Simi Valley Wireless Urgency Ordinance

Simi Valley Wireless Urgency Ordinance Seeks to Pave Way for Densified 4G and 5G Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRAs) in Residential Areas

FCC Rules 18-133 that are being contested by many law suits in the Federal Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit) leave little room for public oversight, which is why well-informed cities are seeking a Motion to Stay these regulations until the Law Suits are complete.

Adapted from article by Melissa Simon March 22, 2019 | Original Simi Valley Acorn article here.

The FCC is limiting local control over wireless equipment installations to support the rollout of densified 4G and 5G infrastructure in Simi Valley.

Attend the Important Simi Valley City Council meeting on Mon Mar 25 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road

The FCC is attempting to limit local control over Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) installations to support the rollout of densified 4G and 5G infrastructure in Simi Valley, but these FCC regulations will have to survive the multiple law suits that have already been filed by many US cities, counties and Consumer Protection groups — before these regulations will stand as final. The cities, listed below, are fighting for their rights to manage the public-rights-of-way and protect the safety, privacy and property values of their residents. Is you city doing that? If not, ask them why not?

If a proposal to update an outdated city ordinance for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) is approved by the Simi Valley City Council on Monday, applications from companies like Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile to install densified 4G and 5G infrastructure could be handled without public notice, hearings or appeals in Simi Valley — based on virtually the same cookie-cutter recommendations handed to Thousand Oaks and Simi Valley by wireless consultant and attorney Jonathon Kramer, a founding partner of Telecom Law firm. Kramer has close ties to the Wireless industry and is earning significant revenue from promoting the expansion of densified 4G and 5G infrastructure in Cincinnati, OH and other cities across the US.

From Government Technology:

"Broadband engineer Dr. Jonathan Kramer, an attorney at Los Angeles-based Telecom Law Firm, P.C. which is advising Cincinnati: ‘Using the rail analogy, we want to bring the high-speed [pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation] trains into Cincinnati. This is a great place to try out interesting ideas"

Do you see any conflicts of interest in Jonathon Kramer advising Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks on their Urgency Ordinances?

Inspect this contract between Simi Valley and Telecom Law Firm (signed by Simi Valley City Manager, Eric J. Levitt and Jonathon Kramer), complete your own internet searches ( recommended) and then decide for yourself.

Simi Valley city planner Sean Gibson said that new federal regulations approved by the Federal Communications Commission last year in September aim to facilitate the rollout of densified 4G and 5G infrastructure. This regulation is based on massive overreach by the FCC into intrastate matters, which is why on March 7, the Joint Opposition filed a motion to oppose the FCC’s request for abeyance of this trial.

Gibson said that the Urgency Ordinance being considered on Mon., March 25, mainly addresses how the applications for 4G and 5G WTF equipment are handled. It also looks at the aesthetic guidelines for developing Macro cell towers and other Wireless Telecommunications Facilities facilities.

Gibson said.

“Every city is looking into this right now, so there’s a lot of different takes on how to implement the FCC’s new rules. We’re doing the best we can to comply with those rules, and the proposed ordinance would address what we can enforce legally.”

But, why is the City of Simi Valley seeking to comply with FCC rules that might be dismissed?

Best, Best and Krieger, the lead law firm for the Joint Opposition advised its cities on Jan 15:

There may be another request for a stay in the Ninth Circuit.

While the Tenth Circuit denied the first stay request, it did so on the basis of a failure to show irreparable harm, not a failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, if the facts on the ground change, a stay may still be warranted. Therefore, please recognize that, while the order has gone into effect, it could be put on hold in the future. If you are facing threats or costs, or feel you are suffering an imminent harm as a result of the rules, please document the problem. Relief may be possible.
The order(s) may eventually be overturned.

We believe there are substantial questions as to whether the FCC small cell order is valid and lawful, and we are representing numerous jurisdictions challenging it and the August moratoria order. We are not recommending that you incorporate these FCC rules into local law.

If you do so, then you will be bound by your own requirements, even if the FCC order is vacated. Therefore, we think it is useful to develop regulations that provide you with maximum flexibility to make substantive determinations that you would be comfortable making — even if the FCC had not changed it rules — while still complying with procedural requirements, such as shot clocks that, if not complied with, may result in a loss of rights. If you are faced with a situation where you feel compelled to grant an application because of the FCC rules, you may wish to make the permit conditional, so that it terminates if the FCC rule is overturned.

The FCC’s September 2018 ruling, which became partially effective at some point between Jan 14 and Feb 25, due to the recent US Government shutdown, may become fully effective on April 15, but only if a second Motion for Stay is not granted. Only then would the FCC regulations temporarily take away any additional authority that the city had back in 2018 to deny densified 4G and 5G installations. The regulations would still have to await the final decision made by the Ninth Circuit judges.

In these contested FCC regulations, the rules limit antennas to a maximum of three cubic feet in size, but there is no limit on the number of antennas at one utility pole, streetlight or other structure. In addition, each structure can include up to 28 cubic feet of additional non-antenna equipment.

Current wireless applications for new cell towers are handled with public input, via planning commission public hearings and city council appeals. Applications to install cell towers and other wireless equipment in Simi Valley have taken between two and five months, depending on the type of facility, Gibson said.

The new, contested, FCC rules require that for 4G and/or 5G small cell sites, the time frame to approve those applications will be only 60 to 90 days. Gibson said Simi officials have approved four requests for the smaller cell sites recently, and a handful of other requests are pending, he said.

