Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 12-13city °O Report to _ Planning &Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 12 -13 Date: May 6, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Rogers Communications Inc. Petticoat Creek Park Installation #47 Recommendation: That Rogers Communications Inc. be advised that City Council supports the location of the proposed 45 metre high telecommunication tower installation at Petticoat Creek Park; and 2. Further, that staff be authorized to work with Rogers Communications Inc. to investigate an alternative architectural design of the telecommunication tower to better camouflage the structure and improve visual harmony with the surrounding natural area. Executive Summary: Rogers Communications Inc. originally submitted a proposal for a 35 metre high telecommunications tower installation located at Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) lands (see original location on Location Map, Attachment #1). At the July 17, 2012 Open House Information Session, Rogers and the TRCA proposed an alternate location within Petticoat Creek Park in response to comments and concerns received from area residents (see alternate location on Location Map, Attachment #1). Rogers is now proposing a 45 metre high telecommunication tower installation located approximately 110 metre southwest of the parking lot and splash pad within Petticoat Creek Park. The proposed location of the tower and equipment compound provides a minimum 195 metre separation between the installation and the nearest residential dwelling. A number of residents who attended the Open House Information Meeting Session were in support of the alternative location in Petticoat Creek Park. In view of the public consultation conducted by the applicant, the processing of this application through this report is not considered contrary to Council's resolution respecting cell towers. The proposed location provides an appropriate separation between the installation and the residential properties and the amenity areas of the park. The heavily treed section of Petticoat Creek Park further buffers the residential properties. Report PLN 12 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 2 City staff are supportive of the proposed installation, but will continue to work with Rogers to better camouflage the structure and improve visual harmony with the surrounding natural area. It is recommended that Rogers Communication Inc. be advised that City Council supports the 45 high metre high telecommunication tower location in the Petticoat Creek Park, subject to the applicant improving the design of the tower to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed telecommunication tower installation. 1. Background 1.1 Applicant's Proposal Rogers Communications Inc. submitted an application on June 4, 2012 requesting Council's concurrence for the installation of a 35 metre high telecommunication tower located on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) lands at Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive (see Location Map, Attachment #1). In response to comments and concerns received from area residents, Rogers and the TRCA provided an alternative location in Petticoat Creek Park (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The proposal consists of a 45 metre high tri -pole shrouded telecommunication tower installation and equipment compound including a proposed 1.8 metre high board fence surrounding the compound and proposed planting for screening. The tower is located approximately 110 metres southwest of the parking lot and adjacent splash pad. It provides a minimum 195 metre separation between the installation and the nearest residential dwelling (see Petticoat Creek Park Aerial Plan, Attachment #2). Additionally, the tower was changed from a 35 metre high monopole to a 45 metre high shrouded tri -pole in to order to address the elevation of the new site and to accommodate future co- location on this tower. 1.2 Property Location and Description The site is located in Petticoat Creek Park, which is owned by the TRCA, and is designated "Active Recreational Areas" within the Pickering Official Plan, and is zoned '02'- Public Open Space Zone in By -law 2511, as amended. The installation of a telecommunication tower is permitted under the public utilities exemption in By -law 2511. The Petticoat Creek Park area surrounds the tower and residential uses are located to the south and west. Report PLN 12 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 3 2. Comments Received 2.1 Required Public Notification has been completed City Development Department staff are currently in the process of developing a protocol respecting the installation of telecommunication towers for City Council's consideration. In the absence of a City protocol, applicants must follow Industry Canada's requirements as outlined in the Client Procedures Circular (CPC) 2 -0- 03 Issue 4, entitled "Radio communication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems ". Industry Canada requirements for public consultation require the proponent to consult with the land use authority, and all property owners within a radius of three times the tower height, measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure. For structures 30 metres or more in height, proponents are required to place a notice in a local community newspaper circulating in the area. Based on the original 35 metre tower height, the proposed installation required notification to owners within a 105 metre radius of the base of the tower. Rogers in consultation with TRCA and the City, extended the notification requirements and notified the community of Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive, east and south of the CN Rail train tracks. The applicant provided written notification by regular mail on June 15, 2012 to the property owners in the Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive community, and placed a notice of the proposed installation in the June 20, 2012 edition of the Pickering News Advertiser. Written correspondence was received from 11 members of the public, predominately from the Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive neighbourhood. The comments and concerns received include: Rogers site selection process; siting the tower in close proximity of a residential neighbourhood; loss of property values; locating the tower on TRCA lands; the aesthetics of the cell tower; health concerns related to emissions from a cell tower; and environmental impacts. Given the number of concerns identified by the area residents, Rogers held an Open House Information Session (which is not mandated by Industry Canada) on July 17, 2012 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre to allow the members of the public, the TRCA, the City and Rogers to exchange information on the proposal. A total of 22 members of the public attended. Rogers responded to all comments and concerns that were expressed by the area residents, and presented an alternative location in Petticoat Creek Park, approximately 195 metres away from the nearest residential property. A number of residents expressed support for the alternative location in Petticoat Creek Park (see Public Consultation Written Correspondence and Public Meeting Minutes and Response Report , Attachments #4 and #5). Report PLN 12 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 4 Rogers has advised that the proposed 45 metre high tower; which requires a notification to all owners within 135 metre radius of the base of the tower, does not require further notification to owners (as it is all owned by TRCA) and meets the requirements of Industry Canada. 2.2 Co- location opportunities have been examined The installation and creation of separate, stand alone, radio communication towers and broadcasting facilities is discouraged unless all other co- location options have been explored and are considered unfeasible. The closest telecommunication tower in this area is located at Granite Court, is outside of the search area, and does not provide available space to properly serve their coverage objectives. The applicant has indicated that the proposed tower design will accommodate future co- location requirements. 2.3 Council's Resolutions May 2011, City Council passed Resolution #102/11 requesting Industry Canada to cease consideration of communication towers in any residential area of Pickering in order to establish criteria for all matters pertaining to land use for the installation of these towers (see Council Resolution, Attachment #6). This resolution was a response to a number of cell tower installations that were erected without municipal and \or public consultation, specifically a proposed tower installation under 15 metres at 1820 Whites Road. The Whites Road proposal precipitated an earlier Council resolution in April 2011 requesting that Industry Canada reverse approval of the tower and amend its policies to require municipal consultation on all installations, regardless of height (see Resolution #87/11, Attachment #7). The applicant has provided confirmation that this proposed installation has been publicly circulated in accordance with Industry Canada requirements and the proposal is now before Committee and Council for consideration. In view of the public consultation and Council engagement associated with this proposal, the processing of this application through this report is not considered contrary to Council's resolution. 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Proposed Tower Location is Acceptable Rogers and TRCA accommodated the request from area residents to locate the tower further away from the Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive area. The proposed tower and equipment compound provides an appropriate separation and buffer between the installation and the residential dwellings in the surrounding area and the amenity areas of the park. Staff support the proposed location of this telecommunication tower installation at Petticoat Creek Park, but will continue to work with Rogers to better camouflage the structure and improve visual harmony with the surrounding natural area. Report PLN 12 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 5 Attachments 1.. Location Map 2. Petticoat Creek Park Aerial Plan 3. Typical 45 metre shrouded Telecommunication Tri -pole Structure 4. Written correspondence list and comments submitted at Public Open House 5. Applicant's Public Meeting minutes and Response Report 6. City Council Resolution #102/11 7. City Council Resolution #87/11 Prepared By: Cristina Celebre Senior Planner — Development Review & Heritaqe. I II Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CC: jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council _ Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Approved /Endorsed By: C/ - -- lzto., Catherine Rose, MC , RPP (Acting) Chief Planner Thomas MelymWk, MCIP, R Director, City Development 17,20(3 ATUMMENU, I TO REPOoRT# ., PL N id -13 MAITLAND DRIVE z z T p a w T p w V) Q w O 00 u z S N W ° Y 0 RT z Q M s Cn STAGHORN ROAD COWAN . CIRCLE O O� O°O GILLMOSS GILLMOSS 3: ROAD Y Q O W ROUGEMOUNT DRIVE � U a °a0 I � PETTICOAT CREEK Ln 0 0 NOMAD RD. �� CONSERVATION AREA O m ALTERNATE w LOCATION OF 0 45m HIGH CELL TOWER R UGE RIGINAL OCATION O ` P K CELL TOWER 1 � o0 RODD AVENUE w Z � ee <<9 ° O VISTA LAKE ONTARIO City of Pickering City Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION B.F.0 RANGE 2 Pt. Lt. 30, 40R -6062 PART 1 Save & Except 40R -24954 Pt. 1 OWNER T.R.C.A DATE April 3, 2013 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. Installation # 47 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY TB N aTeranet Enterprises In.. and its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Nat a plan of s„rve,.. PN -1 2012 MPAC and its sup liens. All ri hta Reserved. Nat a plan of S.