A n A ppeal to City Council for
T houghtful Placement of 5G
T elecommunication T owers in
Burbank
Common sense protections for where we live, work, and play .
Dr. K ent Chamberlin
Dr . Chamberli n i s the Past-Chair and Professor Emeritus in the Department of E lectri cal and Computer E ngi neeri ng at the U ni v ersi ty of New Hampshi re. I n hi s more than f orty y ears i n academi a, he has perf ormed research f or ov er twenty-five sponsors, including the National Sci ence F oundati on. He has recei v ed two F ulbri ght awards, i ncludi ng the presti gi ous F ulbri ght Di sti ngui shed Chai r . He has also serv ed as an A ssoci ate E di tor f or the I nsti tute f or E lectri cal & E lectroni cs E ngi neers ( I E E E ) , and he regularly perf orms rev i ew f or them and other techni cal and s c ie ntific publications .
Dr . Chamberlin served on the New Hampshire State Commissions that was convened through the legislation to explore the impacts of wireless radiation. Since serving on the commission, he has been active in carrying out the recommendations of the commission by working with legislators and community groups around the world. Dr . Chamberlin is a founding member of the I nternational Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, which is an international group of renown sci enti sts wi th ex perti se i n radi ati on and bi ologi cal eff ects. He i s Presi dent of the E nv i ronmental Health T rust. L ast Summer he engaged i n a speaki ng tour in Europe where he presented the finding of the New Hampshire Commission to groups that included the Royal Society of M edicine in L ondon. I t is notable that he is the Chair of a local School Board and is aware of the reali ti es and responsi bi li ti es of managi ng a school.
Dr . Chamberli n has prepared a presentati on speci fi cally f or toni ght:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sI Z wT rOywU
Loca l munic ipa lities can and do
enact restrictions fo r WTFs .
F or ex ample, these ci ti es hav e or are currently
pre pa ring re s tric tions :
L os A ngeles Rip on
Ma lib u Carlsbad
Santa B arbar a San Diego County
Palo A lto Rancho Palos V erdes
W alnut City Petaluma
Enc inita s L os A ltos
F ai rf ax Mill V alley
The proposed tower at 800 S. M ai n Street would be
located within 300 hundred feet or less from people’ s
homes, two preschools , and an elementary school –
much closer than the 1,640 f eet recommended by
the New Hampshire Commission.
School Dis tricts That
Ban Cell T owers On or
Near Their Property
L os A ngeles Unified School
Dis trict : B anned cell towers
on school property and set a
radiofrequency radiation
limit that is 10,000 times
lower than the FCC's limit
Palo Alto California Unifie d
School Dis trict : Supports a
1,500- foot setback and
opposes cell towers near
schools
T emecula V alley U ni f i ed
School Dis trict : Banned new
cell towers on school
property and prohibits
re ne wing exis ting towe r
leases
We s t Lin n-Wilsonville
Oregon School
Boa rd: Prohibits ce ll towe rs
on school property
M ontgomery County
M aryland Schools : No
longer si gns leases f or cell
towers on elementary
schools
Prince George's County
M aryland School
Boa rd: Decided not to renew
a cell tower construction
master leasi ng agreement
Portland Oregon
Schools : E nded new leases
for cell towers
T his Photo by Unknown A uthor is licensed under CC BY-NC Burbank City Council Stops
Cell T ower I n A Steeple
T here i s already a precedent set to deny thi s
project. In 2012, Burbank City Council
unanimously voted 5 -0 to protect city
residents and deny a proposed WT F site at
the L ittle White Chapel Christian Church,
located at 1711 N. A von St .
800 South M ain is in a Neighborhood Business
Z one and already ex ceeds muni ci pal code
height restrictions by 10 feet. T hese antennas
would add 10 ½ more feet, further violating
code wi th a di screpancy of ov er 20 f eet. F urther , i t’ s on a tax parcel parti ally zoned R-1
re s ide ntia l.
Si nce the L i ttle W hi te Chapel tower was deni ed,
so should this project.
800 S. Main St is not compliant
with the totality of BM C
• B M C's definition of structure from Section 10 -1-203 "ST RUCT URE HEIGHT :
M eans B uilding Height, or as to any other structure the vertical distance measured from the grade to the highest elevation of the structure. ” B M C 10-1-2417 applies to Neighborhood B usiness Z ones and states “T he maximum height of a structure
shall be a maximum height of 25 feet … ”
and subsection ( A ) ( 3) states “A Conditional Use Permit is required for a structure
higher than 25 feet. ” Additionally, BMC 10-1-1118 states “New Building -mounted WT Fs, including any screening devices, shall not exceed a hei ght of 15 f eet abov e the roof or parapet, whi chev er i s hi gher , of the building on which it is mounted unless approved through a Conditional Use Pe rm it .”
