I'm a broadband and radio frequency engineer who, after spending years as a technology advisor to hundreds of governments and firms around the country, went to law school and became an attorney. Not surprisingly, my area of law is telecommunications.
I have a Juris Doctor degree, a Masters of Law degree in Information Technology and Telecommunications Law, and a Doctorate in Law and Policy.
Assembly Bill 162, as amended on 4/23 (see my post here about those awful amendments) has been re-referred to the Assembly’s Local Government Committee. It will be heard on Wednesday, May 1, 2013.
It is vital that your views on AB 162 be communicated to your electeds before the hearing.
For local governments, formal opposition letters addressed to the Committee and your electeds are a customary and proper route. I recommend you publish those letters on your local government web site home page to alert your residents to this Bill and your position on the it.
For the public, communicating your views to your state electeds is critical. If you don’t know who your state representatives are, visit and enter your home address at THIS SITE.
Here is a list of the Assembly’s members of the Local Government Committee, and their State Capitol contact information:
Assembly Bill 162, The Wireless Collocation Bill, Amended by its Author –
BILL IS NOW FAR WORSE FOR THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
[Updated 4/24/13 7:28 p.m. – Added link to PDF version of this analysis. See link at bottom of this page]
As a reminder, on March 21, 2013, Assembly Bill 162 was dropped into the hopper in Sacramento to impose severe new rules requiring mandatory and lightning fast wireless collocation approvals or defaults by California local governments. Assembly Member Holden is the Bill’s sponsor.
Yesterday, Assembly Member Holden amended AB 162 to facially address some of the concerns raised by local governments. The proposed changes, however, are largely cosmetic and in most cases legally ineffective as to actually addressing local government concerns, as I will discuss in detail below. That said, Mr. Holden also took the opportunity to go beyond the cosmetic changes by introducing new language to his Bill that would actually extend the impact of the proposed state legislation far beyond that intended by the federal legislation, Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012.
Here is my analysis [1] of each of yesterday’s amendments to AB 162:
1. Added a new section readjusting the numbering of the subsequent sections. The new Section 1 provides a legislative purpose and intent for the Bill:
SECTION 1. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Nearly one in every three Californians communicates only via a cellular device and does not own or operate a landline telephone.
(b) Of the 240,000,000 calls to telephone number 911 for emergency assistance placed nationwide each year, 70 percent now originate from cellular devices.
(c) In 2010, 5 percent of all 911 calls originating from cellular devices were dropped, resulting in 8,400,000 dropped 911 calls.
(d) Recognizing the public’s shift toward cellular telephone use, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1375 (Chapter 332 of the Statutes of 2010), authorizing telephone corporations to deactivate 911 emergency service from any landline telephone not subscribing to paid telephone service.
(e) Given the increased reliance on cellular phones, maintaining signal strength and call reliability for 911 calls from cellular telephones is critical to protecting public safety and saving lives of Californians.
(f) The Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (known as the 9/11 Commission Report) identified the lack of coordination among first responder agencies and communication challenges in the 9/11 attacks and emphasized the need for uniform and reliable communications for all first responders.
(g) The federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-96) creates a framework for the public sector to partner with commercial providers to leverage the private sector’s investments in broadband technologies to efficiently deploy an interoperable broadband network for public safety.
(h) The federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-96) allocated seven billion dollars ($7,000,000,000) for grants to states to build the nationwide public safety broadband network.
(i) The Federal Communications Commission has found that delays by local governments in approving ministerial requests have delayed the implementation of next-generation broadband services for consumers and first responders.
(j) It is the intent of the Legislature to increase network capacity on existing wireless structures in order to serve the needs of safety personnel and the people of the state.
AB 162 now seems to also benefit public safety services, but as will be discussed below, the benefit is illusory.
2. Section 2(a) of the bill has been amended to read,
Notwithstanding any other law, and pursuant to Section 6409 of the federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 1455), a local government shall approve and mayshallnot deny any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless telecommunications facility or structurethat does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the wireless telecommunications facilityor structure.
The bolded changes now make this section inconsistent with Section 1455(a) by replacing “may” with “shall,” but far more importantly, the addition of “or structure” extends the definition of a wireless telecommunications facility to include the structure below the base station and/or antenna.
Why is the reference to ‘structures’ so important to the wireless industry? Because by adding “or structure” the overall height of an existing office building with wireless antennas on the roof must now be counted towards the 10% increase permitted for the wireless site. Say that there is a 10 foot tall antenna enclosure on the roof of a 15 story building (call the building 150 feet tall). Under the prior language of AB 162, the height of the antenna enclosure could increase by 10 percent, or only 1 foot. By including the “or structure” language, the non-discretionary increase in height would be 16 feet (10% of the 150 foot building plus the 10 foot tall antenna enclosure above the roof).
3. Section 2(b) is amended to read:
The failure to act on an eligible facilities request within 4590days of receipt of a request shall be deemed an approval of the request. The 4590 days shall be tolled if the request is determined to be incomplete. If the request is determined to be incomplete, the local government shall comply with subdivision (c) of Section 65943 of the Government Code.
4. Section 2(d)(1) is added to the definitions:
(1) “Collocation” means the mounting of the wireless telecommunications facility and related equipment on an existing tower, building, or structure for the purpose of transmitting or receiving signals for telecommunications or public safety services.
The new definition above extends the reach of collocation to include buildings and structures, with the negative impact already described. However, this definition goes far beyond the prior poorly crafted language to extend AB 162’s reach to all “telecommunications or public safety services.”
Neither “telecommunications” or “public safety services” are defined in AB 162, but would arguably extend AB 162’s collocation provisions and benefits to any type of radio communications (telecommunications) including without limitation AM/FM/TV stations, commercial two-way radios, point-to-point microwave, WI-FI, amateur radio, radar, CB radio, etc.
5. Section 2(d)(2) of the definitions now reads:
“Public safety broadband communications system” means any regional interoperable communications system, the nationwide public safety broadband network, the first responder analog-D block, or any other government-operated communications system used by first responders or emergency management systems.
Given that the Section 2(d)(2)(D), just discussed, has no real new value to local governments, Section 3 merely acts as a limitation on—rather than an extension of—local government authority. General government radio communications, such as between permit inspectors and the permit department, or between any non-emergency personnel are excluded by the limiting language in Section 3.
6. Section 4(A) and 4(C), defining “Substantially change” are amended to read:
(A) The mounting of the proposed antenna on the wireless telecommunications facility or structurewould increase the existing height of the wireless telecommunications facility by more than 10 percent, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subparagraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas.
…
(C) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the wireless telecommunications facility or structure that would protrude from the edge of the wireless telecommunications facility more than 20 feet, or more than the width of the wireless telecommunications facility at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subparagraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the wireless telecommunications facility via cable.
As before, the addition of “or structure” in (A) and (C) operationalize the expansion of AB 162’s height benefit for wireless carriers by including the height of an underlying structure or building into the calculation of the permitted 10% increase. Interestingly, by adding “or structure” to (C), antennas will now be permitted to extend horizontally from the roof and perhaps as far as to violate setbacks and even property lines.
Section 4(D)’s former language is struck and replaced as shown below:
(D) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current wireless telecommunications facility site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless telecommunications facility and any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
(D) The eligible facility request fails to comply with all existing aesthetic requirements imposed by a local government for the specific facility subject to the request. Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that any new aesthetic enhancements to be made to an eligible facility that were not existing requirements at the time the eligible facility request was made.
The deletion of the former (D) language now means that any excavation outside the current wireless telecommunications facility site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless telecommunications facility and any access or utility easements currently related to the site, would not constitute a substantial change to the existing site thereby pulling a collocation project out of the scope of AB 162’s mandatory approval requirement. Accordingly, if an excavation outside the current wireless telecommunications facility site is proposed as part of a collocation—even if the excavation extends to another property—a local government would be barred from denying the otherwise qualifying project. This new language is a backdoor way of adding new utility routes to the mandatory approval requirement of AB 162.
Turning now to the replacement (D) language, it says in essence that a collocation is not one that “fails to comply with all existing aesthetic requirements imposed by a local government for the specific facility subject to the request.”
Translated into English, the language just discussed appears to say that if a current site that was required by its original approval to be camouflaged is not, in fact, constructed to meet the aesthetic requirements set out in the original permit, then the site is not subject to AB 162.
On its face, the new (D) language would be a good provision for the public were it not for the fact that this new language is completely preempted by 47 U.S.C. 1455(a), the federal law.
Recall that AB 162 will be subject to the sweeping preemption of Section 1455(a), which begins by saying “Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104) or any other provision of law…” (emphasis added). As the federal law would clearly preempt any non-compliant provision in state law, a wireless applicant would likely successfully argue that AB 162 notwithstanding, it has a preemptive federal right to modify a site taking it from camouflaged to bare steel, if the carrier so elects, and therefore AB 162’s aesthetic protection language is without legal effect. The choice would be with the applicant as to whether it wishes to comply with this provision of AB 162, not that it must comply with this provision. Should the applicant so choose to avoid this provision of AB 162, it would be as if the new proposed (D) language was not even a part of AB 162.
To make the industry’s benefit clear by the camouflage provision in (D), even if the proposed (D) language were legally enforceable (or if an applicant elected not assert its federal rights preempting this portion of AB 162), any addition to an existing camouflaged site couldnot be required by a local government to be camouflaged.
To understand the scope and size of this massive loophole in the amendment to AB 162, consider the following before photograph and after-simulation of an existing wireless site in Los Angeles. The simulated modification would be subject to a mandatory approval under AB 162 without the ability of a local government to condition the addition to be camouflaged:
Photo/Photo Simulation by Jonathan Kramer
The net result of the new (D) language is that the camouflage benefit of the existing project (the before photo above) would be destroyed by AB 162 as currently amended.
Conclusions and Recommendations
AB 162 as proposed in March was a massive attack on local government authority to control wireless siting. As now amended in April, it is truly a wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing. The Bill now appears to provide benefits to local governments and the public, yet each of those benefits is either without value, or illusory. The wolf part is the inclusion of the “structure” element far-and-away exceeding the scope of the existing federal law.
This Bill, as now amended, is also far worse than the federal law, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a), in the new privileges it would grant.
Ultimately, AB 162 is fatally flawed, inconsistent with federal law, and cannot be saved by amendments. It should be vigorously opposed by local governments and their constituents who are interested in remaining engaged in wireless siting matters in California.
Please feel free to share this analysis with interested local government parties and the public at large.
Continuing updates regarding AB 162 will be available at here at http://CellTowerSites.com. For now, and especially now, I continue to call this legislation the WIPE ACT (the Wireless Industry Public Exclusion Act).
Finally, please download a PDF of the bulk of this message and share it with your friends and elected officials: Please CLICK HERE. Jonathan
[1] Note: The opinions contained in this communication are solely those of Jonathan L. Kramer, Esq., and do not necessarily reflect those of any client or friend of this firm. I’m pretty sure they don’t reflect the views of the wireless industry.
MetroPCS’s shareholders approved the merger with T-Mobile. The deal is sealed, and should close within the next 7 days.
For (1) most MetroPCS cell site landlords, (2) a few T-Mobile landlords, and (3) likely all landlords with a MetroPCS and T-Mobile lease atthe same site, you should start planning for the early termination of a lease…and that income.
(Update 11:52 a.m. Okay, I underestimated the time it takes to filter through and write up how bad the amendment to AB 162 really is in impact. I’m currently working on a photo sim for my post. I’ll try and have this done by 1 p.m. today.)
(UPDATE: 11:01 a.m.: I’m still working on my analysis…I expect to have it complete within the next 30 minutes. Please check back at 11:30 a.m. -Jonathan)
The purpose of this post is to give you a heads up that A.B. 162, which should be called the ‘Wireless Industry Public Exclusion Act’ (the WIPE ACT) was amended yesterday by Assembly Member Holden, the bill’s sponsor. The amendments to the WIPE ACT make it far worse, and the lipstick-on-a-pig cosmetic changes proposed cannot stand in the face of existing federal law.
I will have a fare more complete analysis of the amended bill up on this website later this morning. For now, however, the aware that the amendments to the WIPE ACT make it for worse than it was before.
Check back about 11:00 a.m. for a more detailed review.
Breaking new: Dish Network offers $25.5 B to buy Sprint. This is a counter to Japan’s Softbankl offer of $20.1 B to buy 70% of Sprint. This effectively puts Clearwire back in play, too.
Don’t you love it when the game gets exciting? Yeah, me too!
AB 162, called the “Broadband Improvement Act” by its author, and which I’ve re-dubbed as the “Wireless Industry Public Exclusion Act” (the WIPE Act), has just been scheduled for its first Assembly Committee hearing.
The Bill will be heard by the Local Government Committee on May 1, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. in State Capitol Room 447.
This is the time to contact your State Assembly Member to express your thoughts about this awful bill.
I’m verrrrrry pleased to announce that I received word a couple of hours ago that I passed the New Mexico Bar Exam, and that I’ll be admitted to that Bar on April 30th.
The FCC has released its “FIRST REPORT AND ORDER FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING AND NOTICE OF INQUIRY in a proceeding that will reshape the Commission’s RF emissions safety standards. The current standards were adopted after the 1996 Telecom Act. The Commission revisits its rules now largely prompted by the GAO.
I suspect the greatest final rule changes that will occur will be in area of handset emissions (the “SAR” or specific absorption rate rules), rather than base station emissions.
This process, which will span into the Summer, will be a lightening rod for public comment given the free-floating fear that the current rules for higher power base stations.
AGL Magazine‘s Wireless Infrastructure Conference will be coming to Irvine Marriott in Irvine, California on April 18, 2013. If you want to know about what’s happening in the trenches of wireless, and where those trenches lead, this is the conference to attend.
AGL’s regional conferences are, in my opinion, one of the best sources of current industry information, and one of the most cost effective. This is the conference I would attend even if I were not a speaker. But as you’ve just figured out, I’ll be a speaker at this conference. I’ll be speaking about Assembly Bill 162, more properly called the “Wireless Industry Gift and Public Exclusion Act of 2013.”
The registration fee is only $95.00, and there is a substantially lower registration fee for government registrants. Ask me for the government discount code; I’ll be glad to provide it.
Here is the current conference schedule (subject to change):
Site Acquisition: Where Will All the Wireless Go?You have all heard the statistics on wireless growth, but where will all these antennas and nodes be located? This session will teach you how to meet the zoning challenges and take advantage of the opportunities in innovative antenna siting. Stay on top of the trends in siting macrocells, microcells and DAS, whether it is a greenfield development or on rooftops or on street furniture. Our panel of experts will fill you in on the best practices in siting on federal properties, churches and schools.
10:00 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.
Wireless Business Trends RoundtableThis session will scrutinize the business side of the wireless industry, from tower brokerage to Wall Street to carrier class Wi-Fi. Stay up to date on the critical factors that have an impact on our industry, whether it is the latest mergers, cash infusions or LTE deployment news. You will learn where the opportunities are to increase your profits, whether you own towers or integrate wireless systems.
11:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.
LTE and the Art of Achieving and Maintaining Tower IntegrityWith LTE systems rolling out at a furious pace, can proper equipment installations keep up? This session will teach you a wide range of best practices for deploying equipment on towers and keeping them in working order. Plus, keys for keeping tower climbers safe.
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Lunch
1:00 p.m.to 2:00 p.m.
