Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review (sf08349)

Section D — The Six Policy Questions

Question 2. What information would most benefit concerned members of the public and how should it be provided?

Policy Question 2 is difficult to answer because it offers no context. Recommendations about information that would most benefit concerned members of the public, and advice on how best to provide it, can only be offered if one knows the context for the use of the information. Knowledge about its use provides the framework for drawing conclusions about what information will be the most beneficial, and how, when and by whom it should be provided.

As a starting point, it should be appreciated that Canada's current antenna authorization policies, as set out within Industry Canada's CPC-2-0-03 and other policy documents, do not call for any form of participation in the decision-making processes by concerned members of the public. Nor do these policies require that any information be provided to the public as a means of informing them about antenna authorization in general or about particular antenna installations under consideration.^{Footnote 145} In order to provide a framework for recommendations for Policy Question 2, two contexts will be used.

The first context examined will be a public hearing, or other form of public consultation, held in conjunction with the possible approval of a particular antenna installation. It should be noted that "Recommendation 2" of this report urges Industry Canada to require that the proponents of significant antenna installations consult directly with the members of the public who will be the most impacted by the installation. The information-based requirements for creating a consultation that is meaningful for the public and for the decision-making process will be discussed below.

The second context offered will relate to the information needs of concerned members of the public when that information is not being used to determine a particular antenna siting proposal. The public's need for such information may arise at any time but it will probably mostly arise in conjunction with a local consultation about an antenna installation, whether or not members of the public are participants. This second context is about the explanation of particular government policies and decision-making to members of the public who have concerns about them. As to who should provide this information, it is submitted that the federal government has an obligation to explain its policies and decision-making to its citizens. According to a recent draft report prepared by the Treasury Board of Canada, the federal government has an obligation and has made a commitment to explain itself to concerned citizens - and to listen to their replies:

Thus, combining both contexts, policy recommendations will be offered under the assumptions that (i) concerned members of the public must be accorded a meaningful opportunity to participate in antenna siting decisions which directly affect them and (ii) they have a right to express their concerns and to receive thoughtful replies related to antenna siting matters for which public input is not being sought and, if submitted, will not be used to decide the matter at hand.

Despite the fact that CPC-2-0-03 does not call for public participation within the local consultation requirements set out for Type 1 and Type 2 radio stations, many public hearings regarding antenna installations have been held in Canada. As explained elsewhere in this report, over the previous eight year period, a number of the municipal governments in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have negotiated antenna siting protocols with Canada's major wireless carriers. These protocols supplement the contents of CPC-2-0-03 and other licensing policies. The vast majority of the protocols provide for public hearings, or another Type of public consultation,^{Footnote 147} to be held when cellular or PCS antenna towers are to be sited within or near residential areas. Essentially, the public hearing is treated as one component of the fuller consultation process that transpires under the protocol between the municipality and the wireless carrier seeking the municipality's concurrence in relation to its antenna proposal. The degree of influence accorded to the public's reactions and concerns expressed about a particular antenna proposal is left to each municipality to determine in the context of their protocol.

Some of these consultation protocols offer good answers to the questions about the information needs of concerned citizens who are to participate directly in decisions made regarding a particular antenna proposal and as to how those needs should be met. Should Industry Canada accept "Recommendation 2" of this report, an examination of a sampling of those protocols will help to inform the elements of a new public consultation policy.

A. Information Related to the Consultation

The notice circulated to concerned members of the public should provide sufficient information to citizens about the public consultation to help them to determine: 

• whether to attend and participate;
• where, when and how to participate;
• how to make submissions if someone cannot attend the public consultation;
• the format of the public consultation (e.g. town-hall or open house);
• the particulars about the antenna proposal and the purpose of and objectives for the public consultation.

The notice also should inform citizens about the steps and time frame for the process, and about who has the authority to make the final decision.

A protocol recently created by the City of Colwood, British Columbia provides a good example of the notice requirements for a public consultation. This protocol states:

7. D. The carrier shall undertake the following community consultation process by holding at least one public meeting as follows:

1. The carrier shall notify the following of the meeting:
   • all residents and property owners within 500 metres of the base of the proposed structure, ...
2. Notification of the meeting shall be sent by regular mail or hand delivered not less than 10 days prior to the meeting dates. The meeting notification shall include:
   • the date, time and place of the meeting and an agenda,
   • information on the location, Type and size of the antenna structure proposed
   • the facility's output in relationship to Safety Code 6,
   • the name and telephone number of a contact person for the carrier
   • the name and telephone number of a contact person for Industry Canada, Victoria Spectrum Management Office, and
   • notice that all information required by Industry Canada is available at Colwood City Hall.^{Footnote 148}

B. Information Relevant to Potential Local Impact

For the public to have faith in a decision-making process, they must be given an overview of all of the decisional criteria that will be applied. Next, they must be informed about how their participation relates to those criteria. Clarifying the public's role improves the efficiency and relevance of their participation and will lead to a greater acceptance of the final outcome.^{Footnote 149}

The current edition of CPC-2-0-03 uses phrases like, "have land-use concerns addressed," "minimize the impact on the surroundings," "[Type 2] address the concerns of the community in a responsible manner" and "[Type 2] an antenna structure... appropriate within its surroundings" to describe the objectives for local consultation. Yet, CPC-2-0-03 does not call for local consultations to include the public. Most of the antenna siting protocols being used within the wireless sector in Canada speak of the need to assess the "visual impact" of the proposed antenna installation, but some protocols go farther and contain references to "area sensitivity," "environmental impact" and "land-use compatibility."^{Footnote 150} They often provide for public hearings if antenna towers are proposed for residential areas, but it is rare for the public's role within the decision making to be well explained.

In those circumstances where concerned members of the public are brought into the local consultation process it is submitted that their primary role is to bring a better understanding of the potential impact of the proposed antenna installation on the immediate area. Because they live in the area, they are well qualified to explain the particular amenities, sensitivities, vulnerabilities and other relevant characteristics of the area. Their contributions can provide both useful information and a strong inducement for the antenna proponent and the local land-use authority to work together to find accommodations that may minimize negative impacts or, if not able to do so, to consider alternative siting arrangements.

In order to comment usefully about how a proposed antenna installation might impact the particular amenities, sensitivities or vulnerabilities of their area, concerned members of the public require advanced access to much of the siting-related information of the installation under consideration. Again, some of the existing protocols offer a good response to this need for siting particulars. They call for the antenna proponent to file with the land-use authority diagrams, plans and/or photos that detail such things as the:

• residential uses in the area;
• location of existing vegetation and other screening features;
• long and short range viewscapes;
• institutional and recreational uses within view of the site;
• proximity of public roadways;
• nearby environmental areas of significance; and the design and colouration of any lighting on the support structure.

A few protocols require that the proponent circulate a true-to-scale image of the proposed antenna and supporting structure that is superimposed upon a photograph of the site area so that its visual impact can be better appreciated.^{Footnote 151}

Generally, within Canada, detailed siting information is rarely presented to the public by the wireless carriers or by municipalities. It is interesting to note that Telus, Bell, and Rogers recently collaborated to produce a standardized package of information to be provided to concerned citizens who reside near locations proposed for wireless antenna towers. This information, which is a short précis of the contents of CPC-2-0-03, does not invite citizen input. Rather, it states that the consultation process is intended to allow the municipality, "as a representative of the public good,"^{Footnote 152} to comment upon significant antenna proposals.

To summarize, concerned members of the public who are going to participate effectively in a local consultation related to a proposed antenna installation need specific information about the consultation itself (e.g. time, place, format, purpose, public's role, identification of the decision-maker, etc.) and the siting related information about the installation under consideration (e.g. location, type and height of supporting structure, colouration, etc. and particulars about the surrounding environment such as the zoning, viewscapes, heritage and ecological features, etc.).

C. Other Information Requirements

From a legal perspective, the issues that a land-use authority can require the proponent^{Footnote 153} of a radio antenna installation to consult about are restricted to (a) those matters noted in CPC-2-0-03, (b) the contents of any consultation protocols that have been negotiated between the land-use authority and antenna proponents and (c) those (incidental) siting matters that may fall within provincial (and territorial) powers under the Constitution Act of Canada^{Footnote 154}. In contrast, the list of antenna siting issues about which the public may have concerns is not so limited. Looking back at the public consultations held in Canada on antenna sitings, questions going beyond the bounds of the consultation requirements contained within current laws, policies and protocols would include:

• whether the radiocommunication service was truly needed;
• whether electromagnetic interference may be experienced and how it would be resolved;
• the adequacy of (or the selection of) the parameters within Safety Code 6 on human exposure to radiofrequency fields;
• the requirements to mark and light the supporting structure for air navigation safety;
• the possibility of negative impact on the property values of the properties closest to the proposed site.

