Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 50

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 1 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY

POLICY NUMBER: POLICY NUMBER: REFERENCE: City Council 1998 07 07 City Council 1997 07 15 ADOPTED BY: Pending Target Date Fall 2012 SUPERSEDES: C471B PREPARED BY: Sustainable Development Department DATE: 12 September 2012. TITLE: Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Policy Statement: The City of Edmonton requires a facility siting and public consultation process to be conducted by a Proponent, as mandated by Industry Canada, prior to the endorsement of site(s) for Telecommunications Facilities. This Policy shall apply to proposed Telecommunication Facilities located within the City of Edmonton. This Policy does not apply to Telecommunication Facilities placed within road right-of-ways or Provincial Transportation Utility Corridors (TUC). C471C DRAFT

C471B

REFERENCE: City Council 1998 07 07 City Council 1997 07 15

Global changes: Changed terms to reflect the new definitions

ADOPTED BY: City Council May 9, 2006

SUPERSEDES: C471A

Renumbered entire document every paragraph now has a reference number, and the numbering is consistent throughout; i.e. all reference follow this format: 1.01(a)(i)(A).

PREPARED BY: Planning and Development Department

DATE: 2006 04 20.

TITLE:

Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities

Policy Statement:

The City of Edmonton will require a facility siting and public consultation process to be conducted by a telecommunications carrier, as suggested by Industry Canada, prior to the endorsement of site(s) for Telecommunications Facilities

Industry Canada requires that Proponents adhere to municipal processes for land use consultation, as prescribed in Client Procedures Circular CPC-20-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Effective January 1, 2008)

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 2 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY 1 1.01 To minimize adverse land use impacts of Telecommunications Facilities within the City of Edmonton; To influence the appearance and concealment of Telecommunication Facilities when the wireless service demand necessitates Telecommunications Facilities within the City; To establish a transparent, consistent and predictable framework for the evaluation of Telecommunication Facility proposals that: Change of wording to better reflect what the Policy intends to do PURPOSE RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY The purpose of this policy is to:

1.02

1. Ensure that telecommunications carriers consult with each other prior the submission of a proposed site, when considering sites in proximity to residential areas, to address matters such as co-location and optimal site selection, and to involve local community, administrative and political representatives as part of this preliminary process; 1.03

2. Ensure that significant telecommunications structures and facilities required within City boundaries are located and designed in such a manner that they are sensitive to potential impacts on the surrounding community and are located in appropriate locations;

3. Ensure that, once the need for a tower site or sites in proximity to residential development has been determined in the Pre-Public Consultation phase, that adequate public consultation is conducted by telecommunications carriers with affected property owners when these carriers propose to construct significant structures and facilities, in accordance with this Policy to support radio transmission equipment; and

Add co-location purpose statement, given industry Canadas increased emphasis on co-location in the Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems(Effective January 1, 2008)

4. Ensure that the City of Edmonton (also referred to as the City, or the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department) facilitates this process and is able to gather enough information to provide a statement of concurrence or non-concurrence to Industry Canada at the end of the process regarding the siting of telecommunications facilities.

Add new purpose statement emphasizing the resolution of issues early in the process.

(a) Discourages obtrusive Telecommunication Facilities within or adjacent to Residential Areas, Heritage Areas and Environmentally Sensitive Areas; (b) Encourages Proponents to co-operate when expanding their networks, with an emphasis on Antennae Co-location and Site Colocation; (c) Establishes a public notification and public consultation process for Proponents to follow, in order to solicit comments on proposed Telecommunications Facilities and provides an opportunity for proponents to engage in meaningful public consultation with affected residents and property owners, and address reasonable and relevant concerns; (d) Encourages Proponents to identify and resolve any potential land use, site selection, or design concerns raised by local residents and property owners, stakeholders, and/or political entities at an early stage in the process; (e) Contributes to the orderly development and efficient operation of a reliable, strong

Defined City

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 3 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES Radiocommunication network in the City; and (f) Provides the City of Edmonton with the Made reference to the enabling information required to make a statement of concurrence or non-concurrence to Industry Policy from Industry Canada to help people understand the larger Canada, which would evaluate the framework in which the City is adequacy of the Proponents consultation operating. process and the Proponents efforts to address stakeholder concerns and to meet Clarity: The policy can only the guidelines related to land use impacts address land use impacts. There contained in this Policy, in a manner that is are other that are regulated by the consistent the Client Procedures Circular, Federal Government, including CPC-2-0-03, Issue 4: Radiocommunication those of Health and Safety as and Broadcasting Antenna Systems regulated by Health Canada. (effective January 1, 2008) published by Industry Canada. Added to justify the overlap 1.04 To inform residents, property owners and between this policy and the CPCNeighbourhood Groups of relevant legislation 2-0-03 that affects the placement and operation of Telecommunication Facilities. 2 2.01 DEFINITIONS Antenna: means a device or combination of devices used, intended to be used, or capable of being used for Radiocommunication.

EXISTING POLICY

1. DEFINITIONS

2.02

New definition to help with clarity when discussing the different components of Telecom Facilities, as well as aid in the definition of the same. Defined to be consistent through the document.

City: unless otherwise specified, means the City of Edmonton, the Sustainable Development Department or Development Officer, as applicable. Co-location, Antennae: means the installation of more than one Antenna on a single Telecommunications Tower, building, or other structure, in cooperation with other Proponents.

2.03

1.01 Co-location - means the placement of telecommunications facilities equipment owned and operated by more than one carrier on the same tower or supporting structure. Colocation can also mean the placement of more than one tower on a site. 2.04

Co-location, Site: means a site having more than one Telecommunication Tower.

Co-location split into two definitions to distinguish the types (site based and tower based), because they are independent, and have different impacts.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 4 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY

1.02 Environmentally Sensitive Area undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sites which, because of their natural features, have value to society and ecosystems worth protecting, but are susceptible to further disturbance. Environmentally Sensitive Areas meet the criteria outlined in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas, City of Edmonton (1993) prepared by Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. 2.05 Environmentally Sensitive Area: means an area protected for environmental reasons in regional or local land use plans, or by a local, regional, provincial or federal government body.

Made the definition consistent with the definition found in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 1992.

Removed the definition because it is not referred to in the Policy.

1.03 Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas, City of Edmonton (1993) - study prepared by Geowest Environmental Consultants Ltd. for the City of Edmonton Planning and Development Department. The inclusion of sites in the Inventory has no legal implications for the respective owners. 2.06 Heritage Area: means a property having one or more of the following attributes:

Removed legal opinion.

(a) Any property zoned Heritage Area (HA) within the Edmonton Zoning Bylaw; (b) A property listed on the Edmonton Register of Historic Places; or (c) A property within a heritage overlay, or Statutory Plan that identifies heritage

Added to clarify the discussion around telecom facilities in heritage buildings/districts.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 5 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY resources. 2.07 Limited Notification: means the ability for the Development Officer, while ensuring that the intent of this Policy is upheld, to either: (a) Require notification where it would not otherwise be required by this Policy; or (b) Exempt, or reduce notification where it would otherwise be required by this Policy. 2.08 Neighbourhood Group: Any group or organization authorized by the individuals it represents to communicate with the City and the Proponent on behalf of residents or owners or both about land use impacts of a proposed facility. This term includes a Community League, Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues, Business Revitalization Zones (BRZs) and community councils. Added to summarize the new powers granted to Development Officers. RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY

2.09

Prescribed Distance: means six times the proposed tower height, measured horizontally from the base of the Telecommunications Tower or building-mounted structure, or from the outside perimeter of the supporting structure (e.g. guy wires), whichever is greater. Proponent: means a company, organization or individual, or a designated company, organization or individual acting on their behalf, which provides commercial or private telecommunications services that are under the regulation of Industry Canada. Radiocommunication: means any transmission, emission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by means of electromagnetic waves of frequencies lower than 3 000 GHz propagated in space without artificial guide.

Added to make the text more succinct, and add a reference to clarify how this distance is measured.

2.10

2.11

Re-named Telecommunications Carrier (or Carrier) as Proponent, consistent with Industry Canada terms in the Client Procedures Circular CPC-20-03 Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Effective January 1, 2008) It is referenced several times in the text. This definition is consistent with the 2.12 Regular Mail: means non-registered first class

1.04 Regular Mail - means non-registered

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 6 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY mail services offered by Canada Post. 2.13 Residential Area: means an area that is zoned for residential, or residential-related uses and includes an abutting road right-of-way. RATIONALE FOR CHANGES Radiocommunication Act, 1985

EXISTING POLICY first class mail services offered by Canada Post.

2.14

Added to clarify several sections of this Policy.

1.05 Safety Code 6 - Health Canadas standards for acceptable human exposure to radiofrequency fields, Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields at Frequencies from 10 kHz to 300 GHz, Safety Code 6, which all telecommunications facilities are required to meet. 2.15 Significant Telecommunications Facility: means a Telecommunications Facility that is: (a) In the case of freestanding structures, the combined height of the Telecommunications Tower and Antennae is greater than 15 metres above the average finished grade at the base of the Tower; or (b) In the case of building-mounted structures, when the structure exceeds the height limitations as follows: (i) Where a Telecommunications Facility is proposed on a building having a height of 15 metres or less, any Telecommunications Facility placed on the top of a building exceeding 4 metres in height; (ii) Where the aggregate height of a Telecommunications Facility and a building is between 15 metres and 23 metres, the height of the Telecommunications Facility exceeds 30 percent of the building height, and (iii) Where a Telecommunications Facility is

Defined to make the text more succinct. Changed the frequency range to reflect the new title of the Policy published by Health Canada.

Safety Code 6: means Health Canadas standards for acceptable human exposure to radiofrequency fields as described in the document Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz Safety Code 6 (2009) as amended from time to time, which all Telecommunications Facilities are required to meet.

1.06 Significant Telecommunications Structure/Facility - means a telecommunications tower or other facility that may have a significant impact on the community, as determined by the City of Edmonton and in accordance with this Policy.

