Subject: Municipal hearing re Cell Tower siting (Ferguson)..
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 090357 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info.
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BFC3B4.6CA75B20
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Content-ID:
=2E.....Jim Ferguson sends the following: the minutes of a city council
meeting in Canada which **rejected** a new cell tower installation.
I have tried to edit out most of the "unrelated" text. Those of you
who are engaged in cell tower "fights" will find this of much value
and insight...
Roy Beavers (EMFguru) You gotta SHOWME -- I'm from Missouri....
roy@emfguru.com
=2E....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness....=
=2E
NEW!!! Website... http://emfguru.com
=2E..................People are more important than profits................=
=2E
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 06:10:27 -0700
From: Jim Ferguson
To: "Roy L. Beavers"
Subject: FW: May 8, 2000
(http://www.gov.saanich.bc.ca/municipal_departments/clerks/council_
Roy - here are the minutes from the Saanich Council Meeting of May 8th
where the tower was rejected. The link is
http://www.gov.saanich.bc.ca/municipal_departments/clerks/council_committee=
_
meetings/minutes/2000/may_8.htm
It may be helpful to know the arguments on both sides as well as the
deliberations being made by council members. There is some municipal
housekeeping stuff at the beginning - it may be a case of snipping around
the Cell Tower items. There are two parts.
Part one is:
The procedure currently states that the Municipal Planner will prepare a
report to Council assessing the aesthetic impact of these applications.
The procedure could be amended to include an environmental assessment
Part two is in response to a specific cell tower application.
Jim Ferguson
Victoria, B.C.
"Be careful with puns, remember to always practice safe lex and use a
conundrum."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-
----
MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING
HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SAANICH MUNICIPAL HALL, 770 VERNON AVENUE
MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 AT 7:30 P.M.
Present: Chair:
Council:
Staff:
Mayor Leonard
Councillors Brownoff, Cubberley (7:34 p.m.),
Garrison, Gillespie, Ngai, Orr, Pickup and Wergeland.
C. G. Nation, Municipal Solicitor; A. Hopper,
Municipal Planner; H. McKay, Director of Engineering Services; C. M.
MacPhee, Municipal Clerk; and M. Trottier, Assistant to the Municipal Clerk=
=2E
////////skip///////
Committee of the Whole Meeting held May 1, 2000.
No 219.
Antennas
Environmental
Considerations
ANTENNA APPLICATIONS - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION=
S
Mayor Leonard stated:
There was some discussion about the lack of
reference to environmental issues when dealing with antenna applications.
The procedure currently states that the Municipal
Planner will prepare a report to Council assessing the aesthetic impact of
these applications.
The procedure could be amended to include an
environmental assessment.
Motion:
MOVED by Councillor Brownoff and Seconded by
Councillor Gillespie: "That staff be directed to amend the procedure for
processing antenna applications to allow the Municipal Planner to assess th=
e
environmental impacts of antenna applications."
CARRIED.
//////skip////// =20
=2E........................................................................=
=2E..
///////skip///////
MUNICIPAL CLERK
THE FOLLOWING WAS REPORTED FROM THE "IN CAMERA"
MEETING HELD MAY 8, 2000
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS
SAANICH MUNICIPAL HALL, 770 VERNON AVENUE
MONDAY, MAY 8, 2000 AT 7:39 P.M.
Present:
Chair:
Council:
Staff:
Councillor Garrison
Mayor Leonard and Councillors Brownoff, Cubberley,
Gillespie, Ngai, Orr, Pickup, and Wergeland.
C. G. Nation, Municipal Solicitor; A. Hopper,
Municipal Planner, H. McKay, Director of Engineering Services; C. M.
MacPhee, Municipal Clerk, and M. Trottier, Assistant to the Municipal Clerk=
=2E
Antennas
Master Plan
MASTER PLAN FOR ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES.
Report of the Municipal Planner dated March 12, 199=
9
further to a letter from BC Tel Mobility, Rogers Cantel, ClearNET and
Microcell Connexions Inc. dated February 9, 1999, recommending Council
endorse the location plan in principle on the understanding that individual
antenna applications detailing the proposal and site specifics will be
brought forward to Council for comment.
Antenna
Application
450 ODYSSEY LANE - ROGERS WIRELESS INC. - ANTENNA
APPLICATION.
