Burbank Resident Jerry Day: Say No To "Big Brother" Smart Meters. Click Arrow to Play. Then Click You Tube icon to read sample letter he is talking about.

To the left is a photo of what a smart meter looks like (this is a GE smart meter that has been installed by PG&E in northern California communities). It replaces your analog meter that measures your electrical usage.  Instead of monthly readings, the new digital smart meters collect and wirelessly communicate your near real-time personal energy usage data back to the utility. 

And if you thought one smart meter on your home was bad enough, what about three?  BWP and GWP want to install an additional smart meter at your home to read and communicate your water usage throughout the day.  Meanwhile, Southern California Gas (The Gas Company) wants to install an expensive gas smart meter on our homes, too, to collect and communicate our real-time gas usage info throughout the day.

Have you seen one of these RF radiation emitting smart meter communication devices installed on a light post outside or near your home or child's school (see photo to the right)? 

Protect Our Neighborhood and Loved Ones

Say “No” to the proposed T-Mobile cell phone antennae in our neighborhoods!

The City of Burbank, CA, last year (August 30, 2011) updated its wireless ordinance and made it stronger than it was before in some areas.  However, does the ordinance that our City Council, Planning Board and Planning Staff crafted really offer more protections to residents?  

Despite residents asking for more protections against wireless facility installations in our Public Rights of Way, the City failed to take action in that area. 

And now we've been informed that T-Mobile is going to re-apply to set up a cell tower project at Brace Canyon Park, near Horace Mann preschool and St. Francis church and school, and surrounded by homes in an R-1 zone.   That's the proposed project that got the whole "let's update the city's outdated wireless ordinance" going in the first place.

In addition, T-Mobile has applied to set up a large wireless facility project at the Little White Chapel in an R-1 zone -- surrounded by homes and near Bret Harte elementary school, and Luther Burbank Middle School.    When the ordinance was being updated, this project was brought up, and we residents told the City Council and Planning Board (and Planning Dept.) how we opposed making any change to our ordinance that would allow such facilities in R-1 zones.

Little White Chapel is located at 17111 Avon Street; see the City's Projects In the Pipeline, "1711 Avon Street, Project Number 090004377," here (see Item 2 under Hearings): http://burbank.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4399

On Feb. 27, 2012, our City's Planning Board, with the exception of Board Member Vahe Hovanessian, voted to approve that project.   Read the Burbank Leader story about this: http://www.burbankleader.com/news/tn-blr-03030-burbank-board-green-lights-tmobile-cell-tower,0,4157578.story

Residents have appealed that decision to City Council, which will hear the item in May 2012.

How did this affront to residents happen?  As mentioned above, when the city was updating its wireless facility ordinance, T-Mobile and our city's planning staff had proposed the idea of changing our ordinance to allow wireless facilities on "private institutional" (private schools and churches) in R-1 zones.  We residents told the Planning Staff, and the Planning Board and City Council Members not to make this change, because in other communities where cell towers were proposed at churches in R-1 zones, such proposed projects were divisive -- dividing communities, and pitting residents against churches, and residents against the city's planning staff. 

But, despite this resident warning and opposition, our Planning Board Members Doug Drake, Kenneth San Miguel, Undine Petrulis, and Kimberly Jo, and City Council Members Gary Bric, Dave Golonski, Jess Talamantes, and Emily Gabel-Luddy by voice or action did not see any problem with this proposed change, and failed to take any action to remove this proposed change from the ordinance update.

Now, "Fight the Tower: Save Burbank Neighborhoods" has formed -- residents in Burbank organized to protect our homes and schools from cell towers.  Burbank ACTION applauds their efforts!  

Visit their website: http://saveburbankneighborhoods.com/, and contact them to support their efforts.  Donate to their cause if you want to protect your homes, schools, loved ones, family, children, neighborhood, real estate values, and community.  They are also now selling T-shirts and lawn signs.  Order yours today!

They're also asking the School District to take a stand against cell towers.  Read the Burbank Leader story on this development: http://articles.burbankleader.com/2012-04-06/news/tn-blr-0407-schools-may-ban-cell-equipment_1_towers-on-school-property-cell-tower-neighbor-opposition

When you contact them, ask them how you can join their efforts and help them get more signatures, participate at events, and lend your support at the upcoming City Council appeal hearing.

In related news, the City of Calabasas (Oct. 21, 2010) voted unanimously to deny a proposed T-Mobile cell tower on the water district's property next to homes -- so should the City of Burbank! (Residents there did an awesome job telling officials why to deny.) 

Residents in Oceanside, CA, did a great job of pushing for updated regulations with their City officials. 

The City of Hempstead, NY, also recently approved regulations aimed at keeping cell towers 1,500 feet from homes, schools, daycare centers and places of worship.  So should Burbank!

Here's a recap of previous news:

• Tuesday, August 30, 2011, 6pm, Burbank City Hall Council Chamber: City Council had a Public hearing on proposed cell tower ordinance update. Proposed ordinance is NOT as strong as neighboring Glendale's ordinance (Glendale's is considered one of the strongest in the state.)  Read the Sunroom Desk story here and here.   Residents opposed the proposed change that would allow cell towers on institutional properties in residential areas, and and asked for better public hearing and protections regarding wireless facility installations in public rights of way.   Many of our elected City Council Members and appointed Planning Board Members reversed course and did not follow-through on their pledges made earlier to residents and the public to protect sensitive areas.  The two city officials, to their credit, who were responding to resident concerns and request were Council Member Dr. David Gordon, and Planning Board Member Vahe Hovanessian.  Read the Burbank Leader story about this by reporter Maria Hsin, "Council OKs new cell tower rules," Sept. 6, 2011: http://www.burbankleader.com/news/tn-blr-0907-wireless,0,6526072.story
  
