Assembly Bill 965

Introduced by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo, February 14, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 01, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 24, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 16, 2023

AB-965 History

Date	Action
05/31/23	Referred to Senate Coms. on E., U. & C. and GOV. & F.
05/23/23	In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
05/22/23	Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0.)
05/18/23	Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
05/17/23	From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 17).
05/02/23	Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
05/01/23	Read second time and amended.
04/27/23	From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (April 26).
04/25/23	Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
04/24/23	Read second time and amended.
04/20/23	From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 19).
04/17/23	(Pending re-refer to Com. on L. GOV.)
04/17/23	Assembly Rule 56 suspended.
03/20/23	Re-referred to Coms. on C. & C. and L. GOV. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
03/20/23	Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
03/16/23	From committee chair, with author’s amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.
03/16/23	Referred to Assembly Coms. on L. GOV. and C. & C.
02/15/23	From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.
02/14/23	Read first time. To print.

AB-965, as introduced on Feb 14, 2023

(about 430 words)

SECTION 1. Section 65964.5 of the Government Code is amended to read:

65964.5.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Fiber” means fiber optic cables, and related ancillary equipment, including, but not limited to, conduit, ancillary cables, hand holes, vaults, and terminals.
(2) “Local agency” means a city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or publicly owned utility.
(3) “Microtrench” means a narrow open excavation trench that is less than or equal to 4 inches in width and not less than 12 inches in depth and not more than 26 inches in depth and that is created for the purpose of installing a subsurface pipe or conduit.
(4) “Microtrenching” means excavation of a microtrench.

(b)

(1) The local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations shall allow microtrenching for the installation of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber, unless the local agency makes a written finding that allowing microtrenching for a fiber installation would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.
(2) Upon mutual agreement, a microtrench may be placed shallower than 12 inches in depth.
(3) To the extent necessary, a local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations shall adopt or amend existing policies, ordinances, codes, or construction rules to allow for microtrenching pursuant to this subdivision.
(4) Nothing in this section shall supersede, nullify, or otherwise alter the requirements to comply with safety standards, including, but not limited to, the following:
- (A) Article 2 (commencing with Section 4216) of Chapter 3.1 of Division 5 of Title 1.
- (B) Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 128, or a successor standard.

(c) A local agency may impose a fee on an application for a permit to install fiber consistent with Section 50030. The reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, as that phrase is used in Section 50030, shall be limited to the reasonable costs of the local agency to process and issue the permit and inspect the installation that is the subject of the permit, including any costs incurred if the applicant elects to expedite processing and review.

(d) The Legislature finds and declares that installation of fiber is critical to the deployment of broadband services and other utility services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.

AB-965 was gutted & replaced on Mar 16, 2023

(about 1120 words)

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act of 2023.

SEC. 2. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-73-20 stated that “the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the extent to which broadband is essential for public safety, public health, and economic resilience.”

(b) The public’s increased reliance on high-speed internet access for remote work, telehealth, emergency response, education, and commerce demonstrates the need for legislation to accelerate the deployment of broadband infrastructure.

(c) The length of time it takes for a local jurisdiction to process permits for broadband projects is among the many factors that can directly impacts the length of time it takes before a project can provide high-speed internet service to a local community and get people connected.

(d) Some local jurisdictions approve permits for broadband projects within the federally mandated 60-day timeline. Other jurisdictions take months or years to approve the same type of project, preventing local residents from accessing high-speed internet.

(e) Each local jurisdiction in California has its own permitting process and timeline for broadband projects. Some utilize the industry best practice of permit batching, master permit, programmatic permits, or term permits, which allows large volumes of substantially similar broadband permits to be processed and approved within an expedited timeframe.

(f) California’s Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative is also utilizing this approach. The Department of Technology’s Deputy Director of Broadband stated at the January 20, 2023, Middle-Mile Advisory Committee meeting, “Part of the work of this effort has been to streamline the permitting processes and the Department of Technology, Caltrans, and the state resource agencies have gone to considerable lengths to shorten that timeline.”

(g) The Department of Transportation’s Assistant Deputy Director for the Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative stated at the January 20, 2023, Middle-Mile Advisory Committee meeting, “With this effort, the programmatic permits will cover regional and statewide activities. The outcome and benefits of these programmatic efforts are reduced timelines.”

(h) On January 11, 2023, the Department of Technology’s Deputy Director for the Broadband Middle-Mile Initiative stated, “We’ve also been working with Caltrans to find ways to expedite its State and Federal permitting efforts to again help this project move quickly within those Federal timeframes.”