Under the new, still contested FCC rules, local agencies could not establish rules that effectively prohibit wireless service, charge excessive processing fees or refuse to accept batched applications for multiple facilities. The definition of "prohibition of wireless service", to date, has been defined as the ability to make an outdoor call or text, only. The contested FCC rules are attempting to change the definition of wireless service, but the Ninth Circuit Court or Supreme Court have not upheld any such redefinition of this term. Until such a case reaches these courts, all CA cities should rely on the definitions made in case law from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme court: whether or not a significant gap in coverage exists and what are the least intrusive means to close such a proven significant gap in coverage — from current, pre-construction, metered readings of peak RF-EMR measurements that can be verified by a neutral third party and not just based on coverage maps created with proprietary data from the wireless carriers.

Importantly, Verizon admitted that for 5G RF-EMR at 28 GHz and 39 GHz, the company only needs a cell tower every 2,000 to 3,000 feet. In a 2018 marketing video (, Verizon Wireless communicates that 5G can work effectively when 5G antennas are collocated high up on existing macro cell towers — which, of course, would be the least intrusive means to close any alleged "significant gap" in telecommunications coverage.

Lowell McAdam, Verizon CEO:

"When [Verizon] went out in these 11 [5G test] markets, we tested for well over a year, so we could see every part of foliage and every storm that went through. We have now busted the myth that [5G frequencies] have to be line-of-sight — they do not. We busted the myth that foliage will shut [5G] down . . . that does not happen. And the 200 feet from a home? We are now designing the network for over 2,000 feet from transmitter to receiver."

Jason L., Verizon Field Engineer:

"[Verizon 5G] is really high frequency [28,000 MHz and 39,000 MHz], so everybody thinks it doesn’t go very far, but it’s a really big pipe and so that’s what allows you to gain the super fast speeds . . We’re 3,000 feet away from our radio node. the cool thing about this is that we did not move the radio nod"

Strong Opposition to Densified 4G and 5G CPMRAs

Despite the promised faster speeds for data communications, not all residents are on board with the densified 4G and 5G equipment. Simi Valley residents urged the City Council to stop the proliferation of 4G and 5G CPMRAs, citing their direct knowledge of harms to safety, privacy and property values resulting from such installations in other cities.

At the March 11 Simi Valley City Council meeting, resident Judy Bruce likened the RF-EMR exposures in Simi Valley to residents living in

“a big bowl of soup of electric power, and when you add more (electric) voltage to the neighborhood, it messes up our bodies. It’s poison. Moving Big Data (for video, Internet and gaming) wirelessly is irresponsible in terms of energy-efficiency and health, and it means illnesses and even death. The only winners here are the Telecom (companies). We need to fight the building of this grid (because) there’s no need to have them so close to homes.”

Resident Marylou Florian said that 5G is being “propagated as the wave of the future, but it’s an innovation that comes at a price: severe human sickness,” she said.

“The FCC has standards that are a million times higher than what the human body can tolerate. We don’t want the FCC to establish rules like this. Densified 4G and 5G are a cancer in our neighborhoods and will grow in number and power year-after-year, unless we adopt a protective ordinance to keep Simi Valley safe.”

More information on the wireless communication equipment will be presented at the council meeting Monday, which starts at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road. There, Gibson said, residents will have a chance to weigh in on the plan.

In Ninth Circuit Case #19-70144, the Following Parties are Represented by Best, Best & Krieger LLP

  1. City of San Jose, California
  2. City of Arcadia, California
  3. City of Bellevue, Washington
  4. City of Burien, Washington
  5. City of Burlingame, California
  6. Culver City, California
  7. Town of Fairfax, California
  8. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  9. City of Issaquah, Washington
  10. City of Kirkland, Washington
  11. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  12. City of Los Angeles, California
  13. County of Los Angeles, California
  14. City of Monterey, California
  15. City of Ontario, California
  16. City of Piedmont, California
  17. City of Portland, Oregon
  18. City of San Jacinto, California
  19. City of Shafter, California
  20. City of Yuma, Arizona
  21. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  22. National League of Cities
  23. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  24. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  25. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  26. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  27. City of Emeryville, California
  28. Michigan Municipal League
  29. Town of Hillsborough, California
  30. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  31. City of Medina, Washington
  32. City of Papillion, Nebraska, City of Plano, Texas
  33. City of Rockville, Maryland
  34. City of San Bruno, California
  35. City of Santa Monica, California
  36. City of Sugarland, Texas
  37. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  38. City of Austin, Texas
  39. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
  40. County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
  41. City of Atlanta, Georgia
  42. City of Boston, Massachusetts
  43. City of Chicago Illinois
  44. Clark County, Nevada
  45. City of College Park, Maryland
  46. City of Dallas, Texas
  47. District of Columbia
  48. City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
  49. Howard County, Maryland
  50. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
  51. Montgomery County, Maryland
  52. City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
  53. City of Omaha, Nebraska
  54. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  55. City of Rye, New York
  56. City of Scarsdale, New York
  57. City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
  58. City of Takoma Park, Maryland
  59. Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues
  60. Meridian Township, Michigan
  61. Bloomfield Township, Michigan
  62. Michigan Townships Association
  63. Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-Of-Way

In Ninth Circuit Case #19-70144, the Following Parties are Represented by separate counsel

  1. City of New York
  2. National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors