendation in this report as the installation satisfies the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location requirements. The tower is located within a commercial plaza and appropriately setback from the existing residential development to the north and west without impacting the operation of the plaza. Furthermore, the visual appearance of the tower will be screened by the existing commercial buildings on the property and given the height and location of the tower, it will have minimal visual impacts on the surrounding community. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Submitted Plan 3. Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan 4. Site Photos 5. Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report Report PLN 09-15 September 14, 2015 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 6 Prep - •• By: Approved/Endorsed By: _., ....__, , . 41,„ ZA4,..- t_ 4\. • - - :amen Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner— Site Planning Chief Planner (/,,, z7k.,, ,---- ep........._ Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Thomas Me ymu MCIP,/R ,' anager, Development Review Director, City Development & Urban Design • TB: Id Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council i / i'l 1 ,4,2,6 . 31, WiS Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer . ATTACHMENT# / TO REPORT # PLI■ Oq'I5 EH .� ;___ III II w 1¢� EI O 3 ' ' J. McPHERSO ",,.� ST. MARY ' , ', CATHOLIC ,`� , PARK '= HIGH SCHOOL G �,,,,I � CRESCENT 'I\� ■ �ti ar ��0■ 4�1�111111111 P` y _m_�I'Iil , Q ,, MILLBANK R � 1iI �IAt�• 1/1/1111111 �� _ _ ROAD WHIM 111111 a� �� STREET, 11••`/ it =11111111— ��w NEW STREET DRIVE A- 1111111 o QII —•P o� = ' ruiE �i -- -- �o� w— —gym ��o c� UNA Q 11111 ■111111\\� —op CRESCENT ■ 5."1.1111111= ARCADIA QUARE = T_�∎ 1"111"1, i��Iwlllllll� r IIIIIIII MENIM MEN I'llllll,`' CRESCENT __z = X111111111 IIIII■IIIII� mos m �p`�,�i IIIIIII�. . �� = mm 11111/ • COURT ,. �, '— ,=— CRICKF�� Inhitini �� MIRANDA CRT =w -z 11* I'll',.. w =�_ �� ASHFIELD —11111111'°' PROPOSED'f.411111111111< TELECOMMUNICATION ally, 111111111111�11 , PRCHURCHA"LANE STROUDS ',,,,, �F`I _ U_- -n Nil I , o VOW `'1,oQS M MU� o � , ,� HEDGEROW �� Q `�o��i a e�i 2�i off$ ,111111 AI , iii _��O o=� o�� `,11/'I� i l∎ z∎ `,, II HIGHBUSH �'I �' m,``, SHADYBROOK BLIC SCHOOL =o 11, I 1 , � PARK °111111 ---V •IIII AMBERLEA ,,"1"'11,,` FLAVELLE COURT <= • w . I� PARK `imir� , 1 ■•• ∎ ,, AVENUE ■ City�¢ Location Map �� FILE No: Installation #63 7 °= �-.. APPLICANT: Rogers Communications Inc. W AM N 0.4 1 0C PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con 1 Pt. Lt. 29, 40R-9979 Parts 2-7 City Development (1822 Whites Road) DATE: Aug.18,2015 Department Dery 5e�reea: Teranet Enterprieea Ine. and Its tdppllere. All rights Reaervetl. Not o plan o1 survey. SCALE 1:5,000 PN-11 2013 MPAC and Its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of Survey. ATTACHMENT# 2 TO REPORT # }RN (Y1-15 P !a IF "g ig, ?c ii Ei if. opt. I a� le. ao ai. a� <z «i ad, n B, a _ I Q ;:4 1 o° as 24 ,1Y 24 a, ai 7o� di ° ,,:-? >i a4 i a a a 2 1 LOP 31 LOT,30 LOT 29 LOT 28 LpT 27 g?;LOT 25 LOP 25 LOP 24 LOP 23 LOT 22 i PART f PLAN 4OR- `AA?f - i'�p l y PART 14410 mrad2a°o • f , .,'k b ,STOREY T9. TOWER # II LOCATION CONCIVIE �;l, 1, ' ,a ! 1 .I & ° a O I I I I 7 1 i 1 i�_.i�p. �: l i Et STOREY Et I I� Ir-1 •- I1 �;''' $�� j (J) WES .� ,� = � ' G � CO UJ UJ l 1 BBB / • I 1 CC 1------1 fr,1 I 1 1 ,i Ir''1 I I -_-__s,1 .E! i 1 r 11- i l 1�1 g1 P. : 1 Q.I ,. +3 121 !zl 1 , 15 I , , IaI 1 r\271 c I i I qI :i i 4I " , , 1 ,xl BOGS II )j �` ,„ r ;QI cry, 1 c.i 98(AB)_.-. 1W.1249 J. , 127.0 VI —A_1 EAsoIOrt PART 3 _ 7 A ,�n«< ��i`re_ PART 4 .....,.. _ �a i STROUDS LANE 7 N Submitted Plan City 4 FILE No: Installation #63 ''' ''-'11-1.7".' "!--''''''..- APPLICANT: Rogers Communications Inc. li CSI C/E4 1 01 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Con. 1 . Pt. Lot. 29, 40R-9979, Part 2 to 7 City Development Department (1822 Whites Road) DATE:Aug.18,2015 I ATTACHMENT# 3 TO REPORT # th 12:1 • ELEVATION PLAN NTT TO SCE Y • PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1:150 T0 SEE ELEVA>TON FLAN 0 7 ;t, CONCRETE SID:9ALK TE ! •L{LS(RD DE REPLACED C) MP 1E ECOU Lei, ;Li TOWER - Nt} V N J 3s© / 4.48 / 1.62/1.50 L 1 . :: • Submitted Elevation and Compound Plan 4 4---H. � FILE No: Installation #63 ,,,:,!-..,-,:,,:.' APPLICANT Rogers Communications Inc. ill OP L L PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:Con. 1 . Pt. Lot. 29, 40R-9979, Part 2 to 7 City Development Department (1822 Whites Road) DATE:Aug.18,2015 ATTACHMENT# 7' TO REPORT # PLN ©c(-I5 A Ant i 'oar• * � ■ 4 . L r • x Y. . _-- 4 ',°11 *'.gip t 1 ( � y I tamest ems � �� ti ss Site Photos FILE No: Installation #63 APPLICANT: Rogers Communications Inc. N CO N O ti l,i PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:Con. 1. Pt. Lot. 29, 40R-9979, Part 2 to 7 City Development Department (1822 Whites Road) DATE:Aug.18,2015 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# lam- Oq-J5 Rogers Communications Inc. RO G E RS 1,A , 8200 Dixie Rd. `- Brampton, ON L6TOC1RECE VED June, 1, 2015 JUN 0 2 2015 Tyler Barnett, Senior Planner C�?��opMENcoERTMENT City of Pickering, City Development Department, Site Planning Ct7Y o One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Re: Wireless Communication Site—C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N., Pickering, ON Part of Lot 29, Concession 1, Pickering, Regional Municipality_of Durham Dear Mr. Barnett, On behalf of Rogers Communication Inc. ("Rogers"), I would like to submit for your review a summary of the municipal and public consultation process and a request for concurrence concerning a wireless communication site located on the property known as Amberlea Plaza at 1822 Whites Rd. N., Pickering, ON. Project Description & Location • Rogers is constantly improving and expanding its infrastructure to meet the ever-growing demand for high-quality reliable wireless voice and data services. The site constructed at 1822 Whites Rd. N. is necessary to provide an adequate contiguous communications link between our existing and planned base stations in the surrounding area. This location has been chosen as a result of a detailed physical survey of the area, through radio frequency propagation prediction tools, and via comprehensive testing of existing Rogers network. Municipal & Public Consultation Process The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol)— File A-1110-004 The City's Protocol can be viewed at www.pickerinq.ca. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Rogers is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 150m, or three times the tower height, whichever is greater. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Rogers agreed to an extended notification. As such, on April 13, 2015 1 notification packages were mailed to 357 property owners (all properties located within a radius of up to 375m from the site). Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Rogers placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 3 signs on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. The circulation provided the public with a 30 day commenting period. Rogers also hosted an Open House Information Session on Thursday, May 14, 2015 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre. Based on the public notification process, Rogers logged and received comments from the public which are summarised in the attached Consultation Summary and Response Report. 1 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT # f�N CXi-I5 0 ROGERSTM Of the 357 notices mailed during the consultation and the Open House hosted on May 14th, 2015, Rogers received a total of 14 comments. (5) of the comments received were from properties within expanded circulations of up to 375m from the site. 13 comments received were in opposition of the site 1 comment received was in support of the site Conclusion Based on a comprehensive notification process and addressing of all relevant concerns brought forward, Rogers feels that the site is well located to provide improved wireless voice and data services in the targeted area of Pickering. The site is also situated and designed so as to have minimal impact on surrounding land uses. Rogers' concessions made on the site in consideration of area setting, the surrounding community and the comments received for the original site location on the church property, decrease the visual profile of the installation and eliminate the needs of an additional site in the area, therefore meeting the intent of the City's Protocol on design requirements and reducing infrastructure proliferation. Request for Concurrence •Rogers has now fulfilled all circulation requirements under City of Pickering Protocol and in accordance with Industry Canada's Consultation Process for the development of wireless communication structures. Rogers has followed all the necessary steps in accordance with City's Protocol and Industry Canada's guidelines CPC-2-03, Issue 5 in consulting with the municipality; advising the public of the site; in addressing all reasonable and relevant concerns pertaining to our site; and in keeping and producing all associated communications to the municipality and Industry Canada. In order to conclude this land-use consultation and meet Industry Canada's requirements, Rogers Communications Inc. respectfully requests for staff to move forward with the assessment of the process Rogers has undertaken to date and put forward a report to Council with their recommendations. Rogers would like to request for the item to be put forward on the next Council Agenda for Council's review and issuance of a formal Letter of Concurrence to Rogers with a copy to Industry Canada in order to permit Rogers to move forward with placing the site in-service. If you require any further information about this matter, please feel free to contact me at any time. Rogers looks forward to working with the City of Pickering in obtaining the concurrence on this site for the purpose of improving wireless services in the City. Yours Truly, Rogers Communications Inc., Network Implementation Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist Phone: 647-747-2351, e-mail:Tatyana.Moro(c�rci.rogers.com cc. Industry Canada 2 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT # (\‘ 09-1.5 A { *, Ill . IIIlel'PI\ ;t* Ai t--� .. O ROGERS R rc. f pd c . ;. L F Public Consultation Summary and Response Report Prepared for: City of Pickering Rogers Site: C3751 (1822 Whites Rd. N.) Part of Lot 29, Concession 1, City of Pickering, ON Rogers Communications Inc. 1 8200 Dixie Road I Brampton ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana Moro I Municipal Relations Specialist 1 647-747-2351 ATTACHMENT#. 5 TO REPORT# Rf 09'/5 Contents Introduction 3 1. Network Coverage Requirements 3 2. Site Selection History 3 Aerial of alternatives assessed • 4 3. Selection of Proposed Site 5 Aerial 6 Photos 7 4. Public Notification 8 Public Open House Attendees and Information 9 Display Materials 10 Public Comments/Questions/Rogers Responses Overview 10 Summary of Questions/Responses and Rogers' Concessions 11 5. Conclusion 14 APPENDIX 1 - Public Consultation Comments and Responses APPENDIX 2 - Sign in Sheet/Open House Comments APPENDIX 3 - Site Survey 0 ROG E RS_ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# L15 The purpose of this report is to summarize the process undertaken by Rogers relevant to the site located on a privately owned property known as Amberlea Plaza at 1822 Whites Rd: N., Pickering, ON. The report will outline the questions which were posed by members of the public as a result of the Public Notification and an Open House Information Sessions held on Thursday, May 14, 2015 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre, 470 Kingston Rd. The information in this report will be systematically addressed in the following order: 1. Network Coverage Requirement: identification of a coverage gap in the wireless network and its geographical translation 2. Site Selection History: previously proposed, and considered site locations as part of the site selection analysis 3. Selection of Proposed Site: identification of proposed candidate site and the resulting coverage 4. Public Notification: questions and comments submitted by members of the commenting public 5. Conclusion II 1. Network Coverage Requirement Designing and maintaining a wireless network is a complicated task requiring the balance and consideration of a number of factors in meeting the current and future communication needs of the public and governmental authorities. A wireless telecommunications facility is a puzzle piece in a very complex radio network, whether that site is situated in an urban, suburban or rural setting. Customer demand and sound engineering principles direct where sites are required to be located. As people rely more on wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for business and personal use, network improvements are required to ensure high quality voice and data services are available. In order for a wireless network to be reliable, an operator must provide "seamless" coverage so that gaps in the network are avoided. Gaps create dropped calls and overall poor service to customers. Rogers is committed and mandated by its license to ensure the best coverage and service to the public and private sectors. In response to this growing demand for wireless services, Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) has worked since 2011 to find a suitable location for a new telecommunications structure in efforts to provide improved coverage within the general area of Whites Rd. N. and Strouds Lane. 2. Site Selection History Rogers's site selection process is a balanced exercise that must meet Rogers's network coverage objectives, will respect local land-use constraints, will listen to community concerns, while at the same time reflecting Rogers obligation to its customers to provide a high quality of service. 