Proposed Cell Tower – Canyon Creek Estates Homeowners Asscociation

January 2026

To: Terrion GP Inc. (via Cypress Land Services)

Cc: Ward 13 Councillor Dan McLean; Canyon Creek Estates Community Association; Telus (Stakeholder/Investor Relations)

Dear Terrion Representatives,

Thank you for your detailed response of January 9, 2026. After reviewing it, we find that several of our original questions remain either unanswered or only partially addressed. As well, there are 6 non-conformances to the City of Calgary’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols highlighted below. Unless proper consultation is undertaken it is clear the City should issue a non-compliance.

1. Design and Camouflage (Protocols 7.1 & 7.2) – Monopine vs. Tri‑Pole

Your response acknowledged the community’s preference for a stealth “monopine” design, but stated that “Terrion did not complete a site-specific technical, visual, and operational assessment of a tree-style [tower] for this location as a shrouded tri-pole design was selected early in the planning stage. nd further that “No design changes are currently planned, and the shrouded tri-pole remains the proposed configuration.” However, Protocol 7.1 “encourages the use of telecommunication antenna structures that are designed to be as stealthy, unobtrusive and inconspicuous as possible, particularly in residential areas,” and the community has clearly indicated that the current plain tri-pole is not considered stealthy or unobtrusive in this context.

In light of the above, please address the following questions about the possibility of a camouflaged monopine design and Terrion/Telus’s evaluation of it:

1. Further Design Investment: Will Terrion now invest further in technical design work and consultation to seriously assess a stealth “monopine” (tree-like) tower at this site, given the strong community preference? This would include formally evaluating the monopine option’s feasibility for this specific location (technical, visual, and operational aspects) and presenting a monopine concept to the church landowner for consideration. In other words, is Terrion willing to revisit the design in response to community feedback? If not, this is considered non-compliance #1.

2. Proposal to Landowner: Has Terrion proposed a Canmore-like monopine design to the church (landowner) at any point during the planning or consultation process? If not, why has this alternative not been presented to the landowner, especially knowing the landowner’s decision is key and the community overwhelmingly favors a tree-style design? If it has been proposed, what was the church’s response? If Terrion refuses to approach the church, this would be non-compliance #2.

3. Landowner’s Stance on Monopine: Is the church landowner amenable to a tree-like “monopine” design instead of the tri-pole, especially since the rest of the community (of which the church is a part) overwhelmingly supports the monopine camouflage? Please clarify whether the church has objected to a monopine design or would consider it if approached, and on what grounds (e.g. aesthetics, maintenance, etc.).

4. Achieving a Win-Win Outcome: In Canmore, a similar tower project resulted in a “win-win” outcome – a stealth monopine tower that satisfied technical requirements, gained landowner agreement, and had community support. What specific steps or changes in approach would be required to achieve a similar win-win outcome here? For instance, would it involve further design revisions, budget considerations, or additional negotiations with Telus and the church to implement a tree-style design that the community would support? Please outline how a monopine solution could be pursued so that coverage objectives are met while respecting the community’s clear aesthetic preferences. We are looking for a path forward that Terrion/Telus can take to resolve this impasse in a collaborative manner.

5. Terrion’s Aesthetic Assessment: Your response stated, “Terrion firmly believes that a significantly larger monopine structure (relative to the existing smaller on-site trees) would not translate into a positive aesthetic design.” On what basis or expertise did Terrion make this aesthetic determination? Please identify who (person or team) evaluated the aesthetics and what qualifications they have in visual design or landscape integration. Was any objective visual simulation or comparison between a tri-pole and a monopine conducted to support the claim that a monopine would not be a “positive aesthetic design” at this site? Given that many residents clearly feel the opposite (i.e., that a monopine would be more positive aesthetically), we need to understand how Terrion arrived at this conclusion.

6. Telus’s Position on Stealth Design: What is Telus’s stance on employing a tree-like (monopine) camouflage for towers in residential areas where visual impact is a major community concern? Telus’s own corporate values emphasize “creating safer, more connected communities” and being responsive to community needs. In practice, does Telus support implementing stealth designs like monopines (e.g., the Canmore tower) when they significantly reduce visual impact and align with community preferences? We are trying to discern whether the reluctance to pursue a monopine here is coming from Terrion alone or if Telus (the carrier client) has a policy or preference that discourages such designs (perhaps due to cost, maintenance, or other considerations). In short, how does Telus view the trade-off between community-centric design (like a monopine) and the practical factors you cited?

7. Telus Direction to Proponent: Has Telus explicitly instructed Terrion (or its agent Cypress Land Services) not to consider a monopine/tree-style design for this project? For example, are there any directives, guidelines, or budget constraints set by Telus that preclude Terrion from proposing a monopine even if the community and landowner favor it? This question aims to clarify whether the barrier to a tree design is internal policy from Telus versus Terrion’s own decision. Please be transparent if Telus has made any such directions, as the community would then understand that the design choice is being constrained at the carrier level.

8. Community Petition and Preferred Design: We note that the door-to-door petition for a monopine camouflage was signed by 71 residents, representing approximately 98% of the residents approached – an overwhelming show of support for the tree-style design. In your response, however, Terrion stated that “71 signatures… does not necessarily establish that a monopine is the community’s preferred design overall.” On what basis can Terrion make that contention? This statement appears to dismiss the petition’s significance. Given the extremely high agreement rate among those canvassed, it is difficult to conclude anything other than that the vast majority of local residents do prefer the monopine. If Terrion has information suggesting otherwise, please explain. Otherwise, please acknowledge that the monopine is, by all available evidence, the community’s overwhelmingly preferred design for this tower. This acknowledgement is important because it should inform Terrion’s design considerations and its reporting to the City. Dismissing the petition undermines the spirit of Protocol 9.9/9.10, which expects the proponent to genuinely consider and address community feedback and would be non-conformance #3.

2. Alternate Site Considerations and Technical Feasibility

Your correspondence indicates that alternative locations were considered internally but rejected for various reasons.

9. Did Terrion consider the site just west of 14th Street SW and just south of Anderson Road? If not, why was this area not explored, given that it might provide coverage to the target area while potentially being farther from certain residences? We are trying to ascertain whether all reasonable location alternatives in the vicinity were exhausted, especially any on public land or non-residential parcels that could reduce the impact on the community.

3. Residential Setback Guideline (Protocol 7.6) and Site Placement

Section 7.6(b) of the Siting Protocols recommends a 75 m setback from existing dwellings for freestanding towers 15–30 m high on sites abutting residential development. The current proposal, as Terrion acknowledges, is well within 75 m of multiple homes (approximately 50 m in some cases). This is non-conformance # 4.

10. Source of “Site-Specific Adjustment” Quote: In reference to your statement about the City recognizing the need for site-specific adjustments: Which document, section, or official statement from the City’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols (or related City policy) explicitly says that in urban settings the 75 m residential setback can be adjusted due to technical, operational, or landowner considerations? Please provide the exact reference or quote. We ask because Protocol 7.6 itself does not explicitly mention waiving the guideline; it states the guideline and leaves it to the City’s discretion to consider context. If there is a specific City communication or part of the Protocol that Terrion is relying on to justify this non-compliance, the community would like to see that. Otherwise, it appears Terrion is simply assuming the City will grant an exception – which is not guaranteed. Clarifying this will help us understand if Terrion has consulted with the City on the setback issue or is citing a general principle.

4. Public Consultation Process and Protocol Compliance (Protocols 9.0–9.10)

Section 9.9 of the Protocols requires that after a public consultation meeting, the proponent must respond to all concerns or issues arising from it, and Section 9.10 expects that if concerns remain unresolved, the proponent’s report will document those outstanding issues and the reasons they weren’t resolved. Our community has engaged extensively in the consultation: we submitted a petition, emails, and participated in the Dec 11, 2025 open house. However, we feel that Terrion’s response to the key concern (the design/camouflage) has been dismissive rather than constructive, and that good-faith two-way dialogue has stalled. Terrion’s Jan 9 reply stated, “Given the lack of alternative locations… the high degree of design Terrion has proposed with the shrouded tri-pole… and consultations to date, the current form of dialogue seems appropriate.” From our perspective, this suggests Terrion believes no further discussion or changes are necessary, despite the community’s unresolved objections. We have several questions regarding the consultation process and Terrion’s fulfillment of the Protocols:

11. Purpose of Consultation if Feedback Is Ignored: What does Terrion see as the purpose of public consultation in this case, if the primary feedback from the community (a strong preference for a monopine design) is being effectively ignored? Specifically, why did Terrion engage in a public consultation at all if it had already selected the design and is unwilling to consider reasonable modifications requested by a large contingent of the community? We ask you to reflect on whether this approach meets the “good faith” spirit of consultation. The Protocols (e.g., 9.8, 9.9) imply that consultation is not a mere formality, but an opportunity to identify issues and potentially adjust plans. From the community’s standpoint, it appears Terrion is using the consultation to inform us of a predetermined outcome rather than to genuinely collaborate or seek solutions. Please address this concern: how is Terrion ensuring that the consultation is meaningful, and what is Terrion’s obligation (to Telus or under the Protocols) to listen and adapt to community input? This is non-conformance #5.