(i) Both public and private broadband projects are trying to be built as fast as possible since unobligated federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2) funds expire on December 31, 2024.

(j) There are currently over 1,000 broadband permits pending with local jurisdictions in California that would improve internet connectivity for millions of residents.

(k) Requiring that local jurisdictions process groups of substantially similar broadband permits at the same time will be more efficient on the workload of local government staff. Permit fees will still be received by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide.

(l) A local government in southern California recently consolidated 100 substantially similar broadband permits into one master-permit saving time and allowing the jurisdiction to receive all permit-fees upfront, resulting in 16 miles of fiber being deployed in six weeks, which improved internet connectivity for thousands of Californians.

(m) Given the importance of broadband for public safety, public health, economic growth, education, and job creation, it is in California’s best interest for public and private broadband project permits to be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible.

SEC. 3. Section 65964.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:

§ 65964.3.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Batch broadband permit processing” means the simultaneous processing of more than one substantially similar broadband permit application.
(2) “Broadband permit application” means an application or other documents submitted for review by a local agency to permit the construction of broadband infrastructure of any type. Broadband infrastructure includes, but is not limited, to any of the following:
- (A) Fiber.
- (B) Wired or wireless facilities.
- (C) Any other facility used to transport data, video, or voice services by wire or radio.
(3) “Local agency” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section 65964.5.
(4) “Presumptively reasonable time” means no more than 60 days following submission of a complete broadband permit application, except as modified by a mutual, written agreement between the local agency and the applicant.
(5) “Substantially similar broadband permit applications” means broadband permit applications that are nearly identical in terms of equipment and general design, but not location.

(b) Subject to subdivision (e), a local agency shall undertake batch broadband permit processing upon receiving two or more substantially similar broadband permit applications project sites submitted at the same time. Batch broadband permit processing shall be completed within a presumptively reasonable time.

(c) If a local agency does not approve substantially similar broadband permit applications submitted for batch broadband permit processing pursuant to this section and issue permits, or reject the applications and notify the applicants, within the presumptively reasonable time, all of the permits shall be deemed approved.

(d) The Legislature finds and declares that processing several substantially similar broadband permit applications at the same time processing will allow local governments to still receive permit fees, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide and more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet. This will allow the state to meet the federal broadband funding deadline of December 31, 2024, while creating greater broadband equity amongst communities so more individuals can have access to high-speed internet access for emergency response, remote work, telehealth, education, and commerce.

(e) The requirements of this section shall not apply to eligible facility requests, as defined and governed by Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that the efficient approval of broadband permit applications is critical to the deployment of broadband services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 3 of this act adding Section 65964.3 to the Government Code applies to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

AB-965 was last amended on May 1, 2023

(about 1380 words)

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act of 2023.

SEC. 2. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(d) Each local jurisdiction in California has its own permitting process and timeline for broadband projects. Some utilize the industry best practice of permit batching, master permit, programmatic permits, or term permits, which allows large volumes of substantially similar broadband permits to be processed and approved within an expedited timeframe.

(e) Both public and private broadband projects are trying to be built as fast as possible since unobligated federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2) funds expire on December 31, 2024.

(f) There are currently over 1,000 broadband permits pending with local jurisdictions in California that would improve internet connectivity for millions of residents.

(g) Requiring that local jurisdictions process groups of substantially similar broadband permits at the same time will be more efficient on the workload of local government staff. Permit fees will still be received by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide.

(h) Given the importance of broadband for public safety, public health, economic growth, education, and job creation, it is in California’s best interest for public and private broadband project permits to be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible.

SEC. 3. Section 65964.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:

65964.3.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Batch broadband permit processing” means the simultaneous processing of multiple broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites under a single permit.
(2) “Broadband permit application” means an application or other documents submitted for review by a local agency to permit the construction of a broadband project. A broadband permit application may fall into four subtypes:
- (A) Aerial construction.
- (B) Trenched construction.
- (C) Wireless construction.
- (D) Other.
(3) “Broadband project” means the proposed facility, including the support structure and any supporting equipment necessary for operation of the proposed facility. A broadband project may be comprised of one or more components, including, but not limited to, a wireless facility, a fiber optic connection, and other supporting equipment, each of which may require separate permits or authorizations by a local agency.
(4) “Local agency” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section 65964.5, except that it does not include a publicly owned electric utility that is subject to Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code, provided that the publicly owned electric utility processes broadband applications, including applications associated with power, consistent with the process established in Section 9511 of the Public Utilities Code.
(5) “Presumptively reasonable time” means the timeframe that a local agency must review and resolve an application pursuant to applicable law following submission of a complete broadband permit application. The presumptively reasonable time period may be modified by mutual, written agreement between the local agency and the applicant.
(6) “Substantially similar broadband project sites” means broadband project sites that are nearly identical in terms of equipment and general design, but not location.