All of the concerns listed immediately above fall within the second context set out in the introduction of this subsection of the report. Generally, these are not matters about which the antenna proponent or the land-use authority consult with the public. During the data collection phase of this policy review, many antenna proponents expressed the view that they were prepared to provide only the most rudimentary information about such issues. The representatives from a few wireless carriers stated that they felt strongly that it was not their role to respond to public concerns raised about RF exposure, potential interference, and aeronautical marking and lighting safety. They claimed that when they have attempted to provide fuller information about such issues it became clear to them that many people felt that their explanations and information could not be trusted because of their obvious interest in the outcome of the consultation.^{Footnote 155}

At present, Industry Canada replies to telephone, email and letter inquiries about antenna siting issues at the District Office or Regional Office level. If a letter is addressed to the Minister of Industry it is designated as a "ministerial letter" and the reply is prepared at the national office in Ottawa. Due to the high number of checks on the content and tone of ministerial replies it may take months before the writer receives an official response. While representatives from the respective District Office will, on occasion,^{Footnote 156} attend public meetings held by antenna proponents, it is very rare for them to assume a role beyond 'observer status.' When attending public hearings, representatives from District Offices do not offer to make statements to the media about antenna issues. If a public meeting is up-coming, the District Offices will often keep telephone and email replies very brief so as not to distract the public's focus away from the issues to be examined at the public hearing (principally, the visual impact of the antenna proposal).

i. Necessity for particular antenna infrastructure

It is submitted that the public should not be consulted on the necessity for a particular antenna installation or a modification, but the public does deserve a brief answer about how such determinations are/were made. Generally, decisions about the need for particular broadcasting installations are made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in conjunction with the applicant. If a public hearing is held by the CRTC in conjunction with a particular broadcasting application, there are few restrictions on the questions that concerned members of the public may ask. On occasion citizens have attended CRTC hearings involving the establishment or alteration of broadcasting facilities hoping to debate the need for the particular site , antenna system or change of facilities being proposed.

For wireless networks involving cellular and PCS (digital cellular) services it is the service provider who decides whether to establish or modify a cellular or PCS antenna installation. This is especially so now that Industry Canada has moved to 'Spectrum Licensing'^{Footnote 157} for these wireless services. Canada has created a regulatory model that uses licensing conditions^{Footnote 158} and competitive market forces to drive decisions about the range and quality of the network service offerings of individual wireless carriers. Wireless carriers should not have to consult the public or land-use authorities about whether antenna installations are truly necessary. ^{Footnote 159} When asked, wireless carriers will explain why a particular antenna installation is needed.^{Footnote 160} Likewise, amateur radio operators should not be required to engage in a debate with municipal officials or to consult with their immediate neighbours on the Question as to whether a particular antenna installation or modification is needed.

ii. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) questions

Members of the public may experience electromagnetic interference (EMI) problems when new radio transmitters are established in their vicinity. Once these transmitters are in operation, it is possible that the performance of some of the electronic equipment in their homes will be degraded. When degraded performance begins coincident with new antenna operations, concerned members of the public tend to blame the antenna proponent who established the new transmitter and/or Industry Canada for permitting it to happen.

"Recommendation 12" of this report, and the explanatory text associated with it, addressed the need for Industry Canada to create land-use consultation materials that provide very basic information about EMI, about obligations to resolve such problems and about Industry Canada's role in the problem identification and resolution process. "Recommendation 13" urged Industry Canada to implement maximum field strength criteria appropriate for the resolution of immunity complaints involving the fundamental emissions from broadcasting undertakings. Through this approach, the department was encouraged to provide an increased level of interference protection from broadcasting emissions to the types of electronic equipment found within the average Canadian household.

