Veto

Gov. Newsom, Please Veto AB-965

. . . for the same reasons you vetoed SB-556 in 2021.

  1. AB-965 would force unnecessary and unreasonable Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) application batching requirements and deemed granted provisions on all California counties and localities’
  2. AB-965 would effectively eliminate meaningful local review over last mile broadband and wireless telecommunications infrastructure
  3. AB-965 would encourage providers to overserve communities that already have sufficient wireline broadband (85% of CA’s population), and to continue to ignore the unserved and underserved communities (15% of CA’s population, as identified here.)

AB-965 Veto Evidence — Email 1 of 5

Date: Sept 8, 2023 at 1:40 pm
To: Grant Mack and Natalie Chapin, Governor Newsom’s Legislative Staff
From: Wire California
Re: Evidence to Substantiate a Governor Newsom Veto of AB-965; Email 1 of 5

I talked to Natalie Chapin (916-634-2961) this morning. She indicated that I should email pdf attachments and links to the evidence that Wire California has already placed into the public legislative record to oppose AB-965 in order to add this evidence to the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965. It will take me five emails to submit this evidence today, based on the file sizes of the attachments, but this first email contains evidence that is sufficient to convince the Governor to veto AB-965.

Submitting this evidence and analysis to the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965 enables the Governors’ legislative analysts to substantiate a Gov. Newsom veto of AB-965, a bill that is not consistent with the Governor’s Broadband plan, as detailed in 2021’s SB-156.

In advance of Wire California’s scheduled Sept 11, 2023 meeting with Grant Mack, we are submitting evidence that shows that the reasons to veto AB-965 are very similar to those given by Gov Newsom in his October, 2021veto of SB-556 (See Newsom’s full letter here). Gov. Newsom wrote in that letter:

“There is a role for local government in advancing broadband efforts. Part of our achievements laid out in the Broadband budget bill SB 156 (Chapter 112. Statutes of 2020) enables and encourages local governments to take an active role in the last mile deployment and, in doing so, drive competition and increase access.”

As the Governor supports local governments’ role in last mile broadband deployment, then the Gov. would maintain consistency by vetoing AB-965, as well.

AB-965 is a far too one-sided bill that tips the scales too much towards the Wireless industry and away from local control over last mile broadband deployment — by establishing in state law unreasonable Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) application batching requirements and deemed granted provisions which will end-run meaningful local review of WTF applications for all California counties and localities.

I. Please find attached Wire California’s June 14, 2023 and June 30, 2023 AB-965 Opposition Letters with supporting appendices (attached as pdfs to this email); this content is also easily read at the links provided, below:

  1. Link to 2023-0614-SEUC-AB-965-Wire-California-Opposition-Letter.pdf and https://wirecalifornia.org/ab965-letter-seuc/
  2. Link to 2023-0614-Attorney-Lehmann-Letter-shows-title-law-impossibility-of-AB-665-WTF-BATCHING.pdf
  3. Link to 2023-0630-SGF-AB-965-Wire-California-Opposition-Letter.pdf and https://wirecalifornia.org/ab965-letter-sgf/
  4. Link to 2023-0630-SGF-AB-965-Wire-California-Opposition-Appendics-A-thru-L.pdf and https://wirecalifornia.org/ab965-letter-sgf

II. Please find links to 11,000+ pages, 27 volumes, of evidence that served as the basis for the Aug 13, 2021 US Court of Appeals (DC Cir.) ruling in Case 20-1025 EHT v FCC — a ruling that binds the State of California for telecommunications legislation.

In June-August 2023, I wheeled the evidence shown in the photo below into California Senators’ and Asssemblymembers’ offices, so they could appreciate how much evidence was in the record showing that last mile broadband by fiber optics is far superior to wireless broadband. Wireless broadband is an unnecessary, hazardous, energy-inefficient, fire prone, slower and less secure means of delivering broadband compared to Fiber Optics to the premises (FTTP).

In the ruling in Case 20-1025 EHT v FCC, the judges vacated in part and remanded FCC Order 19-126/19-226 to the FCC because the judges ruled that the FCC was “arbitrary and capricious” in its attempt to ignore these 27 volumes of evidence, listed below, in the FCC’s failed attempt to extend its current RF Microwave radiation exposure guidelines to frequencies above 6,000 MHz.