• T he Ci ty Planni ng Department's argument f or separ ati ng the dev elopment standards for the WT F and the building is unsupported by v ertical and horizontal consistency requirements. BM C Section 10 -1-1118 does not prohibit the appli cati on of other appli cable dev elopment standards, such as those found in BM C Section 10-1-2417(A ), to the property .
• This building alre ady violate s he ight re s trictions as i t currently stands 35 f eet tall. T he 6 proposed antennas and surrounding screen would take the height to 45 ½ feet tall. Even with a CUP , this building would
ex ceed the max structure
height by 5 ½ f eet.
• A llowing these antennas to be installed opens new opportunities for all wireless communication companies to participate in co- locating more antennas atop of 800 S. M ain St. T he applicant can do this at their own discretion, without approval or oversight from the City ever again. T hus, building infrastructure clutter , causing not only the look and feel to change, but changing the use of the building into a wireless communications facility .
Zoning
10-1-401: INTERPRET A TION OF ZONING
ORDI NA NCE: T he provisions of the Z oning
Ordi nance are m inim um requirements and shall
apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure or
land, ex cept as otherwise provided.
When at
V ariance with any rule, regulation, other
ordinance, deed restriction or covenant, the
more restri cti v e requi rement or that i mposi ng the higher standard shall govern.
T he parcel of land at 800 S. M ai n Street i s a mi x ed- use parcel partially zoned for R -1 s ingle family
re s ide ntial, whi ch i mpacts the permi tti ng process in that the permit grants a non- conforming use of
the land.
T he permit runs with the land, not the building,
making it invalid as the most conserv ati v e use of
land is residential, which is not compatible with 5G
antennas proposed at this site.
A dditionally , this land parcel shares property lines
with R-1 single family residential lots on all sides.
It’ s the Wrong
Permit
• 1/3 of the property is zoned R1
re s ide ntia l.
• T he permit runs with the land.
• T he residential use of the land
requires a CUP.
• A CUP is re quire d in a
Neighborhood Business Z one for
structures ex ceedi ng max hei ght
limitations of 25 ft. This s truc ture
already ex ceeds by 10 ft.
Permit V iolates the
Requirements for an A UP
• AUP requirement: “The use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located." Response: It absolutely is detrimental to property values. It pits business against business. It negatively impacts residents’ and businesses health and safely. It is detrimental to children’s growth and brain development. • AUP requirement: “The use will be compatible with other uses in the general area in which the use is proposed to be located.” Response: It is not compatible. Neighboring businesses will be negatively impacted. It will negatively impact home sales within the neighborhood and negatively impact property values long-term. It is not compatible with protecting the health and safety of residents, employee, and school children on adjacent properties. • AUP requirement: The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, safety, convenience and welfare. [Added by Ord. No. 3139, eff. 1/28/89; Formerly numbered Section 31-255.22; Renumbered by Ord.
No. 3058.]” Response: There is NO PROTECTION PROVIDED 5G WTFs. A 5G WTF contributes to air pollution and radiation exposure. https://ehtrust.org/cell-tower-at-schools-health-effects-safety-faqs/ DI SH L acks T ransparency
City Planning states, "that the applicant has provided documentation, including cov erage maps, that the proposed W T F f aci li ty wi ll prov i de wi reless and data coverage for a portion of Burbank which currently has a gap in coverage. " This is a f alse statement based on a busi ness plan, not on cov erage needs. T here i s no gap i n cov erage ; this is the firs t s ite of almost a dozen proposed new s ite s .
Even the application from Dish Wireless states it “provides significant new cov erage on the DI SH system. ” T here i s already adequate wi reless cov erage i n and around 800 South M ain Street and in B urbank as a whole. T he proposed project provides a new locati on f or a new provi der to enter an already saturated local market.
The fa cility is NOT co-located; there is no other facility to co -locate with. I t is a brand - new installation- f or a si ngle company . The fa cility is not e ligible for a co-located building mounted A UP .
T he FCC sets guidelines for state and local governments that require local authori ti es consi der the "least i ntrusi v e means" f or fi lli ng a cov erage gap when approving or denying cell tower applications. T here i s no gap i n cov erage .
Inconsistent Information
from A pplicant and City
Planning Dept
Publi c noti ces were i nconsi stent,
confusing, and did not provide
transparency .
A ll schools were ex cluded from fi rst
notification mailing, re s ulting in the City
to re-notic e bas e d on the ir admis s ion of
the applicant’ s error – as it was the
applicant who submitted this list of all
resi dents wi thi n 1,000 feet of the
proposed site.
T he mailed notice for tonight’ s hearing
has sti ll not been recei v ed by resi dents,
despite it being mailed on Oct 11
th. Th is
is the public notice for tonight’ s hearing
(pictured).