It is a conclusion of this policy review that, due to the technical and regulatory complexity of the electromagnetic interference (EMI) issues that may arise when antenna significant broadcasting installations are established or modified, Industry Canada must be prepared to participate actively in public consultations where there is a strong possibility of EMI problems involving home electronic equipment.^{Footnote 161} The department's role should be to answer the EMI-related questions that concerned members of the public may pose. In particular, Industry Canada should be prepared to explain, in plain language, the obligations of the antenna proponent should interference occur.^{Footnote 162}

iii. Questions related to Safety Code 6 (RF exposure)

During the online Discussion Forum that operated under the National Antenna Tower Policy Review project from September 3^rd to October 24^th 2003 the most emotional comments submitted related to health concerns about human exposure to the radiofrequency energy from cellular technology. Often, the participants did not specify whether they were concerned about the emission from hand-held units or from (fixed) radio antenna installations. Also, about 50 unsolicited emails were sent from across Canada and around the world to the two email IDs for the project: antenne@unb.ca and antenna@unb.ca. Most of those emails contained expressions of concern about health effects from RF exposure. Relatedly, about five phone calls were received from citizens who feared that their health had been negatively impacted by exposures they had experienced from radio antenna installations in Canada. One woman forwarded a copy of her medical file which, she said, proved that she had suffered facial burns and other injuries from her cellular telephone. She held those views firmly, despite the fact that her doctor had not reached the same conclusion. RF safety issues were also featured prominently in the formal written submissions received and posted on the project Web site (www.antennareview.ca and www.antenneexamine.ca).

When consulted under this policy review, representatives from wireless carriers, broadcasting undertakings and local governments expressed the view that the public's questions and concerns about human exposure to radiofrequency fields are the most challenging of all antenna-related issues to handle. One executive from a national wireless carrier called this the "tar baby issue" of public meetings: The more you handle it, the more entangled and emotional it becomes.^{Footnote 163} Speaking generally about the submissions received from members of the public regarding RF exposure, their emotional state on this issue ranged from a modest sense of apprehension to a full state of angst. It is clear that for some members of the public there is at least one health effect from possible exposure to radiofrequency fields: anxiety.^{Footnote 164}

When making determinations about hazardous activities and technologies most scientists and government policy makers employ a sophisticated analysis called 'risk assessment.' In contrast, most citizens tend to rely upon there own intuitive judgements about hazards, called 'risk perception.'^{Footnote 165} Their perceptions usually are based upon media reports, information and opinions found on the Internet, and the opinions of family members and friends. Risk perception theory suggests that, based upon current media and Internet stored information, many members of the public would perceive RF exposure from fixed antenna installations as being a high risk activity. Almost all of the factors related to the perception of high risk are present: The extent of personal control over the risky activity is perceived as being low, the worst possible consequences are perceived as being dreadful in nature (possibly cancer or DNA damage), the risk is not assumed voluntarily, the degree of familiarity with the risky activity is low and the risk for children in particular may be perceived as being more elevated.^{Footnote 166}

In relation to human health concerns about RF safety, the management of risks and risk perception involves three elements: (1) risk assessment, (2) risk analysis and policy-making, and (3) risk communication. In order to determine the information the public may need on this issue, and who should provide it, these three elements must be examined.

As noted above, risk assessment is a sophisticated analysis of potentially hazardous activities or technologies. Usually, the assessment of the risk is based upon an independent examination of the most current peer-reviewed scientific studies available. For the past twenty years or so, risk assessments in Canada in relation to RF exposure have been done principally by a group of scientists working in the radiation branch of the federal Department of Health. There have been exceptions to this. One exception to this trend occurred in 1998 when Health Canada requested that the Royal Society of Canada convene an Expert Panel to perform a population health risk assessment on human exposures to RF energy. The Royal Society published its assessment one year later and concluded that public exposures to telecommunication base stations were of a sufficiently low intensity that biological or adverse health effects were not anticipated.^{Footnote 167} In 2004 the Royal Society updated the research from its previous study and concluded that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with RF fields, but that additional research should be done.^{Footnote 168}

The second element of risk management, risk analysis and policy making, also has been undertaken by the radiation branch at Health Canada for many years. Based upon analysis of the risk assessments completed, Health Canada has selected and then modified a particular RF exposure standard as matters of policy choice. Since 1979, the Bureau of Radiation Measurement division of Health Canada has published a document entitled, "Safety Code 6."^{Footnote 169} This code, which sets ranges of radiofrequency exposure limits for RF workers and for members of the general public, was updated in 1991 and 1999. Over time, Safety Code 6 has extended to a broader range of frequencies and its limits have become more stringent. As a code or standard, Safety Code 6 has no independent legal authority. Its enforcement is achieved by its incorporation (by reference) into federal, provincial or municipal laws. Industry Canada has referenced Safety Code 6 as a required element within the technical and regulatory rules applicable to all handheld communicators and fixed antenna installations. As part of the authorization processes for certain fixed antenna installations, Industry Canada staff require that RF predictive models be used to undertake a computational analysis of RF energy levels. The development and use of RF predictive models is discussed in reply to Question 3 of the National Antenna Tower Policy Review.

The third element, risk communication, involves an interactive exchange of information and opinions among various individuals, groups, and institutions about particular risks. For communications involving the public, successful risk communication occurs when the public is adequately informed about a particular risk within the limits of the credible knowledge available. According to risk communication theory, the public's perceptions about the party who is conducting the risk dialogue and providing the information is an important factor in how the information is received. Again, according to risk communication theory, three perceptions are very important for communications that may be regarded as credible and trustworthy. These are perceptions about the communicator's knowledge and expertise, openness and honesty, and concern and caring sentiment.^{Footnote 170}

In relation to risk communication activities about RF exposure directed to concerned members of the public in Canada, many institutions and parties are involved. A short list would include Health Canada, Industry Canada, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), the Wireless Information Resource Centre (WIRC),^{Footnote 171} R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment (McLaughlin Centre),^{Footnote 172} the major wireless carriers, the Bell University Labs program and the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Of course, should the public raise concerns about the health effects to humans from exposure to radiofrequency fields in relation to a particular land-use consultation, the antenna proponent may engage in a self-styled risk communication strategy.^{Footnote 173}

Before making recommendations about the information that should be available to the public about RF exposure and about how such information should be provided, it is important to examine in more detail the risk management activities related to this issue by Industry Canada and Health Canada.

In 1988, the (then) Department of Communications (DOC) and the (then) Department of National Health and Welfare signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that attempted to set out their respective responsibilities concerning public exposure to electromagnetic fields from radiocommunication devices and fixed antennas. The document made it clear that the health ministry was to perform the research necessary to publish Safety Code 6 and keep it under review as a guidance document. It agreed also to provide advice and information to the DOC and to the public on RF exposure issues. For its part, the Department of Communications agreed to implement the exposure standard within national radiocommunication policy and to defer to the Department of Health on RF exposure matters.

A matter not well settled between the two departments was their respective responsibilities for handling RF exposure controversies surrounding proposed or existing radio antenna installations. As the number and intensity of these controversies increased in the 1990s, and as both suffered significant budget cut-backs, each looked to the other to take the lead on the handling of these public concerns. Consequently, it was common throughout the decade for neither department to attend public hearings, nor provide information and assurances to concerned members of the public.

In August of 2003 Industry Canada and Health Canada signed a new MOU that resolves the controversy described above.^{Footnote 174} Paragraphs within section 2 of the MOU clarify that, as between the two departments, it is the responsibility of Industry Canada to:

Many opinions were expressed during the data collection phase of this project about Industry Canada's responsibility(ies) to respond to public concerns about RF exposure.^{Footnote 176} Opinions received from radiocommunication interests, local and regional governments, public interest groups and the public were almost unanimous in their view that Industry Canada must play a more active role in the local consultation process and, in particular, in responding to concerned citizens about the potential for negative health effects to humans from exposure to radiofrequency fields.^{Footnote 177} It is a conclusion of the National Antenna Tower Policy Review that this is an appropriate role for Industry Canada and that a national communication strategy is necessary.

Recommendation 20: That Industry Canada should create a national risk communication strategy to respond to public questions and concerns about the health effects to humans from exposure to radiofrequency fields.

This strategy should include the designation of staff in headquarters and in the regions to reply to public concerns about RF exposure, to address the training needs for such staff in media relations and in risk communication techniques and to examine the need for additional resource materials on RF exposure (that communicate at an appropriate comprehension level). In those circumstances when the department anticipates that RF exposure concerns will play a prominent part in a land-use consultation it should ensure that a properly trained and supported staff person is present to speak to concerned citizens and to the media, if such is deemed useful or necessary.

