Project No. 24 -0003938 an Appeal
of Project No. 23 -0005025 at 800
South Main Street
City Council
October 29, 2024
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
1 Project Description
• Project No. 24 -0003938:
An Appeal Of The Planning Commission’s Decision to
Conditionally Approve Project No. 23 -0005025:
• Project No. 23 -0005025:
An Administrative Use Permit (AUP) to install a roof
mounted wireless telecommunication facility (WTF) on
an existing commercial building at 800 S. Main Street.
2 Project Site Location
Project Site:
800 S. Main St.
3 Zoning & General Plan Land Use Designations
Zoning Map General Plan Land Use Map
Rancho
Commercial
800 S. Main St.
800 S. Main St.
4 Project Site Plan
5 Project Site Plan
Accessory
Equipment
Sector 1 & 2
Sector 3
W Valencia Ave
W Elmwood Ave
6 Required Permits
7 Required AUP Findings
1. Allowed with AUP
2. Not detrimental to existing uses or to uses permitted in the zone
3. Compatible with other uses in the general area
4. Site is adequate to accommodate the use
5. Streets are adequate to handle traffic generated by use
6. Included conditions are necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience and welfare
8 Additional Considerations for WTF Projects
Any decision to deny a WTF application must be
supported by substantial evidence contained in a
written record (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)) .
The evidence must show that the decision to deny
a wireless project is supported by substantial
evidence in the context of applicable regulations .
9 Appeal Process
The City Council must hold a de novo hearing to
consider and act on the project application and appeal.
The prior decision is set aside in its entirety and the City Council makes a new decision.
10 Project Timeline
AUP Application Submitted October 20, 2023
Application Deemed Complete January 18, 2024
Supplemental Project Information/
Clarifications Received from Applicant
January through May
First Public Notice Mailed April 8, 2024
Second Public Notice Mailed May 17, 2024
Director’s Conditional Approval of
AUP
June 5, 2024
Appellant Submitted an Appeal of the
Director’s Decision to Approve the
AUP
June 18, 2024
Final Day to Appeal Director’s
Decision
June 20, 2024
Planning Commission’s Denial of the
Appeal and Conditional Approval of
the AUP
July 22, 2024
Appellant Submitted an Appeal of the
Planning Commission’s Decision to
Approve the AUP
August 6, 2024
11 • Reviewed by Community Development and the City Attorney’s Office
• Appeal did not provide new information that would change the analysis in the Planning Commission’s decision .
• None of the contentions or their supporting documentation constitute substantial evidence to show the specific zoning decision at issue was made incorrectly .
• Many contentions were based on regulations or issues outside of applicable City development standards and findings for this project .
Analysis of the Appeal Contentions
12 Analysis of the Appeal Contentions
Zoning Ordinance & Administrative Process:
• City failed to provide noticing as required
• Project does not meet development standards in the zone and increases nonconformity
• Project failed to provide coverage maps & alternative site analysis
• The most conservative use of the land is residential which impacts the permitting process
• Project does not meet required findings for AUP
13 Analysis of the Appeal Contentions
Federal Regulations :
• Outdated FCC regulation regarding RF exposure limits • D.C. Circuit ruled against the FCC and directed FCC to update 1996 RF limits
• Applicant’s statement of compliance with RF limits is false
• Applicant did not analyze alternative placement
14 Analysis of the Appeal Contentions
Environmental Review and Safety:
• Project does not qualify for class 3 categorical
exemption from CEQA related to small facilities
• 5G technology can disrupt local wildlife
• One 5G telecom facility catches on fire per month
• Harmful impacts found:
- Impacts on firefighters, resulting in an exemption - Insurance company risk assessment related to 5G
15 Analysis in Support of the Recommendation
• Appeal did not provide any new information that would change the analysis in the Planning Commission’s
decision
• All AUP Findings can be affirmatively made, as outlined in the published staff report
• Project complies with the Burbank Municipal Code
• Project is consistent with Burbank2035 General Plan
16 Environmental Determination
The Project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines § 15303 pertaining to new construction of small structures, such as the proposed WTF.
17 Recommendation
Adopt a resolution to deny the appeal of Project
No. 23-0005025,
Conditionally approve Project No. 23-0005025,
an AUP for a roof mounted WTF at 800 S. Main
Street, for the reasons described in the published
Staff Report and this Public Hearing.
Find that the project is exempt from CEQA
18 Additional Questions ?
PLANNING DIVISION
(818) 238-5250
Fatima Benitez, Associate Planner
[email protected]
19 Project No. 24 -0003938 an Appeal
of Project No. 23 -0005025 at 800
South Main Street
City Council
October 29, 2024
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
20 The Following Slides are Backup Slides
21 22
October 15, 2024 - On Site Project Sign was Posted
23 October 21, 2024 - Project Sign was Reposted
24 October 28, 2024 - Staff Confirmed Project Sign is Posted
25 1,000’ Radius Map
Contention #1:
The public notices were deficient because they were inconsistent, confusing, and not transparent because the project description was insincere and the City withheld evidence from the community. Also, not all schools within 1,000 feet of the Project Site were notified .