Report of the Municipal Planner dated April 20, 200=
0
recommending Council endorse the application.
Responding to questions from Council, the Municipal
Planner stated:
An environmental and social review is not required
for antenna applications.
As antennas are under federal jurisdiction, zoning
issues do not come into effect, therefore, implementing a zoning change to
accommodate these types of applications may not have any impact.
The application was circulated to the Engineering
Department and Parks Division for comment; comments from CRD Parks have bee=
n
provided.
Responding to questions from Council, the Municipal
Solicitor stated:
In general, antennas do not comply with municipal
bylaws, particularly in terms of their height.
It is generally recognized that municipal zoning
bylaws cannot be enforced to prevent the construction of a federally
approved antenna.
The possibility of requiring some kind of
environmental assessment could be pursued by staff.
Mr. R. Carlson, Real Estate Manager, Telus Mobility=
,
stated;
Telus Mobility, Rogers Wireless, Clearnet and
Microcell, have worked to develop a master plan that would allow for the
development of antenna sites in Saanich.
The objective was to bring the four major carriers
together to reduce the number of towers.
Three antenna tower sites were identified in the
master plan.
Site A on Bear Hill is urgently required by all fou=
r
carriers; Telus Mobility is already on site and has been for 5 years but th=
e
tower is too small for any expansion.
If this site is not available three other sites in
the area will be needed to provide wireless service.
Site B was requested by Clearnet who have reassesse=
d
their requirements for the year 2000 and will be reevaluating their
requirements in 2001.
Site C was required by Microcell but they have been
able to relocate their antenna on an existing building therefore the site i=
s
no longer required.
Responding to questions from Council, Mr. Carlson
stated:
There are new satellite communication systems but
the intent is that they will be used in conjunction with wireless systems.
The lease specifies that the area is to be returned
to its natural state when the tower is removed.
The tower has been designed to accommodate the four
major carriers and the two pager companies who are already on the existing
tower.
There will be some room to increase capacity.
Mr. J. King, Zoning Manager, Rogers Wireless,
stated:
In 1988, Motorola Canada constructed the existing
140 ft. tower which is at full capacity and can only accommodate existing
users.
Since 1995 Rogers Wireless has conducted a search
for suitable sites in the Elk Lake/Bear Hill area; other sites were
eliminated due to topographical constraints, poor radio transmission or lac=
k
of landlord interest.
The application for an additional tower at 451
Odyssey Lane was made in May of 1997; this application was withdrawn due to
concerns about there being two antennas on Bear Hill.
The current proposal is to replace the existing
tower with a 180 ft. tower to accommodate all four major carriers; initiall=
y
the tower was to be 200 ft. but some reconfiguration took place and the
height was reduced.
To reduce the visual impact, the base of the tower
up to the height of the surrounding tree tops will be painted green and the
equipment shelters have been designed with a garden shed appearance.
CRD Parks and Saanich Parks have agreed that they
can apply the two to one tree replacement or cash in lieu.
Industry Canada requires that wireless
telecommunication facilities comply with Safety Code Six which was designed
to protect people living or working near these facilities; Safety Code Six
has been validated by health departments of all three levels of government.
The 4 wireless carriers have been committed to
working with Saanich staff and residents to reduce the total number of
towers; not only will this tower accommodate four initial carriers, it has
been designed to accommodate additional users if required including EMF
services and the RCMP.
The number of Rogers Wireless consumer subscribers
in the Saanich area has grown from 1,700 in 1994 to 5,200 in 1999; the
number of business subscribers has increased from 800 in 1994 to over 2100
in 1999.
Rogers Wireless believes that the current 911
coverage in the Elk Lake/Bear Hill area is compromised and this proposed
tower will ensure all subscribers have the ability to complete 911 calls
promptly.
They have taken direction from Council regarding th=
e
desire to only have one tower on Bear Hill, have listened to concerns about
the visual impact and have amended the plans accordingly.
If they are unsuccessful in obtaining an endorsemen=
t
the four carriers have the ability to appeal to Industry Canada but they
would prefer to have the endorsement of Council.
If this application is not supported the existing
tower will remain and continue to be used as a wireless site.
Responding to questions from Council, Mr. King
stated:
Initially there will be 4 carriers; the new tower i=
s
designed to accommodate additional carriers if needed.