-e . ATTACINMR 2 1O REPORT# . LL IV 12 -13 r _t• +yam _ �h #� iF • � N m m aN N �odcn Diaz° CL m m cV O x£ Q m L c2 OI ca Q Ilk x Q. kiit <� 4 owl • It . 1� . , ca CO Mmw ME Ells! <� 4 owl • It . 1� . , ca CO ATTACHMEW -22 -TO REPORW 666z 12 -13 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN ROGERS MOBILE INSTALLATION (PETTICOAT CREEK PARK) EL&A -nON PLAN NOT o scams r This map was produced by the City Of Pickering City Development Department, Mapping and Design, April 11, 2013. U M1 0 C4 �-i 0 u d' M ATTAMME14T� � TO REPOW 11 . /3 di N � c-1 m rn Clm m m Cl) � m c' 3 75 S o 5 C) C cu -, ec s° a QN O1 41 N N Q) N Ln 3 r_ 7 C =3 j 3 C 3 :3 a) > o � D a°Ji C L v O '6 ha 41 cc c a) c c ra .- o o ° = aE Q C O [O � a) O rn s O c C a) H =vm a) +� u_Q R Ln ai C U ° C ' O �+ `n fa Y Ln ° a-+ ° v c c L Q cu a) .� c .._ _.. i 3 p i•+ ++ al p N ++ Y O +-, .a O_ N O En 'X O U O 0 .,C U 3 C Co v a..+ L v 4,.,' L hD +, L C C 4-- N vim-- -° tw U O v C ° Y U Q C C ° V O C a) `--' O N ° C z °° c° N> N _ o g o° o E° 'u C �' -6 C n ° p O O > O v1 '— QJ a) c6 -O Ln fa bD a., a)) O yL., �n 4) -6 O_ a) 'V C c6 C s-• +� cII U C c0 a) C L a) L U C a) C h a) L L 7 a) M a) "� C cp E C p Ln a) a) v L a) c U w o L +� 41 ° 6 3 w° O' �, ,. L :-' C Ln i a) C N U cn Q i U v� 6• C a) O C *' cII CT C d a) 7 X O a) WC �O U ai U a) O U C U C O a) or a) O w ° (6 c L O > U C c 41 _ L a 3 a! C of ._ a) C Q u U C° C _ ++ ° F- R v 0 7 N v O > 41 + L) of N ° C u C O U C O L- ° •> O U U a) -O C O OC 'C. a) -O Y O y v- Y a) -p +>+ ca '�'' > U U a) L L p tio L v 1- +, C N a) O a) N a) N Y- t L Y C R C J Cr n3 "6 C a1 "6 Oa 'O �, • W a) = O EL w aJ C a) c °' O' C Z 'p a) u .� 0 U a) a) a L y.., a Y 3 Q. �± O +-' N +-' O OL a) S L V1 O L 3 ca S V) u) ca (n N U cn +L V) Ln U a aC rtr; 0 ui L aj J cu m ;y Z Q > Q Q W "O c0 O O a 0 m fe Q z Z N o m m - O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LU 7 u LU w c co in ° L Oa y z n cu :w z 2 w v Q o C N O a N ra r o Q w yN G ccL G ccL G Lcc� G acc.. G a) C m N Ch ct N N a) N m O p_ L a C 3—�i C O C 3 O C 3 C 3 Ln -3+ C ri N m d' Ln G Z. i•r O U ,O i-•1 O �•1 Qi Q� e"t 0 44 0 U U V 1� W TM REPORT# , - PG A /.-/3 m m rn 3 3 0 3 N m N N cm{ c^i 75 ` 0 c o � a o v o O 4-- O cu L aaj Z [C6 aJ aJ y ' C C aJ cu U a U O N L Y � aL-+ U fa C O ate+ O O O O cr- O O (D O p O_ .`A O U' a•+ a) ca C U [6 cn N y N n3 0 F-' '6 Ln •E C O ,�'' C O - N .E C O ti .E C O C O a3 E aJ O bD .E •E Y — y V1 — 0 c [a aJ Y U (a U a -�' O Y a� N U (4 U � O.. •� O C L a) a) 0 a) 0 a) Y i O O T L Q O U p O O >• L Q y ,a; O N Ca ++ ++ 4+ 0 o L y cu Ca C ++ >. 3 O C �' C 3 'O O V, "O C p H C C C C O0 O C L 'O O. L C Q aJ C C C U C >> p L C E > U [CO > U > �+ U RS E R d C 'n O N aJ C a) aJ aJ a7 m a! aJ aJ aJ y u ra •Q. CD C al m C O aJ d C a) N 3 aJ C �- aJ N aJ C �- m C 6 C p QJ (� E i� 0 I *' y C N C cr " 3 v� r� aJ H C y aJ QJ E Vf C O N C E E aJ — O U �n ;° c U °' aJ E `m a � `m aJ E L aJ ;° v aJ OC aJ C U m U O U CO a`J c N 3 O C "� > C> 3 O O aJ '� tca C y� ++ p 0 L C Ou c.7 aJ 0 0 U o u w C ca u CL O U 0 w cu N +� cu y ba O 0 i Q *' OL Q to c n> +.� m +. ca N aJ aJ c 3 c 0 3 3 ±• U m wJ cu o 3 Q• 0 aJ a) 3 Y 3 C �n o c U 3 0 S o U U }c— W �--• O N Ca W S S N va)i N (tea (.i S, O_ N U S O_ D_ �O N N L a) R Q a) h > > Q E a m -a i O O p > _0 — QJ 0 O > "•p Z z ns m w m N m �O N � N O Ln Ln z Ln N z c O Y N i M [B aJ .a 3 ba 44- O y > C Y ai c N O m Y v O ar •C aJ to C • z m c N C Q J cu fn G v� vl to Ln 0 N 2 U aJ C N N O Q m m .m-I cN-1 7 3 Ol 7 C 7 LO 1l 00 N c-i r-I it O U O ^O^ N O U 1Kti F� O C� � 1 [A O U M Al ATTACHMENT. � TO as:pnmT-4 Pi n i 1o2 —13 Y N "•' > Y O C fl 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 co 00 OO 00 o 72 c ° °�° ° Ln cu C CL .uhf O u p_ M 'O O 75 7 CL a) = u -+ v v cn 3 cu -C3 a) Y • U 4" L E 0 E �. O O O ° m m m m tO m m Z oc u a bD to 0a On 0n 00 C C C C C C a+ O LO f� .a .O -0 -0 -0 -0 .a N N N C O O O O O O C C C C C C C 0 -p Ln 'O Ln Ln 'D r _ > f6 f0 f6 f6 f6 f6 Ln o 0 C -p C Q C U U U u U U O aJ O O u Ln 0' c m C L O a) F- F- F- F- F- F- ~ a) U C C C C C C o o 0) " O 0 0 0 0 0 n a a) t ° > w O a) L aJ L a) 0 ai a aL J R c J u; O v N w vi ° Y i .. - y cu O Y O Y O O O Y O Y 00 C 0 C O O U O O cu Y Q On C O O O O a) f6 O O O " `A E o ° c C Y Y Y Y Y Y L a) a) — @ � al fa Z N aJ a) >. .N O p C a+ E v v u v E u v E C a` C al O +� ++ }, aJ c -E C O O O O O - O 0 W E C) a) E t0 Ou ° L ,�, Y >. N C Y c 0a E C m _ G V N p m "O m C w d V � m N C C C C Y C C C u C OJ U L a1 N aJ u N a! N> ", O Q -O a1 p �n a a; V) a 'n -0 cn v L in -0 Ln ° -p (6 -0 E a C L L b4 c "J aJ C C m . - +N+ E U N 0 W f0 M C in Ln M CC U u u In fcs cu 'n `° o � Ln= w cr = z a c n c u u v O aJ 0 aJ a) C O_ O .II C n aJ c c U _ — w > > > F- cn F- F- F- F- F- of U U O z :0 Q M M ca O O O O O O �yl Q c al C a) 0 v L E L — W p U C L C L C L Y 0n U Y 00 Y 0n Y 0n a) E Y 0n Y 0n U 'cu 6 E C 0 � Y 0n c Q a .. Y of a) a) aJ C C C C C c C c `� -0 C C C C W _° 0) O E •'j fa c a) f6 U a) ++ O - Y L _Y ±+ Y t0 > ++ p U f6 > + fa > '++ f6 > ++ O 7 [6 1 > '++ (6 > O aJ � a Z O c U w ra 2 d! S W -. p L (O = f0 n3 Y aJ v Y aJ a a) Y Y aJ aJ O. Y aJ Y W n O to f— = a .* O_ >j aJ +,n L p W EJ cn a) aJ cn aJ 0 L ns E ,n y. aJ aJ v7 L aJ N En L p a) W/ F— � Y O O O LA 41 M of 41 �n Y H 4O -° aJ in en •4% m ii i i i i i _ a) L O L O L O C m L L (Q L Ia L C [a L N E N L C f0 L aJ L p - a a a a) a ai cu cu H o ai C z 72 w 0- a a E o ,c Y E o E o E o E o E o >p In� E a E a E a E a s u E CL E a m C _w CL c C c U rya S U raa U U t�O Z U rQa c°i caa = v T Ln o O > > O 0 o O m F— Z Z W c O ; o c u w c N ns z U Y m E a) 'F: O U > m V) =3 `n 0 ° c � o cOC E Q v g ,� 0 Y c L aJ Y E aJ m Ln Y c CL .- C C -O to -0 p cu fCG° .N c a w = m C > a) G Y bD Q oc LI: f0 a aJ " .'E x ai L o L f6 06 .O C O6 b4 O 'O w O N m Q L N m U LA L N c G Z "0 W O � C Q U <C: O_ C Q A _ G 7 O 7 A fl rI :3 =3 :3 = z -1 0 1-1 N m t Ln lO 00 Ol ° �l r4 cmi .