(b) Subject to subdivision (e), a local agency shall undertake batch broadband permit processing upon receiving two or more broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites submitted at the same time by the same applicant. Batch broadband permit processing shall be completed within a presumptively reasonable time for wireless broadband projects subject to applicable law unless a longer period of time is permitted under the circumstances pursuant to applicable law, including Section 1.6003 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(c) If a local agency does not approve broadband permit applications for substantially similar wireless broadband project sites submitted for batch broadband permit processing pursuant to this section and issue permits, or reject the applications and notify the applicants, within the presumptively reasonable time, all of the permits shall be deemed approved.

(d) The Legislature finds and declares that batch broadband permitting processing will allow local governments to still receive permit fees, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide and more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet. This will allow the state to meet the federal broadband funding deadline of December 31, 2024, while creating greater broadband equity amongst communities so more individuals can have access to high-speed internet access for emergency response, remote work, telehealth, education, and commerce.

(e) The requirements of this section shall not apply to eligible facility requests, as defined and governed by Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

(f) This section does not preclude a local agency from requiring compliance with generally applicable health and safety requirements. Enforcement of applicable health and safety requirements by a local agency shall be initiated by issuance of a written finding that the facility proposed in a broadband permit application would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.

(g) Nothing in this section shall supersede, nullify, or otherwise alter the requirements to comply with safety standards, including, but not limited to, both of the following:

(1) Article 2 (commencing with Section 4216) of Chapter 3.1 of Division 5 of Title 1.
(2) The Public Utilities Commission’s General Order No. 128, Rules for Construction of Underground Electric Supply and Communication Systems, or successor rules adopted by the commission.

(h) A local agency may place reasonable limits on the number of broadband project sites that are grouped into a single permit while undertaking batch broadband permit processing. A reasonable limit established pursuant to this subdivision shall be no less than 50 project sites. A local agency may only remove a broadband project site from grouping under a single permit under mutual agreement with the applicant or to expedite the approval of other substantially similar broadband project sites.

(i) A local agency may impose a fee on batch broadband permitting processing consistent with Section 50030. The reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, as that phrase is used in Section 50030, shall be limited to the reasonable costs of the local agency to process and issue the permit and to inspect the installation that is the subject of the permit, including any costs incurred if the applicant elects to expedite processing and review. Where limited resources affect a local agency’s ability to accept and review applications for a broadband project, including batched applications, the local agency shall work with the applicant in good faith to resolve such resource limitations, including, but not limited to, the acceptance of applicant offers to supplement such resources.

SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that the efficient approval of broadband permit applications is critical to the deployment of broadband services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 3 of this act adding Section 65964.3 to the Government Code applies to all cities, including charter cities.

Appendix A: Commentary

Assembly Bill 965

Source

Introduced by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo, February 14, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 01, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 24, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 16, 2023

Wire California: Read comments by Wire California, below in green boxes, like this one.

An act to add Section 65964.3 to the Government Code, relating to local government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 965, as amended, Juan Carrillo. Local government: broadband permit applications.

(1) Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, governs the approval process that a city or county is required to follow when approving, among other things, a permit for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility and a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility.

Wire California: No, it doesn’t. The Permit Streamlining Act from 1977 never mentions development projects for a wireless telecommunications facility , collocations or siting applications for wireless telecommunications facilities.

This bill would require a ~~city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or publicly owned utility,~~ local agency to undertake batch broadband permit processing, as defined, upon receiving 2 or more broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites submitted at the same time by the same applicant, within a presumptively reasonable time, as defined. The bill would define “local agency” for these purposes to mean a city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or, subject to specified exceptions, publicly owned utility. If a ~~city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or publicly owned utility~~ local agency does not approve those broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites and issue permits, or reject the applications and notify the applicants, within the presumptively reasonable time, the bill would require that all of those permits be deemed approved. The bill would authorize a ~~city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or publicly owned utility~~ local agency to place reasonable limits on the number of broadband project sites that are grouped into a single permit while undertaking batch broadband permit ~~processing and to~~ processing, as specified. The bill would provide that a local agency may only remove a broadband project site from grouping under a single ~~permit, only~~ permit under mutual agreement with the ~~application~~ applicant or to expedite the approval of other substantially similar broadband project sites. The bill would specify that these provisions do not apply to eligible facility requests, as defined.