3 0 ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# 09-/5 All efforts have been made to minimize the number of cellular base station locations required throughout the targeted Pickering area and yet allow for a network design which can adequately provide wireless voice and data service to our existing and new customer base. This site location and antenna support characteristics were chosen such that an adequate communications link can be achieved between surrounding sites. Any other choice would either result in the inability to adequately serve our customers or raise the need for additional cell site locations in the area, both of which we are committed to avoid in accordance with the City's Policy. Rogers always makes an initial effort to co-locate on existing structures. Apart from being a requirement in most telecommunication protocols, co-location is one of the cornerstones of Rogers's site development philosophy. Other potential site locations were evaluated and opportunities to co- locate onto existing structures were also investigated. However, the wireless communication structures in the surrounding area that were evaluated are all beyond the distance; below the height required; or could not be utilized in order to address the coverage deficiencies in the area. As a suitable alternative structure was not readily available, Rogers had to consider the construction of its own site. Our site selection process started in 2011 with a proposal for a 14.9m pole at Amberlea Presbyterian Church, located at 1820 Whites Rd. The initial location was situated just over one times the tower height away from the closest residential lot line. While the site fell within the exemption criteria relevant to consultation in accordance with CPC, Issue 4, which was in effect at the time of the proposal, Rogers conducted an informal courtesy community meeting through the church. Upon commencement of construction, the public and the City of Pickering opposed the location. To respect the wishes of public and the City, Rogers abandoned the project at the church property and searched for a new suitable location. In identifying a potential tower location and design, Rogers examined the surrounding area, assessed the visibility of the structure and considered a possible structure design. Rogers evaluated the best location for a new facility. In response to public comments and as suggested at the Council meeting on April 21, 2011, Rogers proceeded to explore 1822 Whites Rd. N., a commercial plaza and a favourable alternative to the initial proposal considering its significant setbacks from residential uses. The 1822 Whites Rd. N. site is situated more than three times the tower height to the closest residential lot line (83m to the east, 190m to the south, 176m to the west and 88m to the north). Therefore, no residential dwellings fell within the three times the tower height circulation requirement and no public or municipal consultation was undertaken prior to construction of our site. Furthermore, the site was built to specifications which contained a pole with a height of less than 15m, which was within the exclusion criteria under Industry Canada's process, in effect at the time of construction. The site constructed at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will achieve the necessary engineering coverage objectives for our network. The location will enhance much relied upon communication services in the area such as EMS Response, Police and Fire; will significantly improve our wireless signal quality for the local residents, those traveling along the major roads, as well provide local subscribers with Rogers' 3.5G wireless network coverage and capacity for products and services such as iPhones, Tablets, smart phones and wireless internet through the Rogers Rocket Stick technology in the surrounding area. 4 0 ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# 7 r4 eA-15 As a result of our selection, the site does not impede on the quiet enjoyment of neighbouring properties. The pole base is screened by the commercial setting of the subject property and by the trees bordering the property boundaries to the surrounding neighbourhoods 3. Selection of Proposed Site It is important to note that the selection of a site for a telecommunication antenna support structure does not occur randomly. Among the factors considered are: 1. expected usage patterns of service and proximity to users 2. local topography and building types 3. interaction with existing and future sites 4. line of sight requirements for high quality communications 5. opportunities to use existing structures 6. availability of a willing Landlord 7. the industry's commitment to high service standards and customer satisfaction As part of evaluation process it was determined by Rogers' Radio Frequency Engineers that a minimum of 14.9 metres high structure was required in order to meet Rogers' network requirements. Rogers has entered into an agreement with the land owner at the property located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. for the installation of telecommunications equipment. Only when all required approvals are obtained will the land agreement be finalized. We chose Amberlea Plaza property as the site for our installation for a number of reasons. Firstly, it fits the requirements of our network. A site at this location provides the coverage we need in the surrounding area, and will also be able to link up with the other sites in area. Secondly, the site takes into consideration the commercial setting of the subject property for some mitigation means. The location and size of the structure has been designed in order to allow it to blend into the surrounding environment. Furthermore, in recognition of the comments received on the original location at the church, the site's location reflects the request of a large separation between the community and the installation. The site is located at an approximate distance of 56m east of Whites Rd. N., 155m north of Strouds Ln. intersection; 165m west of Amberlea Rd. and 130m south of Arcadia Sq. The Site is located on a property in the Neighbourhood 11 — Amberlea, and is designated as Community Nodes under the City's Official Plan — Edition 6 — Land Use Structure. Rogers feels that the location and design chosen provides a significant buffer between residential uses; utilizes existing property setting in mitigating the visual impact on the immediate land uses; addresses Rogers' coverage deficiencies surrounding Whites Rd. N. and Strouds Ln. area for accessibility and enhancement of emergency communication services; as well as provides a structure for the purpose of improving wireless services for the area residents. Please refer to the site plan provided for your reference as well as an aerial of the site on the following page and photos of the site on page 7. 5 • ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# pLN Cc'!-l5 Figure 2—Structure location on the subject property is outlined in an aerial below. �'' '±'�' Safi " ! ; :+ �. .r,^.. „L., t ,.: ,, ...f -- ..r - J'ty1.r•• ►" d` , ,.4 eV .: ' i , �;, a i t�4 * 7 .,:fi . * . et - i/`.dt"4 , i - *' • i .ti L`i e, 1 ti T� r..,r .^I 't •` Lrf,-." 14 / 3"-' k /�I 4? • �� 5A�7• - t`r fj - : �' Tyf` . '� "�� < ' mow, .'Or- ,:#..' �:_`1, �'I � 'Vitt.ds�" " :�.a AI N. ""� . .q 4 .+t ri '� .r '�A� ` : ti 4$ 1�s ; a S. y'w41' .fir.� F' -r. . I y .o.-.,i S r .fir. ` ...- �1,02. ,:y ` _ • �}`".rj1 � �''is'r yFS :,,„„„' ":. 1;4; afar '� '"�. 0. '-'A+ ‘-•" f I' ; .� t ?. 7/1.r � ,�J,•:. a .r �ti �� * '► sw' 4+ �j *r t r R , • C ::� u 1.2r,3- •. , ,Iv: �l C3. , 1r^ '{irr aiy%, 1 f? J'.•, f, r,• t .'`�a{Sins ✓��.';• r' " 7:0`, -f T4_ 3�y'''.+ 'rs. P I� r 'Fit.; -5 `,. r - 11 at,, , cA;. ";' a'V'' Nt @w Location �� t *1 a i-......41 *-1.i �.• <'� ,-'- 10"' 02-4;),4 t-'0,-`. ,• • A' t.*�( r *t �` .a i ' -Iv .0- 4- -I, 1 4.•fi r f :N'I. fT ( s y► 1,a r*dc1.3'....' ""1e,„ ..>- -t,t Sys^ .,yf \f ' t!" c -Art' .-'�' ` Al.- . +f Al—,� ,�<� s. C- 17511 ew=Situ. - r- µ_ v. y 't i t.' .J L w � ` 'i •5 r Y j- 'ik:1,f U'"• i r ,• .4 i 1 � `- e�G� i,.. 4, • �, {`".1 :...1, i i...raw; 1 _go x F i�,r r'�y r' 1,:,,,A_ !t f 411/ rk 4• ` Q ` p' y� r,J 7 n yak i ..S`„l�(•r' ,�b l4.y� . y .."S, 7 t i y ''. . • r. C�1 I 0 \Y.a. ."1 {A, •t...- ',i. 1 fM 414 iI` * Aft 71'4,404‘.., � i O �� Y �.1. t • 7`.e •eX f•` i f �, ,,,...01111.I�rt S. IS , p,,��//' ` •- q;ifi.� t; ti■F � Q ��(j, � rl��i oar Cry' i. fi ,Cy ""�� r 3"r � L9 ��•„_J or'.a I- W i •IJ a . j \• ,,,b 0. .r te a. ,,tC+..i; ..44, + A 1. a*%I!-'1 • ( d'�''' y� i 4 -:t", "' 0C' s �w " ,j��r7 I„ "r11f�' 4 6 iia '1' *�a>�• =' y t As 1441 { *'¢• 0P3.4t4, ,'ass , ''' ,jam` . - . �'. ` i• .�.�"� ..t `• ;#e9...:','51'4 a ;trec�c ' i , - -r ,off, is 9 - rJ . C .....-A(4...... _� ice. �'_� ,.r is- .c ei ---_•.. C :a Please refer to the following page for photos of the installation for your reference (Figure 3). 6 0 ROGERS_ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# PLNI 001-15 Figure 3—Site Profile 1 f I 1 l • ) fI 1 1 *i j I r v I _ ego. • AA 111 �...eil k ',It" x}4 . it t z A Al ♦w tZ•1-.0 tt ,..7".•#0.,1, ..-S' AA . -joit, - ,,,r: , ,1 112-, 11. F F ' = J.r„ 4K'-. �i.,?�_FR = wn....,..m.m wn,"v wa..tzv+s.. •..a...... aqt .. -.. .... 7 0 ROG E RS__ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# I1.1•1 Uq-15 4. Public Notification Rogers has a strong history of consultation with municipalities and understands the importance of land- use protocols and transparency in consultation. Industry•Canada requires that consultation be undertaken with the appropriate land-use authorities to ensure those authorities are aware of significant structures within their boundaries and so that local land-use issues can be raised, while respecting the federal government's jurisdiction in the siting and operation of wireless voice and data systems. At the time of the initial proposal at Amberlea Presbyterian Church, City of Pickering did not have a developed protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. Therefore, Rogers followed Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process (CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4). In accordance with Industry Canada's CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4, the site fell within the exemption criteria relevant to consultation due to its height being below 15m. Nevertheless, Rogers conducted an informal courtesy community meeting. In consideration of the comments received from the community, Rogers respected the wishes of the public and the City and worked on obtaining a new suitable location for our site. Rogers worked with the retail plaza owner at 1822 Whites Rd., as suggested at the City Council meeting in April of 2011, and were able to agree on a suitable alternative in an effort to fulfil our federal obligations for providing connectivity to essential communication services (EMS, Police and Fire), as well as provide improved wireless high speed internet and phone services for the surrounding community, while respecting City's overall intent of the Official Plan in minimizing the visual aspects of the installation in relation to the surrounding land uses. The decision to proceed in the new location was the result of input from the public and municipal authorities, and a general preference for greater separation from the residential communities. For these reasons, the new site location at 1822 Whites Rd. was exempt under the CPC, Issue 4, which was in effect at the time of the commencement of construction. Furthermore, in proceeding, Rogers relied upon the Minister's decision document relevant to the CPC, Issue 5 (Effective July 15, 2014) transition period to ensure that the process and considerations under Issue 4 would continue (Section 4(63) - Implementation and Next Steps). 4. Implementation and Next Steps 63. These changes are reflected in CPC-2-0-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System, Issue 5, and become effective July 15, 2014 for all new proposals and in relation to all ongoing obligations. Proposals where construction or consultation has already commenced may continue under the provisions of CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4, for the purpose of satisfying any requirements in relation to consultations. On Sept. 2, 2014, City of Pickering adopted a protocol (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol)— File A-1110-004 The City's Protocol can be viewed at www.pickerinq.ca. Rogers' site located at 1822 Whites Rd. was constructed prior to City's Protocol being in effect, therefore Rogers believes that our compliance obligations have been fulfilled in consideration of the process in place at the time of site's construction. Furthermore, Rogers' site at 1822 Whites Rd. did not encounter residential properties within three times the tower height to warrant a public consultation. 8 0 ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT# S TO REPORT# In consideration of the community and at the City's request, Rogers conducted a public consultation on the constructed site at 1822 Whites Rd. N. in order to provide the community with the information on the site. This process allowed the City, Rogers and the public to exchange information pertaining to our installation. The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Rogers is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 150m, or three times the tower height, whichever is greater. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Rogers agreed to an extended notification and as a courtesy provided an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 375 metres from the base of the structure. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Rogers placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 3 signs on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was also provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. Public Open House Attendees and Information Provided on August 11/14 and August 25114: Rogers Communications Inc.: 1. Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist 2. Michelle Vivar, Municipal Relations Specialist 3. Adele Biggs, Municipal Relations Specialist 4. Brent Spence, Site Acquisition Specialist 5. Uwe Richter, Manager of Radio Engineering 6. Emebet Haile, Senior Radio Systems Engineer 7. Richard Zhang, Senior Radio Systems Engineer City of Pickering: 1. Tyler Barnett, Senior Planner 2. Jennifer O'Connell, Regional Councilor—Ward 1 Members of the Public: (Sign-in record attached)—Attendees of the May 14th Open House: 1. , 778 Stonepath Crc. 2. ' 688 Hilview Cres. 3. 635 Chiron Cres. 4. 1522 Amberlea Rd. 5. 501 Charnwood Crt. 6. 1642 Arcadia Sq. 7. 261 Pendermere Pkwy. 8. , 711 Sunbird Trail 9. 772 Stonepath Crc. 10. 621 Ariel Cres. 11. 814 Wingarden Cres. 12. 677 Highview Rd. 13. 1614 Arcadia Sq. 14. 580 Eyer Dr. 15. 690 Chiron Cres. 9 0 ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# Oq-15 Display Materials: The following is a summary of the materials on display at the open house: • Context aerial view; • Proposed structure design and Photo Simulations from different angles; • Consultation requirements in accordance with Federal Regulations; • Land-use authority and Industry Canada roles; • Engineering coverage plots and justification on site requirements; • Co-location map of other sites evaluated; • Other relative information to regulations of wireless antenna structures and compliance requirements such as: > Additional general information related to telecommunications and the land use approval and standards for these types of facilities; > Industry Canada's Brochure"Wireless Communication and Health —An Overview, Safety Code 6-2009; > Industry Canada - Frequently asked questions on Radio Frequency; > Rogers'Wireless Brochure; > Health Canada Brochure "It's Your Health"; > Safety Code 6 information package Public Comments, Questions and Rogers' Responses Overview: In agreement with the municipality, 357 notices were mailed to neighbouring property owners, located within the extended radius from the subject property, up to 375m. This requirements is more stringent than the City's Protocol and the requirement under Industry Canada's Default Consultation process, (the circulation under the Industry Canada's process would have not encountered any properties within the required circulation mandate, being 45m (3x tower height) circulation from the site). - Of the 357 notices mailed during the consultation and the Open House hosted on May 14th, 2015, Rogers received a total of 14 comments. (5) of the comments received during consultation were from properties within expanded circulations of up to 375m from the site. 13 comments received were in opposition of the site 1 comment received was in support of the site Please refer to the summary of the questions/comments raised at the meeting and the written comments received (copies submitted to the municipality, and Industry Canada) — attached for further reference. 10 0 ROGERS__ • ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# " /' n1 Oq-15 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS/RESPONSES AND ROGERS' CONCESSIONS: Question: • Siting and site selection Answer: Wireless network coverage is not an exact science able to be measured in concrete terms for an infinite period of time in a given geographical location. The ability to install wireless sites in the Engineering Group's preferred location at the preferred height level provides more assurance to longevity and reliability of the network coverage. Our sites are chosen based on numerous factors including consideration of the local topography, Rogers' existing infrastructure in the area and the relevant data on coverage deficiencies. Other important factors in our site evaluation process also include: • proximity to users (wireless technology is a proximity technology, therefore we need to be close to our users); • line of sight requirement (communication between our existing structures is essential); • availability of a willing host for our structure location. Rogers makes every effort in order to minimize the visual impact of our installations. The following are some of the considerations used by Rogers in development criteria of the proposal outlined in order to minimize the visual profile of the installation: • the proposed site location has been set back on the property in order to minimize its potential impacts on the community; • the location of the site on the subject property maximizes the existing commercial setting and foliage around the subject property and assists in mitigating potential visual impacts; • esthetically pleasing design, small footprint and low height in order to blend the installation into the surrounding land uses; Question: • Health Concerns Answer: At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Electromagnetic radiation is all around us. Much of the communication technology used today depends on radiofrequency transmission — cellular devices, wireless transmission towers/antennas, EMS/Fire/Police communication systems, broadcast TV and FM radio, etc. 11 0 ROGERS_. ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT.# t Qq-15 Furthermore, anything that uses electricity to operate, including everyday household electrical devices such as hair dryers, baby monitors, electrical ovens, microwaves, stereos, cordless phones, computers and Wi-Fi routers, emit EMFs of varying intensities. As reported by Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association (CWTA), studies have shown that wireless phone emissions represent less than 25% of the ambient RF emissions in an urban area. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid 1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific (peer-reviewed studies) link between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, a federal government agency, sets the safety limits for exposure to radio signals and Canadian carriers are required to adhere to these guidelines. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency(RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. These safety limits are defined within a standard known as "Safety-Code 6" and are based on current accepted scientific data. Health Canada works closely with the World Health organization in defining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research in order to ensure that Safety Code 6 guidelines continue to protect public health. According to Health Canada, to date there is no convincing scientific evidence to support any contention of adverse health effects that might be speculated to occur at levels below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 is based on an ongoing review of published scientific studies, including both internal and external authoritative reviews of the scientific literature spanning the last 40 years. These statements have been backed by other medical associations and journals to the point where even hospitals and apartment buildings allow cell phone structures on their buildings. The guidelines specified in Safety Code 6 have been adopted by Industry Canada and are included in their regulatory process for radio communication licensing and operational requirements. Industry Canada requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their radio communication and broadcasting installations comply with its regulatory limits at all times. Rogers attests that our radio antenna systems at all times comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. In addition, Safety Code 6 and the specified limits for public exposure apply to all sectors of the public and living organisms, such as animals, birds, and insects. Over and above this, Rogers' site will not only meet the specification, but in fact we are a mere 2.3% of the specifications, therefore the site exceeds the compliance requirements by a significant margin. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry; therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. II 12 0 ROGERS_ ATTACHMENT# -5 TO REPORT# 15 While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protect the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario—Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcchc-sc.qc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc- sc.qc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-enq.php. Question: • Consultation Answer: With regards to comments relevant to consultation, Rogers feels that the process undertaken is in compliance with City of Pickering Protocol requirements and Industry Canada Process and was conducted openly and fairly. Rogers has gone beyond the requirements of the City's Protocol to ensure that the details of the site have been communicated to the community. Rogers' site at 1822 Whites Rd. N., was located on a commercial plaza and a favourable alternative to the initial proposal on Amberlea Presbyterian Church, which took into consideration the comments received from the public on providing a buffer between residential uses and our site. At the time of construction, the City did not have a process in place pertaining to placement of wireless communication sites, therefore the consultation obligations fell under Industry Canada's Consultation requirements, Canada's Default Public Consultation Process (CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4). In accordance with Industry Canada's policy, the site at 1822 Whites Rd. N. fell within the exemption. Furthermore, Rogers' site at 1822 Whites Rd. did not encounter residential properties within three times the tower height to warrant a public consultation. The site was built.to specifications which contained a pole with a height of less than 15m, exempting the site from further consultation. Due to the above noted exemption criteria in accordance with the process in place at time of construction, no public or municipal consultation was undertaken and the site was constructed in July of 2014. On Sept. 2, 2014, City of Pickering adopted a protocol (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol)— File A-1110-004. In consideration of the community and at the City's request, Rogers conducted a public consultation on the constructed site at 1822 Whites Rd. N. in order to provide the community with the information on the site. The City of Pickering's Protocol requires for proponents to provide a notice to all property owners located within 150m of the site. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Rogers has agreed to an extended notification and as a courtesy provide an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 375 metres from the base of the structure, placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 3 signs on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. 13 II ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# f LN cq-15 Question: • Signage Answer: In reference to comments raised relevant to the signs erected on the property, it should be noted that there were 3 signs posted on the property at 1822 Whites Rd. The placement of the 3 signs on Apr. 15th was done in consultation with the City, therefore was conducted with open communication and consent on the locations from the City. Question: • Rogers' Corporate Responsibility Answer: In response to concerns from the public about how our decision to proceed with this site aligns with our Corporate Responsibility(CSR) Policy, it should be noted that as per our policy Rogers complies with all applicable laws and regulations wherever we operate, and we also abide by industry standards applicable to our products, services and operations. Furthermore, Rogers does not have any input into the review and adoption of the standards set out by the Government of Canada. 5. Conclusion Reliable wireless communication services are a key element of economic development across Canada. It facilitates the growth of local economies by providing easy access to information, and connectivity for residents and business alike. As identified in the.City of Pickering's Economic Strategic Plan, telecommunications is a powerful economic enabler that supports Pickering's goal to promote home occupations, teleworking, telecommuting and improved community networking and information dissemination. Like many areas of the province, Pickering is experiencing a growing demand for wireless services. As people rely more on wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for business and personal use, network improvements are required to ensure high quality voice and data services are available. In response to this growing demand for wireless services, Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers) has worked to find the most suitable location for a new telecommunications structure in efforts to provide improved coverage within the general area of surrounding Whites Rd. N. and Strouds Ln. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are also critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Wireless communications products and services, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters and other first responders, are an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. 