The evidence cited in the 27 enumerated links below was carefully compiled by the top telecommunications attorneys in the US and is already in the public records of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the US Court of Appeals (DC Cir.), the 2023 California Legislative portal for AB-965 and now the public legislative record for AB-965 in Gov. Newsom’s office. The evidence was accepted by the US Court of Appeals (DC Cir.) and served as the basis for the Aug 13, 2021 US Court of Appeals (DC Cir.) ruling in Case 20-1025, Environmental Health Trust, et al. v FCC.

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.”

The 27 volumes of evidence show scientifically-established biological harms from wireless RF Microwave radiation exposures from wireless infrastructure — even at radio signal strengths that are millions of times lower than that allowed by the current FCC RF Microwave radiation exposure guidelines.

In short, the state of California has no rational basis to pass state legislation (AB-965) that would effectively allow the wireless industry to force many unnecessary and unneeded Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) of any size into communities that are already receiving both sufficient wireless telecommunications service (for phone calls) and sufficient wireline broadband service (for internet), which is what 85% of California’s population currently has — as shown here: https://wirecalifornia.org/ab965/broadband/ It would be far better to focus California’s broadband incentives solely on the 676 identified zip codes that experience insufficient wireline broadband speeds, as show here: https://wirecalifornia.org/ab965/broadband/

Also, AB-965 would do nothing to force providers to serve these redlined and ignored 676 zip codes (which is 15% of CA’s population). Instead AB-965 encourages providers to overserve 85% of CA’s population at the expense of local control for CA counties and localities. AB-965 is simply bad for California.

The 2005 US Supreme Court ruling, Palos Verdes vs Abrams, upheld cooperative federalism as the legislative intent of the 1996 Telecommunication Act:

“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 decisions . . . It is the intent of this section that . . . decisions be made on a case-by-case basis.”*

AB-965’s provisions would violate current federal telecommunications laws.

Case-by-case decisions for WTF applications— NOT BATCHING, as dictated by AB-965 — is the federal standard. The last mile broadband deployment implementation decision must therefore remain a local zoning decision, no matter what “preferential treatment” the wireless industry desires.

In short, the analysis provided and the many volumes of substantial written evidence show that a veto of AB-965 would be best for California, mirroring similar vetos of overly-aggressive Wireless infrastructure bills in 2017 and 2021:

  • In 2017 Gov. Brown vetoed SB-649
  • In 2021 Gov. Newsom vetoed SB-556

The following list of pdfs totals over 320MB, so it would be a challenge for you to receive these pdfs via email. That is why I am including the following pdfs by link reference into the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965. The following links are the original source links for this evidence (the same links listed here and in the 2023-0630-SGF-AB-965-Wire-California-Opposition-Appendics-A-thru-L.pdf, attached to this email). Please note the pdf files listed below were also uploaded individually into the the CA Assembly and CA Senate legislative portals earlier this year.

Will you please confirm to me by email that I have followed sufficient procedures to add this important evidence to the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965?

  1. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-01.pdf
  2. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-02.pdf
  3. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-03.pdf
  4. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-04.pdf
  5. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-05.pdf
  6. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-06.pdf
  7. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-07.pdf
  8. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-08.pdf
  9. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-09.pdf
  10. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-10.pdf
  11. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-11.pdf
  12. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-12.pdf
  13. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-13.pdf
  14. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-14.pdf
  15. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-15.pdf
  16. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-16.pdf
  17. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-17.pdf
  18. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-18.pdf
  19. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-19.pdf
  20. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-20.pdf
  21. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-21.pdf
  22. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-22.pdf
  23. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-23.pdf
  24. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-24.pdf
  25. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-25.pdf
  26. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-26.pdf
  27. Link to 2020-1104-20-1025-Evidence-Volume-27.pdf

Thank you for carefully considering this evidence in your recommendation to Gov Newsom. I am looking forward to our discussion on Monday, Sept 11, 2023.