12. Church’s Role in Consultation with Community: What consultation or communication has the church (landowner) itself had with the community regarding the decision to host a tri-pole tower on their property? As a key stakeholder and a member of the local community, the church’s engagement is important. Did the church leadership seek any input or at least inform their immediate neighbors or congregation about the tower and its design before agreeing to it? We ask because it may influence how flexible the church is to design changes or whether they were aware of potential community objections. If Terrion has knowledge of the church’s outreach (or lack thereof) to the community on this matter, please share it. If no such outreach occurred, that further underscores why Terrion’s own public consultation needed to be thorough and adaptive.

13. Open House Follow-up and Documentation: During and after the open house there were requests and concerns raised. It is a requirement of the Protocols that action items or follow-ups are identified to address community concerns. I asked for a copy of the action items from the open house in an email on Dec 14th, 2025. To date, I have not received a copy. This would be considered non-conformance #6.

We expect Terrion to demonstrate good-faith consultation. Proceeding to submission without genuinely addressing these concerns would not only violate the intent of the Protocols but also likely lead to conflict during the City’s review. Our community hopes Terrion will re-engage and work with us – there is still an opportunity to avoid a non-concurrence by the City if a mutually acceptable solution is found.

5. Project Roles, Responsibilities, and Accountability

The situation has been somewhat confusing regarding the roles of Terrion, Cypress Land Services, and Telus. For transparency, we seek clarification on the relationships and obligations among these parties, especially as they pertain to consultation and decision-making:

14. Telus’s Expectations for Consultation: What expectations or requirements has Telus communicated to Terrion regarding how public consultation should be conducted and how community input should be incorporated? Telus, as the licensee/carrier, presumably wants its infrastructure projects to maintain good community relations. Does Telus require Terrion to achieve a certain level of community acceptance or to adhere strictly to municipal protocols as a condition of their contract? In short, is Terrion meeting Telus’s standards for community engagement and responsiveness? We are trying to understand if Telus is aware of and satisfied with Terrion’s approach of maintaining the current design despite community pushback.

15. Relationship Between Cypress and Terrion: Please clarify the relationship between Cypress Land Services and Terrion GP Inc. in this project. For example, is Cypress simply a consultant/agent hired by Terrion to handle site acquisition and public consultation? Understanding this relationship will help us direct questions appropriately and understand who is accountable for what.

16. Cypress’s Contractual Obligations: What are the contractual obligations of Cypress Land Services to Terrion (or Telus) with respect to conducting good-faith community consultation? For instance, is Cypress required by contract to follow the City’s Siting Protocols and to accurately document and relay community feedback? If so, are there any performance criteria or standards for consultation that Cypress must meet? This question aims to ensure that Cypress, as the interface with the public, is bound to a professional standard of consultation (and if so, whether that standard is being met in practice).

17. Relationship Between Terrion and Telus: Clarify the relationship between Terrion GP Inc. and Telus for this project. We understand Terrion is the proponent entity managing the tower deployment. Is Terrion an infrastructure developer that will own/operate the tower and have Telus as a tenant, or is Terrion acting as a contractor on behalf of Telus to build the tower for Telus’s use? This distinction matters because it speaks to who ultimately makes decisions on design and consultation outcomes. If Terrion is essentially an agent of Telus, then Telus should ultimately be accountable for decisions; if Terrion is a separate tower owner, Terrion might have more discretion (but also more responsibility to heed community concerns to obtain concurrence).

18. Terrion’s Contractual Obligations to Telus: Related to the above, what contractual obligations does Terrion have towards Telus in terms of the site acquisition and consultation process? For example, does the agreement with Telus stipulate that Terrion must obtain municipal concurrence or follow all municipal protocols? Does it address what happens if there is significant community opposition or if design changes are requested? We are essentially asking: Does Telus require Terrion to consult in good faith and pursue reasonable alternatives to address community concerns, or is Terrion free to proceed as it sees fit as long as the technical solution is delivered? This will help us understand if Telus might intervene or guide the process if problems arise.

19. Communication Responsibility (Terrion vs. Cypress): Why was the initial public Information Package (and perhaps other early communications) issued under Terrion’s name, whereas now all correspondence and responses are coming from Cypress Land Services (Chelsea St. John)? What is the reason for this shift in who represents the proponent to the public? Typically, one consistent entity leads the consultation. Did something change in the arrangement after the initial notice? Please explain, as residents were initially contacting Terrion directly, but now we are told to correspond through Cypress. We want to be sure that questions aren’t being lost between the two entities and that both Cypress and Terrion are fully apprised of all issues raised.

20. Alignment with Telus Corporate Values: Telus’s public mission and values include commitments like “we give where we live” and “creating safer, more connected communities,” emphasizing respect for communities and social responsibility. In light of this, why does it appear that the approach to this tower (particularly the resistance to a community-supported design change) does not align with Telus’s corporate values? Has Telus headquarters or management been made aware of the community’s concerns and the current impasse? We ask because it is hard to imagine that a company with Telus’s community-centric ethos would be comfortable with a proponent dismissing near-unanimous resident feedback about aesthetics. This is an opportunity for Terrion/Telus to demonstrate corporate responsibility by listening to the community. Please comment on how Telus’s values are being upheld (or why they are not being reflected) in this situation.

21. Telus Executive Awareness: Are Telus’s senior executives (such as the CEO) aware of how this community consultation is being handled and the dissatisfaction among residents? If not, will Terrion or Cypress escalate these issues to Telus leadership? The reason we ask is that sometimes higher management intervention can facilitate a solution (for example, approving a more costly monopine design for the sake of community goodwill). If Telus executives are aware and supportive of the current approach, that is important for us to know; if they are not aware, we may consider reaching out to ensure they understand the community’s perspective. We would prefer Terrion/Telus resolve this without such escalation, which is why we urge a fresh look at the design now.

22. Proponent and Applicant Identification (ISED and City): In terms of regulatory process, who is the official “proponent” for this installation and who will be submitting the application to ISED Canada and the City of Calgary? Is it Terrion GP Inc., Cypress Land Services, or Telus? We want to know which entity’s name will appear as the proponent on the ISED documentation and the City’s concurrence request. This also relates to accountability: if, for example, Telus is the licensee and will ultimately hold the radio authorization, Telus might be considered the proponent from the City’s perspective even if Terrion/Cypress handle the legwork. Please clarify: who will sign/submit the package to ISED for concurrence – Terrion (as a proponent company), Cypress (as an agent), or Telus – and who is ultimately taking responsibility as the proponent in the eyes of the City and ISED?

In closing, we expect that Terrion (and its partners) will treat these questions with the seriousness they deserve. Our community’s intent is not to be obstructionist, but to ensure that any telecommunication tower in our neighbourhood conforms to City guidelines and respects resident input. The City’s Siting Protocols were crafted to encourage exactly this kind of collaboration and mitigation of impacts. To date, the process feels one-sided, with Terrion defending a pre-selected design rather than genuinely problem-solving with the community. We urge Terrion to re-evaluate this approach: there is still time to modify the proposal (for example, adopting a monopine design which would likely resolve the main dispute). Doing so would demonstrate good faith and increase the likelihood of community support – and by extension, a smoother concurrence process with the City.

We appreciate a timely, written reply to each numbered question above. Please provide this point-by-point response before proceeding with any formal application to the City or ISED, as per Protocol 9.9 (which calls for addressing concerns prior to submission). The community and our Councillor will then have the information needed to assess Terrion’s responses and the proposal’s compliance with the Siting Protocols. If issues remain outstanding, we will respectfully assert those to the City at that time.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to your thorough response and, hopefully, a constructive path forward that results in a solution acceptable to Telus, Terrion, Cypress Land Services, the landowner, and the community.