14 0 ROGERS._ ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# N 09-45 Rogers has undertaken and now completed a comprehensive public consultation process as it pertains to the wireless communications site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. in fulfillment of all the requirements under City of Pickering Protocol and Industry Canada guidelines. While we appreciate there remains some concerns with the location due to public's health concerns, unfortunately due to a lack of alternative sites in the area, the only workable solution continues to be the current location at 1822 Whites Rd. N. In addition, Rogers assures and attests that our site will be fully compliant with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. Rogers has at all times been transparent and fully compliant with both municipal protocol and federal regulations pertaining to this proposal. Furthermore, Rogers has demonstrated our strict adherence obligations pertaining to health and have provided the parties that had submitted comments with numerous resources for the Federal and Provincial government bodies, as Rogers has no input into review or setting of standards and regulations. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at Y Y q p Tatyana.Moro a(�rci.rogers.com, or via phone at(647)747-2351. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist Rogers Communications Inc. Network Implementation • 15 0 ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT#_ 5 TO REPORT# ` PGM "15 APPENDIX 1 Public Consultation Comments & Responses 16 0 ROGERS_ ATTACHMENT# S TO I 1 REPORT# aN Oct-IS Tatyana Moro From: C� Sent: To: Thursday, April 16,2015 6:27 PM Cr Tatyana Moro;tbarnett @pickering.ca Subject: rogers tower This is a joke. The proposed site already has major construction just north and west of the TD bank. I was wondering what was being installed. You ask the resident's now? This is already going in without a doubt! How much do the Pickering residents have to have stuffed down their throat. A 49.2 meter tower, are you kidding me! Oh well the Rogers customers travelling through • Pickering will get great reception, what a crock. I don't see Bell putting these towers in residential area's?The city of Pickering has to grow a pair and say NO! The church site didn't go through because resident's said no, not because of the crap in Rogers package sent to me. All nice package sent $1.65 paid for postage!! Propaganda B.S. Will be a great view trying to relax in our yards, thanks a lot Rogers, I will be at the public meeting and will be heard. 663 Chiron cres. Pickering,Ont 1 1 1 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT # [-''O -15 hofoAr,fe A/A-1- Tatyana Moro From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday,April 17,2015 3:41 PM To: tbarnett @pickering.ca Subject: RE: rogers tower Good afternoon Thank you for your comments submitted pertaining to Rogers site in the City of Pickering- Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your comments. Your comments will be report to Council and Industry Canada. We can further discuss your comments at the Open House on May 14th• in the Best regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 001 Tat yana.MoroCa�rci rogers con 0 647-747-2351 ROGERS From: Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:27 PM To: Tatyana Moro; tbarnett Ca�pick� ej ca Cc: Subject: rogers tower This is a joke. The proposed site already has major construction just north and west of the TD bank. I was wondering what was being installed. You ask the resident's now? This is already going in without a doubt! How much do the Pickering residents have to have stuffed down their throat. A 49.2. meter tower, are you kidding me! Oh well the Rogers customers travelling through Pickering will get great reception, what a crock. I don't see Bell putting these towers in residential area's?The city of Pickering has to grow a pair and say NO! The church site didn't go through because resident's said no, not because of the crap in Rogers package sent to me. All nice package sent 1 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# oq—45 $1.65 paid for postage!! Propaganda B.S. Will be a great view trying to relax in our yards,thanks a lot Rogers, I will be at the public meeting and will be heard. 663 Chiron cres. Pickering,Ont 2 f - - ATTACHMENT#5 TO REPORT# Tatyana Moro From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 3:36 PM ( To: Cc: tbarnett @pickering.ca Subject: RE: Rogers site - c3751 Comments due May 15,2015 Good afternoon Thank you for your comments submitted pertaining to Rogers site in the City of Pickering-Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your comments. Your comments will be included in the report to Council and Industry Canada. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.MoroCc�rci.rocers.co m 0 647-747-2351 RERS- From: Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 10:03 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Rogers site - c3751 Comments due May 15, 2015 RE: C3751 - 1822 Whites Rd. N. Pickering Public consultation of this site: I work from home regularly. It is not possible in this dead zone inside the GTA to do my job properly. 4G doesn't allow my mobile applications testing to work well enough for Mobile Payment properly. yment applications to work If LTE is provided in the Pickering, many people in Pickering will be able to telecommute, socialize and make Pickering a better place to live. This is a necessity! 1 ` - P ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# N —�S Tatyana Moro From: Sent: Friday,April 24, 2015 10:03 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Rogers site- c3751 Comments due May 15, 2015 RE: C3751 - 1822 Whites Rd. N. Pickering Public consultation of this site: I work from home regularly. It is not possible in this dead zone inside the GTA to do my job properly. 4G doesn't allow my mobile applications testing to work well enough for Mobile Payment applications to work properly. If LTE is provided in the Pickering,many people in Pickering will be able to telecommute, socialize and make Pickering a better place to live. This is a necessity! Y Regards, 1 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# Tatyana Moro From: ( rtt/71 / J Sent: Wednesday,April 29, 2015 5:36 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Whites Road Cell tower I notice this write-up hidden in the bushes behind the 1 A mberlea Shopping Plaza on Amberlea Road. This should be a posting at each entrance to the Plaza! You should be aware of the dangers of connecting this Cell Tower to some of us. I have some very good evidence of research done on Cell towers and it is totally irresponsible for you to put it in a place just that particular Plaza is exempt from the `rules'. I am "Electrically Sensitive"(I can prove this with a doctor's certificate) Of course you probably want to hide this i s should post it at each entrance. If I don't see it I will bring it up l at the meeting-in fairness to the people you attention of the Mayor of Pickering who should be made aware of this dangerous placement of a 1CelltTowe to have in my possession research of the dangers of living this close to a Cell Tower which I can present at the e' I p meeting. 621 Ariel Crescent, Pickering. 1 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# Tatyana Moro CO� '� (2 From: Barnett, Tyler <tbarnett @pickering.ca> Sent: Friday, May 01,2015 2:47 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: FW:Whites road Cell Tower Attachments: Cell Tower Risks.rtf;ATT00001.txt;ATT00002.htm From: Sent: April-29-15 11:45 AM To: Barnett, Tyler Subject: Whites road Cell Tower 1 ATTACHMENT#=._TQ . REPORT# ��N �q—L5 ^ H � 4 sib ying being 14 ,, - - 1., - ' i 4 1. 1 _y „,,,,f-, ,----6-,4.,k,-, ___-+.t.--15,_, .. - - -,* " .8-3 iS' ova”�---,,1-44,1--:"4`-�Y lw - .� 6 .3O8:3Op.rn. S •_+ ,nif-arc. :,. .- „ , A _� �. 1 # for submi :-.4t-----;t-:-t,' 4._.f.'4-1,--4,-,,i4.2:-:--Y-s:1:;-, ----,----''''','„-":-'-`:::=7_1-:- - - For fur-tile,i r 11 a (647)y Tatyana f�, 7' `. '. :te v Z^ s { , 24 r _ t i , Torl &:,..;:__:,...,,,_.: :::::_-_!_-_,_..... _ .__ __ „_.;_,___,_ 1- '''''0 ' ''--L'. '-'' ,, a ,....",_ ..,--1 e _ Federal. ELegislt0fl.- :77 =- --_--_"--- ,- - , -,_,. 1._.,_-., - - .._,- -—,AL tadmill_w_,--- - _ i FA- re--. , ::-, --': ---'---- -.-_-_---_ • 1-_---,:_-,._ -,: ..--1--:ti:4-7-: - ' as wit.,.v- ,/ 'p[ nrnIn ' `_ Thetiory, w-7-:, Ilidi „,.._. : __...: _--2__-_-......_ -:-., : ._-"---,.. i,..:„",„-_,.-;,,..:-. _ 7,.,,,,, .....,,.. 1' .---".- '''' , ii 1 IAA 4AVCC. ,...1 „...,,, : ..:: :. •, , .: ,,,, .5 _ r _s '...l?- �' 1�. '_ -�• o rill P ATTACHMENT# 5 • REPORT g Ocl T05 Dear Mr Barnett,I am simply terrified at the fact Rogers is•going to be putting that Cell Tower within less than half a kilometre of m1 home.I am an Electrically sensitive person and already suffer every day from this distressing painful malady.I want you to read the two studies I am sending you.How can the responsible people in Pickering allow this dangerous Monster tower to be placed among us-a residential area?My home address is 621 Ariel Crescent.I can show you my Toronto General Hospital letter pertaining to the fact that I also have what has become an"incurable"lung illness that is hampered by the fact I can no longer have CT Scans because of my radiation sensitivity.You are,taking a huge risk by allowing this Cell Tower in our neighbourhood to expose both young and old to these harmful fields.I am a sick person-and you are welcome to come to my home one evening where I can prove to you how much I am affected by what is already passing through our home from my neighbours Wi-Fi 's which penetrate our walls.You will not find anything wireless.I have a T.V-which I sit 14 feet away from-and my computer is a Mac Mini and my Keyboard is 40 inches away from the screen-I can only spend short periods on it. I trust you will send me an answer to this email. • 3 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# " PL N oq-15 t -0 _ .$•r. Rogers Site-C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N., Pickering, ON Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Name: - • Address: [ ` (� ,� u/ P_&(' O1 r Telephone: E-mail: Comments To be considered part of this consultation, comments must be received by close of business day on May 15, 2015. Please forward your comments to: • Rogers Communications Inc. c/o Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist 8200 Dixie Rd., Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Fax: 647-747-4600 Phone: 647-747-2351 E-mail:Tatyana.vioro(dirci.rogers.corn I. c20ce- Z c3, 1`F--ems -- A 1� Cam • or ifs -e- 16 6' La/ •• �� -i��j �.� c Ov k , /9 o • Continue on reverse if required... a 04 1 6t1/14.e.- 671/1/,1 7,4-e n orma ion receive. s a orm pa o n.us ry ana.a s u.lc •nsu a ion -rocess un•er a pec rum Management and Telecommunications Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03, Issue 5, and will be collected in compliance with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The information collected will be used solely for the purpose of documenting Rogers' consultation, communicating the results of this consultation, including your comments, to the City of Pickering and/or Industry Canada and communicating with you concerning this site,_should that be required.* 13 OROGERSIM _ i ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# ' 09-15 Tatyana Moro From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 3:10 PM To: Cc: tbarnett@pickering.ca Subject: Rogers site at 1822 Whites Rd. - Site C3751 Attachments: Safety Code 6 Resources -April 2015.pdf Good day Thank you for your comments submitted by mail pertaining to Rogers site in the City of Pickering- Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your comments. Your comments will be included in the report to Council and Industry Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to also attach for your reference a package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and carriers' strict adherence requirements. I would like to note that items in your correspondence are points of opinion and statements which do not specifically pertain to our proposal;therefore Rogers will not be providing responses. Thank you once again for taking the time to submit your comments. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro(arci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 ROG E RS. • { 1 _ ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# 24N% CPI-CD 04- 411/ May 8, 2015 • • • 638 Strouds Lane Pickering ON L1V 4T3 Tyler Barnett, Senior Planner City of Pickering Dear Mr. Barnett Re: Erection of a Ro:ers Cell Tower on Strouds Lane b the Metro Store My husband and I are strongly g Y o pposed to putting a cell phone tower on Strouds Lane by the Metro Store. Cell phone towers emit microwave radiation or electromagnetic fields which known to be harmful. Studies are being done worldwide to determine how are microwave radio signals damage immune systems, brain function much and the relationship to disease. The closer you live . cell structure risk for potential disease and other health issues, to a cell tower the higher the • Studies done on rats have shown that microwave radio waves d depression by damaging the cerebral cortex. o cause A German study conducted over ten years has shown there is a higher malignant tumors for people who live within 1312.34 feet of cell phone rate e The findings show that after five years the incidents increased phone towers. the people in the study were getting cancer at a younger age by three e era and g g than the general - ATTACHMENT TO REPORT# 1-t 09-15 population. Studies have also shown a significant increase in cases of childhood and adult leukemia cases ranging from 2.2 to 9 times higher rates for those living near transmission towers. Some of the most powerful cell tower installations are on mountains and as hilltops outside of urban areas. These EM fields have impacted ahumans,ls living around high as the ecological balance. Stuiha hazards opl wing up-close to a powerful voltage wires point to extreme electromagnetic field (EMP) — exhibiting everything from stress and sleep disorders to birth defects, cancer and Alzheimer's. Wear are now exposed to 100 million times more Electromagnetic Radiation than our grandparents were, and cell towers are making tthen you're o re in an area exponentially. If you can make a call on your L p hone that's saturated with cell site microwave radiation:- Cell towers (or cell sites) that hold antennas and other o high frequency radio equipment flood the area for miles around with ll as Wi-Fi, WiMax, Wireless LANS, waves to support the use of cellpho , Bluetooth supported devices and more. Decades of studies have demonstrated that artificial frequencies higher than 10 hertz can create stress and serious health problems. The proposed site of this tower is in a highly populated residential area and we have four schools in the neighborhood so children of all ages will be v p n ti o by where this tower is proposed to be installed as well as living in We have lived on Strouds Lane for over 31 years and have seen many homes added to our neighborhood and many families joining the community. ATTACHMENT I 5 TO REPORT# Installatiogof this tower at the proposed site on Strouds Lane would pose an extremely serious health risk to the community and would be totally irresponsible of the Planning Department to allow it. Yours truly • • ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# .M cc1—I r___ Tatyana-Moro From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Tuesday. May 12. 