T elecommunications A ct of 1996 – local
gov ernments hav e power
Congress expli ci tly preserv ed the authori ty of local gov ernments to regulate wi reless f aci li ty placement under the T elecommunications A ct of 1996 , contrary to common mi sconcepti ons. T o ex erci se thi s power , muni ci pali ti es must enact local zoning ordinances with permanent
requi rements/restri cti ons and establi sh procedural gui deli nes f or compli ance wi th the A ct's fi v e procedural requi rements.
Howev er , most local codes lack procedural gui deli nes, leav i ng local boards vulnerable to misinformation. Site developers often submit false/misleading information, such as
propagati on maps, F CC compli ance reports, and real estate apprai sals. L ocal boards need gui dance to recogni ze these i naccuraci es.
M uni ci pal attorney s ty pi cally aren’ t telecommuni cati ons law ex perts, maki ng i t essenti al to consult telecom lawy ers.
Updating local zoning ordinances and educating local boards on recognizing misleading information helps municipalities regulate wi reless f aci li ty placement eff ecti v ely to protect local c ommunitie s .
CE QA is NOT Preempted B y the Federal
Communications A ct of 1996
On M arch 27, 2024, the L os A ngeles Superior Court ruled that the California Environmental Quality A ct is NOT preempted by the F ederal Communi cati ons A ct of 1996.
T he Court ruled, “CE QA ex pli ci tly appli es to di screti onary proj ects by publi c agenci es including but not limited to the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances issuance of conditional use permits and approving tentative subdi v i si on maps env i ronmental analy si s must be perf ormed bef ore an agency approv es a proj ect and an agency many not commit itself to a project without performing such review. ” T he CEQA Clearance under Section 15303 for this project applies to construction of minor accessory structures, installation of new equipment or making minor alterations to land. A bra nd ne w WTF fa c ility is not a m inor a lte ra tion to the use of land. I t is not being put in a small structure; and it is not accessory to the building. I t is a stand -alone facility on the property attached to the roof . Given that the land is an R1 /NB split zone that abuts sensitive land uses, i t i s i nappropri ate to i gnore the CE QA requi rements. https://www .bbilan.org/blog/march -27-2024- ruling-by-the -los -angeles -superior -court -in-fibe r-firs t-los-angeles -et-al-v-los-angele s- county -et-al-a-s mall-vic tory-for-the -public
FCC Regulations
and NEPA
Th e FC C , in its rules and guidelines,
promotes the careful consideration
of environmental impacts to be “ the
least intrusive location" for aviation
safety and community interests when
si ti ng cell towers. T hi s ulti mately
helps to ensure that cell towers are
placed in locations that
m inim ize
thei r negati v e eff ects on the
surrounding environment and
com m unitie s .
FCC’ s Refusal to Update 1996 L imits
• T he FCC has not updated regulations since 1996!
• A legal case challenged the F CC’ s 2019 deci si on not to update i ts 1996 regulati ons regardi ng allowable radi o frequency radiation (RF) exposures from wireless technologies - inc luding 5G, cell phones, cell towers, W i -Fi, and wireless networks • FCC limits are based on the belief that heating is the only proven harm from RF .
Ov er 11,000 pages of ev i dence - 447 exhibits in 27
Vo l u m e s - was submitted to the Court documenting biological eff ects and i llness from wi reless radi ati on ex posure below heati ng lev els. R esearch has f ound brai n damage, headaches, memory problems, reproducti on damage, sy nergi sti c eff ects, nerv ous sy stem i mpacts, brai n cancer , geneti c damage, as well as harm to trees, birds, bees, and wildlife.
• R ef erence to 11,000 Pages of E v i dence
L andmark Federal Court Ruling A gainst the FCC
• LANDMARK FEDERAL C O URT RULING AGAINS T THE FC C On A ugust 13, 2021, the U .S. Court of A ppeals f or the D .C. Ci rcui t ruled the F ederal Communications Commission (FCC) ignored scientific evidence and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its 1996 regulati ons adequately protect the publi c agai nst all the harmful eff ects of wi reless radi ati on. T he court ordered the F CC to prov i de a reasoned determi nati on as to whether the ev i dence warrants a change to 1996 RF limits e s pe c ia lly re ga rding: c hildre n's vulne ra bility, long-term exposure, environmental impacts, new technological developments, and the ubiquity of wireless how FCC's cell phone tests only measure heat and allow a space between the phone and body .
Since the FCC has
not responded to the Court, the FCCs limits cannot be stated to rest on an up -to-date rev i ew of the totali ty of the sci ence. Compli ance wi th F CC limits cannot ensure safety , especially the long -term saf ety of chi ldren as the limits are from 1996, with no properly performed review for adequate protecti on si nce. Since the FCC has not disclosed the new updated fi ndi ngs, the documentati on prov i ded by D i sh W i reless stati ng that they are complying is false.
• F ederal Court Orders F CC to E x plai n W hy I t I gnored Sci enti fi c E v i dence Showing Ha rm From Wire le s s Ra dia tion
Burbank
Municipal Code
B urbank has not updated its M unicipal Code, in over 10 years. With our rapidly advancing technology , Burbank codes/ordinances need to be updated to keep up with the ever -changing technological advances and how those impact the surrounding community .
K nowing that othe r c itie s in Ca lifornia ha ve c odifie d minima l distances from schools and residents , it prove s this kind of obje c tive standard can be implemented and does not run afoul of FCC regulations.
Burbank Property
Va l u e s
• Significa nt de c line s in prope rty
v alues hav e been reported once a
cell tower is installed. This trend will
become more pronounced as more
people become aware of the health
ri sks of li v i ng near a cell tower .
• One study found that if the cell tower
was visible from the property , then
the properti es decreased an av erage
of 9.78%.
• Source:
https://areahub.com/individuals/kno
wledge -center/i nfrastructure/cell -
towers
US Migratory Bird Act
• T wo Cooper’ s Hawks nest in the magnolia tree in the lot adjacent to the proposed site.
• Cooper’ s Hawks are protected under the U S
Migratory Bird Ac t
• Emissions from 5G technology can disrupt the
magneti c compass that mi grati ng bi rds use f or
navigation, impacting their ability to return to their
nests y ear after y ear .
• T he same radi ati on can also i nterf ere wi th the
orientation of insects, spiders and mammals which
are the food sources of Cooper’ s Hawks and other
bi rd li f e i n the area around the proposed si te.
• A ll raptors are protected by CA state law .
•Source: Radiation From Cellphones, Wi-Fi Is Hurting the Birds and the Bees; 5G May Make It Worse - Newsweek https://ehtrust.org/study-finds-wireless-radiation-affects- wildlife/
•(See Fish and Game Code, Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513, and California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Sections 251.1, 652 and 783-786.6). https://www.ifaw.org/animals/birds-of-prey
New Hampshire Commission R ecommended
a 1,650-Foot Setback From
• Schools
• Day Care Centers
• Playgrounds
• Hos pita ls
• Nursing Homes
• Parks
• R esi denti ally Z oned A reas
An d re w Campanelli
https://campanellipc.com/attorney s/andrew -j-
campanelli/
Assists local governments in drafting and enacting local ordinances which vest such local governments with
maximum authority to regulate the installation of wireless fa c ilitie s within the ir juris dic tions , a nd whic h a fford the ir citizenry maximum protections against both the irresponsible placement of cell towers and ov erex posure to the lev els of R F radiation emanating from same. M r . Campanelli a dditiona lly provide s zoning a pplication cons ulting s e rvice s to loca l governments , wherei n he rev i ews submi ssi ons from wi reless carriers, site developers and property owners, in support of appli cati ons seeki ng approv als f or the wi reless f aci li ti es, and provides guidance to such local governments, to ensure
that in rendering determinations upon such applications, the local government does so in a manner consistent with the constraints of the T CA .
A dditional R eferences
R eg arding Harm L ev els W ell
Below FCC Limits
• https://www .sci encedi rect.com/sci ence/arti cle/abs/ pii/S0013935119306425?via=ihub
• https://www .sci encedi rect.com/sci ence/arti cle/abs/ pii/S0013935122011781?via=ihub
• https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36935315/https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36935315/
• https://www .europarl.europa.eu/R egData/etudes/ST
UD/2021/690012/EPRS_ST U(2021)690012_EN.pdf
• https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118
6/s12940- 022-00900 -9
T he outrageous fees Burbank charges, just
to have our voices heard, is a direct
violation of the first amendment and due
process.
Right to Pe tition
• T his is a fundamental right that allows citizens to
approach the government to express concerns or
seek redress on a matter .
• W e hav e paid ov er $9,000 just to hav e our v oices heard.
• Th is discourages citizens from taking an active role in the community .
• W e respectfully ask f or a refund of the second appeal fee, $6,231.
Power of Burbank
City Council to
Do Better
While the City Planning Board didn’t deny the
A UP , you - the Burbank City Council - C AN AN D
SHOUL D . Protect our community . Protect our
property values. Protect our business. Protect
our children, who are the most vulnerable.
• Published Scientific Research on 5G, 4G
Small Cells, W i reless R adi ati on and Health
R egardi ng B urbank M uni ci pal Code, there hav e
been no updates i n ov er 10 y ears . With our
rapidly advancing technology , Burbank
codes/ordi nances need to be updated to k eep
up with the ever -changing technological
advances and how those impact the
surrounding community .
K nowing that other cities in California have
codifie d minima l dis ta nce s from s chools a nd
residents, it proves this kind of objective
standard can be i mplemented and
does not run
afoul of FCC regulations.