Sincerely,

Jeph Virtue

12911 Candle Crescent SW, Calgary, AB – on behalf of concerned residents of Canyon Creek Estates and surrounding community

January 2026

Hi Jeph,

Thank you for your detailed correspondence regarding the proposed 30 m shrouded tri-pole telecommunications tower. Below are responses to the specific questions you raised:

Disguised/Camouflaged Design and Preferred Built Form (Protocols 7.1 & 7.2)

Terrion acknowledges the community’s preference for a stealth “monopine” or tree-like design. Terrion did not complete a site-specific technical, visual, and operational assessment of a tree-style for this location as a shrouded tripole design was selected early in the planning stage based on site constraints, landowner requirements, and technical considerations. Terrion does not undertake detailed assessments or visual simulations for every potential tower design option. While tree-style towers are used in some regions, they involve significantly higher construction and maintenance costs, create limitations for colocation of additional carriers, and, given the height and character of surrounding vegetation, may not blend effectively over time.

The shrouded tri-pole design conceals antennas within a sleek enclosure, providing a more streamlined and modern appearance than a standard open-pole structure and was chosen in collaboration with the church landowner to align with their design preferences. While this design is not a monopine, it is a recognized stealth option within the “preferred built form” described in Protocol 7.2. The petition and resident input have been recorded, and this feedback will be forwarded to the City for their consideration. Decisions on whether the design meets the stealth or aesthetic intent of Sections 7.1 and 7.2 ultimately rest with the City.

Residential Setback Guidelines (Protocol 7.6)
Terrion acknowledges that the proposed location is less than the recommended 75 m from adjacent homes. The recommended setback is a guideline, and the City recognizes that urban settings often require site-specific adjustments due to technical, operational, and landowner considerations. Moving the tower north is unlikely to be feasible due to planned expansion of the church parking lot and potential interference with existing network infrastructure, including Rogers’ equipment. Compliance with the City’s recommended setbacks, and any exceptions or site-specific considerations, is determined by the City of Calgary.

Submission and Review Process Irregularities (Protocols 4.0, 5.1 & 5.2)

Terrion considers that the site selection and design process aligns with the intent of the City of Calgary’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols. The proposed shrouded tri-pole design was developed prior to public consultation based on technical requirements, site constraints, and landowner interest, which is consistent with standard industry practice and the Protocols’ framework. Section 4.0 identifies evaluation criteria that are applied by the City during its review; it does not require that every potential camouflage or design alternative be formally assessed or illustrated prior to consultation. The proposed shrouded tri-pole is a recognized stealth design and a preferred built form under Section 7.2, and was selected to balance aesthetics, operational performance, and long-term colocation capability.

With respect to Section 5.1, Terrion secured a lease agreement with the church landowner prior to public consultation to confirm site availability and feasibility before investing further in technical design and consultation activities. This approach does not preclude consideration of alternatives and is common practice in telecommunications planning. Alternative locations and designs were considered internally; however, none satisfied technical coverage requirements, operational feasibility, and landowner willingness simultaneously. Any pre-submission discussions, notifications, or correspondence with the City and the Ward Councillor form part of the City’s application record and are administered through the City’s review process.

Regarding Section 5.2, Terrion will include documentation of the December 11, 2025 public open house, written submissions, the community petition, and all outstanding concerns as part of the formal consultation record provided to the City. While not all concerns have resulted in changes to the proposed design, the Protocols require that concerns be documented and responded to, not that consensus be achieved or that the design be revised in all cases. The determination of whether the proposal adequately addresses design, location, and consultation requirements rests with the City of Calgary as the approving authority.

Deficiencies in Public Consultation Process (Protocols 9.0–9.10)

Terrion acknowledged receipt of the petition and comments submitted by Jeph Virtue via email on December 8, 2025, and provided a written response on December 10, 2025. That correspondence was intended to acknowledge the submission and provide Terrion’s initial response to the matters raised and did not include a request for additional time. Following the December 11, 2025 public open house, Terrion also acknowledged two additional emails from Jeph Virtue and advised that additional time would be required to carefully review the detailed points provided.

Terrion is continuing to work through comments received from residents following the public open house. Consistent with Section 9.9 of the City of Calgary Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols, Terrion will not submit the final public consultation record to the City until all relevant concerns have been reviewed and addressed through written responses. Outstanding issues will be clearly identified and documented where they remain unresolved.

Terrion considers that it has undertaken the public consultation process in good faith and in alignment with the intent of Sections 9.0–9.10 of the Siting Protocols. While a tree-style tower was not formally assessed for this site, the reasons for proceeding with the tri-pole design, including technical feasibility, cost, maintenance, and colocation considerations, have been communicated. No design changes are currently planned, and the shrouded tri-pole remains the proposed configuration. Outstanding concerns raised by residents are included in the public consultation record, and Terrion will ensure that the City receives a complete record of all community feedback in accordance with Protocols 9.9 and 9.10. Decisions regarding whether the tower’s design adequately satisfies the Protocols and any further engagement with residents or the Church landowner are matters for the City of Calgary to assess.

Conclusion and Request for Response

With respect to the concluding list of requests outlined in your correspondence, Terrion notes that many of the matters raised have been addressed in the sections above, including Terrion’s approach to tower design and camouflage (Protocols 7.1 and 7.2), residential setback considerations (Protocol 7.6), site selection and pre-submission steps (Protocols 4.0, 5.1, and 5.2), and the public consultation process (Protocols 9.0–9.10). While many of the questions raised have been addressed, Terrion will provide further written responses in red to any outstanding requests to ensure clarity:

Process & Alternatives (4.0, 5.1–5.2):
Provide a timeline of Terrion’s site selection process, including any pre-submission consultation with City staff or the Councillor, and list what alternative locations/designs were analyzed as per Protocol expectations.

September 2024 – March 2025: Cypress Land Services completed site candidate evaluations for target area
July 1, 2025: Site Lease agreement secured with Church property
October 16, 2025: Cypress Land Services submitted a pre-consultation email to the City of Calgary; Email included an Information Package and tower design drawings. No responses were received.
October 21, 2025: City of Calgary provided mail out list

Provide the response from the City and the Councillor to any pre-submission. No responses were received.
Clarify why alternatives were rejected and how this evaluation aligns with the City’s submission and review expectations. Alternative locations were reviewed during site selection and were not advanced due to a combination of practical and technical constraints, including lack of willing landowners, inadequate site access, insufficient elevation to meet coverage objectives, conflicts with overhead power lines and underground utilities, and timing constraints associated with delivering required network improvements. This evaluation approach is consistent with the City of Calgary’s Telecommunications Antenna Structures Siting Protocols, which anticipate that proponents will assess feasibility based on technical performance, site constraints, and landowner availability prior to advancing a preferred location for consultation.
Did Terrion thoroughly evaluate co-location on existing structures or other less intrusive siting opportunities? If so, what were the results; if not, why not? A co-location review was conducted for existing telecommunication and other structures within approximately 500 m of the proposed site, including the Freedom Mobile antennas located in the church steeple and a nearby Rogers light pole replacement. Based on available space, structural capacity, and configuration constraints, neither structure could accommodate additional equipment while meeting Terrion’s technical and operational requirements.
Did Terrion consider City of Calgary property for the site? If so, what City of Calgary property was considered and why was it rejected? Yes, a location at approximately 50.939993, -114.094085 was considered and was rejected because of insufficient access, low elevation, proximity to overhead power lines and underground utilities.

Public Consultation (9.0–9.10):

Detail how Terrion has addressed or plans to address each major concern raised by residents at the open house. In particular, what is Terrion’s response to the petition supported request for a tree-like tower design? The petition will be included in the consultation record. While it is documented as a single petition submission, the number of signatories is noted and acknowledged as reflecting the views of multiple residents. For clarity on how the City ultimately interprets or counts submissions in its decision-making, we encourage the resident to contact the City of Calgary directly.
Will any design changes be made to accommodate the feedback in the petition? While the proposed shrouded tri-pole design remains unchanged, Terrion has committed to implementing aesthetic mitigation measures at the site. This includes coordinating with the church landowner to install fencing that matches the existing Rogers enclosure on the property, providing a consistent and visually integrated appearance within the site. No changes to the tower structure itself are currently proposed. All feedback received through the petition will be documented and included in the consultation record provided to the City of Calgary for its consideration.

If no changes are forthcoming, provide a clear rationale consistent with Protocol 9.10 explaining why the community’s preferred solution is being declined. While Terrion acknowledges receipt of the petition with 71 signatures requesting a monopine (tree-style) design, the number of signatories does not necessarily establish that a monopine is the community’s preferred design overall. The tri-pole design was selected based on technical feasibility, operational requirements, co-location potential, maintenance considerations, and landowner agreement and design compatibility/suitability with the existing church property use. After reviewing these factors, Terrion determined that a monopine design would not meet the combined technical and operational needs for this site. In addition, respectfully, Terrion firmly believes that a significantly larger monopine structure (relative to the existing smaller on-site trees) would not translate into a positive aesthetic design. This rationale aligns with the intent of Protocol 9.10, which allows proponents to explain why a requested alternative is not feasible while ensuring that all community concerns are documented in the consultation record.
Engage with the community and the church to facilitate a win-win solution for the community, church and Terrion. Given the lack of alternative locations to site the infrastructure needed to service the community, the high degree of design Terrion has proposed with use of a shrouded tripole design and consultations to date, the current form of dialogue seem appropriate.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns. We have recorded your comments and will be submitting them to the City of Calgary as part of the public consultation process.