Contention #1
26 1. Contention #2: The decision to approve the project is in conflict with the required findings in the Burbank Municipal Code § 10-1-1956:
• The use is not detrimental to residents and businesses health, safety, and property values, and to children .
The Project is detrimental to residents and businesses health, safety, and property values, and to children . https:/ /ehtrust.org/cell-tower-at-schools -health -effects - safety-faqs/
• The Project use is compatible with other uses in the general area.
The Project is proposed in a school and residential zone and is incompatible with the health and safety of children and will negatively affect the small businesses . • The proposed Project includes conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare.
The 5G telecommunications antenna contributes to air pollution and radiation exposure.
Contention #2
27 Contention #3:
On August 13, 2021, the US Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC ignored scientific evidence and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its 1996 regulations adequately protect the public against harmful effects of wireless radiation, and ordered the FCC to provide a reasoned determination as to whether the evidence warrants a change to the 1996 RF limits .
Since the FCC has not responded to the Court or disclosed the new updated findings, the documentation provided by the Dish Cellular stating they are in compliance is false.
Contention #3
28 Contention #4:
The Project does not comply with height restrictions .
The property is a neighborhood business zone and already bridges municipal code by 10 feet. The proposed antennas would add an additional 10 ½ feet further violating the code with a discrepancy of over 20 feet. Denial of a prior WTF project at 1711 N. Avon was based on height restrictions alone, and has set a precedent .
Contention #4
29 Contention #5:
The Project does not close any coverage gap. The facility is not co - located and is brand new installation for a single company therefore, not eligible for a co -located building mounted AUP.
Contention #5
30 Contention #6:
The applicant failed to provide proof that they attempted to find alternative placement for the telecommunication facility in violation of the FCC Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Contention #6
31 Contention #7:
The Project is not a minor alteration to the use of the land.
Therefore, the CEQA exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 is not applicable.
Contention #7
32 Contention #8:
The parcel of the land at 800 S. Main Street is partially zoned for R-1, Single Family Residential, which impacts the permitting process in that the permit grants a non -conforming use of the land. The permit runs with the land and the permit is invalid as the most conservative use of the land is residential, which would not work with the 5G towers proposed at this site.
Contention #8
33 Contention #9
Insurers rank 5G and electromagnetic radiation as a “high” risk and claim existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase.
Contention #9
34 Contention #10:
Numerous cities and towns are passing ordinances to restrict 5G and the proliferation of wireless telecommunication antennas near homes and schools with the authority they have. Communities that have passed ordinances to restrict cell antennas near homes and schools include numerous cities in California such as Los Altos, Petaluma, Mill Valley, Malibu, Santa Barbara, Encinitas, Fairfax, Palo Alto, Walnut City, and San Diego County. Regarding the current Burbank Municipal Code, there have been no updates in over 10 years and the Burbank codes need to be updated to keep up with the ever changing technological advances.
Knowing that other cities in California have codified minimal distances from schools and residents, proves that this kind of objective standard can be implemented and does not run afoul of FCC regulations.
Contention #10
35 Contention #11:
The FCC has not updated their regulations since 1991 and subsequent documents show biological effects and illness from wireless radiation exposure below the FCC’s accepted RF - emissions levels. https:/ /ehtrust.org/environmental -health -trust- et-al-v-fcc-key-documents/
Contention #11
36 Contention # 12:
The Project will disrupt the existing wildlife near the Project Site – specifically, two Cooper’s Hawks in a magnolia tree in an adjacent lot. The emissions by 5G technologies can disrupt the magnetic “compass” that many migrating birds and insects use for navigation. The same radiation can also interfere with the orientation of insects, spiders, and mammals -which are the food sources of Cooper’s Hawks and other birdlife present in the area immediately surrounding the proposed project site.
https:/ /ehtrust.org/study-finds-wireless -radiation -affects - wildlife/
Contention #12
37 Contention #13:
One 5G telecommunication facility catches on fire per month .
Contention #13
38 Contention #14:
Allowing these antennas to be installed opens up new opportunities for all wireless communication companies to participate in locating more antennas atop of 800 S. Main Street at their own discretion without approval or oversight from the City ever again. Thus, building infrastructure clutter, causing not only the look and feel to change, but changing the use of the building as a wireless communications facility. Even with a retainer wall built to maintain aesthetics, it would create a much larger look, making it aesthetically incompatible and unpleasing .
Contention #14
39 Contention #15:
Firefighters in California won an exemption from cell towers when an independent study ruled the negative health effects and impaired judgment they were experiencing directly related to RF-EMR after they were placed on top of their fire station.
Contention #15
40