Regards,

Wire California

AB-965 Veto Evidence — Email 2 of 5

Date: Sept 8, 2023 at 2:30 pm
To: Grant Mack and Natalie Chapin, Governor Newsom’s Legislative Staff
From: Wire California
Re: Evidence to Substantiate a Governor Newsom Veto of AB-965; Email 2 of 5

I talked to Natalie Chapin (916-634-2961) this morning. She indicated that I should email pdf attachments and links to evidence that Wire California has already placed into the public legislative record to oppose AB-965 in order to add this evidence to the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965. This is the second of five emails to submit evidence today — each email with a reasonable total attachment size.

Attached to this email are the following pdfs.

  1. Link to 2019-0809-18-1129-1801375-Keetoowah-v-FCC.pdf
  2. Link tox 2019-1001-18-1051-1808766-Mozilla-v-FCC.pdf
  3. Link to 2021-0513-20-1025-1910111-Environmental-Health-Trust-v-FCC.pdf
  4. Link to 2021-1130-EHT-Filing-Re-FCC-Ignoring-20-1025-Ruling.pdf
  5. Link to2023-0424-CHD-Filing-Re-FCC-Ignoring-20-1025-Ruling.pdf

Note: The three U.S. Courts of Appeals rulings and two FCC filings, attached and listed above have been included in the California legislature public legislative record of AB-965 and now are being included in the Governor’s legislative record for AB-965 by both attached pdf and via reference-by-link, below. These three recent U.S. Courts of Appeals rulings crumbled the foundation of the FCC’s so-called “Small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) streamline deployment effort. California is bound by each of these rulings.

  1. Link to the U.S. Courts of Appeals ruling 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)
  2. Link to the U.S. Courts of Appeals ruling in Case No. 18-1051: Mozilla Corp. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
  3. Link to the U.S. Courts of Appeals ruling in Case N0. 20-1025: Envtl. Health Tr. v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
  4. Link to 2021-1130-EHT-Filing-Re-FCC-Ignoring-20-1025-Ruling.pdf
  5. Link to 2023-0424-CHD-Filing-Re-FCC-Ignoring-20-1025-Ruling.pdf

As a result of these rulings, any California county or locality can set the following WTF application requirement: the application will remain incomplete until the applicant submits substantial written evidence in the public record proving that the FCC has completed the U.S. Courts of Appeals-mandated work in Cases 18-1129, 18-1051 and 20-1025.

U.S. Courts of Appeals DC Cir. Rulings Context for AB-965

Case Vacated Portions of Result
Case No. 18-1129: Keetoowah v FCC FCC Order 18-30 The court vacated the National Environmental Policy Act and National Historic Preservation Act exemptions and vacated the very definition of “Small Wireless Facilities” — a definition that was never subsequently re-established by the FCC. As a result, every single WTF of any size must undergo NEPA and NHPA review and must be considered one-at-a-time, on a case-by-case basis.
Case No. 18-1051: Mozilla v FCC FCC Order 17-166 The court upheld the FCC’s decision to re-classify broadband Internet as an “information service,” and mobile broadband as a “private mobile service,” making neither subject to common carrier status or Title II regulation. The Court also concluded that the FCC did not show legal authority to issue its Preemption Directive, which would have barred states from imposing any rule or requirement to regulate broadband internet. The court vacated that portion of the order, freeing the states to regulate broadband as they wish.
Case N0. 20-1025: Environmental Health Trust v FCC FCC Order 19-126 The court vacated the extension of the FCC RF microwave radiation exposure guideline to frequencies above 6,000 MHz and mandated the FCC to evaluate the 27 volumes of scientific evidence in the court’s record (see links in Appendix B) and then to explain how the FCC RF microwave radiation exposure guideline adequately protects against harmful effects of exposure to RF microwave radiation, focusing on impacts on children, biological harms of long-term exposures, and adverse impacts on the environment. The FCC has ignored this U.S. Courts of Appeals-mandate for two years — and counting.

California Legislative Context for AB-965

AB-965, in many ways, is just another repeat of 2017’s SB-649 and 2021’s SB-556 — two Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) bills that were vetoed by Gov. Brown and Gov. Newsom, respectively, because each bill was not in the best interests of California. AB-965 is yet another wireless industry-sponsored bill designed to grant “preferential treatment for the personal wireless service industry,” which would violate the legislative intent of the 1996-TCA, which says:

“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 decisions.”

The following table places AB-965 in California Legislative context. The table shows that new bills attempting to give “preferential treatment for the personal wireless service industry” have been proposed every few years — actions that violate the legislative intent of the 1996-TCA.

Year Bill Bill Title Status 2023-2024 Next Steps
2015 AB-57 Telecommunications: wireless telecommunication facilities Chaptered Can Correct error: repeal in 2023-2024 to remove “deemed approved” ratchet and restore local control, as intended by 1996-TCA’s cooperative federalism
2017 SB-649 Wireless telecommunication facilities Vetoed For all California localities, Gov. Brown preserved local control over the placement, construction, modification, and operations of WTFs
2018 SB-822 California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Chaptered Note: The Jan 28, 2022 ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Cir.) upheld SB-822 based on the Oct 1, 2019 DC Cir. ruling, affirming that states can regulate information services (broadband), since the FCC retreated from the field. SB-822 prohibits Internet service providers from engaging in specified actions concerning the treatment of Internet traffic. The act prohibits blocking lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, and specified practices relating to zero-rating.
2021 SB-556 Streetlight poles, traffic signal poles: small wireless facilities attachments Vetoed For all California localities, Gov. Newsom preserved local control over the placement, construction, modification, and operations of WTFs
2021 AB-537 Communications: wireless telecommunications and broadband facilities. Chaptered Can Correct error: repeal in 2023-2024 to remove “deemed approved” ratchet and restore local control, as intended by 1996-TCA’s cooperative federalism
2021 SB-378 Local government: micro-trenching permit processing ordinance Chaptered Note: 2023’s AB-965 started as a companion to SB-378, a micro-trenching bill; SGF can return AB-965 to its original purpose
2023 AB-965 Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act Veto requested Unreasonable Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) application batching requirements and deemed granted provisions which will end-run meaningful local review of WTF applications for all California counties and localities.

Thank you for carefully considering this evidence in your AB-965 recommendation to Gov Newsom. I am looking forward to our discussions on Monday, Sept 11, 2023.

Regards,

Wire California

AB-965 Veto Evidence — Email 3 of 5

Date: Sept 8, 2023 at 3:20 pm
To: Grant Mack and Natalie Chapin, Governor Newsom’s Legislative Staff
From: Wire California
Re: Evidence to Substantiate a Governor Newsom Veto of AB-965; Email 3 of 5

I talked to Natalie Chapin (916-634-2961) this morning. She indicated that I should email pdf attachments and links to evidence that Wire California has already placed into the public legislative record to oppose AB-965 to both of you in order to add this evidence to the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965. This is the third of five emails to submit evidence today — each email with a reasonable total attachment size.

Detailed Evidence, Supporting Primary Opposition Witness Testimony Against AB-965

The following attached pdfs are printed version of the content at the associated links, which are included via link-by-reference in the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965:

  1. Link to 2023-0706-California-Wireline-Broadband-Usage-and-FCC-Wireless-Spectrum-Licenses.pdf (https://wirecalifornia.org/ab965/broadband/)
  2. Link to 2023-0706-Trillion-Dollar-Broadband-Scandal.pdf (https://wirecalifornia.org/kushnick/)

This evidence is critically important information to be considered in both the implementation of 2021’s SB-156 and the veto of 2023’s AB-965.

Primary Opposition Witness Testimony Against AB-965

The following testimony (at https://wirecalifornia.org/opposition/) is included in this email as well as via link-by-reference in the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965: see, below, transcripts of the primary opposition witness testimony against AB-965 at the following hearings:

  • June 20, 2023 Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications (SEUC) Committee Hearing
  • July 12, 2023 Senate Governance and Finance (SGF) Committee Hearing

A. June 20, 2023 Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications (SEUC) Committee Hearing

AB-965 Opposition Witness #1:

“Thank you, Chair Bradford and Committee members.