Thank you,

Chelsea

January 2026

Hi Jeph,

Thank you for your continued engagement and for outlining your questions regarding the proposed Terrion telecommunications facility. We appreciate the time you have taken to provide detailed feedback and to advocate for a design that you feel best suits the neighbourhood. Below are responses to the specific questions you raised:

1. Applicable Municipal Policy
Terrion acknowledges that the proposed location may be closer than the 75 m separation recommended under Section 7.6 of the City of Calgary Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols. While this setback is a guideline, the City recognizes that in urban contexts achieving the full separation is not always feasible when balancing technical, operational, and landowner considerations.

2. Apparent Non-Conformance with Siting Protocols
Terrion notes that the proposed tower location is within the recommended 75 m separation from some existing dwellings. This location was selected to meet technical and operational requirements, align with the landowner’s agreement to host the facility, and support network objectives, including future colocation, while minimizing the need for additional towers.

3. Procedural Deficiency in Public Consultation

The information presented at the open house and in the notification package is consistent with materials commonly used for similar telecommunications consultations in Calgary and reflects what is typically provided to support site assessment and community input. Residents seeking further clarity on procedural requirements or the adequacy of consultation are encouraged to contact the City.

4. Formal Request for Clarification and Compliance

Acknowledgement of Setback: Terrion acknowledges that the proposed location may not fully meet the 75 m separation guideline. The City recognizes that in urban settings it is not always feasible to achieve the full recommended separation. In fact, its impossible to supply wireless network services without been within 75m of homes in cities like Calgary.
Relocation or Redesign: Terrion does not intend to relocate or redesign the tower solely to achieve the 75 m separation. Moving the tower north is unlikely to be feasible due to planned expansion of the church’s parking lot and potential interference with existing network infrastructure, including Rogers.
Justification for Non-Compliant Location: The proposed tower location was selected to balance technical coverage, operational feasibility, and landowner agreement. Alternative locations considered internally included:

~ 50.938853, -114.084318: property owner did not respond after repeated attempts at contact;
Fish Creek Park (City Property): insufficient access, low elevation;
~ 50.939993, -114.094085 (City Property): insufficient access, low elevation, proximity to overhead power lines and underground utilities.

None of these alternatives could satisfy all constraints while providing necessary coverage.

5. Compensation and Property Value

Terrion does not provide compensation or other mitigation payments to residents for proximity, visual impacts, or potential property value effects, consistent with industry practice. We recognize that property value is an important consideration for homeowners. Reliable wireless connectivity is increasingly valued by homebuyers and businesses, supporting communication, remote work, and emergency response, and can positively contribute to community livability. ISED has explicitly stated that property value is not a relevant factor in approving tower siting, though minor positive or negative effects may occur in specific cases.

6. Preservation of Record

All comments and correspondence, including this response, will be included in the public consultation record submitted to the City of Calgary as part of the application review.

Thank you,

Chelsea

Hi Jeph,

Thank you for your detailed email and for outlining your questions and concerns regarding the proposed shrouded tri-pole tower. Below are responses to the specific questions you raised in red:

1. Evaluation of Tree-Style (Monopine) Design Alternatives

Your response states that tree-style (“monopine”) towers involve significantly higher construction and maintenance costs, create colocation limitations, and may be more visually prominent at this site. However, it remains unclear whether these conclusions are based on a site-specific assessment or on generalized assumptions.

Accordingly, please confirm:

Whether Terrion conducted a site-specific technical, visual, and operational assessment of a tree-style for this location, and if so, please provide the photo simulations or visual renderings prepared for that assessment, including any simulations based on a Canmore-style monopine design; Terrion did not complete a site-specific technical, visual, and operational assessment of a tree-style for this location as a shrouded tripole design was selected early in the planning stage based on site constraints, landowner requirements, and technical considerations. Terrion does not undertake detailed assessments or visual simulations for every potential tower design option.
Whether cost, maintenance, and colocation considerations were weighed against community impact mitigation, visual intrusion, property value impact and neighbourhood compatibility; and In selecting a tower design, Terrion considers a range of factors, including constructability, long-term maintenance, structural performance, colocation capability, and compatibility with the host property. Community context and visual impact are also important considerations; however, these must be balanced with operational requirements and the need to support shared wireless infrastructure.
Whether any written analysis or comparative evaluation exists documenting the assessment of a monopine design versus a shrouded tripole for this specific site. There is no formal written analysis or comparative evaluation specific to this site documenting a monopine design versus a shrouded tripole. The proposed design reflects Terrion’s standard evaluation process, which considers technical feasibility, landowner preferences, and long-term network planning objectives rather than producing multiple design alternatives for each site.
Whether the view of 71 residents directly adjacent to the proposed tower, that a tree-like design would “better blend with the surrounding neighbourhood” than a cross shaped shrouded tripole design is being considered as important to the design selection. Community feedback, including petitions and written comments, is an important part of the public consultation process and is being shared with both Terrion and the City of Calgary. While resident input is carefully considered, the final design selection must also account for landowner requirements, technical performance, and the broader goal of supporting reliable, shared wireless service.

As previously noted, the community’s proposal for a tree-style design was advanced formally and supported by 71 resident signatures, reflecting a documented willingness to consider a tree-like design similar to the Canmore cell tower that the community feels is a better fit into the landscape of the community.

2. Statements Made at the December 11, 2025 Open House Regarding Design Predetermination

At the December 11, 2025 public open house, Justin Rockafellow of Cypress Land Services advised residents that a tree-style design would not be accepted because it was:

“approximately three times the cost” of a shrouded tripole;
More difficult to maintain;
More difficult to accommodate future equipment additions; and
That such designs had “been rejected many times before and if they had to go with a monopine design they would not do it.”

Your response appears to reflect similar reasoning but does not clarify whether the rejection of a tree-style design was predetermined prior to consultation, or whether it remained genuinely open to consideration based on community input.

Terrion considers factors such as constructability, long-term maintenance, colocation capability, landowner requirements, and technical performance when selecting a tower design. Tree-style monopine structures are known to involve higher construction and maintenance requirements and present limitations for future colocation compared to shrouded tripole designs. These considerations are standard across Terrion’s portfolio and informed the design presented for this site.

For clarity and record purposes, please confirm:

Whether the rejection of a monopine design occurred before or after receiving community feedback; and A monopine design was not advanced for this site prior to consultation. The shrouded tripole design was selected early in the planning process and remained the proposed design following consultation.
Whether the consultation process included a genuine opportunity for community-proposed mitigation measures to influence the design outcome. Yes. The consultation process provides residents with an opportunity to comment on the proposal and suggest mitigation measures. All feedback received is recorded and considered; however, the final design must balance community input with landowner agreements, technical feasibility, and broader network objectives.
Whether the City of Calgary specifically excludes a monopine structure as not being a Stealth Structure or Stealth Installation as defined in the Telecommunications Antenna Structures Siting Protocols document. The City of Calgary’s Telecommunications Antenna Structures Siting Protocols do not specifically exclude monopine structures from being considered a stealth installation.

3. Request for Confirmation and Substantiation of the “3× Cost” Statement

Given the significance of cost as a justification for rejecting the community-proposed design, we request written confirmation and clarification of the statement made at the open house that a monopine tree-style tower—such as the one installed in Canmore, Alberta—would cost approximately three times as much as the proposed shrouded tripole on a total installed cost basis.

Specifically, please confirm:

Whether Terrion maintains that a monopine design at this site would cost three times the cost of a shrouded tripole on a total installed cost basis; Cost comparisons discussed during public engagement are based on generalized industry experience and Terrion’s historical project data across multiple jurisdictions, rather than on a detailed, site-specific engineering or financial analysis for every alternative tower type. Actual cost differentials can vary depending on factors such as height, structural loading, foundation requirements, materials, fabrication complexity, transportation, installation methods, and long-term maintenance obligations.
Whether this estimate is based on a site-specific cost analysis, conceptual estimate, or generalized industry assumption;
Whether any written cost comparison, engineering estimate, or financial analysis exists supporting this assertion; and For this site, Terrion did not prepare a site-specific cost estimate, engineering comparison, or financial analysis for a monopine design, as a tree-style structure was not advanced as a viable option given landowner requirements, technical considerations, and long-term operational objectives. Accordingly, there is no written cost comparison or supporting documentation specific to this location that can be included in the consultation record.
If available, whether such documentation can be included in the consultation record provided to the City of Calgary.