In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report entitled Establishing a Dialogue on Risks from Electromagnetic Fields.^{Footnote 178} This publication, issued in handbook format, was created to help stakeholders and decision-makers engage the public in a dialogue about the potential of health effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). It offers excellent answers to the questions about when, what, how, and with whom to communicate information about the potential risks from EMF exposures. According to the handbook a fundamental aspect of any risk communication strategy is that it be implemented as soon as possible when EMF related facilities are to be sited:

The broadcasting and wireless industries in Canada cannot rely solely upon the communication efforts of the ministries of Industry and Health. Their own communications about RF safety should commence as soon as they commence site investigation activities and continue even after the site chosen is operational.

Recommendation 21: That Canada's broadcasters and cellular/PCS carriers should adopt their own risk communication strategies. Those strategies should include risk communication training for staff members who engage in antenna site acquisition or local consultation activities.

The preamble text to the Safety Code 6 standard states that "This code will be reviewed and revised periodically and a particular requirement may be considered at any time if it is found necessary." It is significant that many of those who provided comments addressing Safety Code 6 for this project expressed the view that the current version (1999) of the standard is out of date.^{Footnote 180} To have credibility, an RF exposure guideline must be, and must be seen to be, based upon very current and objective scientific evidence. While Health Canada has neither re-issued nor otherwise validated the content of Safety Code 6 over the previous five year period, an independent review of the standard, and of the state-of-the-science upon which it is based, was recently undertaken. Scientists affiliated with the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment located at the University of Ottawa performed the review and published their findings.^{Footnote 181} Unfortunately, concerned members of the public are unlikely to know about this research or about this recent endorsement of Safety Code 6 as a suitable guideline for certain types of RF exposure.

At a meeting held in Ottawa on June 18, 2004 members of the National Antenna Tower Advisory Committee (NATAC) expressed concern about the fact that no political or regulatory mechanism exists in Canada to trigger an independent review of the state-of-the-science for Safety Code 6, nor to feed the results of such a review back into the risk analysis and policy making activities of Health Canada. Moreover, NATAC members were of the opinion that Health Canada no longer has sufficient resources to continue to play both the risk assessment and risk analysis and policy making roles for this guideline. As a government department, Health Canada's research (and funding) priorities tend to be rather short term and they migrate with changing perceptions about the most pressing public health issues. It should not be a surprise to learn that much of the department's attention and resources are now being applied to issues related to infectious diseases and bio-terrorism. Independent panels of experts, such as those affiliated with the Royal Society of Canada and the McLaughlin Centre, are in a much better position to review the most current research and to perform the necessary risk assessment functions. Health Canada should continue to perform its risk analysis and policy-making function in relation to this standard.

Concerned members of the public must have faith that Safety Code 6 is based upon an objective, expert and current risk assessment.^{Footnote 182}

Recommendation 22: That Industry Canada and Health Canada should jointly fund a biennial review of the state-of-the-science for Safety Code 6 to be conducted by an independent panel of experts such as those associated with the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment or the Royal Society of Canada.

At present, there is no institutional or policy mechanism to feed the results of an independent review about the state-of-the-science on guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency fields back into Health Canada's risk analysis and policy-making activities related to Safety Code 6. This problem should be addressed.

Recommendation 23: That Health Canada should implement a policy mechanism that will feed the results of an independent review of the state-of-the-science on guidelines for human exposure to RF fields back into Health Canada's guidance creation process for Safety Code 6. If, as a consequence of an independent review, the existing standard is endorsed unchanged, a notation should be added to the preamble of the Code that informs of the review, the expert panel, its findings and the date of the review.

iv. Questions about aeronautical marking and lighting

On occasion, members of the public and representatives from land-use authorities have had questions about the aeronautical marking and lighting requirements administered by Transport Canada. Usually the questioner has wanted to know about how the application of these requirements may affect the visual impact of a particular antenna proposal.^{Footnote 183} A small number of the formal submissions to the National Antenna Tower Policy Review claimed that the public's lack of knowledge about these lighting and marking requirements was problematic for antenna proponents and suggested that Industry Canada play a future role in explaining them to concerned citizens.

Upon review of Canada's aeronautical marking and lighting rules applicable to radio antennas and supporting structures, it is a conclusion of the policy review that certain information about these rules and their application would be useful to members of the public concerned about the visual impact of the antenna installations located within their vicinity.

A brief overview of the marking and lighting requirements for radio antennas and their supporting structures is provided in Section C of this report. The material immediately below is provided as an attempt to provide the Type of information that may be helpful to land-use authorities and concerned members of the public.