In our CA government of, by and for the people, ‘We the People’ are offering to take over sponsorship of AB-965 and fix it, with five strong amendments — that you can read on the home page of https://wirecalifornia.org/. CA can stop the 30- years of lies and finally establish universal access to all fiber-optics for last-mile broadband providers. Doing just that means that CA will then NOT waste $Billions of public money to unnecessarily install 4,000 miles of redundant fiber just because the CPUC is unwilling to face the detailed evidence in the public record for AB-965, given to the author, Juan Carrillo, and every member of this committee. The author could amend AB-965, to grant last-mile wired broadband providers universal access to the entire fiber-optic backbone including these 4000 miles, via regulated pricing. You have the authority to do so: the 2019 US Court of Appeals DC Cir. ruling in Mozilla Corp. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 940 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019) lets you to do it.

Wire California is telecommunications subject matter expert. We understand that the term “Digital Divide” was coined in 1994 to perpetrate a long-running con on Californians and its legislators — by the Telecom incumbents and their agents, the very entities that extract obscene profits, repeatedly steal public money and falsely claim that fiber optic cables financed with rate payer funds or installed in the public rights-of-way are private assets. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Look no further than the 2022 book by Bruce Kushnick, The Book of Violations & Egregious Acts: Trillion Dollar Broadband Scandal and the contracts provided that prove that precursors to modern-day AT&T and Verizon committed to replace copper phone lines with fiber optics to 80% of homes and businesses by the year 2000 in exchange for adding ratepayer fees to landline phone bills. The companies collected over $16 Billion in CA from the public, but did not deliver the fiber. Bait-and-Switch — repeatedly — over 30+ years.

The evidence shows a massive accounting and tax evasion scandal by Telecom incumbents. Substantial Fiber Optics to the Premises (FTTP) didn’t happen in 2000, not in 2010, not in 2020 and will not again in 2030 if you, the members of this committee don’t finally stop playing a starring role in “Digital Divide Theater” and finally end this racketeering by Telecom incumbents and their agents like Crown Castle, the corporate sponsor of AB-965, and please VOTE NO on this high-jacked bill, AB-965.

I say high-jacked because AB-965 started out in February as a fiber optic bill with no mention of Wireless shot clocks and deemed approved ratchets. Enter Crown Castle with its billion dollar investment from Bill Gates and his medical-tyranny agenda to build a 24/7 wireless surveillance grid to lock down the population and force a CCP-style social credit score system on Americans. It doesn’t matter that totalitarianism hides behind the phrase Environment, Social Governance, or ESG. The people of California reject this agenda and need our elected representative to work hard to defeat it. Vote NO on AB-965.”

AB-965 Opposition Witness #2:

“Mr. Chairman and Committee members, good morning.

AB-965 bill is inconsistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996-TCA Conference report was recognized by the US Supreme Court in its 2005 ruling in Abrams vs Palos Verdes as the definitive source of the legislative intent of the 1996-TCA.

The 1996-TCA Conference Report says:

“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.”

AB-965 represents a direct conflict with the congressional intent of the 1996-TCA.

Wireless companies have had over five years to get all the permits they needed in any city in California. You cannot blame the cities for wireless cos. not achieving their co. business goals.

Cities and counties can already do batch processing. Batch processing should only be recommended in areas where it is needed. It is not needed in at least 90% of the state.

If you give Big Telecom more favors but no requirements forcing them to provide service to the underserved, they will not provide it. The history over the last 30 years proves that.

Big Telecom will use this bill to overwhelm local planning departments in order to circumvent local zoning codes.

Let me give you a principle, Members. If something is planned well, it will work out well – if you let it. But if you change course in the middle, you often find out that you wish you had stuck with your original plan. What is California’s plan for broadband and telecommunications?

It is a mix of wired broadband and wireless telecommunications with an emphasis on wired broadband: fiber optics or coaxial cables directly to homes and businesses.

The NTIA of the federal government is administering the federal grants on the BEAD funds to the states; and the NTIA says wired broadband is the way to go.

Two years ago California passed SB 156 re: broadband in California. It was passed unanimously in both houses in July of 2021.

It created the Department of Technology and the Office of Broadband and Digital Literacy and allocated $2 billion for this. The CPUC and the Department of Technology and other agencies are working on this. So why would you undermine their efforts and why would you sabotage their work?

CPUC decision 22-04-055 says:

“Application Criteria. Consistent with federal rules, the ACR proposed that approved projects must deliver, upon project completion, service that reliably meets or exceeds symmetrical upload and download speeds of 100 Megabits per second.”

Wireless cannot meet this requirement at scale. Actual data proves that actual 45/5G download speeds top out below 50 Mbps and its upload speeds are at least ten times less.

Please stay the course, don’t get distracted and please don’t get fooled again. Please vote NO on AB-965

B. July 12, 2023 Senate Governance and Finance (SGF) Committee Hearing

AB-965 Opposition Witness #1:

“Good afternoon, Senators. Thank you for your time. Please ask me questions when I am done.

What is this? 27 volumes of evidence, 12,000 pages of studies [evidence accepted by the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir)] showing cell antenna radiation is harmful to one’s health. 27 volumes showing why California should not be putting up [densified] cell antennas [for wireless broadband]. On August 13, 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir) ruled that the Federal Communications Commission had ignored this evidence when it decided not to update its 1996 [microwave] radiation exposure limits. [Environmental Health Trust,] Childrens Health Defense [et. al.] v FCC.
v
90% of Californians already have access to high speed internet. Where [these residents] live [the state] should not require batch processing. [of Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF) applications].

Why are there people in your district without high speed internet access? It’s because Telecom has failed to apply for permits in certain areas. They have had years to apply for permits but they decided it was not going to be profitable in certain areas. This bill does not change the underlying economics. It does not require them to provide access to even one person. And they will not.

AB-965 promotes the irresponsible placement of cell antennas. It is an unnecessary, misguided gift to the trillion-dollar wireless industry at the expense of localities. [The SGF Committee’s] bill analysis ignores and omits everything that the opponents have told the Committee.

Cities and counties can already do application batch processing. If you think they are not aware of the advantages of batch processing, then tell them about it and let them decide. And VOTE NO on AB-965.

Telecom will use this bill in order to circumvent local zoning codes by filing 25-50 WTF applications at a time with local planning departments, [preventing reasonable review. Any applicant can file 25-50 applications on consecutive days, for as many days as they wish]. The total number of [WTF application] submittals is insufficiently constrained.

[Wireless broadband applicants] cannot meet the speed requirements for the NTIA BEAD grants. Wireline broadband is too slow. But [Wireline broadband applicants] can meet [the speed requirements] with fiber-optic cables. Please VOTE NO on AB-965 and study the issues more.

California should stay on the course which it set with SB-156, which was passed unanimously and signed into law in 2021, a budget bill that emphasizes hardwired internet connections. [Fiber optics does] not create a health hazard. [Fiber-optic cables] are more reliable, faster [and future proof]. This should remain the course for California. I urge you to VOTE NO on AB-965 and study the issues.

Thank you.”

AB-965 Opposition Witness #2:

“I am a former two-time Mayor and Council member [from Northern California].

I know first-hand how cities process Wireless Telecommunications Facilities applications. Let me give you some evidence that contradicts what Mr. Carrillo has said.

Drinking from a firehose . . .

All in local government and State government know what that’s like. You are experiencing it right now, trying to weigh the trade-offs involved in 28 bills on today’s agenda. Do you feel fully prepared to make a good decision on each? I know from experience you probably don’t. It is very difficult.

Well that is exactly what you are asking thinly-staff planning departments and commissions of 58 counties and over 400 localities to do, completely unnecessarily, because you have not been honest about the real purpose and impacts of this bill.

Allow me to explain. The evidence shows that Bill Gates is not a force for good in America, backing the WHO, the WEF, and AB-965 bill sponsor, Crown Castle. I just watched an interview a week ago by Dr. Peter McCollough. McCollough always cites evidence for every conclusion he makes, unlike Dr. Peter Hotez. McCollough reports that Bill Gates is gleefully announcing the next pandemic for America.

Mr. Gates, we all know has profited handsomely over the last three years game and he is also the top shareholder of today’s bill sponsor Crown Castle, with a billions of dollars invested in the most litigious firm in the wireless game. What is Bill Gates’ goal? A medical-tyranny agenda.