4. Landowner Requirements and Design Constraints

Your response indicates that the cross-shaped shrouded tripole design was a condition of the agreement with the church landowner. That is correct. The proposed telecommunications facility is located on privately owned church property, and the landowner requested specific design elements as part of permitting the installation on their site. The cross-shaped shrouded tripole design was selected collaboratively to align with the landowner’s preferences while meeting technical and operational requirements.

Given the implications of this statement, please clarify:

Whether the church landowner was given the site specific assessment including a tree-like design that would not impose this design constraint; No site-specific technical, visual, or operational assessment of a tree-style (monopine) design was prepared for this location, either for the landowner or for Terrion’s internal review. As noted previously, Terrion does not complete detailed assessments for all possible tower design alternatives where a preferred and viable design has been identified.
Whether the landowner’s design preference effectively precluded consideration of alternative designs or mitigation measures; and While the landowner’s design preferences were considered, they did not preclude evaluation of alternative designs. Terrion proceeds only with designs that meet technical, operational, and commercial requirements. If a landowner-requested design were not viable (for example, due to excessive cost or insufficient height), Terrion would not advance the site. In this case, the proposed shrouded tripole satisfied both landowner preferences and Terrion’s requirements.
Whether the City of Calgary was advised that landowner requirements constrained design flexibility prior to, or during, the consultation process. Yes. The proposed design and the basis for its selection, including landowner requirements, were provided to the City of Calgary as part of the application and consultation record.
Whether the church sought input from the adjacent community on the design, before signing the agreement for a cross-shaped shrouded tri-pole design. Terrion cannot speak on behalf of the church regarding any independent community engagement they may or may not have undertaken.

5. Treatment and Characterization of the Community Petition

At the December 11^th, 2025 open house, residents were advised by Justin Rockafellow of Cypress Land Services that the petition submitted by the community—containing 71 resident signatures—would not be accepted as representing the views of those residents, on the basis that petitions “cannot be trusted,” and that residents would need to submit individual comments for their views to be counted.

Residents were also advised that four responses had been received to date:

Three in favour of the proposal; and
One opposed (characterized as the petition with 71 signatures of residents in the Canyon Creek Estates area with more than 98% of those asked to sign the petition signing it).

To ensure accuracy and transparency in the consultation record, please clarify:

Whether the petition containing 71 signatures will be treated as representing the documented views of 71 individual residents, or as a single submission; The petition will be included in the consultation record. While it is documented as a single petition submission, the number of signatories is noted and acknowledged as reflecting the views of multiple residents. For clarity on how the City ultimately interprets or counts submissions in its decision-making, we encourage the resident to contact the City of Calgary directly.
Whether residents who signed the petition are being excluded from consideration unless they submit duplicative individual comments; The City of Calgary determines how submissions are assessed in their review process.
Whether the City of Calgary will be advised that the “three in favour and one opposed” characterization reflects a methodological counting choice, not the scale of resident opposition; and The petition and the number of signatories will be clearly identified in the materials submitted to the City of Calgary. For clarification on how the City interprets this information in evaluating applications, residents should contact the City directly.
Whether Cypress or Terrion have adopted a formal methodology for weighting petitions versus individual submissions, and whether this methodology has been disclosed to participants or approved by the City. Neither Cypress nor Terrion applies a formal weighting system to public comments. All feedback received, whether through individual submissions or petitions, is documented and included in the consultation record. How the City of Calgary considers petitions versus individual submissions is determined by the City, and we encourage residents seeking clarity on that process to contact the City or their Ward Councillor.

6. Preservation of Record

This correspondence is intended to ensure that the consultation record accurately reflects outstanding issues related to consideration of alternatives, consultation methodology, evidentiary support for cost claims, and procedural fairness. This correspondence, along with all comments received during the consultation process, will form part of the materials provided to the City of Calgary for review in accordance with the Telecommunications Antenna Structures consultation requirements.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns. We have recorded your comments and will be submitting them to the City of Calgary as part of the public consultation process.

Thank you,

Chelsea

December 2025

Dear Terrion Representatives and Ward 13 Councillor Dan McLean,

Thank you for providing the correct link to the City of Calgary’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols on Dec 22, 11 days after I requested it at the Dec 11^th, 2026 open house. For future open houses, I recommend that this link be included directly on the display posters, as the protocol contains important and informative material for attendees. I want to make sure my comments are considered, as you have indicated responses are required within 21 days of receipt.

We are writing on behalf of 71 concerned residents that signed the petition regarding the proposed 30-metre shrouded tri-pole telecommunication tower at 12777 Candle Crescent SW to redesign the proposed 30 m tri-pole telecommunications tower at this site into a stealth “monopine” tower (tree-style design) similar to the tree style cell tower in Canmore, Alberta. Now that we have had a chance to review the correct protocol, this letter formally documents specific areas where the current proposal appears to non-conform with The City of Calgary’s Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols. Our community has serious concerns that the design, location, and consultation approach for this tower do not meet the City’s expectations. Below, we identify the relevant protocol sections and explain how the proposal is misaligned with each. We respectfully request that Terrion GP Inc. address each of these issues in detail and in writing.

Disguised/Camouflaged Design and Preferred Built Form (Protocols 7.1 & 7.2)

Lack of Camouflage: Section 7.1 of the City’s Siting Protocols “encourages the use of telecommunication antenna structures that are designed to be as stealthy, unobtrusive and inconspicuous as possible, particularly in residential areas”. It explicitly calls for hiding or disguising antennas on or in structures so that the installation blends with nearby surroundings and minimizes visual aesthetic impacts on the community. In contrast, the proposed 30 m tri-pole is not meaningfully camouflaged or integrated into the neighbourhood. Residents consider the current plain tri-pole design highly visible, industrial in appearance, and incompatible with the character of our residential area. The community’s near-unanimous request – as evidenced by a petition of 71 residents (98% of those consulted) – is for the tower to be redesigned to mimic a coniferous tree (similar to the known “monopine” cellular tower in Canmore). A tree-like design would better fulfill the Protocols’ intent by making the tower stealthy and inconspicuous among our community’s greenery. We note that Terrion representatives dismissed the tree-style camouflage outright in their Dec 10th, 2025 e-mail to Jeph Virtue, citing cost and maintenance issues and reiterated this position at the December 11, 2025 open house. This refusal to even consider a camouflaged design is difficult to reconcile with Section 7.1’s clear directive that proponents make best efforts to disguise installations in residential contexts. Simply put, the current design fails to incorporate any creative stealth measures and thus does not conform to the City’s camouflage/stealth preference in residential areas.

Preferred Built Form vs. Community Context: Section 7.2 of the Protocols enumerates acceptable structure types, stating that “freestanding telecommunication antenna structures in the form of monopole and tri-pole towers with flush mounted or cluster mounted telecommunication antennas … are preferred built forms” in Calgary. We acknowledge that the proposed installation is a tri-pole with antennas shrouded at the top, which nominally falls within the “preferred” category (and avoids disfavored designs like lattice towers or externally “pinwheel” mounted antennas). However, simply meeting the basic form factor in 7.2 does not automatically satisfy the overarching aesthetic goals. Section 7.2 must be read in harmony with 7.1 – the City prefers low-profile monopoles/tri-poles because they generally reduce visual impact, but in this case the community finds even the tri-pole form unacceptable unless it is further camouflaged. The current tower design, while shrouded, remains starkly visible and not context-sensitive. A “monopine” tree-like disguise was a reasonable design alternative that would still utilize a monopole form while dramatically improving stealth. By flatly rejecting that option, Terrion is neglecting the spirit of Sections 7.1 and 7.2, which prioritize designs that blend into the environment and respect community aesthetics. We urge Terrion to revisit the design – the Protocols clearly support additional camouflage in situations like this, and such redesign would directly address residents’ concerns.

Residential Setback Guidelines (Protocol 7.6)

Section 7.6 of the Siting Protocols sets out Residential Development Setback Guidelines to prevent towers from being placed too close to homes. The City of Calgary “recommends the placement of telecommunication towers should not be in very close proximity to residential developments”, and provides specific distance guidelines. For a tower 15 to 30 metres in height, the Protocol “recommended that any tower proposed on a site abutting existing dwellings should be located at least 75 metres away from those dwellings”. The current proposed location fails to meet this guideline. It is within approximately 75 m (in fact, it is closer to 50 m) of at least two residential homes on adjacent properties, meaning it falls short of the recommended minimum separation distance for a 30 m structure. This is a clear non-conformance with Section 7.6(b).