�i ATTlkCHMENT § TO REPORT!; ' PL& I a -1 3 ROGE,R.S� Your World Right Now Public Meeting Minutes and Response Report Prepared for: City of Pickering, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Industry Canada Rogers Site: C3694 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO Rogers Site: C3694 REPORTi O The purpose of this report is to summarize the process undertaken by Rogers relevant to the site proposed to be located on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) lands in the City of Pickering. 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 Session held on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre, 470 Kingston Road in the Franklin Room, Pickering, ON, L1V 1A4. 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 1. Network Coverage Requirement The selection of a wireless communications site works similarly to fitting a piece into a puzzle. In this case, the puzzle is a complex radio network, situated in an urban setting. Client demand, radio frequency engineering principles, local topography and land use opportunities working in concert with one another direct the geography of our sites. In order to achieve a reliable wireless network, carriers must provide a seamless transmission signal to alleviate any gaps in coverage. Gaps in coverage are responsible for dropped calls, and unavailable data service to clients. Rogers would utilize the following proposed site location in order to provide high quality wireless network signal for its 3.5G high -speed voice and data network. 2. Site Selection History The currently proposed site location on TRCA lands, in the Petticoat Creek Park, is a documented attempt to site the wireless communication installation necessary to provide the required coverage to the Pickering area. The proposal to install a 45m tall shrouded tripole structure was in consideration of comments /concerns raised during Public Consultation period and the held Information Session. Rogers' original proposed candidate located approximately 42m north of Rodd Ave., just east of the Canadian National Railway tracks, was reconsidered by Rogers and TRCA, and the alternative location in the park area was proposed. The subject property which was alternatively selected is much better suited for the proposed structure as it provides a significant buffer between the residential dwellings located to the west, south as well as the picnic area /splash pad in the park. In February of 2012, Rogers conducted a pre - consultation meeting with the City of Pickering in order to evaluate the wireless communications installation proposal in fulfillment of Federal Guideline's requirements set out in the CPC 2 -0 -03, Issue 4 as they relate to Telecommunications and -Broadcasting Antenna Systems. The consultation process established under Industry Canada's authority is intended to allow local land -use authorities the opportunity to address land -use concerns while respecting the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction in the siting and operation of wireless voice and data systems. 0 ROGERS- ATTAMENU S TO Rogers Site: C3694 REPO�t # � a ��3 3. Selection of Proposed Site Communication systems are considered a fundamental part of basic utilities infrastructure and are important contributors that serve the significant growth and economic development of communities by providing infrastructure connection. Rogers' site selection method is a comprehensive undertaking. The site selection process is a challenging exercise that must meet Rogers' network coverage, while having regard for land use constraints and the obligation to customers to provide a high quality service. Other factors include radio frequency engineering principles and local topography which work in concert with one another to direct the geography and location of our sites. 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 Rogers' proposed site, located in the Petticoat Creek park, will achieve the necessary engineering coverage objectives to enhance much relied upon communication services in the area such as EMS Response, Police and Fire; will significantly improve 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 BlackBerry, iPhone, cellular phone and wireless internet through the Rogers Rocket Stick technology in the surrounding area. The location of the proposed site is shown on below aerial. ATUMENT# -S TO Rogers Site: C3694 gEpa s! , PLti Za -/3 4. Public Notification City of Pickering does not have a developed protocol relevant to establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. Therefore, Rogers followed Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process. Rogers extended its notification requirements as outlined by Industry Canada's CPC- 2 -0 -03, Issue 4 and as a courtesy notified the community of Rodd Ave. and Bella Vista Dr., east and south of the CN Rail train tracks as well as hosted a Drop -In Information Session on July 17th allowing the opportunity for the community to exchange information related to the proposal. The consultation commenced on June 15, 2012. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation, Rogers placed an ad in the local community newspaper (Pickering News Advertiser), which ran on June 20th. Furthermore, Rogers ensured that the notification provided at least 30 days for written public comment. Public Meeting Attendees and Information Provided: Rogers Communications Inc: 1. Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist 2. Michelle Vivar, Municipal Relations Specialist 3. Brent Spence, Site Acquisition Specialist 4. Uwe Richter, Manager of Radio Engineering City of Pickering 1. Isabelle Janton, Planner 11- Site Planning 2. Mark Guinto, Coordinator, Office of the Mayor 3. Mayor Dave Ryan 4. Councillor Kevin Ashe, Ward 1 5. Councillor Peter Rodrigues, Ward 3 6. MPP Tracy MacCharles 7. Safa Khan, Constituency Assistant, MPP's office 8. MP Corneliu Chisu, Pickering- Scarborough East Riding Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1. Tom Campitelli, Senior Property Agent 2. Michael Fenning Senior Manager Members of the Public: (Sign -in record attached) 1. Alex Tsoulis, 543 Mountain Ash Dr. 2. C. Beattie 3. Alexander Morr, 540 Rodd Ave. 4. M. Siragusa, 537 Rodd Ave. 5. Gilds Rousseau, 323 Dyson Rd. 6. Francois Rousseau, 323 Dyson Rd. 7. Frances Rousseau, 323 Dyson Rd. 8. Debbi Sommerville, 531 Rodd Ave. 9. Ed Smith, 531 Rodd Ave. 10. Rob Ristau, 332 Dyson Rd. 11. Angela Rivett, 523 Bella Vista Dr. 12. Nicole Herbert- Sutton, 595 Nomad Rd. 13. Steve and Karen Evans, 340 Dyson Rd. 14. Michelle Rushton, 527 Rodd Ave. 15. Shirley Lippiatt, 527 Rodd Ave. 0 ROGERS" ATTAMM Rogers Site: C3694 REPORTi # ,►�Lni /a'�� Members of the Public — Cont'd: (Sign -in record attached) 16. Kristen Glinlea, 529 Rodd Ave. 17. Greg Sones, 529 Rodd Ave. 18. Jane an Stephen Hiley, 312 Dyson Rd. 19. M. Doweeh, 661 Cowan Circle 20. A. Henderson, 517 Rodd Ave. 21. P. Pipe, 517 Rodd Ave. 22, Carol Mullin, 531 Rodd Ave. Display Materials: The following is a summary of the materials on display at the open house: • Context aerial view; • Proposed structure design; • Consultation requirements in accordance with Federal Regulations; • Land -use authority and Industry Canada roles; • Roger's Safety Code 6 compliance graph; ➢ Additional general information related to telecommunications and the 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: In response to the information package circulation and the Information session meeting held on July 17th, we were in receipt of the following comments sent _to the City and /or to Rogers' office: 1. Two phone inquiries received prior to the Information Session; 2. Written comments received before and after the open house information session; and 3. Questions from members of the public attending the open house information session.. Below is the summary of the questions /comments raised at the meeting and in written comments received (copies submitted to municipality, TRCA and Industry Canada) — attached for further reference: 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. 5 0 ROGERS' NTTACHMENTf— 56'--TO Rogers Site: C3694 REPURi'114r., �_ OL/y -13 Our site located at the Petticoat Creek park 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. 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 in 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 at 0.35% of the specification (285 times below), as we have shared during the Information Session by providing a compliance graph. While Industry Canada's standard (Safety Code 6) remains the benchmark in Canada for the safe operation of radiofrequency transmitters, the levels at the closest residential dwelling, which is at 200m to this installation, are meet the maximum allowable limits by a significant margin (i.e. less than 1% of the allowable limits). 0 ROGERS' Rogers Site: C3694 ATTICHMEM TO REPORTi # Puy 1-2:/3 Question: • Siting and site selection; Esthetics Answer: Rogers continually strives to maintain Canada's fastest and most reliable wireless communication network. Wireless technology has fast become the preferred method of conducting business and personal communication among a large part of the population. The on -going increase in the use of personal cellular phones and other wireless devices as well as broadband internet for personal, business and emergency purposes, requires the development of new communication infrastructure as well as essential upgrades to existing wireless communication networks. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Rogers' site selection method is a comprehensive undertaking it is not taken lightly. Site locations are evaluated through an extensive process of conducting engineering drive -tests for assessment of dropped call rate; bit error rate; failed call attempt statistics; assessment of current antenna structures and customer comments on poor and non - existing wireless services. Based on the statistics of RF studies, Rogers identifies an area which would ensure.that the proposed installation would work with our existing infrastructure and the surrounding terrain. A site is required to be fully evaluated and qualified prior to commencement of consultation which would dictate site particulars such as tower location on a property, tower type and height in agreement with the landlord and in fulfillment of Rogers' requirements. Upon completion of a comprehensive site evaluation, a consultation with the municipality is initiated, followed by public consultation. Rogers and TRCA (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) worked together in conducting the public consultation process in order to provide the public with information on the proposal and obtain public input in accordance with Federal Regulations. Rogers takes concerns or suggestions expressed by land -use authority and the public as important elements to our proposal. In response to the comments received from the public, staff and local officials to the proposed site on Rodd Ave., Rogers and TRCA operated together in an attempt to obtain workable alternatives that would address public concerns while providing wireless services to the community. Rogers' dilemma revolved around how to best provide adequate coverage for the area while simultaneously avoiding residential areas to the south as well as minimizing the impact on the natural features of the TRCA lands. In recognition of public's comments regarding the location of the site's proximity to the residential dwellings, concessions were made by Rogers and TRCA and the site location was relocated to the park area, located south of the parking lot adjacent to the "splash pad ". Rogers also suggested changing the design of the structure to a shrouded tripole in order to accommodate future co- location requirements as well as provide a structure that will minimize the