Expanded definition to recognize the difference in land use impact that the tower may have, based on the context/location.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 7 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY proposed on a building having a height exceeding 23 metres, there is no set limitation on maximum height that would trigger it to be a Significant Telecommunications Facility. 2.16 Statutory Plan: means an area redevelopment plan or area structure plan adopted by the City of Edmonton pursuant to the Municipal Government Act Stealth Structure: means a Telecommunications Facility that is designed and constructed so as to: Updated to reflect new terms. RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY

It is used several times in the Policy.

2.17

1.07 Stealth Structure - means a facility that is designed and constructed so as to be integrated into the structure of an existing or new building or other structure such that it appears to be part of that building or structure and not a telecommunication tower or antenna. Such structures can include replacement structures or elements of a building. (a) be integrated into a building or other structure in such a way that it appears to be part of that building or structure and not a Tower or Antenna; or (b) disguise, blend with, or mimic the surrounding environment in order to remain unnoticed. Renamed to Proponent

Removed example.

1.08 Telecommunications Carrier (or Carrier) - means a company or organization which provides commercial or private telecommunications services, exclusive of personal or household users. This includes cellular and PCS providers, other point to point wireless communication providers, radio and television broadcasters, as well as those contractors undertaking work for telecommunications carriers. 2.18

1.09 Telecommunications Facilities - means a range of wireless commercial telecommunications facilities, including cellular and PCS providers and other point to point

Telecommunications Facility: means the Telecommunication Tower(s), Antenna(e), accessory building(s), equipment boxes, the site, and any other associated infrastructure required for the transmission of Radiocommunication.

Significantly changed this definition to include everything that would be used for telecommunication purposes, in

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 8 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES order to have a consistent, general term to use throughout the Policy.

EXISTING POLICY wireless communications facilities including radio and television broadcasters, using a variety of technologies, excluding any device for personal or household use. 2.19 Telecommunication Tower (or Tower): means an engineered structure, including the foundation and supports, which is designed primarily to support Antenna(e).

1.10 Telecommunication Tower (or Tower) means a tower supporting equipment used for telecommunication facilities, Such a tower may have a variety of configurations, including, but not limited to, a monopole (single pole), tri-pole (tripod tower), a lattice tower (usually a tripod shape with diagonal metal bracing), or a guyed tower. 3 3.01 Federal Authority FEDERAL AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY

Removed tower types from the definition, as these can change over time.

2. FEDERAL AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY

2.01 Federal Requirements

Now clearly divided into two sections. Federal authority is given new subheadings to help with document navigation/organization. Added the enabling legislation to clarify where the authority is granted.

The Canadian federal government has sole jurisdiction over inter-provincial or international systems of telecommunication and, through the Radiocommunication Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-2, Industry Canada licenses the operation of telecommunication facilities and the towers used to support these facilities.

Bolded statement moved from municipal authority, to clarify and strengthen the understanding of the role of the Federal Government Further emphasis of jurisdiction.

Industry Canada, in its Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03 (Environmental Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land-

(a) Radiocommunication: (i) The Minister of Industry has authority under the Radiocommunications Act R.S.C. 1985 c. R-2 to approve each site on which radio apparatus, including Antenna systems, may be located, and may approve the erection of all masts, towers, and other Antenna-supporting structures. Industry Canada licenses the operation of Telecommunication Facilities and the towers used to support these facilities. The federal Minister of Industry is the sole approving authority for the development and operation of Radiocommunication in Canada, including Telecommunication Facilities. (ii) The Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-003 Issue 4: Radiocommunication and

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 9 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY Use Consultation, 1995) and in reference to Federal legislation, has identified that telecommunications carriers must meet four general requirements in order to approve an application:

a) Where a telecommunication tower, antenna structure, or modification to an existing facility is determined to be significant, the proponent is required to consult with the land-use authority, whether or not the application is for a sitespecific license (a Type 1 license in the case of broadcasters) or in fulfillment of the obligations for a non-site specific license (a Type 2 license, typically the situation for wireless telecommunication carriers).

b) Where applicable, freestanding telecommunication towers and antenna structures must comply with Transport Canadas painting and lighting requirements for aeronautical safety.

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES Broadcasting Antenna Systems (effective Updates Industry Canada January 1, 2008) published by Industry authority and direction Canada, and in reference to Federal legislation, has identified that Proponents must meet four broad elements of the process in order to install or modify Telecommunication Facilities (p. 1). Separated the four requirements A) Co-Location: Investigating sharing or to help navigation of the using existing infrastructure before document. Quotes are taken proposing new Antenna-supporting directly from the CPC. structures.; B) Municipal Process: Contacting the land-use authority (LUA) to determine local requirements regarding Antenna Industry Canada no longer systems.; distinguishes between Type I and C)Consultation: Undertaking public Type II licenses. notification and addressing relevant concerns, whether by following the local LUA requirements or Industry Canadas default process, as is required and appropriate. (See subsection 4.2 of Industry Canadas Client Procedures Circular: CPC-2-003); and D)Technical Requirements: Satisfying Industry Canadas general and technical requirements. Other Federal requirements have (b) Transportation Safety: been given their own heading to (i) Where applicable, freestanding help with navigation, and to Telecommunication Facilities must emphasize the jurisdiction. comply with Transport Canadas and NAV Canadas painting and lighting Added reference to NAV Canada. requirements for aeronautical safety; and (ii) Design and construction shall conform to Moved from Health and Safety Transport Canada and NAV Canada section standards for those structures located within the Airport Protection Overlay (APO) contained within the City of

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 10 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY

c) The installation and operation of telecommunications facilities must comply with Health Canadas limits of exposure to radio frequency fields (Safety Code 6).

d) In the case of site-specific authorizations (for Type 1 facilities), an environmental assessment may be required by Industry Canada in order to comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

2.02 Municipal Authority and Intent

Industry Canada is the final authority in the approval of telecommunications facilities. As part of the approval process, Industry Canada works with local municipalities and telecommunication facility applicants in order to ensure that local concerns are

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES Edmonton Zoning Bylaw 12800 and other areas, as applicable. (c) Health (i) Levels of radiofrequency transmission will Moved from Health and Safety be in accordance with Safety Code 6, and section to clarify jurisdiction. shall also comply with all other Federal Frequency range changed Health standards, as amended from time to time. Moved from Environmental (d) Environment Considerations section, to clarify that these Acts are under Federal (i) Industry Canada requires that: Jurisdiction. A) Telecommunications Facilities comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and an environmental Moved from Environmental Considerations section, to clarify assessment may be required in order that these Acts are under Federal to verify compliance; Jurisdiction. B) Application for Significant Telecommunication Facilities address the potential for adverse environmental effects and proposed Moved from Environmental mitigation measures, as provided for Considerations section, to clarify under the Canadian Environmental that these Acts are under Federal Assessment Act and that installations Jurisdiction. respect the local environment; and C)Telecommunication Facilities be installed and operated in compliance with other statutory requirements, including the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Species at Risk Act. intent is covered by the purpose 3.02 Municipal Authority of this Policy section (a) The City has the authority and responsibility under the Municipal Government Act R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26 to regulate land use to Moved the bolded text about achieve orderly, economical and beneficial Industry Canadas overriding development ... and ... to maintain and authority to the Federal Authority improve the quality of the physical

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 11 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY addressed.

Accordingly, any telecommunications carrier, prior to construction and operation of telecommunication facilities in Edmonton, shall fulfil the requirements of this City of Edmonton Policy. The goal of this Policy is for the City of Edmonton to facilitate, coordinate and influence the siting and appearance of these telecommunication towers when such facilities are required within City boundaries. It is recognized that while reliable and sophisticated telecommunications facilities are a benefit to the citizens of Edmonton, there is a need to address the concerns of those who own property and/or live in close proximity to such structures.

Applications may be the subject of other regulations and consultations outside of municipal jurisdiction. This includes Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation in the case of applications for siting within the

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES section, as it is an aspect of environment. However, these powers are Federal, not Municipal authority. superseded by the authority of the Federal Government, and in this case, the Radiocommunication Act and the Minister of A wordy way of saying that Industry Canada has delegated Industry. the consultation process to (b) As part of the approval process, Industry municipalities, and thus, the Canada works with local municipalities and proponents will need to adhere to Proponents in order to ensure that local our Policy. context is considered. Removed: Accordingly, any Proponent, (c) The role of the City in the approval process prior to construction and operation of is to provide input to Industry Canada Telecommunication Facilities in Edmonton, shall fulfill the requirements of this City of through the Citys statement of concurrence Edmonton Policy. or non-concurrence with the Proponents proposed location of the Changed to respond to the new Telecommunications Facilities in CPC. Clearly states the role of the accordance with subsection 13.01. City in this process that we dont (d) Industry Canada mandates that Proponents have approval authority; we only adhere to municipal land use consultation evaluate adherence to this Policy processes as they apply to the siting of and provide a report to Industry Telecommunication Facilities. As a result, Canada. Proponents must adhere to the guidelines in this Policy in order to receive a statement of goal of Policy is moved to concurrence from the City. purpose of this Policy section (e) The City will comment on the Proponents adherence to the public consultation reliable and sophisticated process. The City will also comment on the changed to strong and robust Proponents adherence to the guidelines and added to purpose section contained in this Policy regarding colocation, preferred and discouraged locations (Section 4), technical requirements, design and visual impact (Section 5) and environmental considerations (Section 7). (f) Applications may be the subject of other Removed: This includes Alberta regulations and consultations outside of Infrastructure and Transportation in the municipal jurisdiction.
case of applications for siting within the Transportation and Utility Corridor (TUC) within the City of Edmonton as it is not

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 12 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES required/is mentioned later.

EXISTING POLICY Transportation and Utility Corridor (TUC) within the City of Edmonton.

