2023-02-06 Cell towers — info being shared, help being requested

1) CRD could be voting on allowing a cell tower in East Sooke on Wed. Feb. 8 re:

Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems Application for Lot 2, District Lots 143 and 200, and Section 154, Sooke District, Plan 42290 – 6246 Gordon Road.

(click on photo to enlarge)

p.14 – https://www.crd.bc.ca/docs/default-source/crd-document-library/committeedocuments/juandefucalandusecommittee/20230117/2023-01-17agenda.pdf?sfvrsn=c59e78ce_4

The agenda for the Jan. 17 meeting is in the first link — see page 6+.  While there was a web petition in opposition to the tower with 90 signatures on it sent to the CRD, only 9 letters in opposition to the tower were received. Generally, this is not enough to sway public opinion. Also, the petition did not provide enough “information to determine if the individuals reside or own property in the local area.” If this is to be stopped, people in the area, especially those closest to the site, need to sign the petition and speak up at the meeting. The “Impact on Community”, on page 6 is worth reading — it provides all the ISED rationale and says, of all things, that “the applicant responded that the radiation type is non-ionizing radiation and that the power level is below levels established by Health Canada and ISED Safety Code 6 levels, and that the transmission technology is mature and tested.”  The misleading implication is that it is safe.

The applicant also says it “will consider” requests to co-locate, meaning more transmitters will be added on the tower once it’s erected. This will require no notification to or approval from CRD or anyone.


From a member:

Despite that terribly biased Staff report, I just found the January 17th, 2023 meeting minutes of the Juan de Fuca Land Use Committee and it appears they are recommending that the CRD write a letter of non-concurrence for the East Sooke tower.

We can learn from the reasons for non-concurrence which they stated:

LUC comments included:

– have heard the concerns expressed by the community
 – acknowledge that health concerns are outside the scope of land use considerations
– insufficient information has been provided regarding the rational for the proposed location and alternate locations
– information on the Transport Canada’s requirements for aeronautical markings has not been provided
 – information on why the tower needs to be so high has not been provided
 – it appears that a tower with flashing light will be at ground level with Mt. Maguire
– plan dimensions are difficult to understand as no scale has been provided
– it appears that the antenna will be 10 – 15 m wide and 6 – 11 m above the tree canopy
– no sight line report has been provided
– it appears that the tower will be visible from the beginning of the Coppermine Road trail, from residences on Gillespie Road and from Sooke Harbour
– proposal does not provide critical infrastructure for public benefit
– cannot overlook community concerns
– additional information from the applicant could be received at a future meeting, should the proposal be referred or postponed
– the CRD makes the final recommendation to ISED
– ISED is the authority for approving antenna towers


2)  We are being asked to help a Massachusetts community ban 5G, as more and more communities are doing. The request is to go to the facebook link and “like” or leave a supportive comment. Please consider sharing with others. We are all in this together.

Dear All,

As we gear up to go to court in ten days in relationship to wireless harm, it was fantastic to see Great Barrington put a pause 5G rollouts on their town ballot.

If you are on Facebook, please click the link to read and leave a like or comment. Please share encouragement to vote, thanks for folks getting educated and involved in these issues, or your favorite science or reason for pausing.

GB already has a very strong wireless zoning bylaw for macro cells. Passing this would truly make it one of the best places to live in Berkshire County. GB would join the ranks of towns protecting their residents, and it would be such a blessing for residents to know they are not going to wake up one day with a small cell that has had no health, safety or environmental review on a pole outside their door.

Putting utilities in the right of way is fine. Putting an environmental toxin, a nuisance, hazard and emission known to cause damage with no recourse if you get injured is not.

Please share with friends. This is how we spread the word!

With so much gratitude,

Courtney  (Courtney Gilardi From Pittsfield)
413 418 6925



Should Great Barrington pause 5G rollouts until the government does its safety homework? A petition says yes

“Great Barrington residents have filed a citizens’ petition to ask voters to ban 5G technology until the government has done a thorough review of the safety of higher radio frequencies for humans.”



Please respond directly to April if you have an relevant information.  Thanks so much.

From:  April O’Donoughue <april@odon.ca>, a core member of C4ST.

I am helping a municipality in Quebec to fight a tower.

An interested town councillor is asking:

1) Do we know of specific tower fights where the Municipality said no, and the case went to the Minister of ISED for a decision;
2) and in such a case, who won: the municipality or the telcom?
3) if a municipality won, what arguments did they use?

I have examples of tower fights…

where the tower was to be on municipal land:

  • the citizens made a lot of noise
  • the town changed their mind and said no to the cell tower
  • And the telcom went away

(40 m Bell tower in Orford, Quebec, in 2014)
(No telcom, at least for now, can force a landlord to rent space. As far as I know, this also applies to situations where the municipality owns the land in question.  If anyone has proof that I am wrong about this, please share.)

where the tower was to be on private land:

  • a landlord was considering leasing the land
  • the citizens made a lot of noise
  • the landlord said no to the cell tower
  • all other attempts by the telcom to lease land were turned down
  • And the telcom went away

(in Bolton-Est, Quebec, in 2014)

where the tower was to be on private land:

  • a landlord was willing to lease the land
  • the citizens made a lot of noise
  • the town said no to the cell tower
  • the project was cancelled

(90 m Bell tower in Bolton-Est, Quebec, in 2014)                          (Cancelled because the town had negotiated – agreeing to a second project.)
(74 m Bell tower in Potton (Sugar Loaf Pond), Quebec, in 2015) (Cancelled because Bell was fed up and left in a huff.)

where the tower was to be on private land:

  • a landlord was willing to lease the land
  • the town initially said yes to the cell tower
  • the citizens made a lot of noise
  • the town said no to the cell tower
  • And the telcom went to the Minister of ISED for a decision
  • The Minister decided in favour of the telcom and against the Town

(76 m Bell tower in Bolton-Est (Bolton Pass), Quebec, in 2014)

I would love more examples of the above scenarios (name of Town, the # ISED assigned to that cell tower (if available)


where the tower was to be on private land:

  • a landlord was willing to lease the land
  • the citizens made a lot of noise
  • the town said no to the cell tower
  • the telcom went to the Minister of ISED for a decision
  • the Minister of ISED decided in favour of the Town and against the telcom.
  • and for such cases: what reasons did the town give for rejecting the tower?


Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters/ Citizens for Safer Tech

“It is wise to persuade people to do things and make them think it was their own idea.”    Nelson Mandela

Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. Practice Safe Tech.



Smart Meters, Cell Towers, Smart Phones, 5G and all things that radiate RF Radiation