Small Cell, DAS, Wi-Fi – the New Wireless FrontierWhile it goes by different names – metrocell, picocell, microcell, DAS node and carrier-grade Wi-Fi – the result is the same, increased capacity and coverage enhancement. You will learn the latest technology trends in the deployment of multiple, smaller coverage area nodes. Additionally, you will learn the market drivers. All of which are critical to playing in this quickly evolving space.
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Small-cell Vertical Market Breakout Sessions: You will be able to take advantage of being a part of a small group, which will engage in a deeper discussion of the various wireless vertical markets. Speakers dealing with four verticals in small-cell wireless –– health care, campus/stadium, commercial real estate and municipal Wi-Fi –– will move from group to group every 30 minutes, answering questions and giving opinions on the opportunities and challenges each vertical represents. Using this more intimate setting, this session gives you time to talk with our experts about your particular interests in the topics and to share ideas with others.Vertical 1: Tracking the Heartbeat of Wireless in the HospitalModerator will lead a discussion on the role of wireless in today’s health care organizations. Hospitals offer possibilities for numerous wireless applications, and hospitals represent one of the most complex environments in which to introduce new technologies.Vertical 2: From the Campus to the Stadium, Wireless Goes Small Bringing smaller cells – whether DAS, Wi-Fi or small cell – to campuses and stadiums is a challenging, high-profile venture. Moderator will lead a discussion of this unusual mix of outdoor and indoor deployments that must be geared for large influxes of users who are there only for short periods.
Vertical 3: Municipal Wi-Fi –– The Key to the Intelligent City? Municipalities can be an integral part of the wireless superhighway and if they embrace that role, they will improve their cities on multiple fronts, including revenue and business development. Moderator will explain two critical components –– wireless infrastructure and fiber backhaul –– that cities must have to stay current with mobile technology development.
Vertical 4: Commercial Real Estate — Connections Trump Locations. In-building wireless networks have elevated the provisioning of wireless communications from an afterthought to the status of an intelligent amenity for commercial real estate development. Corporate site selection committees now list broadband connectivity among the top three criteria. Learn how wireless is helping real-estate developers gain new tenants and increase revenue by marketing their properties to smartphone users.
4:00 p.m. to 4:45 p.m.
Conference Wrap upModerator: Richard P. Biby, P.E., Publisher, AGL magazine
Following is a link to the online registration site…If you’re a government, call me first for the discount code: CLICK HERE TO REGISTER.
[Updated March 28, 2013] [Updated March 24, 2013]
[Updated March 23, 2013]
[Original March 22, 2013]
[Update/Heads-Up: I’ve received a copy of Assembly Member Holden’s Fact Sheet on AB 162, which has been christened the “Broadband Expansion Act.” I’ve rechristened it the “Wireless Industry Gift and Public Exclusion Act of 2013.” In the next day or two I’ll be posting the Fact Sheet, and my point-by-point analysis, rebuttal and corrections to the Fact Sheet.]
The wireless industry has quietly dropped an awful bill, Assembly Bill 162, into the hopper in Sacramento to impose severe new rules requiring mandatory and lightning fast wireless collocation approvals by California local governments.
Assembly Bill 162 is a combination Super Section 6409(a) coupled with a Super Shot Clock. To add icing to the wireless industry’s cake, the bill would effectively eliminate any consideration of whether the applicant has a significant gap in its service, and would define its key terms so broadly as to make nearly every component part of a wireless tower or site (including components not now considered to be either).
Well, really, there’s nothing super about this bill if you’re either a concerned citizen or a local government.
Assembly Bill 162, sponsored by Assembly Whip Chris Holden D-41, started as a housing bill in January. It was gutted yesterday, on March 21, to become an 8-figure gift to the entire wireless industry.
In its now-morphed form, Assembly Bill 162 would add Section 65964.5 to the Government Code to do the following:
1. Parrot the opening of Sec. 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012 by saying,
(a) Notwithstanding any other law, and pursuant to Section 6409 of the federal Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. Sec. 1455), a local government shall approve and may not deny any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless telecommunications facility that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the wireless telecommunications facility.
2. Then the next section would make the failure of a Local Government to act on such a request within45 daysresult in the project being deemed approved.
(b)The failure to act on an eligible facilities request within 45 days of receipt of a request shall be deemed an approval of the request. The 45 days shall be tolled if the request is determined to be incomplete. If the request is determined to be incomplete, the local government shall comply with subdivision (c) of Section 65943 of the Government Code.
Section (b) would effectively eliminate any possibility of public hearings in advance of mandatory approvals. The 45 day shot clock would cut in half the time determined by the FCC to be adequate to process collocations. The effective result would be that wireless collocation projects would take priority over virtually every other project considered by a local government.
Section 65943(c) of the Government Code provides for a formal appeal process for projects deemed incomplete by a local government. Since this is already state law, it seems redundant here.
3. Forget about coverage gap proof for collocations. Subsection (c) of Assembly Bill 162 would kill that:
(c) A local government shall not require proof of gap in coverage as part of the approval of an eligible facilities request.
4. Next, the proposed legislation goes on to define key terms:
(d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Eligible facilities request” or “request” means any request for modification of an existing wireless telecommunications facility that involves any of the following:
(A) Collocation of upgraded transmission equipment.
(B) Removal of transmission equipment.
(C) Replacement of transmission equipment.
(2) “Substantially change” means any of the following:
(A) The mounting of the proposed antenna on the wireless telecommunications facility would increase the existing height of the wireless telecommunications facility by more than 10 percent, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed 20 feet, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subparagraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas.
(B) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four equipment cabinets, or more than one additional equipment shelter.
(C) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the wireless telecommunications facility that would protrude from the edge of the wireless telecommunications facility more than 20 feet, or more than the width of the wireless telecommunications facility at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this subparagraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the wireless telecommunications facility via cable.
(D) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current wireless telecommunications facility site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless telecommunications facility and any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
(3) “Wireless telecommunications facility” means equipment and network components, including towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services.
The definitions in Assembly Bill 162 are so broad as to encompass nearly every portion of a wireless system, including DAS networks. Moreover, the definitions are in conflict with the plain words of the proposed statue as to what constitutes a substantial change in the physical dimensions of the wireless telecommunications facility.
The definitions (and in part the lack of definitions) would also open the door to the conversion of fully camouflaged sites to morph into ugly monopoles or visible sites. Moreover, the definitions would allow for the mandatory installation of any type of emergency power system (including diesel powered generators and hydrogen fuel cells) at any cell site.
Assembly Bill 162 is one of the worst bills that would essentially kill public input into wireless siting process for collocations in California. It would speed up the process to the point where the public would be denied any effective opportunity to have any meaningful review, much less input, on proposed wireless collocations (which seem to be the bulk of wireless projects in California now).
The sponsor of Assembly Bill 162 is one of the most powerful members of the Assembly, and the owner of CHMB Consulting Firm (a real estate consulting firm in Pasadena). No doubt Mr. Holden’s goal is to promote the rapid deployment of more wireless service in California, but Assembly Bill 162 in its current form is anti-constituent and anti-government. As it is now set out, the Bill amounts to a massive gift to the wireless industry at the expense of the public and local governments.
Members of the public will need to directly communicate with Assembly Member Holden about Assembly Bill 162, as well as their own local governments and elected representatives, if there is to be any chance to maintain meaningful community and local government involvement in wireless tower collocation siting matters in this state.
To read the original housing bill, now struck, with the replacement wireless industry gift language, click to open the PDF: AB 162 Assembly Bill – AMENDED
Check back here often to find out what’s happening with Assembly Bill 162. Share this post with your friends and your local elected officials (who I hope are also your friends).
Thanks to J.D. for his help making this post even better!
It is vital that your views on AB 162 be communicated to your electeds before the hearing.
(916) 319-2035