For that Gates aims to have Crown Castle build a 24/7 wireless surveillance grid to lock down the population and force a CCP-style social credit score system on Americans. It doesn’t matter that totalitarianism hides behind the phrase Environment, Social Governance, or ESG. It is actually a matter of national security. The people of California reject this agenda and need our elected representatives to work hard to defeat it.

[Therefore,] please vote to make AB-965 a two-year bill and enter substantive discussions about [Wire California’s amendments that would] return AB-965 to its original fiber-optic micro-trenching purpose and properly define appropriate radio signal strength levels for wireless telecommunications infrastructure in our communities.

And if you [don’t do that, then] I emplore you VOTE NO on AB-965. Thank you.”

Please note, the third opposition witness testimony from July 12, 2023 will be included in the fifth of five emails in this series.

Thank you for carefully considering this evidence in your AB-965 recommendation t0 Gov Newsom. I am looking forward to our discussions on Monday, Sept 11, 2023.

Regards,

Wire California

AB-965 Veto Evidence — Email 4 of 5

Date: Sept 8, 2023 at 3:50 pm
To: Grant Mack and Natalie Chapin, Governor Newsom’s Legislative Staff
From: Wire California
Re: Evidence to Substantiate a Governor Newsom Veto of AB-965; Email 4 of 5

I talked to Natalie Chapin (916-634-2961) this morning. She indicated that I should email pdf attachments and links to evidence that Wire California has already placed into the public legislative record to oppose AB-965 to both of you in order to add this evidence to the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965. This is the fourth of five emails to submit evidence today, each email with a reasonable total attachment size.

The following attached pdf is a printed version of the content at the associated link, which is to be included as link-by-reference in the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965:

The Wire California commentary on the Senate Governance and Finance Committee (SGF) Consultant’s analysis of AB-965 shows how selective and cursory such bill analyses are in the California Legislature. Despite Wire California properly including detailed analyses backed up by substantial written evidence in the public legislative record for AB-965, the SGF Consultant’s analysis, ignored all of Wire California’s substantive evidence. None of that evidence received a single mention in the SGF Consultant’s analysis, other than our organization’s name and position against the bill.

This happened despite meeting with the Colin Grinnell, the SGF consultant for 30 minutes to brief him on the same evidence we are entering into the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965 today.

Each of Wire California’s detailed and referenced comments are shown in green boxes in the attached pdf and even more clearly on the corresponding web page. The comments detail the errors and omissions in the allegedly objective SGF Consultant’s AB-965 analysis. The comments also show how Crown Castle hi-jacked AB-965, which started out as a fiber-optic focused bill to change to a bill that benefits primarily Crown Castle and other wireless providers. See the original Feb 14, 2023 version of AB-965, cited below, before the bill was gutted and amended on Mar 16, 2023.

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.”

Comparing the first to the last version of AB-965 shows how far off course Crown Castle steered AB-965 away from the Governor’s Broadband middle-mile infrastructure and last mile broadband plan — a 2021 plan that preserved local control over Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) infrastructue.

AB-965 in its final form works against SB-156, which is why AB-965 deserves Gov. Newsom’s veto.

Regards,

Wire California

AB-965 Veto Evidence — Email 5 of 5

Date: Sept 8, 2023 at 5:50 pm
To: Grant Mack and Natalie Chapin, Governor Newsom’s Legislative Staff
From: Wire California
Re: Evidence to Substantiate a Governor Newsom Veto of AB-965; Email 5 of 5

I talked to Natalie Chapin (916-634-2961) this morning. She indicated that I should email pdf attachments and links to evidence that Wire California has already placed into the public legislative record opposing AB-965 to both of you in order to add this evidence to the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965. This is the fifth of five emails to submit evidence today, each email with a reasonable total attachment size.

The following attached pdfs, listed below, as well as the July 12, 2023 primary opposition speaker #3 testimony at the July 12, 2023 Senate Governance and Finance Committee (SGF) hearing, cited below, shall be included in the Governor’s public legislative record for AB-965. The letters and emails listed below, document that CA Senate personnel improperly handled an ADA Reasonable Accommodation Request for Electromagnetic Sensitive (EMS) Californians for the July 12, 2023 SGF hearing.