We acknowledge that Section 7.6 allows the City some discretion to modify setback guidelines on a site-specific basis in light of buffering features or stealth design measures. However, none of the typical mitigating factors appear to exist here. There is no significant topographical buffer that would screen the tower from nearby houses, nor is the tower designed as a stealth installation that might warrant an exception. To the contrary, the tower would stand on the corner of church property in plain view of homes, exacerbating its visual impact. Placing a 30 m tower closer than 75 m to dwellings is fundamentally at odds with the City’s guidelines and with the reasonable expectations of residents. We urge Terrion to either relocate the tower further from residences or provide a compelling rationale (backed by City approval) for why this guideline is being disregarded in the current plan.

Submission and Review Process Irregularities (Protocols 4.0, 5.1 & 5.2)

We are also concerned that Terrion’s process in selecting this site and finalizing the design may not have adhered to the recommended submission and review procedures set out in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of the Protocols. Section 4.0 emphasizes that the City will evaluate each telecommunication submission for, among other things, “compliance with the Telecommunication Antenna Structures Siting Protocols” and key design aspects such as height, type, shrouding of antennas, and the “potential for disguising or camouflaging” the tower. In light of this, it is perplexing that Terrion’s proposal – which was prepared prior to public consultation – did not proactively include camouflage or better aesthetic integration. A proponent familiar with the City’s review criteria should have anticipated the need for disguise in a residential context. We question whether the design submitted to the City truly reflects a good-faith effort to comply with Section 4.0’s criteria, especially regarding camouflage and visual impact mitigation.

Furthermore, Section 5.1 (Pre-Submission Consultation) encourages proponents to meet with The City early in the process “to identify preliminary issues of concern prior to making their submissions”. This pre-submission phase is intended to ensure factors like alternative locations and co-location opportunities are explored, and to determine the necessity of public consultation in advance. We ask Terrion to clarify whether it undertook such early consultation with City staff and the Ward Councillor as advised. Notably, Section 5.1 specifically calls for “issuance of a pre-submission notification to the Ward Councillor” and a discussion of potential alternatives before finalizing a site choice. However, Terrion secured a lease agreement with the property owner (the church) before any public consultation occurred. This sequence gives the appearance that alternative locations or designs were not genuinely considered in advance. Locking in the site agreement so early suggests the decision was essentially made without the benefit of community input, which runs contrary to the collaborative, exploratory spirit of Section 5.1.

In addition, Section 5.2 (Submission Content Requirements) mandates that a complete submission to The City must include documentation of any pre-submission meetings and a report on the public consultation meeting. We trust that Terrion’s application will include a thorough account of the Dec 11^th, 2025 open house and any other consultations. However, any such report should reflect that significant issues were raised by the community (e.g. the design’s incompatibility) and that these remain unresolved to date. Submitting an application without proactively addressing these known concerns would not only be incomplete in spirit, but would undermine the intent of Section 5.2’s requirements for community consultation documentation. In summary, the process undertaken so far appears misaligned with Protocol guidance, and we urge Terrion to realign its approach with the proper submission and review practices – including genuine consideration of alternatives and compliance measures before proceeding further.

Deficiencies in Public Consultation Process (Protocols 9.0–9.10)

Section 9.9 of the City’s Siting Protocols is explicit that “following a public consultation meeting, the proponent must respond to any concerns or issues arising from it” and recommends allowing sufficient time after the meeting to receive and address public input prior to submission.

Prior to and during the December 11, 2025 open house, residents submitted a petition supported by 71 signatories (representing approximately 98% of residents approached), requesting that the proposed tri-pole tower be redesigned as a tree-like structure similar to the Canmore installation. Terrion subsequently provided a written response acknowledging receipt of the petition, reiterating the perceived disadvantages of a tree-style design (including higher cost, servicing complexity, future equipment expansion limitations, and maintenance), and advising that Terrion requires additional time to address some of the concerns raised.

While this response constitutes an acknowledgement, it does not yet constitute a resolution as contemplated by the Protocols. Specifically:

· The response reiterates previously stated disadvantages of a tree-style design but does not demonstrate that such a design has been formally evaluated for this specific site, nor does it provide comparative analysis or evidence showing why it is infeasible in this context.

· The response does not address the core concern raised by residents: that a tree-like structure would materially reduce visual impact and better align with neighbourhood character, consistent with the City’s emphasis on stealth and camouflage in residential areas.

· The request for “more time” confirms that concerns remain unresolved, which triggers the obligation under Section 9.10 for Terrion to clearly document outstanding issues and explain why they have not been resolved prior to any submission to the City.

Accordingly, until Terrion completes this further review and provides a substantive, site-specific response to the design alternatives requested by the community, the consultation process cannot reasonably be considered complete. Proceeding to a City submission without addressing these unresolved matters would be inconsistent with the intent and requirements of Sections 9.9 and 9.10 of the Siting Protocols.

Consideration of Alternatives: Section 9.8 of the Protocols recommends that at the public meeting the proponent present “why/how the location was chosen” and “what other locations were considered and why they weren’t chosen”, among other information. It is unclear to residents that Terrion genuinely complied with this directive. At the open house, Terrion’s representatives did not indicate that any alternate sites on City property or designs were considered (such as shorter installations or camouflaged forms) were seriously evaluated. The fact that a lease was already in place for the church site suggests a foregone conclusion rather than an open evaluation of options. We request that Terrion, in its response, explicitly detail what alternative City of Calgary sites or tower designs were studied prior to settling on the current proposal – as the Protocols expect this transparency. The community deserves to know if a less intrusive siting (or design) was ever on the table.
Post-Meeting Responses to Concerns: Section 9.9 of the Protocols states that “following a public consultation meeting, the proponent must respond to any concerns or issues arising from it.” At the meeting, the petition (71 signatures) was discussed with the consultation representatives. Yet Terrion’s representatives gave only cursory, dismissive answers at the open house (citing cost/maintenance) and provided no commitment to actually evaluate or respond to this design request. We urge Terrion to take this feedback phase seriously: before filing any formal submission to The City, Terrion should engage with residents on the requested revisions. Proceeding with the original design unchanged – and without proper community engagement would fall short of the City’s expectations for good-faith public consultation. Dismissing an entire neighborhood’s aesthetic concerns as too costly or inconvenient is not a sufficient justification under the spirit of the Protocol. The consultation process is meant to incorporate local input, not merely to inform residents of a predetermined outcome. We trust that Terrion’s documentation to the City will reflect a sincere effort to evaluate the tree-camouflage proposal (and any other reasonable modifications raised by the public) rather than a perfunctory rejection.
We urge Terrion to re-engage with the community and the City before finalizing its plans, in order to remedy the above shortcomings in the consultation process.

Conclusion and Request for Response

In light of the above, we formally request that Terrion GP Inc. provide a point-by-point written response to each of the issues identified in this letter. Specifically:

Design & Camouflage (7.1 & 7.2):
- Did Terrion seriously look at a tree-like alternative with the same evaluation that was used for the tri-pole design i.e. complete with simulated drawings of the tree-like alternative? If so please provide a clear description of the alternative sites and alternative tower designs that were considered prior to finalizing the current proposal.
- Will Terrion reconsider a camouflaged “monopine” design or other stealth measures in compliance with the Protocols? If not, please explain in detail why the camouflaged tree design was ruled out and how the current design can be justified as “stealthy/unobtrusive” in a residential context especially considering the petition stating that a monopine can significantly reduce the visual impact by blending with existing trees.
Setback (7.6):
- How does Terrion intend to remedy the sub-75 m setback issue?
- If an exception to the 75 m guideline is being sought, on what grounds (e.g. specific site buffering or mitigation) will Terrion argue that this location is still appropriate? Or, will alternate site placement be pursued to meet the guideline?
Process & Alternatives (4.0, 5.1–5.2):
- Provide a timeline of Terrion’s site selection process, including any pre-submission consultation with City staff or the Councillor, and list what alternative locations/designs were analyzed as per Protocol expectations.
- Provide the response from the City and the Councillor to any pre-submission.
- Clarify why alternatives were rejected and how this evaluation aligns with the City’s submission and review expectations.
- Did Terrion thoroughly evaluate co-location on existing structures or other less intrusive siting opportunities? If so, what were the results; if not, why not?
- Did Terrion consider City of Calgary property for the site? If so, what City of Calgary property was considered and why was it rejected?
Public Consultation (9.0–9.10):
- Detail how Terrion has addressed or plans to address each major concern raised by residents at the open house. In particular, what is Terrion’s response to the petition supported request for a tree-like tower design?
- Will any design changes be made to accommodate the feedback in the petition?
- Identify each substantive concern raised by residents during and after the December 11, 2025 open house, including those contained in the petition, and state that the concerns have not been resolved if Terrion is still considering moving forward with the tri-pole design.

If no changes are forthcoming, provide a clear rationale consistent with Protocol 9.10 explaining why the community’s preferred solution is being declined.
Engage with the community and the church to facilitate a win-win solution for the community, church and Terrion.
We ask for your written responses and any forthcoming action plan, so that residents can review Terrion’s position prior to any formal submission to the City.
Confirm that Terrion will not submit a request for City land-use concurrence until all consultation responses are finalized, outstanding issues are clearly documented, and residents have been provided with Terrion’s complete written responses to the above items in accordance with Protocol 9.9.

Our community sincerely hopes Terrion will take this opportunity to work collaboratively with residents and The City and the community to find a solution that both meets coverage objectives and respects the established Siting Protocols designed to protect community interests. The concerns outlined above are serious and substantive, yet we believe they can be resolved if Terrion is willing to engage constructively.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. We trust that Terrion GP Inc. will uphold both the letter and the spirit of The City of Calgary’s protocols as this project moves forward. We look forward to your prompt and thorough reply, and to seeing these issues addressed in a manner satisfactory to all stakeholders.

Sincerely,

Jeph Virtue
12911 Candle Cr. SW, Calgary, Alberta

On behalf of the residents of the Canyon Creek Estates, Calgary, AB

December 2025

Hello Jeph,

Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments regarding the proposed project. We acknowledge receipt of your email and would like to confirm that your comments have been recorded and will be submitted to the City as part of the public consultation process.

Given the level of detail in your response, our team will take some time to carefully review the points you have raised. We appreciate the thought and effort you put into your submission and will follow up with you as soon as we are able once our review is complete.

Thank you again for sharing your feedback.

Thank you,

Chelsea

In accordance with ISEDC’s policy (CPC-2-0-03), you have 21 days to reply to this response should you have further questions or concerns.

From: Jeph Virtue <jephvirtue@gmail.com>
Sent: December 14, 2025 4:44 PM
To: Chelsea St. John <chelsea@cypresslandservices.com>; Public Consultation <publicconsultation@cypresslandservices.com>
Cc: ward13@calgary.ca; info@ccehoa.ca
Subject: Re: Community Feedback on Terrion File AB103711 – Request for Stealth/Monopine Design

You don’t often get email from jephvirtue@gmail.com. Learn why this is important

Hello Chelsea,

Thank you for your response and for confirming that the community’s comments will be submitted to the City of Calgary as part of the public consultation record. We appreciate the explanation provided regarding Terrion’s rationale for selecting a shrouded tripole design.

Several aspects of your response raise material issues that require clarification to ensure the consultation record is complete, accurate, and procedurally fair.

1. Evaluation of Tree-Style (Monopine) Design Alternatives

Accordingly, please confirm:

Whether Terrion conducted a site-specific technical, visual, and operational assessment of a tree-style for this location, and if so, please provide the photo simulations or visual renderings prepared for that assessment, including any simulations based on a Canmore-style monopine design;
Whether cost, maintenance, and colocation considerations were weighed against community impact mitigation, visual intrusion, property value impact and neighbourhood compatibility; and
Whether any written analysis or comparative evaluation exists documenting the assessment of a monopine design versus a shrouded tripole for this specific site.
Whether the view of 71 residents directly adjacent to the proposed tower, that a tree-like design would “better blend with the surrounding neighbourhood” than a cross shaped shrouded tripole design is being considered as important to the design selection.

2. Statements Made at the December 11, 2025 Open House Regarding Design Predetermination

At the December 11, 2025 public open house, Justin Rockafellow of Cypress Land Services advised residents that a tree-style design would not be accepted because it was:

“approximately three times the cost” of a shrouded tripole;
More difficult to maintain;
More difficult to accommodate future equipment additions; and
That such designs had “been rejected many times before and if they had to go with a monopine design they would not do it.”

For clarity and record purposes, please confirm:

Whether the rejection of a monopine design occurred before or after receiving community feedback; and
Whether the consultation process included a genuine opportunity for community-proposed mitigation measures to influence the design outcome.
Whether the City of Calgary specifically excludes a monopine structure as not being a Stealth Structure or Stealth Installation as defined in the Telecommunications Antenna Structures Siting Protocols document.

3. Request for Confirmation and Substantiation of the “3× Cost” Statement

Specifically, please confirm:

Whether Terrion maintains that a monopine design at this site would cost three times the cost of a shrouded tripole on a total installed cost basis;
Whether this estimate is based on a site-specific cost analysis, conceptual estimate, or generalized industry assumption;
Whether any written cost comparison, engineering estimate, or financial analysis exists supporting this assertion; and
If available, whether such documentation can be included in the consultation record provided to the City of Calgary.

4. Landowner Requirements and Design Constraints

Your response indicates that the cross-shaped shrouded tripole design was a condition of the agreement with the church landowner.

Given the implications of this statement, please clarify:

Whether the church landowner was given the site specific assessment including a tree-like design that would not impose this design constraint;
Whether the landowner’s design preference effectively precluded consideration of alternative designs or mitigation measures; and
Whether the City of Calgary was advised that landowner requirements constrained design flexibility prior to, or during, the consultation process.
Whether the church sought input from the adjacent community on the design, before signing the agreement for a cross-shaped shrouded tri-pole design.

5. Treatment and Characterization of the Community Petition

Residents were also advised that four responses had been received to date:

Three in favour of the proposal; and
One opposed (characterized as the petition with 71 signatures of residents in the Canyon Creek Estates area with more than 98% of those asked to sign the petition signing it).

To ensure accuracy and transparency in the consultation record, please clarify:

Whether the petition containing 71 signatures will be treated as representing the documented views of 71 individual residents, or as a single submission;
Whether residents who signed the petition are being excluded from consideration unless they submit duplicative individual comments;
Whether the City of Calgary will be advised that the “three in favour and one opposed” characterization reflects a methodological counting choice, not the scale of resident opposition; and
Whether Cypress or Terrion have adopted a formal methodology for weighting petitions versus individual submissions, and whether this methodology has been disclosed to participants or approved by the City.

6. Preservation of Record

We respectfully request that your written response to the above items be forwarded to myself and Councillor Dan McLean and be included in the materials provided to the City of Calgary as part of the public consultation record.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to your written response.

Sincerely,
Jeph Virtue
12911 Candle Cr. SW
Calgary, Alberta

On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 1:55 PM Chelsea St. John <chelsea@cypresslandservices.com> wrote:

Hello Jeph,

We sincerely appreciate the community’s feedback and understand the desire for infrastructure that integrates as seamlessly as possible with its surroundings. We have recorded your comments and will be submitting them to City as part of the public consultation process.

For this location, Terrion has selected a shrouded tripole tower design, which is one of the more visually streamlined options available for wireless infrastructure. This design conceals the antennas within a sleek enclosure, giving it a cleaner and more modern appearance compared to traditional open-antenna structures.

While tree-style “monopine” towers are used in some regions, they involve significant additional construction and long-term maintenance costs, and their appearance can change over time as materials weather. In addition, given the height and character of the surrounding treeline at this site, a monopine could appear more visually prominent, rather than blending effectively into the landscape.

Additionally, monopine designs create significant limitations for future colocation. The artificial branches and structural attachments make it more difficult for additional carriers to install equipment at appropriate heights. Because Terrion was created to support the improvement of Canada’s wireless networks by building infrastructure that can be shared by multiple carriers, ensuring that towers can accommodate colocation is a core priority. A shrouded tripole supports this goal far more effectively, allowing multiple service providers to use the same structure and reducing the need for additional towers in the area.

It is also important to note that the proposed tower is located on church-owned property, and the cross-shaped shrouded tripole design was a condition of the agreement with the landowner. As the property owner, the church has the ability to request certain design elements as part of allowing the installation on their site. This design was selected in collaboration with the landowner to respect their preferences while still meeting technical and operational requirements.

After reviewing the surrounding landscape, site constraints, landowner requirements, and technical needs, the shrouded tripole tower was selected as the option that best balances aesthetics, structural performance, and reliable network coverage. That said, we appreciate the thoughtful feedback and the petition submitted by local residents. We will be sharing this input with Terrion and the City of Calgary.

Thank you,

Chelsea

Chelsea St. John   Project Manager, Real Estate & Government Affairs    604.620.0877    PublicConsultation@cypresslandservices.com
    cypresslandservices.com
   3909 University Ave NW, Calgary AB, T3B 6K3

In accordance with ISEDC’s policy (CPC-2-0-03), you have 21 days to reply to this response should you have further questions or concerns.