• On Dec. 8, 2009, our city officials initiated updating its ordinance at their first Joint Study Session on Wireless Facilities.  At their second Joint Study Session on June 14, 2010, they asked staff to present interim (temporary) revisions because the revised comprehensive ordinance would not be ready for  review and approval until later in the year. On July 26, 2010, our Planning Board approved the interim revisions, and on Aug. 31, 2010, our City Council approved and adopted them.  As a result, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is now required for newly proposed wireless facilities, which means that residents near them must be notified in advance so you can voice your concerns (and opposition) prior and at the public hearing before the Planning Board or City Council.  Wireless applicants must also complete a new application form that requires detailed information on why they want to install the proposed facility near you.   These measures represent good progress, but....
• Still lacking: Our City still needs regulations specifically addressing installations in public rights of way (PROW, that is, our sidewalks and utility poles near our homes, parks and schools).  For example, L.A. city's outdated wireless regulations have loopholes that allow installation of wireless facilities in PROW without notifying residents and without and a means of appeal before it's approved;  as a result, residents are outraged to find these installed near their homes and schools overnight, without warning, and want reform.  We don't want this to happen here in Burbank.
  
• Still ahead: We need our revised comprehensive wireless ordinance to include a tiered-approach protecting sensitive residential and multi-residential zones like Glendale adopted earlier this year.  
• Still ahead in November: Our City plans to organize a community meeting seeking resident input for its revised ordinance.  That's our time to voice our concerns and recommendations, including strong PROW regulations and a tiered approach like neighboring Glendale has.
  
• Still ahead at the end of  2010: Taking our concerns into consideration, the Planning Board and City Council will review and approve the revised comprehensive ordinance. 
• After that: Our City Council will decide on the fate of the proposed Brace Canyon park cell tower -- and, with your continued urging and communications, they will hopefully do the right thing and deny it!

Protect our hillside homes, park, schools, church and community.  Burbank Water & Power Department is proposing a T-Mobile 35-foot cell tower with 12 antennas on it...the facility would be located at Brace Canyon recreational park...right behind its  baseball field where our children and families play, and near our homes, schools, church and families.

T-Mobile says its other option is St. Francis Xavier Church, right next to Horace Mann school.  In fact, there's a pending application with the city to allow cell towers on private church and school properties.  This is why we need to take action now:

• The T-Mobile lease would be $1,800 per month.  But what are the real costs and dangers?  Scientific studies report those living near cell towers experience headaches, tremors, dizziness, memory lapses, depression, and increased risk of cancer.  Children, in particular, absorb more cell tower radiation than adults do.  The cell tower would be right behind the baseball field, just 50 feet away from adults and children sitting in the bleachers, and 115 feet away from the nearest home.
• Outdated federal regulations prevent cities from denying permits based on health adverse health effects alone.  There are other good reasons to say "No", including:
  
• Property values: Studies show homes that are located next to or near cell towers decrease in property value. Local and area real estate professionals and appraisers have also confirmed this to be true.  In addition, a proposed cell tower must be disclosed for properties surrounding the proposed location. Would you want to buy a home near a cell tower?  Did you move into your dream home only to have a cell tower built right next to it?  A commercial cell tower that looks like a fake tree is thus bad business -- for residential property owners, real estate businesses, and the City (decreased property tax revenue).
  
• Blight: a cell tower disguised to look like a pine tree is unaesthetic and doesn't fit in with the beautiful and scenic character of our neighborhood and park; it will also denigrate cherished views for some of the residents that would live near it
  
• Public safety #1: Cell towers have attracted criminals and vandals (copper thefts), and we don't need or want to increase the risk of crime in our neighborhood.  This is why these commercial facilities are best suited away from homes and schools and parks.
• Public safety #2: Cell towers have also caught on fire during routine maintenance.  In fire country, this is another reason why we don't need a cell tower so close to our homes, schools and parks.
• Public safety #3: Cell towers could also topple over due to high winds and earthquakes, yet more reasons why they're better suited for commercial/industrial areas.
• Public safety #4: Cell towers are also accompanied with back-up generators that are powered with batteries composed of hazardous materials, that are again, better suited for a commercial area.
  
• Public safety #5:  The California Public Utilities Commission is concerned about them as fire hazards and is currently in the process of proposing new rules and regulations for them, because utility poles overloaded with communications equipment were believed to have contributed to starting the Malibu Fires.
  
• In fact, our zoning regulations and city's general plan say that cell towers aren't typically allowed in R-1 residential zones, and the hillside area in particular needs its views and natural environment preserved.  The way T-mobile is trying to get around this is by putting it on public/city (BWP)  property. 
  
• We already have good coverage here.  If you have adequate T-Mobile coverage, tell City Council because then it's proof that we don't need T-mobile's antenna in our neighborhood.  We also did our own survey with a T-Mobile phone and were able to make and receive quality calls in and around the proposed cell tower location.
  
• Tell City Council they need to have T-Mobile offer several other feasible and available options and locations like other cities now require cell tower applicants to prepare; also ask City Council to find and suggest other feasible and available options and locations to T-Mobile. 
• Tell City officials that we need a strong ordinance like Glendale just approved, with a tiered approach and addressing cell towers installed on our telephone and utility poles in public rights of way.
  
• Residents in other cities have recently gotten together to protest and provide their city officials with legitimate reasons to deny a cell tower from being built in their neighborhood, so we can do this, too! 
  

You can also say "No" by helping us gather effective community support:

• Write to City officials listed above.
• Print out this Home Page as a flyer and forward it onto your neighbors, friends, work colleagues, and family who reside here in Burbank or have children who attend Horace Mann or St. Francis Xavier.
• Tell your friends to visit our website and take these actions, too.