3. POLICY Deleted; Not necessary, and is redundant with the preamble

The City has set out a number of guidelines within this Policy for the location, design and health, safety and environmental aspects of telecommunications facility sites. These are:

4.0 Location 5.0 Design and Visual Impact 6.0 Health, Safety 7.0 Environment

CitThe City of Edmontons process for consultation with stakeholders is set out in two phases, as outlined in the subsequent sections, 8.0 Pre-Public Consultation and 9.0 Public Consultation.

Deleted; replaced with initial submission to the City it is redundant with 8.01, and Removed reference to Section 8 because site investigation does not impact the stakeholder input.

The Pre-Public Consultation phase occurs when a telecommunications carrier determines that it has a need for telecommunication facilities in proximity to a residential area where the need for a tower to support these facilities is likely. A tower or significant facility proposed to be located within a distance of six times the proposed tower height of a residential area is deemed to be within proximity to a residential area (as per Section 9.01 of this Policy).

Deleted; redundant with guidelines in the Site Investigation section. Reference to six times the tower height has been removed and replaced with subsection (ii) because not all towers require consultation, and not all towers will be in a residential area; the City will determine the consultation requirements, and there is more options available than stated in the existing Policy. Deleted; redundant with guidelines in the Public Consultation section. Phase wording has been removed because some of these requirements or processes can

The second phase, Public Consultation, will occur when, as a result of the first phase, a potential site or sites have been identified for public discussion. A telecommunications carrier will be deemed to have satisfied the public consultation requirements of this Policy when the two phases (sections 8 and

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 13 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES occur concurrently. Relocated to the end of the Public Consultation section

EXISTING POLICY 9) have been conducted in accordance to the standards set out within this Policy (sections 4-7) to the satisfaction of the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department. Relocated to the beginning of initial submission to the City

The carrier should review the standards identified in sections 4 through 7, as early as possible, and should attempt to resolve any outstanding issues prior to or during the Pre-Public Consultation phase (Section 8). 4 4.01 (a) Proponents shall be required to investigate opportunities for Site Co-location and Antennae Co-location of their Telecommunication Facilities as part of a Co-location Feasibility Review in accordance with subsections 8.02 through 8.04 of this Policy. Co-location: LOCATION

4. LOCATION

The following are co-location and location guidelines.

4.01 Co-location Where technically feasible, carriers are required to investigate opportunities to colocate their facilities. Preference is for colocation on existing structures, and, where this is not technically possible, on existing sites. This includes:

No substantive changes Made reference to the strengthened requirement for review of co-location options, as per the new authority granted in the CPC.

Deleted; redundant with Section 8 Site investigation, and also the next subsection 4.02 Deleted; redundant with Section 8 Site investigation, and also the next subsection 4.02 Deleted; redundant with Section 8 Site investigation, and also the next subsection 4.02

a) Other telecommunications towers, whether freestanding or located on roof-tops or wallmounted. b) Other structures, including, but not limited to, overhead transmission towers, broadcast towers, utility poles and light standards. c) Carriers should consider the possibility of future co-location on proposed facilities and sites, in the design of telecommunication facilities, if interest has been expressed as a result of any expressions of interest from other carriers, as outlined in section 8.01 (a) below. 4.02 Preferred Locations: (a) Locations for a Telecommunication Facility should be chosen strategically with the view

4.02 Preferred Locations

Where new facilities must be constructed, where technically feasible, the following

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 14 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY locations shall be preferred:

a) Co-location on existing telecommunications towers, whether free-standing or located on roof-tops or wall-mounted, as well as other structures, including but not limited to, overhead transmission towers, broadcast towers, utility poles and light standards, as per 4.01.

b) Roof top or wall-mounted facilities on high-rise buildings [i.e. on buildings 23 metres (or 6 stories) in height or greater].

c) Industrial and commercial areas.

d) Agricultural areas

e) Institutional uses where appropriate, including, but not limited to, those institutions that require telecommunications technology: emergency services, hospitals, colleges and universities.

f) Other areas with non-residential uses where appropriate

g) Transportation and Utility Corridors [including the Transportation Utility Corridor (TUC)]

h) Co-location on sites (b) through (g) above, when co-location on existing structures is not feasible, as per

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES of maximizing the service area so as to minimize the need for future While implied in the Policy, Telecommunications Facilities. strategic siting of Towers may (b) Where wireless service demand minimize need for new towers in necessitates the erection of a new the future. Telecommunication Facility, the following locations shall be preferred and should be reviewed for feasibility by an appropriate technical expert prior to consideration of any Appropriate technical expert is added to substantiate the claims discouraged locations as described under subsection 4.03 (not in order of preference): of the Proponent. The general term is used because there may (i) Antennae Co-location on existing be several reasons that a facility is Telecommunications Facilities, including not feasible, and so stating a but not limited to, buildings, structures, specific profession such as an RF overhead power transmission towers, Engineer would not be broadcast towers, utility poles and light appropriate. standards; (ii) Site Co-location when co-location on existing structures is not feasible; Co-location separated to reflect new definitions of site and (iii) Transportation and Utility Corridors: antenna co-location. A) Municipal Transportation and Utility Corridors, subject to the City of Edmonton Transportation Services Wireless Communication Towers on Public Road Rights-of-Way Application References were added to other & Circulation Process; and Telecommunication policies in B) Provincial Transportation Utility force within the City of Edmonton, Corridor (TUC), subject to the to help with clarity/ease of use. Transportation/Utility Corridor Policy, of Alberta Infrastructure; (iv) Industrial and commercial areas; (v) Roof top or wall-mounted facilities on buildings having a height greater than 23 metres; (vi) Institutionally zoned land, where appropriate and including, but not limited to, those institutions that require

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 15 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY telecommunications technology such as: A) Emergency services; B) Hospitals; and C)Colleges and universities; (vii) Agricultural areas; and (viii) Other areas with non-residential uses where appropriate 4.03 (a) Residential Areas, except in the case of Antennae meeting the requirements of subsection 5.02(g) of this Policy; (b) Environmentally Sensitive Areas and significant natural areas (e.g. bird habitat, wetland), including but not limited to, those identified in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas (City of Edmonton 1993); (c) Heritage Areas; and Discouraged Locations: Low density residential areas are no longer singled out; all Residential areas are discouraged, except in the case of building mounted Antennae. Residential areas are not listed under Preferred Locations under Section 4.02. However, where location of towers in residential areas is unavoidable, best efforts should be made to minimize the impact of facilities by maximizing setbacks to residential buildings. RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY

4.03 Discouraged Locations

New facilities should avoid the following areas:

a) Low density residential areas where the area consists predominantly of single detached, semi-detached, duplex, mobile/manufactured home or row housing forms. b) Environmentally sensitive areas and significant natural areas (e.g. bird habitat, wetland), including but not limited to, those identified in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas, City of Edmonton 1993).

(d) Inappropriate parks locations.

c) Heritage areas (unless visibly unobtrusive) or on heritage structures unless it forms an integrated part of the structures overall design. 4.04 Technical Location Requirements 4.04

Technical Location Requirements: (a) Setbacks: (i) The City requests that the Proponent consider the development setbacks of the zone in which the site is located;

Removed the caveat under Heritage Areas, as Telecom Facilities will still be discouraged in Heritage areas. Telecommunications Facilities can still be built in these areas, but design guidelines and public consultation will improve the appearance. Community Services request.

a) The City requests that the carrier consider development setbacks of the zone in which the site is located.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 16 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY

b) A geotechnical evaluation may be required for those sites located in proximity to the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System. 5 5.01 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT The City will require that any application, and in particular any application for a Significant Telecommunication Facility, consider the context within which the structure is proposed during the design and siting process. A Significant Telecommunication Facility should be designed, screened, and situated on the site in such a way as to minimize any potential land use impacts on the neighbourhood or area within which they are proposed. The following should be considered by the Proponent, in consultation with affected Neighbourhood Groups and others, as appropriate, in the design and siting of Telecommunication Facilities: (a) Screening: Using existing or new vegetation, landscaping, fencing, or other means in order to blend the proposed Telecommunications Facility with the surrounding built and natural environment.

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES (ii) Where there is no alternative to the placement of Telecommunication Towers in Residential Areas, setbacks to Added clauses to maximize residential buildings should be maximized setbacks to residential buildings, where possible and should meet, at a as per comments from EFCL. minimum, the setbacks of the applicable Zone; and (iii) Where a Tower is proposed on nonresidential property that abuts residential property, the Tower should meet the minimum setbacks for the applicable nonresidential zone. (b) A geotechnical evaluation may be required for those sites located in proximity to the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System.

5. DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT

No change

The City will request that any application, particularly for significant structures (e.g., free-standing structures over 15m in height) consider the context of the environment within which the structure is proposed during the design and siting process. Significant structures should be designed, screened, and situated on the site in such a way as to minimize any potential detrimental effects on the neighbourhood or area within which they are proposed. 5.02

Wording strengthened from request to require. Terminology changed to reflect new defined terms. Emphasis is on land use impacts.

The following should be considered in design and siting of both tower and antenna structures as well as auxiliary buildings:

a) Screening of facilities by using existing vegetation, landscaping, fencing, or other means in order to blend with the built and natural environments.

Added who should be considering these aspects of the design for clarity.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 17 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY b) Design and colour sensitive to the style of architecture in the neighbourhood.

c) Massing. Situate as near as possible to similarly-scaled structures.

d) Lighting and Colour. Locate towers and minimize tower height where possible to avoid Transport Canada and/or NAV Canada requirements for painting and lighting. Lighting should be shielded from neighbouring properties.

e) Visibility. Where located in proximity to bird migration routes (see 7 below), guy wires should be made more visible (e.g. through sleeves) to prevent birds from colliding into them, particularly in bird migration routes.

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES (b) Design, colour and massing: Sensitive and complimentary to the style of architecture, Terminology changed to reflect the materials and colours used, the overall new defined terms. design and the massing of the existing buildings in the vicinity. Where placed adjacent to a principal building, Sentence structure change; no Telecommunications Facilities should be substantive change. constructed so that they are as similar as possible in appearance to the facades of the Expanded to include colour, principal building. massing, and context, to increase compatibility with the surroundings. (c) Lighting and colour: Locate towers and minimize tower height where possible to avoid Transport Canada and/or NAV Canada requirements for painting and Merged with Design and colour as lighting. Neighbouring properties should be the existing wording did not shielded from any required lighting. address massing. (d) Visibility: Where located in proximity to bird Changed the sentence structure migration routes (see subsection 3.01(d)), guy wires should be made more visible (e.g. to mean what was intended (properties need to be shielded through sleeves) to help prevent birds from from lighting, not the other way colliding into them. around). Removed particularly in bird migration routes as it is redundant.

f) Structure. Stealth and/or monopole structure should be used to better integrate form with existing built environment. Where co-location on a single structure is desired, opportunities to design equipment within a single stealth structure may be investigated.

Terminology changed to reflect new defined terms. More explicit direction in regard to structure. Qualification of outcome added.

(e) Structure: Wherever possible, Telecommunications Facilities should be built as Stealth Structures. The Stealth Structure shall be unobtrusive at street level so that a casual observer would not realize it is being used for Radiocommunication. (f) Tower type: Designs with the least visual impact should be used. (g) Building-mounted Telecommunications Facilities: (i) Setbacks: A) Where Antennae and/or utility shelters are placed on the tops of buildings,

Where the Facility is not built as a Stealth Structure, its impact

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 18 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY

g) Access to facilities should be possible without unduly interfering with traffic flow or without unduly creating safety hazards.

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES they shall be setback from the edge of should be minimized. the roof line so as to minimize visual impact from ground level. (ii) Height: Added to clarify requirements of A) Proponents should scale buildingbuilding mounted structures. mounted Telecommunication Facilities in such a way that the height is less than those as defined under Significant Telecommunications Facility; (iii) Side-mounted structures on buildings: Added to clarify requirements of building mounted structures. A) Where Antennae and associated equipment is placed on the side of buildings, equipment shall project not Added to clarify requirements of more than 2 metres from the wall building-mounted structures. surface. (h) Access: when a Proponent makes an application to the City to review a Telecommunications Facility, and the submission requires modifications to an Change taken verbatim from existing access or construction of a new access, the submission should be circulated Transportation Services comments. to Transportation Services for review. The location and configuration of any access to City road right-of-way must be to the satisfaction of Transportation Services. Should reconstruction of an existing access or construction of a new access be required, the Proponent will be required to enter into a Municipal Improvement Agreement with the City for construction of the access. 6 HEALTH AND SAFETY Health: (a) Health impacts of Radiocommunication are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. See subsection 3.01(c) for the

6. HEALTH AND SAFETY

a) Levels of radiofrequency transmission will be in accordance to Health Canadas Limits of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields at Frequencies from 10kHz to 300 GHz, Safety Code 6 (commonly referred to as Safety Code

6.01

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 19 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY relevant Acts. 6.02 (a) Telecommunication Facility design shall include construction drawings stamped by a professional engineer, licensed to practice in Alberta. Safety: This section was mostly relocated to Federal Authority, subsection 2.01(c), to make it clear that health impacts related to radiofrequency is not in municipal jurisdiction. RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY 6) and shall comply with all Federal Health standards, as changed from time to time. b) Design must be consistent with good engineering practices. c) Design and construction shall conform to Transport Canada standards for those structures located within the Airport Protection Overlay (APO) contained within the City of Edmonton Land Use Zoning Bylaw 2800 and other areas, as applicable.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Industry Canada requires that site-specific (Type 1) applications for significant structures address the potential for adverse environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures, as provided for under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.01 Environmentally Sensitive Areas:

A stamp by an engineer would indicate that it is being constructed to good engineering practises Moved to subsection 2.01(b) to make it clear that transportation safety related to aviation is not in municipal jurisdiction. This section was mostly relocated to Federal Authority, subsection 2.01(d), to make it clear that environmental impacts related to Environmental Assessments, birds, and species at risk, is not in municipal jurisdiction.

While environmentally sensitive and significant natural areas within this Policy are discouraged [4.03 (b)], should a proponent still feel the need to propose a facility in proximity to such an area, the City will recommend to Industry Canada that the applicant be requested to address the potential for adverse environmental effects, whether or not the application involves a licence for a site-specific facility (Type 1), or for a non site-specific facility (Type 2). The City will let the proponent know of the Citys concerns, under the following conditions:

feel the need removed as it is too conversational.

a) Towers with significant height (higher than 61m), located within 500m of an environmentally sensitive area that is known bird habitat, as identified in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive

(a) While siting Telecommunications Facilities within Environmentally Sensitive Areas are discouraged (subsection 4.03(b)), should a Proponent still propose a facility in proximity to such an area, the City will recommend to Industry Canada that the applicant be requested to address the potential for adverse environmental effects. The City will inform the Proponent of the Citys concerns, under the following conditions: (i) A Telecommunication Facility having a significant height (higher than 61 metres), that is located within 500 metres of an Environmentally Sensitive Area that is known bird habitat, as identified in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas (City of Edmonton 1993);

Specific facility types removed as they are not defined in this Policy.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 20 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY and Significant Natural Areas.

b) Any tower with guy wires located within 500m of an environmentally sensitive area as identified in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas that is known bird habitat.

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES (ii) (ii) A Telecommunication Facility having guy wires that is located within 500 metres of an Environmentally Sensitive Wording changed slightly to help Area that is known bird habitat as with clarity. No substantive identified in the Inventory of change. Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas (City of Edmonton 1993); and

c) Towers within close proximity to other environmentally significant areas, as identified in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas subject to review by the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department. (iii) A Telecommunication Facility within close proximity to other Environmentally Sensitive Area that are not known bird habitat, as identified in the Inventory of Environmentally Sensitive and Significant Natural Areas (City of Edmonton 1993) shall be subject to review by the City. 8 8.01 SITE INVESTIGATION When a Proponent determines that wireless service demand in an area necessitates the erection of additional Telecommunication Facilities, the Proponent shall commence a site investigation in preparation for an initial submission to the City (see Section 9). Co-location Feasibility Review:

Wording changed slightly to help with clarity. No substantive change.

8. PRE-PUBLIC CONSULTATION PHASE

8.01 Co-location and Site Investigation

Wording changed slightly to help with clarity. No substantive change.

When a telecommunications carrier determines that it has a need for new telecommunication facilities in proximity to a residential area within the distances set out in Section 9.01, where the need for a tower to support these facilities is likely, the carrier shall undertake the following procedures, the order of which may vary, depending on other carrier interest and site requirements: 8.02

Relocated 8.01(f) Co-location statement to here

(a) In cases where a Telecommunications Facility is proposed to include a new Telecommunications Tower, the Proponent shall first determine the suitability of Colocation on existing Telecommunication Facilities, other infrastructure, or buildings within a minimum of 500 metres of the location of the proposed Telecommunication Facility. (i) The Proponent shall submit a site selection and justification analysis, prepared by a certified engineer or land use planner, which includes details on

Made reference to the wireless service demand to reduce ambiguity with what the needs of the proponent are, as well as recognize that the need for more capacity comes from the subscribers in the area. Removed reference to Residential Areas because the site investigation applies to all applications

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 21 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES the coverage and capacity of the existing Add more explicit requirements for co-location feasibility review. telecommunications infrastructure. Any existing Telecommunication Facility shall Currently there is no separate step requiring a Co-Location be identified through a location map, Review; only a Co-location which shall be provided to the City of statement is required under Edmonton to the satisfaction of the existing subsection 8.01(f). Development Officer (ii) If the Proponent determines that Colocation is not viable, the analysis shall include detailed documentary evidence as to why Antennae Co-location on an existing Telecommunication Tower is not a viable alternative to a new Telecommunication Tower. The City may require verification of the results through a third-party analysis. (iii) Proponents should consider the possibility of future requests for colocation on proposed facilities and sites, in the design of Telecommunication Facilities. (b) Where co-location review is required, the Proponent shall contact the owner/operator of those Telecommunication Facilities, other infrastructure, or buildings as listed in subsection 8.02 to determine availability and suitability of Antennae Co-location or Site Co-location; (i) All Proponents so contacted shall provide a response in writing to the Proponent indicating the feasibility of co-locating on existing equipment (if applicable) and/or their interest or lack thereof, and include an assessment of the likelihood of Specific, verifiable requirements potential for use of a site within 500 for the Proponent to complete. metres of the proposed facility, in accordance with Section 3 of Industry Canadas Client Procedures Circular:

EXISTING POLICY

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 22 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES CPC-2-0-03; (ii) Any existing Telecommunication Facility shall be identified through a location map, Relocated this requirement from which shall be provided to the City of Other Carrier interest in the Edmonton to the satisfaction of the existing Policy. Development Officer; and (iii) Proponents should consider the possibility of future requests for co-location on proposed facilities and sites, in the design of Telecommunication Facilities. 8.03 Other Proponent interest: Map showing facilities within 500 metres of proposed location for new tower will make it easier to confirm that these sites have been examined with co-location potential in mind.

EXISTING POLICY

a) Other carrier interest - The carrier shall contact in writing all other carriers which provide similar services and operate using similar structures, operating within the City of Edmonton, and advise them of its requirements and the potential siting area, and seek an expression of interest in co-location opportunities in that area. All carriers so contacted shall provide a response in writing within ten business days of the mailing of the request, indicating their interest or lack thereof, and include an assessment of the likelihood of potential for use of a site within 500 metres of the proposed facility.

(a) If no existing Telecommunication Facilities, other infrastructure, or buildings are found to be suitable for co-location (subsection 8.02), the Proponent shall contact in writing all other Proponents who provide similar services, using similar structures, who are operating within the City of Edmonton, including, but not limited to, those who may own equipment identified in subsection 8.02 above, in order to advise the other Proponents of its requirements and the potential siting area, and seek an expression of interest in co-location opportunities in that area. It is anticipated that 30 days is reasonable time for existing Antenna system owners/operators to reply to a request by a proponent in writing with either: (i) A proposed set of reasonable terms to govern the sharing of the Antenna system; or (ii) A detailed explanation of why sharing is not possible. 8.04 Inter- Proponent communication: (a) If one or more of the Proponents contacted

Makes reference to those who are identified within 500 metres of the proposed Telecommunications Facility.

b) Inter-carrier meeting - If one or more of the carriers contacted indicate a need to locate in the identified area, an intercarrier meeting shall be held by the

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 23 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY (subsection 8.03) indicate a need to locate in the identified area, the Proponents shall co-operate, in good faith, and in a timely manner to involve technical and real estate representatives of each Proponent and landowner(s) if appropriate, to exchange further information and to determine if colocation is possible. RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY initial carrier, within fourteen days of the initial correspondence, involving technical and real estate representatives of each carrier and landowner(s) if appropriate, in the case that a specific site has been identified to exchange further information and to determine if co-location is possible.

c) Carriers meeting with Planning and Development Staff - If the decision is made to proceed with further investigation of site development in an area, a meeting shall be held between the interested carriers and a representative of the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department, in order to discuss proposed site(s), colocation opportunities and to determine public consultation requirements for the area in question. Moved meeting with Staff to Initial Submission to the City

A requirement for a physical meeting is removed, due to other options being available to achieve the same objective. Specific timelines are removed to allow for operational and resource constraints. good faith wording added to compel Proponents to work together.

d) Councillor notification - If facilities proposed are to be located within a distance of six times the proposed tower height of a low density residential area (in accordance with Section 9.01), or a decision is made to proceed with further investigation of site development in an area, the Planning and Development Department will notify the ward Councillors within which the proposed facility is to b e located, of the site(s) under consideration, as discussed in (c) above, and invite them to a joint Carrier/Councillor/Community League meeting, as per (e) below. 8.05

Councillor invitation is merged with the next subsection. Section 11.01 also lists Councillors as interested parties for Notification.

e) Carrier/Councillor/Community League meeting - Based on the recommendation of the City of

Proponent /Councillor/Neighbourhood Group meeting:

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 24 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY Edmontons Planning and Development Department, the relevant carriers shall meet with the ward Councillors and the representatives of the executive of any community league operating in the area to discuss the potential location(s) for these facilities. The intent of this meeting is to fully discuss all potential locations within an identified service area, to determine which site or sites is/are most likely to meet with community support and which most closely meet the City of Edmonton colocation, siting, design guidelines and visual impact, health and safety and environmental criteria policies (sections 4, 5, 6 and 7). The sites so determined shall then be the subject of the Public Consultation phase, as described in Section 9 below. The initial carrier shall document the proceedings of these meetings and make these minutes available to the City.

f)

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES (a) Prior to a Public Consultation Meeting (subsection 10.03) the Proponent may invite, or be invited by, the ward Councillor(s) and the representatives of the executive of any Community League or Neighbourhood Group operating in the area to a pre-consultation meeting to discuss the potential location(s) for the Telecommunication Facility. (b) The intent of this meeting is to fully discuss all potential locations within an identified service area, to determine which site or sites is/are most likely to meet with community support and which most closely meet the City of Edmonton co-location, siting, design guidelines and visual impact, health and safety and environmental criteria policies Any party may initiate a meeting, (sections 4, 5, 6 and 7). as suggested by EFCL. (c) The design, location, strategy and other relevant alternatives identified shall then be the subject of the Public Consultation Requirements, as described in Section 10 and 11 below. The Proponent shall document the proceedings of these meetings and make them available to the City. Relocated to the beginning of this Section

Co-location statement - If the carrier, after consultations as prescribed in (a) through (e) above, deems that colocation is not viable or possible, the carrier is required to explain the reasons why it is not viable in writing, and forward these reasons on to the City, prior to notification of the public meeting [9.02 (a)]. If co-location is not possible for technical reasons, a statement signed and stamped by an appropriate registered Engineer, with expertise in the technical issue at hand, is requested.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 25 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY

Relocated from the last paragraph of Section 3. 9 9.01 (a) The Proponent should review the standards identified in sections 4 through 7, as early as possible, and should attempt to resolve any outstanding issues prior to or during the Site Investigation phase (Section 8). 9.02 Submission Requirements: New section to clarify submission requirements, timelines, and Development Officer discretion in determining notification and consultation requirements. Moved from the former Section 3. The timelines imposed by Industry Canada are extremely tight once the Proponent makes contact, so most issues should be resolved before asking for concurrence. 9.02(a) Reference to fees added. The materials section is consolidated from several areas of this Policy for clarity and ease of use. Prior to Submission: INITIAL SUBMISSION TO THE CITY

(a) Fees in accordance with the fee schedule as established by City Council; (b) A map (or maps) showing the location of other Telecommunications Facilities located within 500 metres of the proposed site as well as a co-location analysis if required under subsection 8.02(a). Other infrastructure and buildings that could support the Antenna(e) should also be shown on this map; (c) A map (or maps) showing the typical coverage area of existing Towers, which shows the need for additional Telecommunication Facilities; (d) Draft proposed drawings (site plan, elevation, structure, etc.) of the Telecommunication Facility; (e) If co-location is not possible for technical reasons, a statement signed by an appropriate technical expert outlining the reasons, shall be provided to the City. The statement shall include a map of all similar existing telecommunications equipment located within 500 metres of the proposed site, above, Co-location Feasibility Review;

Added based on Development Officer comments. Location and coverage maps, plans (Tower

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 26 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES height) to determine notification (f) (e) If Co-location is not possible for nontechnical reasons, a statement signed by an area appropriate representative of the Proponent outlining the reasons, shall be provided to the City; and Separated the not possible (g) Councillor/Neighbourhood Group record of outcome into technical reasons meeting. and non-technical reasons, in order to respond to the actual 9.03 Determination of Notification Requirements circumstance the Proponent faces.

EXISTING POLICY

Relocated meeting with Staff to here from Section 8.01(c) Relocated the preamble from Notification Letter to here from Section 9.02(b)

This section has largely been combined/reorganized with 8.06, 9.01 (a), (c), (d)(iii), 10.01(a), (b)

Relocated Discretion residing with Development Officer to here from Section 9.01.04

(a) Proponent meeting with Sustainable Development Staff: (i) After the Proponent has completed the site investigation (Section 8), and met with other Proponents and/or the relevant Neighbourhood Groups, and the Proponent decides to proceed further, a meeting shall be held between the interested Proponents and a representative of the City, in order to discuss proposed site(s), co-location opportunities and to determine the notification area and public consultation requirements, as applicable, according to sections 10 and 11 of this Policy. (ii) When consultation is required under subsection 10.01, the City will establish the notification area and the Proponent will carry out the notification as per Section 11. A) The City may modify the consultation and notification process noted in subsection 9.03(a(ii) on a site by site basis, given local factors, and determine whether or not a proposed Telecommunication Facility will have an adverse land use impact, and

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 27 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY

Relocated a portion of Public Consultation Meeting to here from Section 9.02(d)

9. PUBLIC CONSULTATION PHASE

9.01 Public Consultation Required 10.01

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES therefore be subject to public consultation, notwithstanding subsection 10.02; and B) Not all Telecommunication Facilities or locations require consultation (iii) The type of public meeting (subsection 10.03) is determined by the Proponent, in a manner it deems most appropriate. The City requests the Proponent consult with the City in order to determine the meeting format that is most appropriate, based on the initial submission by the Proponent (subsection 9.02) and the number and location of the affected residents in the notification area (subsection 9.03(a)); (iv) When the public consultation requirements are determined (Section 10), the Proponent will notify the persons or groups identified, as per the requirements in Section 11. 10 PUBLIC CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

Public Consultation will be required but is not limited to, the following cases, where it is deemed that there could be detrimental impacts upon area residents:

9.01.01 Freestanding Structures

a) Freestanding towers 15m or greater in height, where the proposed tower location is setback a horizontal distance of less than six times the proposed tower height from existing groundoriented low density residential development where the area consists predominantly of single detached, semidetached, duplex, mobile/manufactured

Consultation is required where any one of the following situations apply: (a) A Significant Telecommunications Facility (as defined in subsection 2.15) is proposed to be located less than the Prescribed Distance from a Residential Area; (b) The proposed Telecommunications Facility does not meet the Design and Visual Impact guidelines in Section 5 of this Policy; (c) At the discretion of the City, where a Significant Telecommunications Facility is proposed to be located in areas other than Residential Areas; (d) At the discretion of the City, where a Telecommunications Facility is proposed in

Consultation requirements have been significantly consolidated to reduce redundancy and help with clarity. It is organized by: Consultation required (both

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 28 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY home or row housing forms.

b) Exceptions: notwithstanding (a) above, public consultation may not be required, subject to review by the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department, in the following cases:

i)

where the location is separated from the residential development or heritage area or structure by an arterial roadway, and/or is buffered by substantial tree cover, topography, or buildings;

ii)

for replacement of original equipment with equipment of similar height and massing;

iii)

the addition of antenna structures similar in massing to existing antenna structures on the existing tower.

c) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) above, freestanding towers proposed to be located within a horizontal distance of less than six times the proposed tower height from heritage areas or heritage structures and areas subject to special requirements such as contained within an area structure plan or area redevelopment plan, may require public consultation.

9.01.02 Building-mounted Structures a) On any building [other than the exceptions listed in (c) below] where the

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES freestanding and buildinga discouraged location (subsection 4.03); mounted), consultation not (e) In the case of Building-Mounted Telecommunications Facilities, on the top of required (both freestanding and any building where it is placed in such a way building-mounted), and then individual exceptions for that it is at a height lower than any adjacent residential building, which includes buildings freestanding, and building that may be separated from the building with mounted. the Telecommunications Facility by a road right-of-way, but are otherwise adjacent; (f) In the case of Building-Mounted Telecommunications Facilities, those exceeding the height limits in subsection 5.02(g)(ii); (g) At the discretion of the City, roof-top installations on buildings having a height greater than 23 metres may require public consultation, notwithstanding the height guidelines in subsection 5.02(g)(ii), depending on the massing, height and visual impact of the proposed Telecommunication Facilities; (h) The addition of Antenna structures or additions to, an existing Telecommunications Tower where the addition would cause the total height to exceed 15 metres and it would then be within the Prescribed distance of a Residential Area; and (i) A proposed Tower proposed to be located within the Prescribed Distance from any Heritage Area will be subject to special requirements such as contained within a Statutory Plan, and may require public consultation. Modest additions to Antenna 10.02 Consultation may not be required, subject to structures are listed under 6. review by the City (subsection 9.03(a)), where Exclusions in Industry Canadas any one of the following situations applies: Client Procedures Circular, CPC(a) Freestanding and building-mounted

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 29 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY aggregate height of the building and tower are between 15m and 23m (or 6 stories), and the tower height is greater than 30% of the building height itself, where the proposed building-mounted location is setback a horizontal distance of less than six times the proposed tower height from existing groundoriented low density residential development where the area consists predominantly of single detached, semidetached, duplex, mobile/manufactured home or row housing forms.

b) Exceptions: notwithstanding (a) above, no public consultation will be required for the following structures, subject to review by the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department, in the following cases:

i)

where the location is separated from the residential development or heritage area or structure by an arterial roadway, and/or is buffered by substantial tree cover, topography, or buildings;

ii)

on a building where the combined height of the building and the tower would not exceed 15 metres in height;

iii)

on top of any building greater than 23m (or 6 stories) in height;

iv)

on any downtown building [as identified in the Capital City Downtown Plan (Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan,

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES 2-03, i.e. provided that they to Telecommunications Facilities: dont result in an overall increase (i) The proposed Telecommunications in height of more than 25% of the Facility meets one or more of the original structures height. exclusion criteria referenced in Section 6 of the Client Procedures Circular: CPC-2- However, should the increase in height cause it to be higher than 0-03; 15 m in height, this would create a (ii) The proposed Telecommunications situation requiring consultation Facility is separated from a Residential where it is within the Prescribed Area or Heritage Area by an arterial Distance of a Residential Area. roadway; (iii) The proposed Telecommunications Facility is buffered from a Residential Area or Heritage Area by screening listed in subsection 5.02(a); (iv) The proposed Telecommunications Facility is for replacement of existing equipment with equipment of similar height and massing; (v) The proposed Telecommunications Facility meets the Design and Visual Impact guidelines in Section 5 of this Policy, and in particular, is a Stealth Structure; (vi) The proposal is for a temporary Significantly condensed using Telecommunications Facility to be used defined terms, and by for a special event, or to support a local, consolidating the requirements of provincial, territorial or national Freestanding and buildingemergency operation for a period of up to mounted Telecommunication three months, and which shall be Facilities removed within three months of the event; and (vii) If a Statutory Plan pre-identifies sites for Telecommunication Facilities, and the proposed Telecommunication Facility is consistent with that plan. (b) Exceptions to required consultation for proposed Freestanding Telecommunications

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 30 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY Bylaw 11400)];

v)

on the top or side of any building where the antenna projects less than 2m from the top or side;

vi)

for replacement of original equipment with equipment of similar height and massing;

vii)

the addition of antenna structures similar in massing to existing antenna structures on an existing tower.

c) Notwithstanding (a) and (b) above, facilities mounted on heritage buildings and buildings subject to special requirements as contained within an area structure plan or area redevelopment plan, may require public consultation.

9.01.03 Adjacent Municipalities

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES Consistent with updated Facilities only: exclusions for public consultation (i) The addition of Antennae or other as listed under 6 Exclusions in structural additions to, an existing Telecommunications Tower, provided that Industry Canadas Client Procedures Circular, CPC-2-0-03. the proposed Antenna and resulting Tower is similar in massing to existing Antennae on an existing Tower and provided that: Ideally statutory plans would A) The addition does not result in an identify potential overall height increase above the Telecommunications Facilities existing structure of 25% of the sites in advance of development. original structures height; and B) The addition would not increase the height of the Telecommunications Facility in such a way that it would be located within the Prescribed Distance from an existing Residential Area in cases where the new height would exceed 15 metres; and C) The addition may increase the height of the Telecommunications Facility so that the new height would now exceed 15 metres, provided that with the extended height it would not be within the Prescribed Distance from a Residential Area. (c) Exceptions to required consultation for proposed building-mounted Telecommunications Facilities only: (i) The location is on top of any building, provided that Antennae and associated structures should be higher than any adjacent residential building, which includes buildings that may be separated from the building with the Telecommunications Facility by a road right-of-way, and it is consistent with the Design and Visual Impact guidelines in

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 31 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY i) The City will request that the carrier notify in writing adjacent municipalities, [and landowners of adjacent municipalities, as per 9.02 (b) below] under the following conditions:

i)

freestanding towers: where the location of a proposed new freestanding tower 15m in height or greater, is setback a horizontal distance of less than six times the proposed tower height from the adjacent municipality.

ii)

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES Section 5 of this Policy; (ii) The location is on top of any downtown building (as identified in the Capital City Downtown Plan (Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan, Bylaw 15200)), provided that it is consistent with the Design and Visual Impact guidelines in Section 5 of this Policy; (iii) The location is on the side of any building where the Antenna projects less than 2 metres from the side; (iv) The proposal is for the addition of Antenna structures similar in massing to existing Antenna structures on an existing building, provided that the additions are consistent the Design and Visual Impact Guidelines in Section 5 of this Policy. Relocated to Notification Adjacent Municipalities Section 11.03

building-mounted structures: where setback a horizontal distance of less than six times the proposed tower height from the adjacent municipality, where the aggregate height of the building and tower are between 15m and 23m (or 6 stories), and the tower height is greater than 30% of the building height itself

iii)

as part of intermunicipal processes, the City may also request that the carrier notify adjacent municipalities at greater distances and in other cases other than (i) and (ii) above, subject to review by the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department or at the request of the adjacent municipality.

ii)

The notification letter shall ask if the municipality wants the property

The notification to adjacent municipalities has been shortened substantially. It defers to the municipalitys own telecom Policy, or that of Industry Canada. The notification requirement is now simply a courtesy note to let the municipality know, and take

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 32 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES whatever action they deem appropriate.

EXISTING POLICY owners within a horizontal distance of six times the proposed tower height from the proposed tower location (of greater distance as requested by the municipality) to be notified by mail (or hand-delivery, as appropriate). If notification of landowners is requested, the letter shall request the municipality to indicate the preferred method of notification, i.e. through supplying the carrier with an address list of landowners, or, if the municipality prefers to arrange for notification directly to its residents, shall offer to forward copies of the notification letter to the municipality for distribution.

9.01.04 Discretion of the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department

The City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department may modify these criteria on a site by site basis, given local factors, and determine whether or not a proposed tower will be likely to have an impact, and therefore be subject to public consultation notwithstanding 9.01.01 through 9.01.03.

Relocated to Section 9.03(a)

9.01.05 Statement to Industry Canada - No Public Consultation Required

In cases where it has been deemed that no public consultation will be necessary,

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 33 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY the City shall forward a letter to Industry Canada (with a copy to the carrier and the ward Councillors) indicating that the carrier has consulted with the City, and that the requirements for public consultation have been waived. Deleted as per Industry Canada comments.

9.02 Public Consultation Process

For proposed towers or for significant alterations to existing towers that fall under 9.01 above, the carrier shall be responsible for the following public notification and public meeting process:

a) Notification Removed as per Industry Canada comments. Industry Canada only reviews/audits specific applications, and does not have the capacity or desire to review every single application. Relocated to Notification Section 11.01(a)

i)

the carrier shall arrange, at its own cost, for notification by regular mail or hand delivery, as appropriate, of the following, with the assistance of the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department (or adjacent municipality) if required, all owners of property within a horizontal distance of six times the proposed tower height of the proposed tower location;

ii)

the presidents of any applicable community leagues, or, if there is no community league within the area, the nearest adjacent community league, as well as applicable area community councils, within a horizontal distance of six times the proposed tower height of the proposed tower location; Relocated to Notification Section 11.01(a)

Deleted; this paragraph muddles two separate processes, and this draft Policy separates public consultation from public notification.

iii)

any other interest group or individual which the City may determine to be potentially affected by the proposed tower. These include, but are not limited to, City

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 34 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY Councillors, area business groups such as Business Revitalization Zone (BRZ) associations, and special interest groups (such as the Edmonton Design Review Committee and the Edmonton Historical Board); and if requested by the adjacent municipality, all owners of property in adjacent municipalities located within a horizontal distance of six times the proposed tower height of the proposed tower location (or other distance, as agreed with the adjacent municipality) in accordance with 9.01.03 (b) above. Relocated to Notification Section 11.01(a) Community league has been merged into the definition for Neighbourhood Group.

b) Notification Letter

The City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department shall establish the notification distance (and list of area addresses where required) and the carrier will be required to provide the City with a single page letter, double sided if necessary (one copy per mail out), containing the following information: Relocated to Notification Section 11.01(b)

i)

the proposed location of the tower within the subject site;

ii)

physical details of the proposed tower, such as its height, colour, type of construction (i.e. monopole, lattice tower, etc.) and design and appearance of the arrays to be installed on the tower;

iii)

the time and location of a meeting open to the public, to be held in the general area affected, at the expense of the carrier, the purpose of which is

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 35 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY to discuss the proposal and respond to concerns;

iv)

the name and telephone number of a contact person employed by the carrier; and

v)

time frame within which comments are required to be submitted to the carrier for consideration (if they are not submitted at the meeting), which shall be no less than seven business days from the date of the scheduled public meeting. Statement shall include a contact address, fax number (and e-mail address, if desired) to which comments may be submitted.