2015 3:20 PM To: Cc: 'Barnett, Tyler' Subject: RE: Cell Tower Attachments: Response Lettter- , May 12, 2015.pdf;C3751 Public Consultation Package.pdf; Safety Code 6 Resources -April 2015.pdf Good afternoon;. Thank you for your comments submitted to the City of Pickering on May 10th pertaining to Rogers' site located at 1822 Whites Rd.N. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments received. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza—Site C3751. • Please also see attached an official response to your correspondence. Thank you. • Best regards, Regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro(arci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 0 ROG E RS' From: Barnett, Tyler [mailto:tbarnett@pickering.ca] • Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 2:38 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: FW: Cell Tower I want to confirm that your comments have been received and will be noted in our Report to City Council. At this time we do not have a definitive date for that Council meeting, however by submitting your comments with your contact details we will send written notification to you of the date that City Council will consider this proposal. • • 1 ATTACHMENT -5 TO REPORT# . Ortz-L,5_ 31 I have copied Tatyana Moro of Rogers Communications on this response as the public consultation process requires the proponent to respond to concerns\questions raised by the public. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning I City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 I 1.866.683.2760 I TTY 905.420.1739 tbarnett@pickering.ca CA,4 Your City,Right Now.pickering.ca (6 • trt f b k CitApp v eNews twitter ace oo From: Sent: May-10-15 2:21 PM To: Barnett,Tyler Subject: Cell Tower 2 A i TAChmENT#� �5 TO REPORT f�" 'f . QP fr-3 RC) E R Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Rd. Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 May 12, 2015 638 Strouds Lane Pickering, ON L1V 4T3 Dear Mr. &Mrs. Burke, Re: Rogers wireless communications site Site: C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N., Pickering, ON Thank you for contacting Rogers regarding the wireless communications site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments received and provide a response. A copy of your comments and this response letter will be made part of a report issued to the Town of Aurora and Industry Canada. Access to reliable wireless communication services is of great importance to residents' and travelers' safety and well-being in today's society. Wireless technology has fast become the preferred method of conducting business and personal communication among a large part of the population. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Wireless communications products and services, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters and other first responders, are an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and.Health Canada. The following provides some background information and legitimate sources of scientific evidence as it relates to the issue of health and the effects of radio signals associated with wireless communication installations. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link(peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency(RF)electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy biological on biolo ' gy cal organisms. 1 ATTACHMENT 5 TO . REPORT# Oq—I OROGERSTM Furthermore, information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Safety Code 6 (SC6) has been the subject of several independent reviews, including a study by the Royal Society of Canada in 1999 which was updated in 2003, again in 2009 and 2014. The Royal Society of Canada is an independent national body composed of scholars and scientists selected by their peers for outstanding contributions to the sciences. None of these studies took issue with Safety Code 6's standards.The Medical Officers of Health for York Region, Hamilton and Vancouver and other regions also do not take issue with Safety Code 6. A number of independent expert groups have conducted detailed reviews of the potential health risks associated with RF field exposure. These groups also include expert panels convened by the World Health Organization,the American Cancer Society and the British Medical Association. All of the credible scientific reviews completed conclude that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with low-level RF fields, like those from cell sites. There are some important points on the energy level of radiofrequency(RF)waves, such as the ones emitted by wireless antenna systems. The level of the waves is relatively low, especially when compared with other types of radiation,-such as-gamma rays, x-rays,-and-ultraviolet(UV) light. The energy of RF waves given off by cell phone sites is not enough to break chemical bonds in DNA molecules. A second issue has to do with wavelength. RF waves have long wavelengths,which can only be concentrated to about an inch or two in size. This makes it unlikely that the energy from RF waves could be concentrated enough to affect individual cells in the body. Third, the level of RF waves present at ground level is very low,well below the recommended limits. Levels of energy from RF waves near cell phone sites are not significantly different than the background levels of RF in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations. Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government's regulatory bodies on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, however in our view, such standards are designed to protect the Canadian public through extensive reviews of international studies and recommendations. Industry Canada requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with the Safety Code 6 at all times. As stated previously,Rogers attests that our radio antenna systems at all times comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. Furthermore,we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit.As you can see, the site not just meets, but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Questions pertaining to this subject can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc(a�hc-sc.gc.ca or 613-954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at htto://www.hc-sc.oc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-enq.php. 2 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# LN Ocj . S 0 ROG E RS Rogers takes concerns or suggestions expressed by the public and the land-use authority as important elements to our site selection. The concessions made by Rogers on our site location at the Amberlea Plaza maximizes the distance to the community, provide an appropriate design in consideration of the area context and afford an opportunity for improved wireless services. Your property is located approximately 300m away from the site; therefore it fell outside of the extended circulation requirements.I wanted to forward you a copy of the package that was circulated to the community. The package will provide you with some additional information as it pertains to our compliance obligations for consultation, siting and original site assessment criteria, as well as information relevant to health concerns raised in your correspondence and our strict adherence requirements. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I hope that the information provided on our requirements and our compliance obligations will help you to better understand our position and addresses your concerns raised. Again, thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Yours truly, Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist Rogers Communications Inc. Network Implementation 3 -. ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REMIT# t —15 co Tatyan Moro From: Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:58 PM To: tbarnett @pickering.ca;Tatyana Moro Cc: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Public Comment re:Whites Road Cell tower Attachments: 10 out of 14 peer-reviewed studies on base stations.pdf; Brazil_New_study_direct_lin k_to_4924_cancer deaths_from_cellular antennas_radiation_ 28_07_2011.pdf Public Comment about the Whites Road.Communications tower to: The City of Pickering and Rogers Communications I have been contacted by a citizen living near the proposed communications mast who suffers serious biological effects from wireless radiation. I have the following questions about how you will help and compensate this person, if radiation from the new mast causes her(and others living and working in the area)further health problems. 1. What insurance does the City and Rogers have in place to compensate victims of wireless radiation? 2. Would the mast be removed if serious harm to this person and others was identified? and would this be done quickly? 3. Do Rogers and the City of Pickering realize that the radiation from the mast has been classed as a '2b Possible Carcinogen' by the World Health Organization? 4. Does the City of Pickering think that it is a good idea to allow Rogers to subject their citizens to a'possible carcinogen' 24 hours a day? 5. Are Rogers and the City of Pickering aware of the ten peer reviewed base station studies, and the Brazil study that I have attached, which show very significant biological effects caused by radiation from the towers, including cancers and increased deaths? Recently, several scientific and medical groups that have raised very serious concerns about the great dangers that wireless radiation poses, they include: An appeal to the United Nations by nearly two hundred scientists-http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/phone-radiation-scientists- appeal-un-protect-against-danger-wireless-devices-video-1500842 Expets ask the Canadian Government to use caution-http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and- fitness/health/experts-u rqe-cautious-use-of-wireless-devices-as-health-effects-reassessed/article24374381/ The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi -http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/7mayl5_scientists-decry-canadas- outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution-htto://ehtrust.orq/california-medical-association-wireless- resolution/ The Biolnitiative Report provides scientific information and links between several illnesses and wireless radiation www.bioinitiative.orq 1 To REPORT# / .• Cpl Why does the City of Pickering feel that it is worth risking the health and welfare of its citizens with another communications mast located close to shops and houses? • . Sincerely • • • 125 Vanevery Way Strafford Ontario N5A 8C1 Co Director WEEP www.weepinitiative.orq • • • • • • • • 2 • ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# Tatyana Moro , From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 3:23 PM To: tbarnett @pickering.ca Cc: jennifer @jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: RE: Public Comment re:Whites Road Cell tower Attachments: Safety Code 6 Resources -April 2015.pdf Good day Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd.N.— Site C3751, as well as additional resources pertaining to health. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments and provide a response.This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza—Site C3751. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd.N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can See, the site not just meets;but exceeds the applicable SafetyCOde 6 ideline value by a signif cant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link(peer-reviewed studies)between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency(RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study;rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthenuore, information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc @hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. 1 ATTACHMENT# TO • REPORT# 1 J' -tom Oq—I I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I would like to note that items in your correspondence are points of opinion and statements which refer to health standards, which are the obligation of Government of Canada and not Rogers; therefore Rogers will not be providing further response on this particular subject. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro @rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 RUG E RS` From: Sent:_Thursday, May 14,2015 11:58 PM To: tbarnett @pickering..ca;Tatyana Moro . Cc:jennifer @jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Public Comment about the Whites Road Communications tower to: The City of Pickering and Rogers Communications I have been contacted by a citizen living near the proposed communications mast who suffers serious biological effects from wireless radiation. I have the following questions about how you will help and compensate this person, if radiation from the new mast causes her(and others living and working in the area)further health problems. 1. What insurance does the City and Rogers have in place to compensate victims of wireless radiation? 2. Would the mast be removed if serious harm to this person and others was identified? and would this be done quickly? 3. Do Rogers and the City of Pickering realize that the radiation from the mast has been classed as a'2b Possible Carcinogen' by the World Health Organization? 4. Does the City of Pickering think that it is a good idea to allow Rogers to subject their citizens to a'possible carcinogen' 24 hours a day? 5. Are Rogers and the City of Pickering aware of the ten peer reviewed base station studies, and the Brazil study that I have attached,which show very significant biological effects caused by radiation from the towers, including cancers and increased deaths? Recently, several scientific and medical groups that have raised very serious concerns about the great dangers that wireless radiation poses, they include: 2 ATTACHMENT '. TO REPORT# PIA 09-5 An appeal to the United Nations by nearly two hundred scientists-http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/phone-radiation-scientists- appeal-un-protect-aqainst-danger-wireless-devices-video-1500842 Expets ask the Canadian Government to use caution -http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and- fitness/health/experts-urge-cautious-use-of-wireless-devices-as-health-effects-reassessed/article24374381/ The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi -http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/7may15_scientists-decry-canadas- outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution -http://ehtrust.orq/california-medical-association-wireless- resolution/ The Biolnitiative Report provides scientific information and links between several illnesses and wireless radiation www.bioinitiative.orq Why does the City of Pickering feel that it is worth risking the health and welfare of its citizens with another communications mast located close to shops and houses? Sincerely 125 Vanevery Way Stratford Ontario N5A 8C1 Co Director WEEP www.weepinitiative.orq • 3 • • • ATTACHMENT#. _TO REPORT# al:LOwl-15 Tatyana Moro 6 2 From: Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:01 AM To: tbarnett @pickering.ca;Tatyana Moro Cc: jennifer @jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Re: Public Comment re:Whites Road Cell tower Dear It appears that Rogers is willing to completely ignore the peer reviewed base station scientific reports that I submitted, which show very serious health threats, cancer and early deaths. This means that the statement `At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously'appears to be not true. Lets try another test of your concern for safety. Does Rogers understand that the frequencies that they use for cell phones, cell masts and WiFi communications are classed as microwave radiation? Prior to 1972 Lt.Zory Glaser US Navy http://www.zoryglaser.com/had collected more than two thousand scientific studies which showed the microwave radiation caused significant biological effects. That document can be accessed here- http://www.magdahavas.com/pick-of-the-week-l-more-than-2000-documents-prior-to-1972-on-bioeffects-of-radio- frequency-radiation/. Since 1972 there have been many more scientific studies which have shown serious biological effects caused by exposure to microwave radiation. Are you aware of all these studies? Are you not concerned that people including your own families,friends, neighbours, customers animals and the environment are being hurt by wireless radiation? How can the City of Pickering or any other municipality in Canada take you seriously when you appear to be ignoring all the dangers and the harm that you may be doing throughout Canada? Health Canada has been very wrong on previous health issues including tobacco, asbestos, thalidomide etc. You cannot continue to hide behind a few stupid or possibly corrupt civil servants. You have a corporate responsibility to ensure your wireless emissions are safe for Canadians. You should be considering your liability, as the truth and the dangers of wireless radiation are now being understood by Canadians? Sincerely Original Message From:Tatyana Moro To: tbarnett a(�pickerinq.ca Cc: jenniferna,jenniferoconnell.ca Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 3:23 PM Subject: RE: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Good day Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd.N. —Site C3751, as well as additional resources pertaining to health. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments and provide a response. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza—Site C3751. 1 ATTACHMENT .,- REPORT# Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously.No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd.N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore,we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact,the t calculations will be a mere 2 3%of the allowable SC6 limit. Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd.N As you can see,the site not just meets,but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-1980's and so far there has not of been any direct scientific link(peer-reviewed studies)between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations.Health Canada,in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency(RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study;rather,they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario— Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc@,hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I would like to note that items in your correspondence are points of opinion and statements which refer to health standards, which are the obligation of Government of Canada and not Rogers; therefore Rogers will not be providing further response on this particular subject. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro @rci.rogers.com 2 ATTACHiviENT REPORT# N.�i—I 0 647-747-2351 ROG ERS- From: Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:58 PM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca; Tatyana Moro Cc:jennifer @jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Public Comment about the Whites Road Communications tower to: The City of Pickering and Rogers Communications I have been contacted by a citizen living near the proposed communications mast who suffers serious biological effects from wireless radiation. I have the following questions about how you will help and compensate this person, if radiation from the new mast causes her(and others living and working in the area)further health problems. 1. What insurance does the City and Rogers have in place to compensate victims of wireless radiation? 2. Would the mast be removed if serious harm to this person and others was identified? and would this be done quickly? 3. Do Rogers and the City of Pickering realize that the radiation from the mast has been classed as a '2b Possible Carcinogen'by the World Health Organization? 4. Does the City of Pickering think that it is a good idea to allow Rogers to subject their citizens to a 'possible carcinogen'24 hours a day? 5. Are Rogers and the City of Pickering aware of the ten peer reviewed base station studies, and the Brazil study that I have attached, which show very significant biological effects caused by radiation from the towers, including cancers and increased deaths? Recently, several scientific and medical groups that have raised very serious concerns about the great dangers that wireless radiation poses, they include: An appeal to the United Nations by nearly two hundred scientists-http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/phone-radiation-scientists- appeal-un-protect-against-danger-wireless-devices-video-1500842 Expets ask the Canadian Government to use caution- htt p://www.thealobeandmai? fitness/health/experts-urge-cautious-use-of-wireless-devices-as-health-effects-reassessed/art cae24374381/ The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safet y guidelines for cell phones and Wifi -http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/7may15 scientists-decry-canadas- outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution -http://ehtrust.orq/california-medical-association-wireless= resolution/ The Biolnitiative Report provides scientific information and links between several illnesses and wireless radiation www.bioinitiative.orq Why does the City of Pickering feel that it is worth risking the health and welfare of its citizens with another . communications mast located close to shops and houses? 3 ATTACAMENTi TO REPORT# PL-1 09-15 Sincerely 125 Vanevery Way Stratford Ontario N5A 8C1 Co Director WEEP www.weepinitiative.orq This communication is confidential.We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.rogers.com/web/content/emailnotice Ce message est confidentiel.Notre transmission et reception de courriels se fait strictement suivant les modalites enoncees dans l'avis publie a www.rogers.com/aviscourriel II 4 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT# LN 0-1 Tatyana Moro 1--60/oA/S-e 1G 2 From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 4:32 PM To: tbarnett @pickering.ca Cc: jennifer @jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: RE: Public Comment re:Whites Road Cell tower Good day Thank you for your e-mail and additional comments received on May 15th. As stated in previous correspondence, Rogers does not undertake new site development lightly. We are obligated to ensure that all of our installations are in compliance with Health Canada safety standards and Industry Canada requirements. In response to your concerns about how our decision to proceed with this site aligns with our Corporate Responsibility (CSR) Policy, it should be noted that as per our policy Rogers complies with all applicable laws and regulations wherever we operate, and we also abide by industry standards applicable to our products, services and operations. Rogers does not have any input into the standards set out by the Government of Canada.As mentioned in previous correspondence, questions and concerns on the subject of regulations and standards relevant to safery can be directed to the Province of Ontario offices. In past correspondence with you, I provided you with Internet links to legitimate sources of information about the issue of health and RF signals, and demonstrated our compliance with these obligations. Your correspondence will be included in the report to Council, as part of the consultation requirement of the City of Pickering as well as Industry Canada. Thank you again for taking the time to provide your comments. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro • Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro @rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 1 ATTACHMENT# 5 _70 REPORT# j-tt Oc1-/S 0ROGERS` From: Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:01 AM To: tbarnett@pickering.ca; Tatyana Moro Cc:jennifer @jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Re: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Dear Ms Moro It appears that Rogers is willing to completely ignore the peer reviewed base station scientific reports that I submitted, which show very serious health threats, cancer and early deaths. This means that the statement 'At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously'appears to be not true. Lets try another test of your concern for safety. Does Rogers understand that the frequencies that they use for cell phones, cell masts and WiFi communications are classed as microwave radiation? Prior to 1972 Lt.Zory Glaser US Navy http://www.zorvglaser.com/had collected more than two thousand scientific studies which showed the microwave radiation caused significant biological effects. That document can be accessed here- http://www.maodahavas.com/pick-of-the-week-1-more-than-2000-documents-prior-to-1972-on-bioeffects-of-radio- fre iuencv-radiation/. Since 1972 there have been many more scientific studies which have shown serious biological effects caused by exposure to microwave radiation. Are you aware of all these studies? Are you not concerned that people including your own families,friends, neighbours, customers animals ar the environment are being-burl by wireless radiation? How can the City of Pickering or any other municipality in Canada take you seriously when you appear to be ignoring all the dangers and the harm that you may be doing throughout Canada? Health Canada has been very wrong on previous health issues including tobacco, asbestos,thalidomide etc. You cannot continue to hide behind a few stupid or possibly corrupt civil servants. You have a corporate responsibility to ensure your wireless emissions are safe for Canadians. You should be considering your liability, as the truth and the dangers of wireless radiation are now being understood by Canadians? Sincerely Original Message From Tatvana Morow, To: tbarnett at7pickerinq.ca - • Cc: ienniferOjenniferoconnell.ca Sent: Friday, May 15, 2015 3:23 PM Subject: RE: Public Comment re:Whites Road Cell tower Good day Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd.N.—Site C3751, as well as additional resources pertaining to health. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments and provide a response.This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd.N. on the Amberlea Plaza—Site C3751. 2 ATTACHiviEIJT 5 TO REPORT# 09-15 Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd.N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore, we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact,the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd.N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see,the site not just meets,but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link(peer-reviewed studies)between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency(RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study;rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furtheimore, information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario — Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc(c-b,hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. • I would like to note that items in your correspondence are points of opinion and statements which refer to health standards, which are the obligation of Government of Canada and not Rogers; therefore Rogers will not be providing further response on this particular subject. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. Regards, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro(�rci.rogers.com • o 647-747-2351 3 ATTACHMENT REPORT# PLA 09-15 -- 0ROGERS' . From: Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2015 11:58 PM To: tbarnettPpickering.ca;Tatyana Moro Cc:jennifer©jenniferoconnell.ca Subject: Public Comment re: Whites Road Cell tower Public Comment about the Whites Road Communications tower to: The City of Pickering and Rogers Communications I have been contacted by a citizen living near the proposed communications mast who suffers serious biological effects from wireless radiation. I have the following questions about how you will help and compensate this person, if radiation from the new mast causes her(and others living and working in the area)further health problems. 1. What insurance does the City and Rogers have in place to compensate victims of wireless radiation? 2. Would the mast be removed if serious harm to this person and others was identified? and would this be done quickly? 3. Do Rogers and the City of Pickering realize that the radiation from the mast has been classed as a'2b Possible Carcinogen' by the World Health Organization? 4. Does the City of Pickering think that it is a good idea to allow Rogers to subject their citizens to a'possible carcinogen'24 hours a day? 5. Are Rogers and the City of Pickering aware of the ten peer reviewed base station studies, and the Brazil study that I have attached,which show very significant biological effects caused by radiation from the towers, including cancers and increased deaths? Recently, several scientific and medical groups that have raised very serious concerns about the great dangers that wireless radiation poses,they include: An appeal to the United Nations by nearly two hundred scientists-http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/phone-radiation-scientists- appeal-un-protect-against-danger-wireless-devices-video-1500842 Expets ask the Canadian Government to use caution-http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and- fitness/health/experts-urge-cautious-use-of-wireless-devices-as-health-effects-reassessed/article24374381/ The Canadian Medical Association Journal today published a scathing condemnation of Health Canada's safety guidelines for cell phones and Wifi-http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/7mayl5 scientists-decry-canadas- outdated-wi-fi-safety-rules.xhtml The California Medical Association Wireless Resolution-http://ehtrust.orq/california-medical-association-wireless- resolution/ The Biolnitiative Report provides scientific information and links between several illnesses and wireless radiation www.bioinitiative.orq Why does the City of Pickering feel that it is worth risking the health and welfare of its citizens with another communications mast located close to shops and houses? Sincerely 4 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# :PLA 01-15 125 Vanevery Way Stratford Ontario N5A 8C1 Co Director WEEP www.weepinitiative.orq This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.rogers.com/web/content/emailnotice Ce message est confidentiel.Notre transmission et reception de courriels se fait strictement suivant les modalites enoncees dans l'avis publie a www.rogers.com/aviscourriel • 5 ATTACHMENT# 5 REPORT# TO Tatyana Moro ��22�.r✓P � From: Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 12:07 AM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Cell Tower- Rogers Site- C3751- 1822 Whites Road N. Pickering I am totally AGAINST the installation of this Cell Tower in this location for the following reasons: My home is less than 200 meters from the site.This is a RESIDENTIAL AREA. Radio frequency fields are possibly CARCINOGENIC as per World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. Electro sensitivity and a host of other illnesses have been associated with these electromagnetic fields. Precautionary principles should be used in deciding on location of these towers. Long term health of people needs to be the main priority in determining location. 690 Chiron Crescent Pickering 1 ATTACHMENT , t REPORT # Y Oo1—l� co -tAx2 17- Tatyana Moro From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 2:07 PM To: Cc: tbarnett @pickering.ca Subject: RE:Cell Tower- Rogers Site- C3751- 1822 Whites Road N. Pickering Attachments: Safety Code 6 Resources -April 2015.pdf Good day Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments pertaining to Rogers'site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd. N.—Site C3751. Rogers would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge your comments and provide a response.This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza—Site C3751. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility,we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N.will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore,we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact,the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N.will be a mere 2.3%of the allowable SC6 limit.As you can see,the site not just meets, but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians,is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF)electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather,they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry,therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations,including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions.While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view,such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario—Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc @hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh- semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. Thank you for taking the time to submit your comments. 1 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT # '}3[t�1C�—I�j Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro @rci.rogers.com 0 647-747-2351 Original Message From: Sent: Saturday, May 16,2015 12:07 AM To:Tatyana Moro Subject:Cell Tower-Rogers Site-C3751-1822 Whites Road N. Pickering I am totally AGAINST the installation of this Cell Tower in this location for the following reasons: My home is less than 200 meters from the site.This is a RESIDENTIAL AREA. Radio frequency fields are possibly CARCINOGENIC as per World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer. Electro sensitivity and a host of other illnesses have been associated with these electromagnetic fields. Precautionary principles should be used in deciding on location of these towers. Long term health of people needs to be the main priority in determining location. 690 Chiron Crescent Pickering 2 ATTACHMENT# S TO REPORT# 9 I Tatyana Moro /7/717-e/ From: Barnett, Tyler <tbarnett @pickering.ca> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:07 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you calling in regarding the proposed cell tower at 1822 Whites Road. I have copied Tatyana Moro on this email so that she may provide you with information regulations pertaining to cell towers and to answer any ormation regarding the y questions you may have. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner- Site Planning I City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 J 1.866.683.2760 TTY.905.420.1739 tbarnett @pickering ca fay Your City,Right Now.picke_�a - Cis App eNews twitter al fac ebook This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy is legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby Y that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard Y noakin of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly and copy, taking intended recipient and have received this message in error, please otifybthedsenderby are the and delete or destroy all copies of this message. Y return e-mail • ATTACHMENT# REPORT# P° TO Tatyana Moro /o7 aN.r f From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:42 PM To: Cr 'Barnett, Tyler' Subject: RE:Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Attachments: Safety Code 6 Resources -April 2015.pdf Good day • This e-mail is in response to Mr. Barnett's correspondence pertaining to Rogers'site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd. N.—Site C3751. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N.on the Amberlea Plaza—Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with some information pertaining to safety of wireless sites, as well as regulatory requirements.At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility,we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N.will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore,we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact,the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd. N.will be a mere 2.3%of the allowable SC6 limit.As you can see,the site not just meets, but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link (peer-reviewed studies) between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather,they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry,therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However, part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions.While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development, review and validation of the standards they establish, in our view,such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario—Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc @hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699. Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh- semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them, as well as some useful links on the subject. Sincerely, 1 ATTACHMENT J- TO REPORT Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro @rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 ROGERS From: Barnett, Tyler[mailto:tbarnett@pickering.ca] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:07 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you calling in regarding the proposed cell tower at 1822 Whites Road. I have copied Tatyana Moro on this email so that she may provide you with information regarding the p Y health regulations pertaining to cell towers and to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning I City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 1 1.866.683.2760 I TTY 905.420.1739 tbarnett((pickering.ca Your City,Right Now. pickerine.ca a �I r� CitvApp eNews twitter facebook This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 2 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# LtJ p9—)5 Tatyana Moro � � jig (2. From: Sent: Tuesday, May 26,2015 1:57 PM To: Tatyana Moro Subject: Re:Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you for the email. I am not interested in hearing from Rogers.Obviously this is a financial move for them and therefore all the information Tatyana provided is biased. She doesn't live in the community. Not to be rude,but I really don't care what she has to say. I do not want a cell tower in operation at 1822 Whites Road. It frustrates me to hear that it is already built,and it will be in use pending city approval.I am frustrated that Roger's built it without consent from the community. Rogers posted a sign'notifying'the community about this tower(after it was already built!!) The sign was conveniently(and on purpose I'm sure)put at the BACK of the grocery store and tucked right beside a large bush. Not too many people are going to see it back there. Obviously Rogers wants to be able to say they are being open with this process and are'welcoming community input',but let's be serious. Its a facade. A few years ago the same tower was proposed to be built across the street. There was a lot of community input at the time and as a result, THE TOWER WAS NOT BUILT. So why is it being built now???99921?11111!I I?1 Here is the link to the community feedback from a few years ago. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/05/17/pickering church accused of ceiling out.html Obviously there are many in the community who do not want a cell tower built in this location. It is disgusting to me that Rogers would build one anyway a few years later. THEY KNOW THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT IT BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY TURNED DOWN/1/?? So this time they decide to build the cell tower anyway??? Then they put up a sign at the back of the grocery store in a pathetic effort to be transparent. THERE IS A PRIMARY SCHOOL JUST DOWN THE ROAD(Highbush Public School). My goodness,there is no consideration given to the children or to the community. These big corporations just seem to do whatever they want. Is this really the process that goes on in this city? A big corporation is turned down from building a cell tower one ear,then they go ahead Y � Yg and do it anyway a few years later? I am so opposed to this cell tower. On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:42 PM,Tatyana Moro <Tatyana.Moro@rci.rogers.com>wrote: Good day This e-mail is in response to Mr. Barnett's correspondence pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd.N.— Site C3751. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd.N. on the Amberlea Plaza—Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with some information pertaining to safety of wireless sites, as well as regulatory requirements. At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously.No matter where 1 ATTACHMENT# D TO REPORT# ?Ltd c -15 we construct a wireless facility,we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd.N.will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore,we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact, the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd.N.will be a mere 2.3%of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see,the site not just meets,but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link(peer-reviewed studies)between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations.Health Canada,in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend.the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency(RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather,they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore,information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry,therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However,part of our licensure requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions.While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development,review and validation of the standards they establish,in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario—Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc @hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699.Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them, as well as some useful links on the subject. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation 2 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# OcA1-15 Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatyana.Moro(arci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 ( ROG E RS' From: Barnett, Tyler [mailto:tbarnett©pickering.ca] Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:07 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you calling in regarding the proposed cell tower at 1822 Whites Road. I have copied Tatyana Moro on this email so that she may provide you with information regarding the health regulations pertaining to cell towers and to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner - Site Planning I City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 1 1.866.683.2760 1 TTY 905.420.1739 tbarnett@pickering.ca • . 3 ATTACHMENT it 5 TO REPORT# QG-15 /.0.47,tw-ce 1-2 (-4 Tatyana Moro • From: Tatyana Moro Sent: Wednesday, May 27,2015 9:41 AM To: Cc: 'Barnett,Tyler Subject: RE:Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Attachments: 007 jpg;009.jpg;008 jpg; sign Iocations.pdf;C3751 Public Consultation Package.pdf Good morning Thank you for your additional comments submitted pertaining to Rogers site in the City of Pickering-Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your comments. Your comments will be included in the report to Council and Industry Canada. I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify the fact that there are 3 signs posted on the property at 1822 Whites Rd. I'm attaching a map showing the locations of the 3 signs for your reference, as well as pictures of the signs. I believe the sign you are referring to is on the attached picture #7. The placement of the 3 signs on Apr. 151 was done in consultation with the City,therefore was conducted with open communication and consent on the locations. As I am not aware of the location of your property,I am not certain if you were in receipt of the consultation package that was circulated.I would like to forward you a copy of the package that was circulated to the community.The package will provide you with some additional information as it pertains to our compliance obligations for consultation, siting,as well as information relevant to health concerns raised in your correspondence and our strict adherence requirements. Thank you once again for taking the time to submit your comments.As the consultation period has now closed,Rogers is preparing a report to Council.As mentioned above,your comments will be submitted as part of that report. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 • Tatyana.Moro @rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 OROGERS' From: Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 1:57 PM To:Tatyana Moro Subject: Re: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you for the email. • I am not interested in hearing from Rogers.Obviously this is a financial move for them and therefore all the information Tatyana provided is biased. She doesn't live in the community. Not to be rude,but I really don't care what she has to say. i . 1 ATTACHiu,ENT# 5 TO REPORT# O�G-IS I do not want a cell tower in operation at 1822 Whites Road. It frustrates me to hear that it is already built,and it will be in use pending city approval.I am frustrated that Roger's built it without consent from the community. Rogers posted a sign'notifying'the community about this tower(after it was already built!!) The sign was conveniently(and on purpose I'm sure)put at the BACK of the grocery store and tucked right beside a large bush. Not too many people are going to see it back there. Obviously Rogers wants to be able to say they are being open with this process and are'welcoming community input',but let's be serious. Its a façade. A few years ago the same tower was proposed to be built across the street. There was a lot of community input at the time and as a result, THE TOWER WAS NOT BUILT. So why is it being built now ?? !!!I I I i!i!i! Here is the link to the community feedback from a few years ago. http://www.thestar.com/news/ata/2011/05/17/pickering church accused of ceiling out.html Obviously there are many in the community who do not want a cell tower built in this location. It is disgusting to me that Rogers would build one anyway a few years later. THEY KNOW THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT IT BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY TURNED DOWN!!!!! So this time they decide to build the cell tower anyway??? Then they put up a sign at the back of the grocery store in a pathetic effort to be transparent. THERE IS A PRIMARY SCHOOL JUST DOWN THE ROAD(Highbush Public School). My goodness,there is no consideration given to the children or to the community. These big corporations just seem to do whatever they want. Is this really the process that goes on in this city? A big corporation is turned down from building a cell tower one year,then they go ahead and do it anyway a few years later? I am so opposed to this cell tower. On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Tatyana-Moro T atyana.Moro a,rci.rogers.com>wrote: Good day This e-mail is in response to Mr. Barnett's correspondence pertaining to Rogers' site located in the City of Pickering at 1822 Whites Rd.N.—Site C3751. This correspondence will be included as part of the report being issued to Council on the site located at 1822 Whites Rd. N. on the Amberlea Plaza—Site C3751. I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with some information pertaining to safety of wireless sites, as well as regulatory requirements.At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously.No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. Our site located at 1822 Whites Rd.N. will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Furthermore,we have taken an extra step by undertaking a further analysis of the antenna system at the Amberlea Plaza in relation to the ground surrounding the site. In fact,the calculations of emission levels conducted by Rogers Radio Engineers on the antenna system at 1822 Whites Rd.N. will be a mere 2.3% of the allowable SC6 limit. As you can see,the site not just meets,but exceeds the applicable Safety Code 6 guideline value by a significant margin. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid-1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific link(peer-reviewed studies)between the effects of radio frequency from 2 ATTACHMENT#. 5 TO • REPORT # wireless communication installations.Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians,is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency(RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather,they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non-peer-reviewed reports/articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. • Communication Industry is not a self-regulating industry, therefore carriers do not set any standards or have any input into the review or setting of the standards as they pertain to health. However,part of our licensure • requirements is stringent compliance to Industry Canada and Health Canada regulations, including Safety Code 6, Canada's code for maximum levels of radiofrequency emissions. While Rogers cannot speak on behalf of the government of Canada's regulatory body on the development,review and validation of the standards they establish,in our view, such standards are designed to protection the Canadian public through extensive review of international studies and recommendations. Questions pertaining to this subject of standards can be addressed directly to the Province of Ontario—Service Ontario local office @416-326-1234 or directly to Health Canada office at ccrpb-perpcc @hc-sc.gc.ca or 613954-6699.Furthermore, additional information on the subject can also be obtained at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/radiation/cons/stations/index-eng.php. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them. I'm also attaching for your reference an additional package of resources pertaining to Canada's Safety Regulations and how carriers are mandated to comply with them, as well as some useful links on the subject. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist, Network Implementation Rogers Communications Inc. 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Tatvana.Moro(@rci.rogers.com o 647-747-2351 { • 3 ATTACHMENT 5 REPORT# L 5 ROGERS- From: Barnett,Tyler [mailto:tbarnett@oickering.ca] • Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 4:07 PM To: Cc: Tatyana Moro Subject: Amberlea Plaza Cell Tower Thank you calling in regarding the proposed cell tower at 1822 Whites Road. I have copied Tatyana Moro on this email so that she may provide you with information regarding the health regulations pertaining to cell towers and to answer any questions you may have. Regards, Tyler Barnett Senior Planner- Site Planning I City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2042 1.866.683.2760 TTY 905.420.1739 tbarnetti pickering.ca qty A -,;, Your City,Right Now pickering.ca iro CityApp eNews 0 twitter facebook 4 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# 1� x1-15 APPENDIX 2 Sign in Sheet/Open House Comments 17 • ROGERS__ ATTACHMENT# To REPORT# QROGERST, c�Q iv - 13 Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: f. 24 P\V- L Telephone: E-mail: Comments j ,alLe_r ty,, cl..9„\._At✓�2.e_r_5 SOtis H (t rv-v L v j k V e - 3 3 d. '^� ( - — 1-s-t161- a-,Asz asz_atr, lak,c_cutu- ; F ,e.fi �- " © e R-2 Coo A _ ( p t-Q Continue on reverse if required... • ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# e1-15 c_.-1 ROG E RS Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: _ D Address: S-7 K0 LLB` Telephone; E-mail: _ _ Comments • CAA Uc / / co_k 1 Continue on reverse if required... ATTACHMENT# 5 (0 REPORT# ?IAA 0c1-IS �� ROGE RS TM eo,Gem,62,,Aa_ L Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: - Address: ] g Li l( i M Telephone: E-mail: Comments q /en of r r , I m G� .Yq ?)e-(- 60.1c)(, ,e,\(.- Continue on reverse if required... Ir ' ATTACHMENT#. —5 f0 REPORT# L� OROGERS Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 ites Rd. N. Name: Address: 0 l`� \ ti.�.►_� Telephone: E-mail: Comments Oa' A C\ Continue on reverse if required..., ATTACHMENT# REPORT# -15 �.� ROGER . Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: (0 --t ve layl • ) clui;c) Telephone: E-mail: Comments 110 + (:)i • Continue on reverse if required... if ATTACHMENT,# 5 TO REPORT # J-LtA OR-1S OROGERSTM (1- // Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: ♦ A a _ ,. ■ . � . _ - _ _ Telephone: E-mail: Comments ( 1 • Ca 0/\_Q__ ( V wo c /(& "-L-C3 QA, Ak,r gt) Continue on reverse if required... ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# r4 Oq-1 0 ROG E R STM I 2_ Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: /5i Telephone: E-mail: Comments fr eer / i ' f�? AMEIVIMI, 10,19'. / Air A4610 I_I e—gkry ,A4-# a. s 11 1, 1 j Atir , //iii/ _ A _ yye�t Q _ BSc C Continue on reverse if required... L /L Z/7 7 -- el) ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# L I S O ROGER Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: -712 DL C c�c �(�C Telephone: E-mail: Comments \mk \fioW,\O\ 0,,ek- 0\ \Lx__cotA- 5-t2- -- fi v,utea vt I3 y V `.' �t r Continue on reverse if required... ATTACHMENT# to REPORT# ?LN CYG-15 O ROGERSTM G m an eat,-/ 71j Public Comment Record Rogers' Wireless Communications Installation Site C3751 1822 Whites Rd. N. Name: Address: Pug/4 P,-m P Telephone: E-mail: _ Comments e_ Gs I,- crcdt -/ ( . C 44 GGr0_ i67 Continue on reverse if required... {