As a starting point, when land-use authorities and members of the public are consulted about particular antenna proposals, it is a conclusion of this policy review that the antenna proponent should provide details about the aeronautical painting and lighting plans for the antenna or supporting structure. Prior notice of the lighting to be deployed is particularly important if high intensity strobe lighting is to be used. Interestingly, one of Industry Canada's current broadcasting policies contains a precedent for such a notice requirement. Cable television receiving undertakings are required to consult with land-use authorities about their antenna proposals (e.g. for a cable TV head-end). Within the notice served upon the land-use authority, as the first step in the consultation process, the applicant must indicate whether the "proposed antenna tower or structure will be equipped with high intensity strobe lights."^{Footnote 184}

Recommendation 24: That when Industry Canada imposes notice obligations upon antenna proponents, as a first step to land-use or public consultations, that the antenna proponent be required to provide basic details within the notice about the plans for the marking and lighting of the antenna tower or other supporting structure.

While citizens do not wish to make antenna towers and other supporting structures less visible when viewed from navigational airspace, many would appreciate information relevant to the reduction of the visual impact of such structures when viewed from the ground. First, it is important to realize that Standard 621.19 sets strict visibility requirements for aeronautical obstructions but that alternative marking and lighting options may be acceptable to Transport Canada to achieve the visibility required in the circumstances. For example, for many of the antenna towers used for cellular and PCS services the proponent may request that it be approved for flashing white lighting (and no paint) or flashing red lighting and orange and white paint. Often, citizens living near antenna towers perceive that a flashing white light is more intrusive to their community than a red one, especially at night. The antenna proponent may request white lighting, where such is an option, so as to be freed from the expense of maintaining the bands or colour on the tower.^{Footnote 185}

It should also be known that dual (colour) mode lighting may be approved for some cellular and PCS antenna towers. Thus, once it is dark, a tower approved for white lights (and no paint) may switch to red lights because the presence of paint is no longer relevant. Thus, at night, the unpainted tower with dual mode beacons will be just as visible to air traffic as a painted one (that has red lights for 24 hours a day). An antenna proponent may not ask to be approved for dual mode lighting because it is more expensive to purchase and maintain.

Members of the public who are concerned about the visual obtrusiveness of antenna towers because of their lighting requirements should know that a company in Québec has developed and patented a deflector that fits around the standard beacon units used for the lighting of aeronautical obstructions. These deflectors shield the path of the light to the ground while maintaining the visibility of the beacon when viewed from navigational air space.^{Footnote 186} The units consist of a series of conically shaped elements that shield the downward path of light, yet they resist nesting by birds and the build up of snow and ice. According to representatives for the company, if fitted with their product a light beacon ceases to be visible when viewed from ground level from a distance extending from the base of an antenna tower to 2.5 km outward. And, when viewed at a distance of 3 km from the base of the tower only 10 percent of the beacon is revealed.^{Footnote 187} As of the Spring of 2004 about 30 of these deflectors had been installed on cellular and PCS antenna towers located in Ontario^{Footnote 188} with good results. According to the developers of this deflector, each unit installed adds about $5,000.00 to the cost of the antenna tower. While it is not suggested that this product become a standard fixture of antenna installations in Canada, it may be an important option in circumstances where aeronautical obstruction lighting has a particularly intrusive impact upon concerned members of the public.

v. Questions about impact upon property values

The issue of public concerns about the impact of antenna towers upon the property values of lands located near to the installation will be addressed more fully elsewhere in this report but a few comments will be offered here. It is a conclusion of this policy review that the impact (positive or negative) an antenna installation may have upon the property values of particular parcels of land should not be the subject of an antenna consultation. Generally, land-use planning authorities are not required to take such impacts into account when siting urban and rural infrastructure that concerned members of the public may find objectionable. Almost every planning decision will produce positive and negative impacts upon the value of land located in the immediate vicinity.

It is readily accepted that those who will live in close proximity to an antenna installation under consideration may raise concerns about the possible impact upon the value of their lands. These individuals should be permitted to voice their concerns, but it should be explained that the principle purpose of consultations with the public and/or land-use authorities is to consider the visual impact of the proposal upon the immediate environment. Negative impacts should be explored through discussions about the potential for loss of the particular amenities or important visual characteristics of the area.