The proposed master plan is valid until the end of
2000; this site is still an integral part of the plan.
Two public meetings were held; one in February,
1999, and the other in April, 2000.
Rogers Wireless Chaired the meetings; a report on
the meetings can be provided if needed.
A red light will be required for the top of the
antenna but a white strobe light is not part of the proposal.
If a larger tower is not approved, additional tower=
s
will be required.
At least three smaller towers would be needed to
derive the same coverage as the proposed tower.
Rogers Wireless carries general liability insurance=
;
there is no liability as long as they are within government regulations
which is the case.
Councillor Pickup stated:
She has read the report on the potential health
risks of radiofrequency fields prepared at the request of the Royal Society
of Canada for Health Canada.
The report notes that it is difficult to establish
safety limits and that studies are not consistent in their conclusions.
It appears there is no conclusive evidence as to
whether there are any health impacts; this is a major concern.
There is more to this issue than just the intrusion
on the adjacent park and the height of the tower.
The City of Toronto is looking at more stringent
legislation.
Mr. S. Hamilton, 430 Odyssey Lane, stated:
He is a member of the Bear Hill Community Coalition
which was formed in response to this application.
This tower is proposed to be located within several
metres of Bear Hill Park and will be visible from Elk and Beaver Lake Parks
and the Pat Bay Highway.
There are very few hilltops left that are virtually
undeveloped; this tower will be 18 stories high and 60 ft. above the crest
of the hill.
He has been unable to obtain any information on the
lighting for the proposed tower but it is his understanding that a flashing
strobe light will be required.
The application is in conflict with the
environmental priorities identified in Saanich=92s Official Community Plan
which include the preservation of hilltops and the preservation of sensitiv=
e
areas and rare species
Saanich=92s inventory of environmentally significan=
t
areas identifies 7 rare plant species; two of these plant species are in th=
e
immediate area of this proposed tower.
There has been no environmental assessment done on
this proposal.
There will have to be some clear cutting to make
room for this tower which is in contravention of Saanich=92s tree preservat=
ion
bylaw; of the 61 trees in the immediate area there are 37 Arbutus trees and
12 Garry Oaks.
There is also a major concern about bird kills whic=
h
occur around these types of towers.
It should be noted that the Toronto Health Board
cautions against allowing multiple antennas or multiple towers in one area.
There is going to be a proliferation of these types
of towers and it is better to spread them out and not concentrate the energ=
y
in one place.
These towers belong in an industrial area, not on
the edge of a park.
Ms. C. Spangelo, 430 Odyssey Lane, stated:
She lives within 1000 ft. of this proposed tower.
This tower will be a health risk to children living
in the area.
Saanich Council did not support the existing tower
10 years ago but it was still approved by the federal government.
At that time residents were assured that there woul=
d
be no further expansion and now this new tower is proposed.
Approximately 130 people attended the last public
meeting and most were opposed to the proposal.
Rogers Wireless staff confirmed that there would be
a public record of the comments made at the public meeting but that was not
the case.
The report prepared by the Planning Department
neglected to mention the outcome of the public meeting and did not
acknowledge the existence of the Bear Hill Community Coalition.
The Coalition made a presentation to the CRD Parks
Committee but committee members had no questions about the birds, the
environmentally sensitive areas or the clear cutting of trees.
Council should restore residents=92 faith in local
government by not supporting this application.
A resident of the Blenkinsop Valley, stated:There
are concerns about the impact on the environment and the bird population.
Birds navigate at night and on cloudy nights they
fly closer to the ground and fall victim to these high towers; as well, the
lights draw the birds in and they collide with the tower.
This tower kill is nothing new as concerns were
raised on this issue as early as 1958.
More than 200 species of birds have been killed by
communication stations in the United States.
Saanich=92s Environmentally Significant Areas
Inventory identifies a number of species of birds in the Bear Hill Area;
many of these species are already in decline and the question is do we want
to add more towers resulting in more bird decline.
Parks are one of the few areas left where birds can
live undisturbed.
Many people have chosen to live in Saanich because
preservation of the natural environment is a priority.
Mr. E. Schulz, 5939 Bear Hill Road, stated:
It has been shown that animals are sensitive to
radio waves; this would imply that humans can be impacted as well.
Until the health impacts can be established,
residents should not become the guinea pigs for a profit motivated company.
This is a rural community and this tower could
impact on the well being of animals in the area.
It should be up to the industry to ensure that ther=
e
are no health impacts; the application should be rejected.
Mr. D. Tsimon, 5797 Oldfield Road, stated:
Existing evidence is incomplete and does not rule
out health impacts.
It is difficult to establish guidelines and there
are park and environmental issues to be addressed as well.
He urged Council to not compound the error made by
the federal government in allowing the existing tower to be constructed.
This will be a huge tower and it will not matter
what colour it is painted or if the required buildings look like garden
sheds.
This tower will require red lights as well as white
strobe lights and there will be a problem with the clear cutting of trees;
61 trees will be impacted.
There is no compelling reason for this tower to be
approved.
The only beneficiaries are giant corporations and
the property owner earning the rent for having the tower while area
residents will be left with lower property values, a blight on the landscap=
e
and possible health impacts.
Not only should this application not be supported
but the existing tower should be removed.
Mr. R. Anthony, 5880 Bear Hill Road, stated;
The report prepared at the request of the Royal
Society of Canada for Health Canada clearly shows there is not enough
evidence to know if there will be any health impacts.
It has been stated that the application meets
government standards but it should also be noted that hepatitis and HIV
outbreaks occurred while operating within government standards.
In 1988, the federal government ignored the wishes
of the Municipality and allowed the existing tower to be constructed.
This is a proliferating technology and this propose=
d
tower may already be at its limit.
Industry Canada is seeking Council=92s opinion; it =
is
important to say no and that the federal government cannot continue to
impose these towers on communities.
The City of Toronto wants stronger guidelines and
undertook a separate study; the recommendation is that these types of tower=
s
should not be located near schools and hospitals and that co-locating
antennas or allowing a number of towers is not advisable.
Co-locating antenna is not a reasonable response as
it only exaggerates the existing concerns.
Rogers Wireless indicated that a strobe light on th=
e
top of the tower is not required but Industry Canada indicated that strobe
lights will be required if the tower is to be 54 ft. above the top of the
hill.
The applicant stated that new tower will assist wit=
h
emergency 911 calls but the RCMP and Saanich Police have indicated that thi=
s
is not a problem.
This tower will be a hazard and should not be
supported.
Mr. E. Charman, 691 Donnington Place, stated:
In 1987 when the existing tower was discussed, the
records indicate that the tower would be hidden in the trees and that there
would be no further expansion which is not the case.
There is no clear evidence on the health impacts bu=
t
there are other issues to be taken into consideration; this proposed antenn=
a
tower will extend 54 ft. beyond the apex of the hill and will be a rape of
the natural beauty of the peninsula.
The powers granted to the federal government are fo=
r
matters of necessity and not to enhance the balance sheets of private
corporations.
Council should let the Ministry know that Saanich i=
s
the custodian of this area and enough is enough.
If this tower is constructed it will need a strobe
light on the top.
Residents want Council look after their interest an=
d
ask the Ministry to turn down this application.
Dr. B. Glickman, 5804 Old West Saanich Road, stated=
:
He is a professor at the University of Victoria and
Director of the Centre for Environmental Health.
His initial career was in atomic energy; he is a
consultant with the Soviet Space Agency on Radiation and Space and also for
the Canadian Space Agency.
He was a member of the Royal Society of Canada that
put together the report on the potential health risks.
The report was requested by the Federal Government
in response to residents in the City of Vancouver who were concerned about
the placement of antenna towers.
Committee members were screened to ensure there was
no conflict of interest and members worked in secrecy until the report was
released to the public; a peer review was undertaken by a second group of
experts.
Councillor Pickup stated:
The report from the Royal Society of Canada notes
that additional information is needed to examine whether certain population
groups, such as children, are more susceptible to exposure to radiofrequenc=
y
fields.
The City of Toronto has developed a prudent
avoidance policy and have decided to err on the side of caution by
establishing requirements that are 100 times more stringent than Safety Cod=
e
Six.
Dr. Glickman stated:
Almost all the cautionary comments refer to
handsets; the size of a person can have an impact and children would be mor=
e
at risk because they have thinner skulls
In many areas antennas are not permitted near
schools and hospitals which is a reasonable precaution.
This proposed antenna on Bear Hill will be
consistent with the City of Toronto guidelines.
Animals and people do sense electronic fields but i=
t
does not mean the fields have negative health effects.
Cell phones have been around in one form or another
for about 20 years; there is no evidence of any kind of ill effect.
There are two separate issues; one is the antennas
the other is the hand held cell phones; there are some issues with respect
to hand held cell phones but the level of danger is very low.
Ms. H. Spangelo, #5 - 3281 Maplewood, stated:
Council should not support this application as the
health hazards are unknown.
She sent a letter to Keith Martin, MP, the day afte=
r
the open house as she was alarmed by the comments made by speakers in terms
of it being difficult to interpret the results of the studies and that they
could not say that these towers are completely safe.
Saanich refused permission for the existing tower.
She urged Council to vote no.
Mr. M. Brown, Quadra/Cedar Hill Community
Association, stated:
The master plan as submitted is not adequate; there
are no design guidelines and it is simply a consensus of what the four
carriers want in the next seven months.
Industry Canada requires community involvement and
expects that all parties will examine the issues and resolve community
concerns; all he sees now is evidence of threats.
This application will be precedent setting; there
are no assurances as to what will happen in the future.
It appears that the Municipality does no support ha=
m
radio towers but supports large commercial ventures.
Mr. J. Etkin, 3980 Bow Road, stated:
He got involved in this issue a few years ago when =
a
company was proposing to construct an antenna tower on the property next to
his daughter=92s preschool.
There is no doubt that there are health risks.
The transmission tower issue is like the second han=
d
smoke issue; at one time it was thought that exposure to second hand smoke
was not harmful.
This is something that area residents will be
exposed to 24 hours a day without knowing what the impacts could be.
Dr. Glickman indicated that this tower will meet th=
e
standards established by the City of Toronto; all the City of Toronto has
done is reduce the numbers therefore any tower could comply but this does
not necessarily make them safe.
Council should abide by the wishes of the community
and not support this application.
Mr. R. Ullrich, 5161 Old West Saanich Road, stated:
He also owns the property at 440 Odyssey Lane and
plans to build a retirement home there.
When he purchased the property he was assured that
there was no danger of a larger tower being built.
He is concerned about the health risks as the site
of the proposed new tower is within 200 ft. of his building site.
The existing tower is covered by the trees which
will not be the case with the new tower.
If this application is approved the value of his
property could be reduced.
Council should not allow this application to
proceed.
Ms. R. Schulz, 5939 Bear Hill Road, stated:
She is opposed to this proposal and is concerned
about the health impacts.
She is not convinced that the studies done to date
are fair and impartial and would prefer to see the results of independent
studies.
A letter from Karen Watson, Chair of the CRD Parks
Committee, states that the committee has concerns about the visual impact o=
f
this tower adjacent to Bear Hill Park, the lack of consultation with CRD
Parks staff and the removal of vegetation immediately adjacent to the park.
Increasing the height of the tower will have an
impact on the hill and the park; 61 trees will be impacted including 37
Arbutus trees and 12 Garry Oaks.
This tower will require additional lighting which i=
s
a concern for birds.
When the existing tower was constructed, residents
were assured that there would be no expansion; what guarantee is there that
if this antenna is approved that there will not be further expansion.
Council should reject the application.
Mr. W. McGinnis, 144 Durrance Road, stated:
He is concerned about the information provided on
the health impacts.
The report by the Royal Society of Canada was paid
for by Industry Canada and all research from independent sources has been
deemed in the report to be not valid.
There are dozens of studies that show the health
impacts; it becomes a question of who to believe and where the funding came
from.
Council should reject the application.
Ms. A. Thorington, 5804 Old West Saanich Road,
stated:
She has lived in Saanich all her life and recently
completed a Masters Degree in Microbiology at UVic; she has dedicated the
last three years of her life to understanding environmental contamination b=
y
chemicals.
Researchers at the University have many people to
answer to including the public.
Considering the health impacts on these antenna
should not come down to criticizing who was involved.
She entered the field of science honestly believing
that she could study something in neutrality and find truths and facts, not
biases.
Dr. Glickman has spent a great deal of his time
volunteering at the community level helping deal with the environmental
impacts of contamination.