visual impact of the installation by improving the aesthetic of the project applicable to co- location. In addition, in an attempt to reduce the number of structures in the area, Rogers is currently working with Bell on possible co- location of their equipment on our tower, as well as placement of TRCA's paging /communication equipment. For this new location, Rogers utilize the existing trail for our access road. Some trees may require trimming; however, tree removal will be minimized to the best of our ability. These details will be under direction of TRCA staff to ensure adherence to all applicable environmental requirements. Rogers feels that in consideration of the concerns and comments raised during consultation period, the new site location, in the park area, is a suitable alternative addressing the comments of all interested parties. Furthermore, our site is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan, relevant to Economic Development Strategic Plan completed in 1991. The policy identified Telecommunication as one of the potential growth sectors (Section 5.3 (d)). Section 5.7 further references the encouragement through the City's Plan for "establishing high speed internet and broad band telecommunications networks which help to promote home occupations, teleworking, ' telecommuting, and improved community networking and information dissemination ". 0 ROGERS- Rogers Site: C3694 ATTAMMWU � n/ To -/3 REPORT# Question: • Consultation process requirements Answer: Wireless communication installations are exclusively regulated by the Federal Government. The consultation process established under Industry Canada's authority is intended to allow local land -use authorities the opportunity to address land use concerns while respecting the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction in the siting and operation of wireless voice and data systems. As the provisions of the Ontario Planning Act and other municipal by -laws and regulations do not technically apply to federal undertakings, Rogers is however required to follow established and' documented wireless protocols or processes set forth by land -use authorities per Industry Canada protocol. In accordance with Industry Canada's guidelines, Rogers followed all necessary steps in pre - consulting with planning staff and local. officials, advising the public of our proposal and providing the public with a required public comment period. In addition, Rogers feels that the process undertaken relevant to consultation was conducted openly and fairly, and engagement of the community through additional consultation has been effective in obtaining input from the public. The City of Pickering does not have a developed protocol relevant for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. Therefore, Rogers followed Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process. In accordance with Industry Canada's CPC- 2 -0 -03, Issue 4, Rogers must ensure that the local public, the land -use authority and Industry Canada are notified of the proposed antenna system. . As a minimum, proponents must provide a notification package to the local public (including nearby residences, community gathering areas, public institutions, schools, etc.) neighbouring land -use authorities, businesses, and property owners, etc. located within a radius of three times the tower height (105m in this instance), measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure, whichever is greater. It is also the proponent's responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at least 30 days for written public comment. Rogers, in consultation with TRCA and the City of Pickering, extended its notification requirements and as a courtesy notified the community of Rodd Ave. and Bella Vista Dr., east and south of the CN Rail train tracks (increase of the 105m consultation requirement in accordance with Federal Government's guidelines of up to 280m). Furthermore, Rogers held an Open House Information Session on July 17`h at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre to further allow the public, TRCA, the City and Rogers to exchange information on the proposal. The notice was issued by regular mail on Jun.15th to all owners of properties located in the Rodd Ave. & Bella Vista Dr. community, as agreed by Rogers and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Addresses were provided by the municipality. The notice described the proposal and invited comments by mail, electronic mail, phone or fax by the close of business on July 20`h, 2012. An ad was also placed in Pickering News Advertiser, which ran on Jun.20th in notifying the public of the proposal. Copy of the information package was provided to the City of Pickering and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. In addition to the requirements for consultation with municipal authorities and the public, Rogers must also fulfill other important obligations including: Transport Canada /NAV Canada aeronautical safety responsibilities. Rogers must ensure that our proposals for any antenna system are reviewed by Transport Canada and NAV CANADA. Transport Canada performs an assessment of the proposal with respect to the potential hazard to air navigation and notifies Rogers of any painting and /or lighting requirements for the antenna system. NAV CANADA also provides Rogers on whether the proposal has an impact on the provision of their national air navigation system, facilities and other services located off - airport. Rogers will make all necessary applications to Transport Canada and NAV Canada. It is our experience that a structure of this height and distance away from an existing airfield may require obstruction lighting, however, it is ultimately a decision of Transport Canada /NAV CANADA and Rogers can notify the City, upon request, once our application has been evaluated by the listed agencies. 8 0 ROGERS' AnummIE(dT#-5—To Rogers Site: C3694 REPO l0 PL/V' �a 13 Question: Property values Answer: There is no documented evidence of loss of property value resulting from proximity to wireless communications facilities. Real Estate values. are the product of many factors and in our experience, proximity to an installation is unlikely to be the dominant one. Other market factors that can exert a stronger influence on the price /value and marketability of property are strength of market demand, interest rates; availability of financing; employment/unemployment levels, wage levels, tax levels; quality and aesthetic appeal of the surrounding neighbourhood. There have been many situations across Canada whereby subdivisions and residences have been constructed next to existing wireless facilities. Industry Canada's .CPC- 2 -0 -03 Issue 4 document, http: / /www.ic.gc.ca /eic/ site/ smt- gst.nsf /eng /sf08777.html #sec5, includes a discussion concerning the role of property values under Section 4.2, Public Reply Comments. Question: Other properties for potential structure placement Answer: Rogers Communications Inc. makes every effort to locate cellular sites where they will be the least visually obtrusive. Rogers always makes an initial effort to co- locate on existing structures. Apart from being encouraged by Industry Canada, co- location is one of the cornerstones of Rogers' site development philosophy. Other potential site locations were evaluated and opportunities to co- locate onto existing structures were investigated. However, the wireless communication structures in the surrounding area that were evaluated are all beyond the distance or below the height required in order to address the coverage deficiencies in the area; are not suitable for our network needs and would not improve our existing signal coverage to the expected quality levels. Rogers has a self - support facility located on Granite Crt., west of the train tracks, which was evaluated for possible amendments to the structure in order to address coverage objectives for the Petticoat Creek area as well as the surrounding area of the lake front. This site is co- located with other licensed carriers (Bell and Telus) and could not be modified to further extend our coverage in the above noted area of Pickering. Another structure evaluated was a Roger's tower, located on Altona Road, just north of Hwy. 401. The structure is an 18m monopole and is not of a sufficient height and is beyond the distance required to accommodate the antennas in an attempt to address the coverage gap in the Petticoat Creek park area and the lake front. Since there were no suitable alternative structures readily available for co- location to accommodate our network coverage requirements, Rogers Communications Inc. had to consider the construction of its own installation. The location proposed by Rogers on TRCA property in the Petticoat Creek park will significantly improve our wireless signal quality and data requirements for the local residents, those members of the community that use wireless devices as well as enhance the communications emergency services in the area of the lake front and the park area. Furthermore, Rogers suggested design will accommodate future co- location requirements as well as provide a structure that will lessen the visual profile of the installation by improving the aesthetic of the project applicable to co- location. In addition, in an attempt to reduce the number of structures in the area, Rogers is working with Bell on possible co- location of their equipment on our tower, as well as placement of TRCA's paging /communication equipment. 9 0 ROGERS' Rogers Site: C3694 ATTACHMENT# S M REP®RT,P A N LL-13 Question: Environmental impact Answer: Rogers ensures that the environmental assessment process is applied in the planning stages of any proposal. This enables proponents and other stakeholders to consider environmental factors in any decisions that may be made and makes it possible to introduce measures which permit the project to proceed while protecting the environment. Rogers ensures that our installations meet the requirements to be excluded from assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Under Industry Canada's consultation process, Rogers must at all times provide a written confirmation of the project's status under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and if required will proceed with an environmental assessment under guidance of Industry Canada, identifying that there is the potential for an . adverse environmental effect and describe the effect and propose mitigation measures. Rogers makes every effort in order to avoid disturbance of significant nature features as well as attempt to minimize visual impact of our sites. The proposal for the Petticoat Creek area has been deemed as an expectable use, pending public consultation, by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff, as' it produces minimal disruptions to the existing or sensitive conservation lands and is located outside of the regulated lands. Rogers' placement of the site on the subject property maximizes the existing vegetation around the proposed site, providing natural screening and assists in mitigating potential visual impacts of the installation on the community. Rogers will minimize the removal of existing trees to accommodate the proposed installation and the access road by using an existing trail on the property. Installation will be under strict direction of TRCA staff to ensure adherence to all applicable environmental requirements. The following are some of the considerations used by Rogers in development criteria of the proposal outlined in order to minimize the possible changes in the environmental and natural landscape: • Rogers will minimize the removal of existing trees to accommodate the proposed installation and the access road. • The proposed site will have no impact on any water systems or any sensitive features. • No chemicals, pesticides or herbicides, that could potentially have an adverse effect on the environment, will be contained on our structure or the associated walk -in radio equipment cabinet. • During construction precautions will be taken to minimize any disruption to the current site. • Once site is in service, there will be no noise associated with the daily operation of the installation. • Upon completion, the site will be completely trouble free from an operation and maintenance standpoint. Rogers' equipment cabinet is totally self- contained and none of the equipment will cause any vibration or noise. 