From: Jeph Virtue <jephvirtue@gmail.com>
Sent: December 8, 2025 11:43 AM
To: Public Consultation <publicconsultation@cypresslandservices.com>
Cc: ward13@calgary.ca; info@ccehoa.ca
Subject: Community Feedback on Terrion File AB103711 – Request for Stealth/Monopine Design

Some people who received this message don’t often get email from jephvirtue@gmail.com. Learn why this is important

cc. Dan McLean, Councillor for Ward 13; John Kittel, President, Canyon Creek Estates Home Owners Association

Consultation Team for Terrion and Telus,

Please find attached a letter of transmittal and petition with 71 signatures of impacted residents in response to the November 10, 2025 Public Notification regarding the proposed 30 m Shrouded Tri-pole Telecommunications Tower located in the church parking lot at 12777 Candle Cr. SW, Calgary (Terrion File AB103711).

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. I look forward to meeting you at the Dec 11th open house.

Jeph Virtue

12911 Candle Cr. SW

Calgary, Alberta

T2W 3B2

December 2025

Sorry everyone. The link did not work for an email, so you will have to copy and paste from below and send your own email.

email address : publicConsultation@cypresslandservices.com

Subject Line: Public Consultation Comment – Terrion File AB103711

Hello,

Please accept the following comments regarding the proposed Terrion telecommunications facility (12777 Candle Crescent SW, Calgary – File AB103711):

1. Are you a cellular telephone or wireless internet user? ☒ Yes ☐ No

2. Is the location of the proposed facility acceptable? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If no, why: I support improved connectivity in our community; however, I do not support the proposed 30 m shrouded tri-pole design at this location.

3. Are you satisfied with the design of the proposed facility? ☐ Yes ☒ No

Comments: I only support a cell tower at the proposed location if it is a tree-like tower like the cell tower installed in Canmore. I feel the tree design, although fake and the same height as the tri-pole (30 m), will look much better than the tri-pole design, especially since there are existing smaller trees that would surround it.

Name:

Address:

December 2025

December 2025

—–Original Message—–
From: “Jeph Virtue” <jephvirtue@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2025 9:26pm
To: “John Kittell” <john@chequeprint.ca>, info@ccehoa.ca
Subject: Request to CCEHOA Members

Hi John,

I went to the cell tower open house yesterday.

Pretty frustrating as expected, but what I learned was that Terrion have only received 4 responses to date: 3 in favour of the proposed tri-pole design and 1 opposed (the petition). Terrion do not trust petitions and said that they would put much more weight on individual comments from community members. I will send you an email under separate cover that has a link to generate an email to the consultation team with comments pre-filled to make it easy. However, if folks want to add their own comments they can do so.

Would you be ok sending this out to your email list for CCEHOA members? Do you also have the Canyon Meadows association member emails or someone that can also send it out to them?

Call me at 587-223-1882 if you would like to discuss or feel free to respond to this email.

Thanks,

Jeph

December 2025

Hello all.

Here is the follow up to Jeph’s petition that most of you signed.

—–Original Message—–
From: “Chelsea St. John” <chelsea@cypresslandservices.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 3:55pm
To: “Jeph Virtue” <jephvirtue@gmail.com>, “Public Consultation” <publicconsultation@cypresslandservices.com>
Cc: “ward13@calgary.ca” <ward13@calgary.ca>, “info@ccehoa.ca” <info@ccehoa.ca>
Subject: RE: Community Feedback on Terrion File AB103711 – Request for Stealth/Monopine Design

Hello Jeph,

We sincerely appreciate the community’s feedback and understand the desire for infrastructure that integrates as seamlessly as possible with its surroundings. We have recorded your comments and will be submitting them to City as part of the public consultation process.

For this location, Terrion has selected a shrouded tripole tower design, which is one of the more visually streamlined options available for wireless infrastructure. This design conceals the antennas within a sleek enclosure, giving it a cleaner and more modern appearance compared to traditional open-antenna structures.

While tree-style “monopine” towers are used in some regions, they involve significant additional construction and long-term maintenance costs, and their appearance can change over time as materials weather. In addition, given the height and character of the surrounding treeline at this site, a monopine could appear more visually prominent, rather than blending effectively into the landscape.

Additionally, monopine designs create significant limitations for future colocation. The artificial branches and structural attachments make it more difficult for additional carriers to install equipment at appropriate heights. Because Terrion was created to support the improvement of Canada’s wireless networks by building infrastructure that can be shared by multiple carriers, ensuring that towers can accommodate colocation is a core priority. A shrouded tripole supports this goal far more effectively, allowing multiple service providers to use the same structure and reducing the need for additional towers in the area.

It is also important to note that the proposed tower is located on church-owned property, and the cross-shaped shrouded tripole design was a condition of the agreement with the landowner. As the property owner, the church has the ability to request certain design elements as part of allowing the installation on their site. This design was selected in collaboration with the landowner to respect their preferences while still meeting technical and operational requirements.

After reviewing the surrounding landscape, site constraints, landowner requirements, and technical needs, the shrouded tripole tower was selected as the option that best balances aesthetics, structural performance, and reliable network coverage. That said, we appreciate the thoughtful feedback and the petition submitted by local residents. We will be sharing this input with Terrion and the City of Calgary.

Thank you,

Chelsea

In accordance with ISEDC’s policy (CPC-2-0-03), you have 21 days to reply to this response should you have further questions or concerns.

From: Jeph Virtue <jephvirtue@gmail.com>
Sent: December 8, 2025 11:43 AM
To: Public Consultation <publicconsultation@cypresslandservices.com>
Cc: ward13@calgary.ca; info@ccehoa.ca
Subject: Community Feedback on Terrion File AB103711 – Request for Stealth/Monopine Design

Some people who received this message don’t often get email from jephvirtue@gmail.com. Learn why this is important

cc. Dan McLean, Councillor for Ward 13; John Kittel, President, Canyon Creek Estates Home Owners Association

Consultation Team for Terrion and Telus,

Please find attached a letter of transmittal and petition with 71 signatures of impacted residents in response to the November 10, 2025 Public Notification regarding the proposed 30 m Shrouded Tri-pole Telecommunications Tower located in the church parking lot at 12777 Candle Cr. SW, Calgary (Terrion File AB103711).

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. I look forward to meeting you at the Dec 11th open house.

Jeph Virtue

12911 Candle Cr. SW

Calgary, Alberta

T2W 3B2

December 2025

Hi Jeph.

It would appear that not only is the consultation portion of this project a waste of time, but the landowner gets all final say in look and feel. The plan was made, agreed upon and sent out to the communities to simply let them know, not ask for feedback or suggest any changes. The landowner will likely be compensated even more, if additional carriers add their equipment to the tripole structure.

Nothing for the community to do but accept it and be happy.

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of your community.

John Kittell

President – CCEHOA

Hello Jeph,

Thank you,

Chelsea

In accordance with ISEDC’s policy (CPC-2-0-03), you have 21 days to reply to this response should you have further questions or concerns.

Some people who received this message don’t often get email from jephvirtue@gmail.com. Learn why this is important

cc. Dan McLean, Councillor for Ward 13; John Kittel, President, Canyon Creek Estates Home Owners Association

Consultation Team for Terrion and Telus,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. I look forward to meeting you at the Dec 11th open house.

Jeph Virtue

12911 Candle Cr. SW

Calgary, Alberta

T2W 3B2

November 2025

For all of you that have not seen the details on the new cell tower going up at the church, here is some information and some background notes from Chris.

Some facts and history:

As we found out last time, Cell Towers fall under the Pre-eminent Domain rules and while you can protest and maybe get some changes made to the design, the Cell Company can pretty well do what it wants.

From the minuscule “artist edition” picture in the Terrion Doc, it looks like the Monster Tower that Rogers tried to sneak in last time – Rogers floated the design that was installed but during the battle we had with them, our group got the sense they were running a bait and switch. If we had any victory, it was holding Shaw to the original design.

Also suspect that this is a “Next Gen” Tower – no more cabling for phone, internet or TV – all over the air and getting ready for not just 5G but 6G PLUS

I am not sure exactly where Telus plans to put this tower as the drawing is not great – I suspect that because of needed construction and maintenance access it will most likely end up on the SE corner of the Church Lot on the corner of Elbow and Candle Crescent

Last time, Keith was President and I undertook the fight for CCEHOA – held a meeting and raised over $2500 for the fight – if I recall, roughly half of the 40 odd people worked up over this were for health reasons and the rest for real estate values. We did have a few folks from Canso and Canyon Meadows in the group.

We had protests at the Church, meetings with Shaw and council person – other than that we had some good parties but it was basically to no avail

THE BIG JOKE was that we found during the fight, that the Church Steeple had cell transmitters almost from the day it was built – the “new” tower was not the first