(2) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(3) By imposing new duties on local agencies with regard to the processing of broadband permit applications, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act of 2023.

SEC. 2. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-73-20 stated that “the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the extent to which broadband is essential for public safety, public health, and economic resilience.”

(b) The public’s increased reliance on high-speed internet access for remote work, telehealth, emergency response, education, and commerce demonstrates the need for legislation to accelerate the deployment of broadband infrastructure.

(f) There are currently over 1,000 broadband permits pending with local jurisdictions in California that would improve internet connectivity for millions of residents.

Wire California: No one should accept this allegation without evidence to back up this claim. The important counts are numbers of

actual pending wired broadband infrastructure permits in CA,
number of actual pending wireless broadband infrastructure permits in CA
total number of actual pending wireless broadband infrastructure permits in CA

Wire California: This glosses over the key differences between wired broadband infrastructure and wireless broadband infrastructure.

Wired broadband infrastructure: superior speed and reliability and negligible RF microwave radiation pollution
Wireless broadband infrastructure: inferior speed and reliability service and significant RF microwave radiation pollution

Wire California: and permits can only be processed in ways that are consistent with the Federal 1934 Communications Act, as amended in 1996 and 2012, which were federal statutes passed by our elected representatives. No local agency is compelled to adhere to FCC regulations that are not consistent with all federal statutes.

SEC. 3. Section 65964.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:

65964.3. (a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Batch broadband permit processing” means the simultaneous processing of multiple broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites under a single permit.
(2) “Broadband permit application” means an application or other documents submitted for review by a local agency to permit the construction of a broadband project. A broadband permit application may fall into four subtypes:
- (A) Aerial construction.
- (B) Trenched construction.
- (C) Wireless construction.
- (D) Other.

Wire California: this bill’s definition of “substantially similar.” is very one-sided and needs to be much more specific because wireless broadband infrastructure is not regulated by the FCC per the October 2019 D.C. Cir ruling in Case 18-1051: Mozilla Corp. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) and therefore can be regulated by local agencies. Importantly the only federal preemption in Title 47 U.S. Code § 322 is for wireless telecommunications service (wireless phone calls) infrastructure. Federal preemption does not apply to wireless information service (wireless broadband) infrastructure.

(3) “Broadband project” means the proposed facility, including the support structure and any supporting equipment necessary for operation of the proposed facility. A broadband project may be comprised of one or more components, including, but not limited to, a wireless facility, a fiber optic connection, and other supporting equipment, each of which may require separate permits or authorizations by a local agency.

Wire California: No local agency can be forced to permit unwanted wireless information service infrastructure. Towns are only required to permit wireless telecommunications service infrastructure, per the federal statutes cited above and existing Ninth Circuit, D.C. Circuit Appellate and US Supreme Court rulings.

(4) “Local agency” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section ~~65964.5.~~ 65964.5, except that it does not include a publicly owned electric utility that is subject to Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code, provided that the publicly owned electric utility processes broadband applications, including applications associated with power, consistent with the process established in Section 9511 of the Public Utilities Code.

Wire California: Permitting wireless antennas on equipment in the public rights of way must follow local zoning laws and can be excluded from certain zones, including, but not limited to residential zones.

(5) “Presumptively reasonable time” means the timeframe that a local agency must review and resolve an application pursuant to applicable ~~law, or to the extent the time period is not preempted or otherwise governed by applicable law, the applicable time period listed below,~~ law following submission of a complete broadband permit application. The ~~following~~ presumptively reasonable time ~~periods~~ period may be modified by mutual, written agreement between the local agency and the applicant. ~~The following time periods shall be administered in accordance with Section 1.6003 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.~~
- ~~(A) The presumptively reasonable timeframe for aerial construction is no more than 60 days.~~
- ~~(B) The presumptively reasonable timeframe for trenched construction is no more than 90 days.~~
- ~~(C) The presumptively reasonable timeframe for wireless construction are the periods and procedures established by applicable FCC rules.~~
- ~~(D)The presumptively reasonable timeframe for other subtypes of permit applications is no more than 90 days.~~

*Wire California: A reasonable time for processing permits for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) was recognized by the US Supreme Court in its 2005 ruling in Palos Verdes vs Abrams. The ruling relied on the Conference Report of the 1996 Telecommunications Act as a definitive source of the congressional intent of the 1996-Act. The Conference Report states:

“It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.”

(6) “Substantially similar broadband project sites” means broadband project sites that are nearly identical in terms of equipment and general design, but not location.