CA Senate actions re: an Electromagnetic Sensitive (EMS) Californian ADA reasonable accommodation request include but are not limited to . . .

  • slow-walking the ADA reasonable accommodation decision
  • not conducting an interactive conversation to discuss a ADA reasonable accommodation before rendering a decision
  • not compromising in any way during a post-decision interactive conversation to discuss the proposed decision
  • not offering any other reasonable accommodation
  • offering only two minutes of additional testimony (compared to the 2017 precedent of 12 minutes of additional testimony)
  • not even honoring the promised “time certain start”

. . . effectively violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act revised rules from 2016, violated the California Constitution and prevented a federally-recognized disabled class from effectively redressing their grievances to their State Government. Such actions tainted the deliberations of AB-965 at the July 12, 2023 SGF hearing, which is even more evidence supporting an AB-965 veto by Gov. Newsom or an eventual court ruling to set aside AB-965.

The evidence of the Americans with Disabilities Act violations are in the following emails and letter (see pdfs attached) and testimony, cited below:

  1. Link to 2023-0710-1109am-email-re-ADA-Reasonable-Accommodation-Request-for-Public-Comment-re-AB-965.pdf
  2. Link to 2023-0710-0300pm-email-re-Sen-Atkins-re-ADA-Reasonable-Accommodation-for-July-12-SGF-Committee.pdf
  3. Link to 2023-0711-0313pm-letter-re-ADA-Request-Response.pdf
  4. Link to 2023-0711-0341pm-email-re-ADA-Request.pdf

At the July 12, 2023 Senate Governance and Finance (SGF) Committee Hearing

July 12, 2023 AB-965 Opposition Witness #3:
Source: https://wirecalifornia.org/opposition/

Thank you for the time.**

In the words of the late, great Yogi Berra, “It’s Deja Vu All Over Again.”
AB-965 in many ways is a redo, a mulligan, a repeat of two earlier Wireless Telecommunications bills — both of which were vetoed. 2017’s SB.649 was properly deliberated in these chambers, but 2021’s SB.556 was not.**

In 2017, the CA Legislature in the Committees allowed 60 minutes of substantive testimony on SB.649, per Committee: 30-minutes for Support and 30-minutes for Opposition. In 2021, that was cut down to four minutes per side, due to specious rules written for the now-proven scam of a pandemic by the California Legislature that was playing along.

Californians deserve fair and open deliberations on AB-965 at 2017 levels, but we’re still stuck at 2021 levels which is more than 85% less testimony time than in 2017 — and there is NO EMERGENCY in 2023.

Such an end-run around the public is unacceptable, unconstitutional and as of yesterday, illegal.. As I informed Senators Caballero and Dahle yesterday face-to-face, my two-minute testimony today is not an acceptable ADA accommodation for the 1 to 4 million Californians with Electromagnetic Sensitivity, [a federally recognized disabling characteristic that affects one or more life activities — people] who may be forced out of their homes if these WTF batching requirement become law.

We have written- and video-evidence to prove that Wire California and EMS Californians were not granted fair and open deliberations on AB-965. We experienced discrimination, systematic hiding of public information and a tortuously slow-walk of our valid ADA request, all of which violates federal law.

The solution to these violations is to vote on one motion today: make AB-965 a two-year bill, giving the California Legislature the time to correct these errors before voting AB-965 to the Senate floor. There is no rush for this bill; you don’t need it.

Sen. Caballero, these are matters of Governance — the very purpose of your committee.

It is time for California Legislature to go back to open and fair deliberations, consistent with the Bagley-Keene Open Meetings Act. Senators your vote today, not your words, states your position to all Californians.

Please make AB-965 a two-year bill. Thank you.”

The SGF Committee voted AB-965 to the Senate Appropriations Committee without first addressing this ADA violation. That was a fatal error in AB-965 deliberations and another reason that EMS Californians are asking Gov. Newsom to veto AB-965.

Thank you for carefully considering this evidence in your AB-965 recommendation to Gov Newsom. I am looking forward to our discussions on Monday, Sept 11, 2023.

Regards,

Wire California

Proudly powered by WordPress