Mr. J. Thompson 691 Donnington Place, stated:
He will be able to see the proposed new tower.
Due to the height of the new tower, it will have to
have a strobe light on the top.
He visited the site of the existing antenna and
where the new tower is to be located; the view is magnificent.
There has been a lot of discussion on the health
issues and it is clear that the jury is still out but the impact on the
environment will be horrific.
There is also the question of the impact on the
livestock in the area.
Council should not support this application.
Mr. R. Butler, 5661 Batu Road, stated:
He purchased his property a year ago and at that
time there was no indication that this application would be coming forward.
This tower will be higher and wider than the
existing tower and will be an eyesore.
Health issues are a concern; children should not be
put at risk.
This new tower will desecrate the entire area.
Ms. J. Hoole, 5675 Oldfield Road, stated:
She wants clarification at to whether there was any
public input for the master plan.
Rogers Wireless has indicated that other sites were
not suitable as there was no willing landlord; this calls into question why
no one else was interested.
The jury cannot still be out on this issue when the
research is being paid for by the industry.
Council should use their authority and send the
message to Industry Canada that this application is not supported.
Mr. R. Anthony, 5880 Bear Hill Road, stated:
He hikes on Bear Hill on a regular basis.
While the visual impact of this tower will be bad
enough he also has concerns about noise; there is a steady hum from the
existing tower and the noise from a larger tower could be much worse.
Mr. M. Hudec, 5705 Oldfield Road, stated:
He signed a petition in opposition to this proposal
which was also signed by the majority of residents within a two mile radius
of the site; it should be noted there is no corresponding petition in
support.
Council should support the wishes of the majority o=
f
the community and reject this application.
Mr. M. Hykin, 536 Brookleigh Road, stated:
He purchased his property 11 or 12 years ago.
At one time he had a call from Motorola describing
the application for the existing tower; he was told it would not protrude
above the tree line which was not the case.
It was also noted at that time that there would be
no further additions; this was an agreement made with residents and the
municipality and that obligation should still be valid.
There is a perception that there are possible healt=
h
issues to be addressed.
Rogers Wireless would prefer not to have to go the
Federal Government and not to have to come here and face area residents.
Council has an obligation to listen to residents an=
d
carry these concerns forward to the Federal Government.
Mr. J. Vandespyker, Vice President and General
Manager of Rogers Wireless for BC, stated:
They have worked with Council and staff for four
years to come together with other carriers and provide a plan that is
suitable to the municipality.
The screening process for all research within the
industry requires that the individuals involved have no vested interest in
the industry itself; the research is conducted by eminent scientists.
The industry has spent time and effort to work with
municipal governments, partners, the federal government and world bodies to
show that there is no conspiracy to hide information or deliver erroneous
information for their own benefit.
In terms of lighting, the existing tower has a red
light on the top and he has a letter from the Department of Transport that
confirms the same lighting will be required for the new tower; only a red
light is required which will be constant during the day and flashing at
night.
Industry Canada would not just approve the
application without taking into consideration the comments of the local
government; the intent is to ensure the concerns of everyone involved have
been heard.
Mr. J. Ferguson, Newton Street, stated:
He sat through similar meetings when the discussion
was about the cell tower proposed on Haliburton Road.
Since that time he has done a fair amount of
research which has called into question the opinions of those involved in
the establishment of Safety Code Six and the report of the Royal Society of
Canada.
Council should make its own decision in terms of th=
e
independence of the people heard from this evening.
Ms. C. Young, 5990 Bear Hill Road, stated:Rogers
Wireless indicated they spent a great deal of time looking for a site; she
spent a great deal of time looking for a place to raise her children and sh=
e
has not heard anything to assure her that this tower will be safe.
Council should not support the application; she doe=
s
not want to find out later that there are health concerns.
Mr. G. Schulz, 5939 Bear Hill Road, stated:
Rogers Wireless has failed to convince the communit=
y
that this tower will not have any health impacts.
The Municipal Planner stated:
The report with respect to the master plan was
prepared over a year ago and was scheduled for discussion at a Committee of
the Whole meeting but the application was subsequently withdrawn.
************* MOTION:
MOVED by Councillor Pickup and Seconded by
Councillor Gillespie: "That the master plan for proposed antenna support
structures and the antenna application for 450 Odyssey Lane be rejected."