*Wire California: This definition fails on many accounts

one
two
three

(b) Subject to subdivision (e), a local agency shall undertake batch broadband permit processing upon receiving two or more broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites submitted at the same time by the same applicant. Batch broadband permit processing shall be completed within a presumptively reasonable ~~time,~~ time for wireless broadband projects subject to applicable law unless a longer period of time is permitted under the circumstances pursuant to applicable law, including Section 1.6003 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

*Wire California: Why is this specific to wireless broadband projects? Any town in CA can legally reject any wireless broadband project and state its preference for wired broadband projects. This is against the legislative intent of the 1996 Telecommunications Act (1996-TCA) which has the following stated intent:

“It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests”

(c) If a local agency does not approve broadband permit applications for substantially similar wireless broadband project sites submitted for batch broadband permit processing pursuant to this section and issue permits, or reject the applications and notify the applicants, within the presumptively reasonable time, all of the permits shall be deemed approved.

*Wire California: Again, why is this provision specific only to wireless broadband? This provision must be eliminated because it is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the 1996-TCA. See above. There is no “deemed approved” provision in Federal law or regulation; there should also be none in State law because State law must be consistent with Federal laws.

*Wire California: The implementation of broadband infrastructure is squarely a local matter. Each local agency can decide for themselves how to best implement information service and wireless telecommunications service. It is each town’s call if they wish any wireless broadband infrastructure at all and, if so, then in which zones shall the infrastructure be allowed. There should be no wireless industry propaganda in CAstate bills, so the following should be stricken: ~~so more individuals can have access to high-speed internet access for emergency response, remote work, telehealth, education, and commerce~~.

(e) The requirements of this section shall not apply to eligible facility requests, as defined and governed by Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

*Wire California: This bill should contain guidance for local agencies to reference the following August 2019 ruling in the US Courts of Appeals, D.C. Circuit as a written finding that “any proposed facility in a wireless broadband permit application would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.”

In Case No. 20-1025: Envtl. Health Tr. v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the ruling vacated portions of the Dec 2019, FCC Order 19-126 Targeted Changes to the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. The DC Circuit judges ruled the following in Case 20-1025:

“we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio-frequency [microwave] radiation. It must, in particular, (i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines, (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”

Therefore, local governments can make the FCC’s completion of this court-mandated work an explicit requirement for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) application completeness. WTF applications can be deemed incomplete by the locality until the applicant provides substantial written evidence that the FCC has completed the US Court of Appeals, D.C. Cir court-mandated work in the rulings in Case No. 18-1129: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 933 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2019) and Case No. 20-1025: Envtl. Health Tr. v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

(g) Nothing in this section shall supersede, nullify, or otherwise alter the requirements to comply with safety standards, including, but not limited to, both of the following:

(1) Article 2 (commencing with Section 4216) of Chapter 3.1 of Division 5 of Title 1.
(2) The Public Utilities Commission’s General Order No. 128, Rules for Construction of Underground Electric Supply and Communication Systems, or successor rules adopted by the commission.

(h) A local agency may place reasonable limits on the number of broadband project sites that are grouped into a single permit while undertaking batch broadband permit processing. A reasonable limit established pursuant to this subdivision shall be no less than 50 project sites. A local agency may only remove a broadband project site from grouping under a single permit under mutual agreement with the ~~application~~ applicant or to expedite the approval of other substantially similar broadband project sites.

Wire California: Batching of applications for any wireless facility is a bad idea because “any proposed facility in a wireless broadband permit application can have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.” as stated clearly in this evidence already in the D.C. Circuit’s and FCC’s record. The following are links to 11,000+ pages of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense and others plaintiffs placed in the FCC’s public record: Vol-1, Vol-2, Vol-3, Vol-4, Vol-5, Vol-6, Vol-7, Vol-8, Vol-9, Vol-10, Vol-11, Vol-12, Vol-13, Vol-14, Vol-15, Vol-16, Vol-17, Vol-18, Vol-19, Vol-20, Vol-21, Vol-22, Vol-23, Vol-24, Vol-25, Vol-26 and Vol-27.

Also the following language in section (h) is too one-sided, favoring the wireless industry, which is not the congressional intent of the 1996-Act. This language should be stricken:

A reasonable limit established pursuant to this subdivision shall be no less than 50 project sites. A local agency may only remove a broadband project site from grouping under a single permit under mutual agreement with the applicant or to expedite the approval of other substantially similar broadband project sites.

Wire California: A distinction between superior wired broadband and inferior wireless broadband must be part of this law. As stated earlier:

Wired broadband infrastructure: superior speed and reliability and negligible RF microwave radiation pollution
Wireless broadband infrastructure: inferior speed and reliability service and significant RF microwave radiation pollution