The City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department shall fulfill, where applicable, the steps outlined in (a) and (b) above within ten business days of receipt of the letters from the carrier.

c) Other Means of Notification

The City may also require the carrier, based on local conditions such as a high proportion of rental accommodation in the vicinity of the site, to provide such other additional forms of notification (in addition to mail delivery, if this is the primary means), which in the opinion of the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department, would be likely to inform area residents of the proposal. These other forms of notification may include, but are not limited to:

Relocated to Notification Section 11.02

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 36 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY i) a sign or signs of an area of 1 m2 each, posted on the site of the proposed tower, visible from any roadway abutting the subject site; ii) a notice in a local newspaper of the affected municipality/municipalities; and/or iii) hand delivery to specified buildings.

The timeframe of 10 business days was expanded to 21 days, to reflect the current time constraints on Development Officers.

d) Public Consultation Meeting

The type of public meeting to be conducted by the carrier is up to the discretion of the carrier. 10.03 Relocated to Determination of Notification Requirements Section 9.03(a)(iii) Public Consultation Meeting

i)

During the meeting, which is to be fully conducted by the carrier, the carrier shall:

keep a record of the names, addresses and phone numbers of all those in attendance; keep minutes or record of the meeting, which shall fully identify any concerns or issues raised by the attendees, and fully identify the response of the carrier to these issues and concerns; and

(a) The type of public meeting is determined by the Proponent, in a manner it deems most appropriate. The Proponent shall consult with the Development Officer in order to determine the meeting format that is most appropriate, based on the initial submission by the Proponent (subsection 9.02) and the number and location of the affected residents and property owners in the notification area (subsection 9.03(a)); (b) The public meeting is to be held in the general area of the proposed Telecommunications Facility; (c) The Proponent is responsible for all costs associated with the public meeting; and (d) During the meeting, the Proponent shall: (i) Seek permission to, and record the names, addresses and phone numbers of all those in attendance;

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 37 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY give a time frame within which comments on the application are requested to be submitted by the carrier for consideration (if they are not submitted at the meeting), which shall be no less than seven business days from the date of the meeting. Statement shall include a contact address, fax number (and e-mail address, if desired) to which comments may be submitted.

Relocated from below

ii)

The carrier shall provide a variety of types of design and location information at the meeting, and may include materials to best inform the public, as deemed appropriate, including, but not limited to:

map showing the notification area, including the location of other existing or proposed towers and facilities owned by the same or different carriers;

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES (ii) Keep minutes or record of the meeting, which shall fully identify any comments raised by the attendees, and fully identify the response of the Proponent to these comments (in accordance with subsection 4.2 Responding to the Public of Industry New additions to make the Canadas Client Procedures Circular: location of the meeting convenient CPC-2-0-03); for the residents to attend. (iii) If a questionnaire or comment form is provided during the meeting to solicit responses from area residents and property owners, then those comments, or a summary thereof shall be provided to Wording about conducting the meeting removed due to the City of Edmonton as part of the final requirement in Section 10.04 for submission package (Section 12); all involved at a political level to (iv) Give a time frame within which written share responsibility for the comments on the proposed decisions made. Telecommunications Facility are requested to be submitted to the Part 4.2 of CPC-02-0-03 states: Proponent for consideration (if they are Proponents are to address all reasonable not submitted at the meeting), which shall and relevant concerns, make all be no less than seven business days from reasonable efforts to resolve them in a mutually acceptable manner and must the date of the meeting and not less than keep a record of all associated 30 days from the date of notification of the communications. meeting; (v) Include the name and contact information of a person working on behalf of the Proponent to which comments may be submitted; (vi) Provide supporting materials for the option(s) that are under consideration, including the information required to address the Design and Visual Impact guidelines in Section 5 and include materials to best inform the public, as deemed appropriate, including, but not limited to: A) A map showing the notification area

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 38 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY

the design attributes as described in the notification letter [9.02 (b) (ii)];

before and after photographs, showing views of the proposed site and surrounding area with and without the proposed towers and facilities, including any proposed site treatment, including landscaping and screening;

Made the contact information more specific, and added the qualifier that it should be the person in charge of the comments

technical information on radiofrequency transmission and point-to-point radiofrequency transmission;

health information radiofrequency transmission and health standards (Safety Code 6); technical information on the various structure options (e.g. lattice, monopole, tri-pole) and antenna options; contact information for the carrier; and means by which a participant or stakeholder may obtain a record of the meeting, and the carriers response to concerns (e.g. through provision of participant/stakeholder address information to the carrier, or making the meeting record available through the applicable Community League).

PROPOSED POLICY (determined in Section 9.03(a)), which includes the location of the proposed the Telecommunications Facility, as well as existing Telecommunications Facilities within 500 metres or the Prescribed Distance; B) The design attributes as described in the notification letter subsection 11.01(b); C) Images, showing views of the proposed site and surrounding area, with and without the proposed Telecommunication Facility (or additions thereto). The Proponent should be prepared to discuss how the proposed Telecommunications Facility meets the Design and Visual Impact guidelines in Section 5; D) Technical information on radiofrequency transmission and point-to-point radiofrequency transmission, Tower type and Antenna(e) configuration; and E) Health information on radiofrequency transmission and health standards (Safety Code 6);

Photographs changed to images to make it a general term.

(vii) Provide the means by which a participant or stakeholder may obtain a record of the meeting, and the Proponents response to concerns (e.g. through provision of participant/stakeholder address information to the Proponent, or making the meeting record available through a

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 39 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES website, or the applicable Neighbourhood Group). 10.04 Notwithstanding subsection 10.03(c), if a preconsultation meeting (subsection 8.05) was held between the Proponent and representatives from the area within the Prescribed Distance, (such as those persons listed in subsection 11.01), where the proposed/available options (Section 8) have been vetted/discussed, and the resulting preferred option is presented at a public meeting, the persons responsible for that agreement shall share responsibility in presenting it to the public and demonstrate:

EXISTING POLICY

iii)

In scheduling the meeting, the carrier shall ensure that the meeting is conducted no less than 21 business days from the date the notices of the meeting are mailed to area residents. 10.05

(a) The information provided at the preconsultation meeting (subsection 8.05) plus: (b) The steps taken, including the assumptions made and the tradeoffs considered, to reach the preferred option; (c) The agreements that may have been reached; and (d) Any concerns that remain outstanding. In scheduling the meeting, the Proponent shall ensure that the meeting is conducted no less than 21 business days from the date the notices of the meeting are mailed to area residents. Alternative Consultation (a) At the discretion of the City, the Proponent may carry-out a door-to-door canvass of the residents within the Prescribed Distance in order to satisfy the consultation requirements of this Policy. 10.07 A Proponent will be deemed to have satisfied the public consultation requirements of this Policy when sections 10 and 11 have been conducted 10.06 Alternative consultation process as agreed to by stakeholders.

10.06

Added as per comments from the Development Officer

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 40 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES in accordance to the standards set out within this Policy sections 4-7) to the satisfaction of the City. The reason for this addition is to 10.08 If no consultation is required address situations where no (a) Where the type and/or location of a public consultations were required Telecommunications Facility does not and therefore no meeting trigger a public consultation process minutes/comments are available. (subsection 10.02), or the City, under For example, 12.01 does not subsection 9.03(a)(ii), determines that cover applications in a situation notification may be reduced, the City will where limited notification was review the application on the basis of the done (commercial locations, roof Preferred and Discouraged locations, and tops etc). write a concurrence or non-concurrence as a result of the findings. (b) When consultation is not required, the Proponent shall submit the required documentation under Section 12, and request a statement of concurrence or nonconcurrence from the City. 11 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS 11.01 Notification

EXISTING POLICY

Relocated from Public Consultation Process Section 9.02(a)

Relocated from Public Consultation Process Section 9.02(a)

(a) Where Public Consultation is required, under subsection 10.01, the City will assist the Proponent in notification responsibilities by providing addresses, or other contact information as permitted under governing legislation and City Policy, and the Proponent shall provide at its own cost, notification by regular mail or hand delivery, as appropriate, to: (i) All residents and property owners within the Prescribed Distance of the proposed Telecommunications Facility location, unless that distance is changed in accordance with subsection 9.03(a). (ii) Any other interest group or individual which the City may determine to be

Terminology changed to reflect new defined terms. Landowners changed to residents and property owners and property owners to include both owners and renters. Comply with prevailing privacy legislation. (addresses, not names)

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 41 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY

Relocated from Public Consultation Process Section 9.02(b)

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES potentially affected by the proposed Member of Parliament added as tower. These include, but are not limited per EFCL comments. It is routine to: to notify Member of Parliament. A) City Councillor(s); EFCL combined into the B) Member of Parliament; Neighbourhood Group definition. C)The president(s) of any applicable No substantive change. Community League, or other Neighbourhood Group as identified by the Development Officer, within the Prescribed Distance of the proposed Telecommunications Facility location; D)Area business groups such as Business Revitalization Zone (BRZ) associations, E) Special interest groups (such as the Edmonton Design Committee and the Edmonton Historical Board); and F) The adjacent municipality or municipalities, as applicable, in accordance with subsection 11.03. (b) The Notification under subsection 11.01 shall contain the following information: (i) The proposed location of the tower within the subject site; (ii) Physical details of the proposed tower, such as A) Height; B) Colour; C) Type of structure (i.e. monopole, lattice tower, etc.) as well as the design of the structure; D)Design and appearance of the arrays to be installed on the tower; and E) A representative image of the proposed site location, with and without the proposed

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 42 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B

EXISTING POLICY

Relocated from Public Consultation Process Section 9.02(c)

PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES Telecommunication Facility (or part thereof), including any proposed site treatment, including landscaping and screening; (iii) The time and location of a meeting open to the public, the purpose of which is to discuss the proposal and respond to comments; (iv) Include the name and contact information of a person working on behalf of the Proponent, to which comments may be submitted. (v) Time frame within which comments are required to be submitted to the Proponent for consideration (if they are not submitted at the meeting); A) This shall be no less than seven business days from the date of the scheduled public meeting and not less than 30 days from the date of notification of the scheduled public meeting; B) Where notification is mailed, date shall be deemed to be date of mailing plus five business days. (vi) A statement indicating the involvement of community representatives up to that time (such as Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues, other community league, or other group or organization) claiming to work on behalf of the residents in the Prescribed Distance. 11.02 Other Means of Notification (a) The City may also require the Proponent, based on local conditions and the initial submission, to provide such other additional forms of notification, which in the opinion of

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 43 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES the City, would be likely to inform area residents and property owners of the proposal. These other forms of notification may include, but are not limited to: (i) A sign or signs, each having a minimum area of 1 square metre, posted on the site of the proposed tower, visible from any roadway abutting the subject site; (ii) A notice in a local newspaper of general circulation in the affected municipality/municipalities; (iii) Hand delivery to specified buildings; and/or (iv) Notice within common areas of specified buildings. 11.03 Adjacent Municipalities (a) The City will request that the Proponent notify the appropriate government department of the adjacent municipality under the following conditions: (i) Freestanding towers: where the location of a proposed new freestanding tower 15 metres in height or greater is less than the Prescribed Distance from the adjacent municipality. (ii) Building-mounted structures: where the Antennae and associated structure exceeds the limits in 5.02(g), and the site is abutting the adjacent municipality (b) As part of inter-municipal processes, the City may also request that the Proponent notify adjacent municipalities at greater distances and in other cases other than 11.03(a), subject to review by the City or at the request of the adjacent municipality, and notify the affected residents and property

EXISTING POLICY

Relocated from Adjacent Municipalities Section 9.01.03

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 44 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES owners: (i) in accordance with their relevant telecommunication Policy of that municipality (if one exists); or (ii) If no relevant telecommunication Policy exists under subsection 11.01(a)(i)(F), the notification in the shall be made in accordance with subsection 4.2 of Industry Canadas Client Procedures Circular: CPC-2-0-03. 12 FINAL SUBMISSION TO THE CITY 12.01 Within 60 days after the public consultation meeting (subsection 10.03), which is generally held no less than 21 days after the date of mailing of the notification of the public meeting (subsection 11.01(b)(v)(B)), the Proponent shall provide the City of Edmontons Sustainable Development Department, as well as the affected persons or groups listed in subsection 11.01(a)(ii), and others as appropriate, with the following, if a statement of concurrence from the City is requested: (a) Final proposed drawings (site plan, elevation, structure, etc.) of the Telecommunication Facility. (b) A copy of the meeting minutes or meeting records; (c) A summary of comments received from those unable to attend the meeting (including written or verbal submissions) and the Proponents response to those comments, which shall separate comments received from those residents and property owners within the Prescribed Distance and those comments received from those outside the Prescribed Distance; (d) An explanatory document that describes

EXISTING POLICY

e) Submission to the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department

After the meeting, the carrier shall provide the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department, as well as the appropriate community league(s), a copy of the meeting minutes or meeting records, as well as an explanatory document which describes how the carrier has agreed to modify the proposed tower or its location to address the concerns raised at the meeting, and in particular how the issue of co-location at this site has been addressed. The submission shall include a list of concerns received from those unable to attend the meeting (including written or verbal submissions) and the carriers response to these as well. If concerns remain unaddressed, this explanatory document shall explain why the carrier cannot, or chooses not to, address these concerns.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 45 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES how the Proponent has agreed (or not) to modify the proposed Telecommunications Facility or its location to address the concerns raised at the meeting, and in particular how the issue of co-location at this site has been addressed, including an explanatory document which explains why the Proponent cannot, or chooses not to, address any outstanding concerns; and (e) Notwithstanding subsections 12.01(b) through 12.01(d), if the proposed Telecommunications Facility does not require public consultation in accordance with subsections 10.02 and 10.08, meeting minutes do not need to be included in the submission package. 12.02

EXISTING POLICY

f) Statement of Concurrence or Nonconcurrence to Industry Canada

The submission shall also include all responses from other Proponents regarding potential colocation as a result of meeting the requirements of subsection 8.02 and a statement that the proposed location meets the technical needs of the Proponent, if such written documentation has not already been submitted to the City of Edmonton as per subsection 9.02.

13 STATEMENT OF CONCURRENCE OR NONCONCURRENCE 13.01 Statement of concurrence or con-concurrence to Industry Canada

Letter now required to be copied to persons listed in subsection 11.01, which includes the Community League (as part of the definition of Neighbourhood Group), Councillors, and others.

Upon receipt of the meeting minutes or meeting record and the explanatory document, the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department shall, within 21 business days, forward this package to Industry Canada, with a covering letter (with a copy to the carrier and to the ward Councillors) advising whether or not adequate public consultation has been conducted by the carrier, and a statement by the City of Edmontons Planning and Development Department as to whether or not the City of Edmonton concurs with the proposed tower or facility location based on the probable land use

(a) Upon receipt of formal submission to the City as per Section 12, the City shall, within 21 business days, forward this package to Industry Canada with a covering letter (with a copy to the Proponent, and the persons and groups listed in subsection 11.01). The letter shall include: (i) A statement as to whether or not the City of Edmonton concurs with the proposed

Be more clear about the basis of the Citys decision to concur or not concur with the proposed location,

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 46 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES rather than basing it on probable Telecommunication Facility based the land use impacts. Proponents attempt to meet the guidelines forming part of this Policy (sections 4 through 11), as well as their efforts to work with residents and property owners, Neighbourhood Groups, and other Proponents to resolve or mitigate any potential negative land use impacts. (ii) Conditions of concurrence, if required, or reasons for non-concurrence. The statements of the legal 13.02 Concurrence validity: standing of the concurrence are based on the consultation with (a) Concurrence is valid for two years, within industry Proponents. which time, the construction of a Telecommunication Facility must commence. 13.03 Concurrence extension: (a) An extension of up to one year may be granted at the discretion of the Development Officer. After three years from the first statement of concurrence or nonconcurrence, a new application must be made by the Proponent. 13.04 Concurrence transferability: (a) A statement or concurrence or nonconcurrence that is issued by the City of Edmonton for a particular project may be transferred to another Proponent, provided that the project is exactly the same as the submission package (Section 12). The transfer does not affect the timeframe for application processing, or the concurrence validity. 13.05 Existing applications at the time of passing of this Policy: (a) The statement of concurrence or non-

EXISTING POLICY impacts.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 47 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES concurrence of an application submitted prior to the adoption of this Policy is valid for the lesser of: two years from the date of the passing of this Policy, or the expiry date indicated on the original statement of concurrence or non-concurrence 13.06 Within a reasonable time after the public meeting, sufficient to consider the comments received, the Proponent should inform the City and Neighbourhood Groups listed in subsection 11.01(a)(ii) as to whether they intend to proceed with the project. A period not exceeding 90 days after the public meeting would generally be considered sufficient for this purpose. Two scenarios:

EXISTING POLICY

13.07

(a) The Proponent requests a letter of concurrence or non-concurrence, however, is unable to resolve issues regarding the siting of Telecommunications Facilities, or has not received support for concurrence; or (b) The Proponent has received a letter of concurrence, but has decided not to proceed, or has decided to delay a decision to proceed. The Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03 Issue 4: Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (effective January 1, 2008) published by Industry Canada states that municipalities must establish milestones to ensure consultation process is completed within 120 days. (a) Initial submission to the City: 21 days (i) Days 0 to 21; (ii) To determine notification and consultation requirements; (b) Mailing notification: 5 days

This is an optimistic timeline, and is unlikely to be met in most cases, given the consultation requirements. In meetings with the Proponents, they also wanted more flexibility than what the 120 days offered, so this represents a best case scenario.

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 48 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES (i) Days 22 to 26; (ii) To allow time between the mailing of the letter and when it is expected to be received; (c) Time required between mail being received by residents and property owners and the public meeting: 21 days (i) Days 27 to 47; (ii) To allow time for written public comment and to prepare for the public meeting; (d) Wait for comment after the meeting: 30 days (i) Days 48 to 77; (ii) Mandated time for public comment; (e) Response to public and/or make final submission: 21 days (i) Days 78 to 98; (ii) Proponents time to respond to comments and prepare final submission for the City to review; (f) City to reviews final submission: 21 days (i) Days 99 to 119; (ii) City makes a statement of concurrence or non-concurrence and forwards the package to Industry Canada. 13.08 Notwithstanding subsection 13.07, the Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-03 has additional time requirements in the case that the Proponent receives written comments, as follows: (a) After soliciting public comment, the proponent must wait a minimum of 30 days before proceeding; (i) The Proponent has 14 days to acknowledge the comment; (ii) The Proponent has 60 days to respond to the comment with an answer to the query,

EXISTING POLICY

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 49 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES and provide reasons why they can or cannot do what was asked (if applicable); (iii) The Proponent then must wait an additional 21 days in expectation of receiving a follow-up comment; (iv) At which point the Client Procedures Circular is open-ended, and states that the Proponent may request Industry Canada involvement. (b) If any comments are received, it is unlikely that the 120 day maximum time to complete the public consultation process will be met, as the mandated process will take an additional 64 days, bringing the comment period from 30 days to 94 days.

EXISTING POLICY

Attachment 2 2012SCP010 Page 50 of 50

Table: Policy C471C Policy for Siting Telecommunications Facilities Comparison/Rationale for Changes to Policy C471B PROPOSED POLICY RATIONALE FOR CHANGES

EXISTING POLICY