*************
Councillor Pickup stated:
There is no doubt there is a need to look more
closely at the health aspects and the impact on Bear Hill Park and the
environment.
She is concerned about the impact this tower might
have on the health of the children in the community.
There is no evidence to prove that this tower will
be safe and as long as there is even a possibility of a problem she will no=
t
support the application.
Councillor Cubberley stated:
He does not support the application as it is not an
appropriate land use.
This is an industrial use which is not appropriate
in a residential area adjacent to a park.
The visual impact will have to be addressed.
Residents have researched where they will live,
found homes in a rural area next to a park and then found something like
this cropping up.
The aspect of co-locating antennas on one tower is
explored in the master plan but the option of dispersing the towers should
be addressed as well.
Councillor Gillespie stated:
Rogers Wireless was asked to bring the major
carriers together which they did but the jury is still out on the health
issues.
The master plan is not adequate; if the trend is
going to be for more of these towers then there will have to be an
appropriate plan in place.
Council has to listen to the community.
Councillor Orr stated:
The existing tower on this site was rejected by
Saanich Council but was still built.
Rogers Wireless worked with the Municipality in the
development of the master plan but the missing component is that there was
no meaningful public input; Saanich has a reputation for working with
communities.
She is uncomfortable with what she has heard and
read on the health issues; no one seems to know anything for sure.
She is not prepared to take a chance on human lives=
=2E
Councillor Brownoff stated:
It is unfortunate that the four carriers were given
an indication that co-locating antennas on one tower would be preferred.
She is not prepared to support the application base=
d
on environmental issues and the impact on Bear Hill Park.
She hopes that Council can reconsider the existing
policy for antenna applications and incorporate a requirement for some kind
of environmental assessment.
When people purchase their homes they want
assurances that there will not be any health risks.
The master plan issue needs to be revisited.
Councillor Wergeland stated:
It is easy to place these types of towers in
commercial and industrial areas; it is a concern when they are located in
rural residential areas.
In terms of health issues, many residents are
concerned about the unknown.
It will be necessary to address what the industry i=
s
looking for and to work with them on this issue.
Mayor Leonard stated:
Most of the health concerns in the report of the
Royal Society of Canada appear to pertain to the use of hand held cell
phones; he hopes that someone can put the health concerns to rest one way o=
r
the other.
He is concerned about the aesthetics, the impact on
Bear Hill Park and the lack of support in the community.
He is also concerned that the message being sent to
the industry is inconsistent.
The industry came forward with an application last
year and was asked to get the four major carriers together and come up with
a master plan.
Despite being competitors they were able to get
together and develop a master plan which is not being supported.
If this application is rejected, applications will
be coming forward for separate smaller antennas; if these are rejected as
well Industry Canada could question if Saanich is giving them serious
consideration.
He hopes that the industry will take another chance
and try to work towards finding sites that can be supported.
This proposed tower is very high and will be a
landmark.
According to the City of Toronto, co-locating
antennas should be discouraged; staff should be looking at Toronto=92s
guidelines.
He is willing to consider industrial sites and site=
s
that are closer to the highway.
Councillor Ngai stated:
She would like to see a balance between what the
community wishes and what the industry needs.
Safety is an important issue; in terms of health
concerns there is no solid argument on either side.
She is concerned about the impact on wildlife; the
four carriers were asked to consider co-locating on one site and are now
being asked to consider individual smaller sites which would have even more
of an impact on wildlife.
She respects the wishes of area residents but is no=
t
sure that a balance has been achieved.
It should be noted that Saanich must keep up to
other municipalities in terms of technology.
Councillor Garrison stated:
The four carriers have done what Council requested.
The challenge now will be in dealing with the next
step.
There will have to be some towers to meet the
communication needs of Saanich residents.
****************
The Motion was then put and CARRIED.
****************
///////skip////////
Adjournment:
On a Motion from Mayor Leonard the meeting
adjourned at 10:52 p.m.
=2E........................................................................=
=2E..
=2E.....
CHAIR
This page was last modified May 19, 2000 . To report errors or
suggest improvements, send an E-Mail to the author at
clementm@gov.saanich.bc.ca
------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BFC3B4.6CA75B20--
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com