10 0 ROGERS� Rogers Site: C3694 ATTAP,,4MW#— TO REPORTo -, & iV Z -J-3 5. Conclusion Rogers is constantly improving and expanding its infrastructure to meet the ever - growing demand for high - quality reliable wireless voice and data services. The trend of future telecom is to become truly "wireless ", that is the delivery of the voice and data communications via conventional telephone lines, such as telephone poles along streets and roads. The current wireless infrastructure will be able to meet this trend and still provide a reliable system. Technological upgrades are important factors for communities that continue to grow and strive to attract new business to the area. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are also critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Today, approximately 50% of emergency calls are made on mobile phones and this number will continue to increase. Rogers feels that the proposed installation is well situated to provide and improve wireless communication voice and data services in the targeted area. The proposed installation is also situated and designed to have minimal impact on surrounding land uses as well as will provide for future co- location opportunities by other licensed carriers. Rogers has undertaken a comprehensive public consultation process as it pertains to the proposed new wireless communications in the Petticoat Creek Park on Toronto and Region Conservation property. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at Tatvana.Moro(a)rci.rogers.com, or via phone at (647)747 -2351. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist Rogers Communications Inc. Network Implementation 11 0 ROGERS- ATTiMIENT 6 r0 REPORT# . 10/- A/ 11? -13 Excerpt from May 16th, 2011 Council Meeting Minutes Resolution #102/11 Moved by Councillor O'Connell Seconded by Councillor Ashe WHEREAS On April 18, 2011 the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering formally opposed the installation of a communications tower at 1820 Whites Road in the City of Pickering; and WHEREAS hundreds of area residents have signed a petition objecting to the installation of a communications tower at 1820 Whites Road and other City locations; WHEREAS the City of Pickering received a response from Industry Canada in regards to our request to relocate the proposed communications tower at 1820 Whites Road and have ordered all communication tower installations cease on this site until Industry Canada can review this matter; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering requests the Government of Canada cease further consideration of communication towers in any residential area of Pickering in order to commence discussions with the City of Pickering to establish criteria based on mutual respect for all matters pertaining to land use in the City of Pickering for the installation of communication towers throughout our community. AND THAT a copy of this resolution be sent to Durham Regional Council, Corneliu Chisu, MP Elect for Pickering /Scarborough East, Chris Alexander, MP Elect Ajax Pickering, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry and the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology). Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote A Excerot from April 18, 2011 Council__ Minutes ���;��T #,_,� =___Tp ` EPOR 10 -Resolution #87/11 : M©ved by Councillor O'Connell Seconded. by Councillor Ash : WHEREAS. the City of Pickering was recently informed that Industry Canada has" . approved a cell phone, tower a# 1820 Whites Road, Amberlea*Presbyterian Church with out:any:cansultation with the City of Piickering;.and WHEREAS the..Federal G®vernment through Jndustry:Canada, refuses to recognize the-impprtant role that' municipalities play in regards to local land use. matters and specifically. where cell phone towers mny.be situated; .and WHEREAS local residents residing in the Amberlea /Foxhollow. Neighbourhood are outraged, .having become aware.through:3,d party informatidn'that such Vin. intrusioncah be erected in-a-res.1dential community; I46W:THEREFORE'BE IT RESOLVED thaf the Federal Government through In:dustry .Ca�nada'be advised that the-City of Pickering.obje'cts to the installation of a cell phone.tower at-1.820`Whites Road an'd-that they reverse ifs' approval and . enter into diseussionswith the- City of Pickering-in order to find's more appropriate. Iocatiob; AND FURTHER that the.Federal Government be required to amend. 'their policies.-, acid procedures for fihe approval of* ell phone and 'radio towers �to allow for local " rhtinicipalitles consultation on all. applications and to "not approVe._applications " objected to. by fihe local municipality; AND FURTHER that consultation takes place through the Federation of `Municipalities on establishing guidelines to assist Industry Canada in_settiiig criteria,that can be used "by municipalities to assess each application_submi.tted for . Powers;" AND that a copy of this motio.n.be.forwarded to'FCM to.be .included'.for endorsementat its annual meeting AND that copies of this resolution be sent.to Dan McTeague, MP for Pickering /Scarborough. East, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable-Gary Goodyear, Minister of State, (Science and Technology). Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote