Avalon City Council
June 25, 2026

AVALON SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2026 - 5:00 PM
410 AVALON CANYON ROAD, AVALON, CA 90704
AGENDA
In compliance with the Americans with Disability Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Ottice (310) 510-0220. Notitication 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35. 102-35.104 ADA Title II). All public records relating to an agenda item on this agenda are available for the public inspection at the time the records are distributed to all, or a majority of all, members of the City Council. Such records shall be available at City Hall located at 410 Avalon Canyon Rd.

For the public's convenience, but not participation, the meeting can be viewed:

On local cable: Catalina Broadband Solutions channel 3
Streaming on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/CityofAvalonCA

CALL TO ORDER / PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE / ROLL CALL

ANNOUNCEMENTS / WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

ORAL COMMUNICATION
Members of the public may address the City Council at this time. No action will be taken on non- agenda items at this meeting. Speakers should limit comments to two (2) minutes each.

GENERAL BUSINESS

1. Direction on City Action in Response to May 29, 2026 Demand for Cure and Correct Letter and Unconditional Commitment Letter
On May 29, 2026, Lance Ware sent a Demand for Cure and Correct letter to the City of Avalon demanding that the City cure or correct seven alleged actions taken in violation of the Brown Act.

Recommended Action
Authorize the City Attorney to Prepare an Unconditional Commitment Letter in response to the May 29, 2026 Demand for Cure and Correct Letter.

2. Rescission of the May 22, 2026 Letter to the Federal Communications Commission and Direction Filing Responses to the Federal Communications Commission in Response to Filing of AVX
AVX has filed numerous letters with the FCC regarding its activities with Avalon and AVX's pursuit of a broadband project for Avalon. On May 18, 2026, following a confidential closed session on "initiation of litigation" the City Attorney announced the unanimous authorization to file a letter. On May 22, 2026, the City of Avalon filed a responsive letter with the FCC in response to the filings by AVX. Lance Ware sent a letter to the City on May 29, 2026, alleging that the "initiation of litigation" closed session was inappropriate.

Recommended Action
Rescind the May 22, 2026 letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and authorize the City Attorney to file responses to AVX's filings with the FCC.

SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
JUNE 25, 2026
PAGE 2

ADJOURN

NOTICE OF POSTING
1, Devin Elise Hart, declare that the City Council Agenda for Thursday, June 25, 2026 was posted on Wednesday, June 24, 2026 on the City's website, www.cityofavalon.gov/agendacenter, and at City Hall, 410 Avalon Canyon Road.

Di Clise Hart
Devin Elise Hart, Senior Management Analyst

CITY OF AVALON CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM: /
MEETING DATE: June 25, 2026
ORIGINATING DEP: City Attorney CITY MANAGER: DAu
PREPARED BY: Scott Campbell, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Direction on City Action in Response to May 29, 2026 Demand for Cure and Correct Letter and Unconditional Commitment Letter RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Authorize the City Attorney to Prepare an Unconditional Commitment Letter in response to the May 29, 2026 Demand for Cure and Correct Letter.

REPORT SUMMARY: On May 29, 2026, Lance Ware sent a Demand for Cure and Correct letter to the City of Avalon ("City") demanding that the City cure or correct seven alleged actions taken in violation of the Brown Act. A copy of the letter, without exhibits, is attached. The alleged actions involved closed sessions regarding the settlement of litigation with the school district (which occurred in 2024), the compensation of the City Manager (which occurred in 2023 and 2024) and the discussion of initiation of litigation by the City (which occurred in 2026.) The letter alleges that actions taken in closed session were not reported as required and that the closed sessions involving the initiation of litigation did not actually concern litigation as that term is used in the Brown Act.

The City disputes the characterization of its actions in the letter, the timeliness of the letters given that many of the statutory deadlines for seeking for the relief sought have expired and the much of the relief sought by the letters which is not required by the Brown Act or other laws.

Additionally, the letter's characterizations of the statutes and cases referenced in the letter are inaccurate.

Nevertheless, the Brown Act provides that if the City takes certain actions, litigation on such allegations cannot go forward. Rather than spend taxpayer dollars on such litigation, it is recommended that the City agree to send an "unconditional commitment" to comply with the statutes cited and cure the one action the letter asks be corrected that occurred in the last 90 days. Actions occurring 90 days before the letter was sent are not subject to correction under the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54960. 1(c).) By sending the letter of "unconditional commitment" and "curing:" the alleged violation, any litigation against the City for Brown Act violations described in the letter (Government Code Sections 54960.2(a)(3) and 54960.2(c)(3).) is barred. Even though the Brown Act provides that actions to challenge past alleged violations are limited to those occurring nine months before a "cease and desist" order, the unconditional commitment does cover the statutes that are alleged to have been violated in 2023 or 2024.1 1: No violations of the Brown Act occurred in 2023 or 2024. Providing direction to the City Attorney on labor negotiations and/or settlement of litigation directions and notices to the court about the status of settlements prior to the finalization of the actual settlement agreement, are not reportable actions as incorrectly alleged.

The action that occurred within the last ninety days which is sought to be cured concerns a letter the City sent to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in response to filings made AVX. It is alleged that the City Council could only authorize the letter in open session, not in closed session, as hearings before the FCC are administrative hearings only, and not one of an administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority and as such, any closed session on the FCC matters could not involve the initiation of litigation. The City disagrees. Nonetheless, to avoid costly litigation, the City will cure the alleged violation by having a separate agenda item authorizing the submission of the letter to the FCC.

FISCAL IMPACTS. None
GOAL ALIGNMENT: Continued Compliance with the law and fiscal responsibility CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City may be subject to litigation.

FOLLOW UP ACTION: Send letter of Unconditional Commitment and have an open session item on the response to AVX's filings with the FCC.

ADVERTISING, NOTICE AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Pursuant to the Brown Act.

ATTACHMENT: Demand for Cure and Correct letter, without attachments

LANCE WARE
PO Box 172
Avalon, California 90704
[email protected] • (949) 394-7099
May 29, 2026
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable Anni H. Marshall, Mayor
The Honorable Lisa Lavelle, Mayor Pro Tem
The Honorable Michael Ponce, Council Member
The Honorable Yesenia De La Rosa, Council Member
The Honorable Mary Schickling, Council Member
City of Avalon
410 Avalon Canyon Road
Avalon, California 90704
Re: Demand for Cure and Correct under California Government Code §§ 54960, 54960.1, and 54960.2 — Seven Closed Sessions of the Avalon City Council - January 20, 2026; February 3, 2026; May 19, 2026; March 27, 2024; May 16, 2023; September 17, 2024; and May 21, 2024 cc: David M. Maistros, City Manager; Gabrielle Morones, City Clerk; Scott H. Campbell, City Attorney / Best Best & Krieger LLP
Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Avalon:

I write under California Government Code §§ 54960, 54960.1, and 54960.2 to demand that the Council cure or correct seven actions of the City Council that I am informed and believe were taken in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code §§ 54950 et seq. What follows is, I hope, a document the Council and its constituents can read in one sitting. The substance is serious and the relief I seek is precise.

I. What This Demand Concerns
Three closed sessions of this Council in the first 119 days of 2026 - on January 20, February 3, and May 19 — were each agendized under Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4) as "initiation of litigation" closed sessions. In those four months, the City has commenced no litigation: no civil complaint in any court, no administrative adjudication, no proceeding before any hearing officer or arbitrator, and no demand letter to me or to AVX Networks asserting a claim. The City's own May 11, 2026 Final Production on my Public Records Act Request #2 identified the documents that triggered the January 20, 2026 closed session as my own constitutionally protected First Amendment petitioning activity: my December 18, 2025 Reply Comments filed in Federal Communications Commission Docket No. WC 25- 253 (Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments), and my September 22, 2025 constituent email asking this Council to pursue inter-governmental cooperation with Los Angeles County on the federally- and state-funded broadband project this Council had endorsed unanimously by Resolution 22-47.
from 65059.00300 under which Best Best & Krieger LLP signed the May 22, 2026 FCC ex parte adverse to AVX.

The March 27, 2024 special-meeting "no reportable action" report on the $2 million LBUSD settlement. On March 27, 2024, the Council held a special meeting from approximately 8:30 a.m. with a single closed-session item captioned as "Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation" referencing Long Beach Unified School District v. Santa Catalina Island Co. and City of Avalon, Case No. 2:19-cv-01139 (C.D. Cal.). The Council reported "no reportable action." On the next day in open federal court - March 28, 2024 - Best Best & Krieger partner Joseph Van Eaton stated of record, "the City has settled, " and Joshua N. Levine of Booth LLP confirmed a "$2 million... signed term sheet." The "no reportable action" report was false. The Council in fact authorized the $2 million settlement on March 27, 2024 and concealed the action from the public. I bring this action under Government Code § 54960.2(a)()(B); my documentary-knowledge anchor is April 22, 2026, the date I received the certified federal-court transcript of the March 28, 2024 hearing from Federal Official Reporter Amy Diaz, RPR, CRR, FCRR (350 W. 1st St., #4455, Los Angeles, CA 90012), after a five-step concealment chain across two years of escalating Public Records Act inquiries. The 9-month § 54960.2(a)(1)(B) clock runs from April 22, 2026.

The May 21, 2024 closed session and Campbell-delivered re-staged report-out. Fifty-five days after the concealed March 27, 2024 settlement decision, on May 21, 2024, the Council convened a § 54956.9(d)(1) "existing litigation" closed session for which the substantive Council decision had already been reached. Best Best & Krieger LLP and City Attorney Scott H. Campbell had been federally disqualified from representing the City of Avalon in the LBUSD Federal Action since the March 22, 2022 order in that case. Campbell nonetheless joined the Council's open public meeting virtually following the closed session - appearing in the City's Zoom session only after City staff admitted him into the meeting - and delivered the report-out, framing the prior-and-concealed March 27, 2024 settlement decision as a contemporaneous "unanimous vote by the council" on May 21, 2024. The May 21, 2024 closed session was not a § 54956.9(b) "advise on, or strategize with respect to, pending litigation" closed session; the substantive Council decision had already been reached fifty-five days earlier and reduced to a signed term sheet. The May 21, 2024 closed session was a sham re-staging convened to cover the prior concealment. I bring this action under Government Code § 54960.2(a)(1)(B); my discovery anchor is the same April 22, 2026 federal-court transcript.

The May 16, 2023 and September 17, 2024 closed-session Maistros PEPE-to-amendment compensation directions. On each of May 16, 2023 and September 17, 2024, the Council convened a closed session captioned as a § 54957(b)(1) Public Employee Performance Evaluation for the City Manager and reported "no reportable action." Each closed session in fact produced direction to staff to prepare a 5% merit-increase amendment to the City Manager's employment agreement, with retroactive effective date predating the open-session vote authorizing the amendment by seven and one-half months on each occasion. The City's own subsequent open-session staff reports admit this verbatim: the June 20, 2023 staff report (Finance Director Matthew Baker, with the "CITY MANAGER" approval block signed by City Manager David M. Maistros) admits, "On May 16, 2023, the City Council completed the annual performance evaluation for the City Manager ... City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the compensation section of the Employment Agreement to provide a 5% merit increase to the City Manager's base salary, " and the October 1, 2024 staff report makes the parallel admission as to The only action that has flowed from any of the three "initiation of litigation" closed sessions is the May 22, 2026 ex parte communication filed by Best Best & Krieger LLP on behalf of the City of Avalon (as a stand-alone filing, not on behalf of any coalition), signed by City Attorney Scott H. Campbell under BBK internal matter number 65059.00300, in Federal Communications Commission WC Docket No. 25- 253 (Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments) and WC Docket No. 25-276 (Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments) - the very dockets in which AVX Networks filed Comments and Reply Comments naming the City of Avalon and in which AVX Networks is, on the federal record, the entity advocating for the Catalina last-mile broadband project. The City of Avalon was not at any time a named member of the "Local Community Coalition" through which Best Best & Krieger LLP filed earlier ex parte communications in WC Dockets 25-253 and 25-276; I am aware of no public Council vote, no staff report, and no agenda item authorizing the May 22, 2026 ex parte filing in the City's name. That broadband project, on December 18, 2025, received a $37,571,833 federal grant award under CPUC Resolution T-17896 - the largest single grant award in the City of Avalon's history.

The Council's three contemporaneous closed sessions, and the May 22, 2026 ex parte filed in Avalon's name adverse to AVX Networks and to the public-interest broadband objectives of the City's own residents and of the people of Santa Catalina Island, are not consistent with the Council's own unanimous public votes on Resolutions 22-47 (August 16, 2022), 24-16 (May 7, 2024, amended May 21, 2024), and 24-17 (June 4, 2024).

Four additional closed-session actions — on March 27, 2024 (the LBUSD settlement); May 16, 2023 and September 17, 2024 (the Maistros compensation amendments); and May 21, 2024 (the re-staged report-out of the concealed March 27, 2024 settlement decision) - each were the subject of false or incomplete "no reportable action" reports at the time and are brought under Government Code § 54960.2(a)(1)(B) active-concealment cure-and-correct. They are described in Section IV below.

II. Mayor Marshall's Refusal to Engage My Accountability Questions, Then a Secret Vote Against Me 72 Hours Later
Mayor Anni Marshall texted me on May 13, 2026 stating she "ha[d] lots of questions" about the under- sea cable. The parties met at the Mayor's request on Friday, May 15, 2026, at 1:00 p.m. at the base of the Avalon Pier; the meeting ran approximately one hour, and the Mayor received my answers to her questions about the AVX Networks submarine fiber-optic project. On Saturday, May 16, 2026, I sent Mayor Marshall a follow-up text message posing two specific questions of my own - questions I asked the Mayor to answer: (1) why City-installed conduit had been provided to Catalina Broadband and AT&T during the Five Corners trench but not to AV, even after AVX had marked up the City's drawings; and (2) why the $100,000 the Council had committed by unanimous Resolutions 24-16 and 24-17 (May 2024) was being held back. Mayor Marshall did not respond to my May 16 text. Three days later, on Monday, May 19, 2026, Mayor Marshall participated in, and voted unanimously to authorize, the City Attorney's filing of "papers with the federal communications commission" in a closed session held under Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4) ("initiation of litigation, one case"). The closed session ran approximately thirty-one (31) minutes (entry at approximately 8:34 p.m. PT and report-out at approximately 9:05 p.m. PT, per the City of Avalon's own YouTube broadcast of the meeting). Counsel filed the ex parte before the Federal Communications Commission three days later, on Thursday, May 22, 2026 — adverse to AVX Networks and adverse to the public-interest broadband objectives of the very residents of the City of Avalon and the very people of Santa Catalina Island whose interests the Council had unanimously voted to support by Resolutions 22-47, 24-16, and 24-17.

The two specific accountability questions I posed to the Mayor on May 16, 2026 remained unanswered when the Council voted in closed session on May 19. They remained unanswered when Best Best & Krieger LLP filed the ex parte on May 22. They remain unanswered as of the date of this demand. The Mayor's duty is to her constituents — not to her outside counsel's national telecommunications-policy posture in federal-agency rulemaking proceedings. The asymmetry is the point: the Mayor received my answers to the questions she had asked of me about the AVX Project, then declined to engage my specific accountability questions about the City's obstruction of the same project, then voted in secret 72 hours later to authorize federal-agency papers in the City's name adverse to AVX Networks and to the broadband interests of the residents she serves.

A presiding officer who is still asking the project sponsor basic factual questions 96 hours before her closed-session vote, and who has received no response to specific written follow-up questions as of three days before her vote, is not, on the record, exercising the § 54956.9(d)(4) statutory predicate of "deciding whether to initiate" litigation against that same project sponsor "based on existing facts and circumstances."
Ill. Five Defects in the May 19, 2026 Closed Session (Each Independently Sufficient) A. FCC rulemaking advocacy is not "litigation" under § 54956.9(c). Federal Communications Commission WC Docket No. 25-253 (Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments) and WC Docket No. 25-276 (Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments) are rulemaking proceedings developing rules of general applicability, not adjudications of party rights. AVX Networks is a commenter of record in both dockets, having filed Comments and Reply Comments naming the City of Avalon. Filing an FCC ex parte communication in an FCC rulemaking - whether on behalf of the City as a stand-alone filing or on behalf of any coalition - is regulatory advocacy, not "initiation of litigation." That decision was an open-session matter under Government Code §§ 54954.2 and 54957.5; it was not lawfully a closed-session matter under § 54956.9(d)(4). The closed-session use was unauthorized under § 54953.

B. The Mayor's refusal to engage my specific written accountability questions before the closed- session vote forecloses good-faith "deciding whether to initiate." See Section II above. The Mayor's silence on my May 16, 2026 accountability questions — about City conduit allocation and the $100,000 Resolution 24-16 / 24-17 local match - followed by her secret vote 72 hours later to authorize federal- agency papers against me is materially inconsistent with the statutory premise of "decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation ... based on existing facts and circumstances. " § 54956.9(d)(4). A presiding officer who refuses to answer the project sponsor's specific written questions cannot be "deciding whether to initiate" litigation against that project sponsor based on existing facts and circumstances; she is choosing to act without the facts.

C. Three § 54956.9(d)(4) closed sessions in 119 days. Zero litigation initiated. The Brown Act's closed-session exemptions are construed strictly against the agency, and the agency bears the burden of establishing the statutory predicate. Sacramento Newspaper Guild v. Sacramento County Bd. of Supervisors (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 41; Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363. The exemption must be tied to a specific identified matter, not vague references. Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904. A "no reportable action" report when a reportable decision was reached is itself a Brown Act breach. Page v. MiraCosta Community College Dist. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 471. No California appellate court has yet addressed staleness under § 54956.9(d)(4) - the practical question of how many invocations of "deciding whether to initiate" the same exemption may support without an actual filing - but the established principles require the City to come forward with the specific facts and circumstances that supported good-faith deliberation toward litigation initiation on each of the three dates.

If the Council cannot identify those facts in a public corrective report, the exemption was not satisfied.

D. The § 54957.1(a)(2) report-out category does not fit the action reported - the either-or trap. The City Attorney's verbatim May 19 report-out — "council [in] close session unanimously authorizes city attorney to file [] papers with the federal communications [] commission" — does not fit § 54957.1(a)(2) (which covers only "defend," "appellate review or relief," or "amicus curiae" in "litigation"); does not fit § 54957.1(a)(1) (settlement); does not fit § 54957.1(a)(3) (approval given in connection with "a claim or litigation"); and does not fit § 54957.1(a)(4) (real-property), § 54957.1(a)(5) (public employee), or any other § 54957.1 reporting category. Either the action authorized was "litigation" - in which case the report-out is procedurally defective because it fits no statutory category - or the action was not "litigation" - in which case the § 54956.9(d)(4) closed-session exemption was unavailable in the first place. Both branches converge: the May 19, 2026 closed session and report-out were not lawfully E. The § 54954.5(c) agenda is internally contradictory on all three 2026 (d)(4) agendas. The closed- session caption on the May 19, 2026 agenda reads "CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION" (the language of the § 54956.9(d)(2) "exposure" exemption) above a citation to § 54956.9(d)(4) (the entirely separate "deciding whether to initiate" exemption). Subdivisions (d)(2) and (d)(4) are not interchangeable: (d)(2) governs the City as defendant; (d)(4) governs the City as plaintiff. The same heading/citation conflict appears verbatim on the January 20, 2026 and February 3, 2026 agendas. The January 20, 2026 minutes further cite the item as held "pursuant to §54956.9 (c)" - subdivision (c) is the definition of "litigation," not a closed-session exemption at all. The public —— including AVX Networks, the City's residents, the project's other stakeholders, and the people of a community the California Public Utilities Commission has classified as 100% unserved - could not determine from the face of the published material which exemption was being invoked or what statutory predicate the Council was required to satisfy.

IV. The Other Four Challenged Actions
The January 20, 2026 closed session ("two cases") and the February 3, 2026 closed session ("three cases" — one publicly reported as relating to Catalina Restoration, two unreported). These are the first two of the three § 54956.9(d)(4) closed sessions described in Sections 1, Il, and Ill above. The defects identified in Section II apply with equal force to each. The 90-day § 54960.1 windows for these two sessions expired on April 20 and May 4, 2026 respectively; 1 bring them under § 54960 declaratory relief (no temporal bar) and under § 54960.2(a)(1)(B) active-concealment cure-and-correct. My discovery anchor for both is May 11, 2026 — the date of the City's Final Production Letter on Public Records Act Request #2, which for the first time identified the trigger of the January 20 closed session as my constitutionally protected First Amendment petitioning. The production letter's footer bears Best Best & Krieger LLP internal matter number 65059.00012 on every page — the matter number under which Best Best & Krieger LLP is ghost-drafting the City's Public Records Act responses, a separate matter number September 17, 2024. The respective First and Second Amendments recite "the Parties have been in discussions concerning this in 2023" and "in 2024. " Each "no reportable action" report was false.

Direction to staff to prepare a compensation amendment is reportable under Government Code § 54957.1(a). Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility District (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1063; Page v. MiraCosta Community College Dist. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 471. I bring both actions under Government Code § 54960.2(a)(1)(B); my documentary-knowledge anchor is May 6, 2026 - the date I completed correlating the Maistros employment-agreement packets in the City's Laserfiche public-records system against the closed-session NRA report-outs for the first time. The 9-month § 54960.2(a)(1)(B) clock runs from May 6, 2026 as to each action.

V. Notice of Apparent Pattern
The § 54956.9 closed-session infirmities described above in the City of Avalon's January 20, February 3, and May 19, 2026 sessions appear not to be isolated. I observe that similar patterns of (d)(4) "initiation of litigation" agendization followed by "no reportable action" reporting — without any actual litigation initiated - appear in other municipalities represented by the City's current outside counsel. I reserve all rights to pursue further relief, in additional forums, based on the broader practice. The cure-and-correct demand set forth in Section VI below extends not only to the specific closed-session actions identified above but also to any City-wide practice, policy, or counsel guidance that produced them.

VI. Cure or Correct - What I Ask the Council to Do
Pursuant to Government Code §§ 54960.1(c)(1) and 54960.2(b)(3), I request that the Council cure or correct each of the seven challenged actions within thirty (30) days of receipt of this demand by taking each of the following actions in a duly noticed open public meeting:

A. Rescind in open session the closed-session action authorizing the May 22, 2026 BBK ex parte filing. Adopt a written resolution rescinding any May 19, 2026 closed-session direction or authorization concerning Best Best & Krieger LLP's May 22, 2026 ex parte filing in FCC WC Docket No. 25-253 or any other filing or position in any FCC docket. Direct that Best Best & Krieger LLP correspondingly withdraw the May 22, 2026 ex parte filing.

B. Re-deliberate in open session, if the Council wishes to take any position in any FCC docket. Any further Council deliberation on whether to participate in FCC WC Docket No. 25-253, WT Docket No. 25-276, or any other federal regulatory proceeding shall occur in open session under proper public notice and Government Code § 54957.5 record-distribution.

C. Issue corrected § 54957.1 public reports as to each of the seven challenged actions, identifying for each (i) the substance of the closed-session deliberation and any decision reached; (ii) the vote of each Council member, including any abstention or recusal and the basis therefor; and (iii) the action's relationship to any signed instrument, ratifying authorization, or subsequent open-session item.

D. Identify the "two cases" (January 20), "three cases" (February 3), and "one case" (May 19) referenced on the respective agendas, providing for each (i) the name of any actual or potential adverse party; (ii) the forum in which the alleged litigation would proceed; (iii) the case or docket number, if any; and (iv) the date the City has filed, or anticipates filing, the initiating instrument - or, if no initiating instrument is or will be filed, confirm publicly that the Council has decided not to initiate.

E. Disclose the identity of all persons who attended or participated in each of the seven closed sessions, including Council members, City staff, attorneys, and consultants present in person, by telephone, or by videoconference; and identify the legal counsel who advised the Council in each closed session by name, California State Bar number, firm, engagement agreement, and the Best Best & Krieger LLP internal matter number under which the attorney's time was billed. For the May 19, 2026 closed session specifically, confirm in writing whether Gail Karish (Best Best & Krieger LLP, advising the City on the AVX right-of-way matter during Bennett Givens's parental leave), Bennett Givens (Best Best & Krieger LLP), Scott H. Campbell (Best Best & Krieger LLP), or any other Best Best & Krieger LLP attorney was present.

F. Produce a full accounting of Best Best & Krieger LLP billings to the City under internal matter numbers 65059.00000 (general retainer), 65059.00012 (Public Records Act response work -- the matter ghost-drafting the City Clerk's PRA responses to me), 65059.00300 (the May 22, 2026 FCC ex parte matter), and 65059.00306 (the LBUSD matter from which Best Best & Krieger ILP and Scott H.

Campbell were federally disqualified on March 22, 2022), including for each invoice the date, the timekeeping attorney, the substantive scope of work, and the matter to which the work was billed.

G. Acknowledge the federal disqualification of Best Best & Krieger LLP and Scott H. Campbell from the LBUSD Federal Action by the March 22, 2022 federal court order, and confirm in writing the basis on which any Best Best & Krieger LLP attorney advised the Council on any LBUSD-related closed- session matter from March 22, 2022 through case termination on June 20, 2024 - including in particular the March 27, 2024, May 21, 2024, and subsequent LBUSD-related closed sessions described above.

H. Adopt a prospective written policy or resolution committing the Council going forward to: (i) refrain from invoking Government Code § 54956.9(d)(4) absent a documented "adjudicatory proceeding" predicate within § 54956.9(c); (i) identify, on every future agenda item invoking any subdivision of § 54956.9(d), the specific statutory predicate, the matter to which the predicate applies, and (to the extent permitted by § 54956.9(g) and (h)) the name and forum of the litigation; (iii) report under § 54957.1 every direction to staff regarding compensation of any City employee given at any closed session; (iv) refrain from backdating any compensation increase or contract amendment to a date prior to the open-session vote authorizing it; (V) refrain from invoking § 54956.9(d)(1) "existing litigation" for closed sessions on matters where the substantive Council decision has already been finalized and reduced to a signed instrument; (vi) issue every § 54957.1 public report at the public meeting at which the closed session was held — not at a later re-staged closed session weeks or months afterward.

I. Confirm individually, under signature, the participation and factual basis of each Council member who participated in any of the three 2026 § 54956.9(d)(4) closed sessions (Mayor Marshall, Mayor Pro Tem Lavelle, Council Member Ponce, Council Member De La Rosa, and Council Member Schickling). Each individual Council member confirmation shall identify (i) whether the member attended the closed session by name and date; (ii) the existing facts and circumstances on which the member relied in invoking the § 54956.9(d)(4) exemption; (iii) whether the member knew at the time of the closed-session vote that the documents identified in the City's May 11, 2026 Public Records Act #2 production (my September 22, 2025 constituent email and my December 18, 2025 FCC Reply Comments) constituted protected First Amendment petitioning activity; and (iv) the member's reconciliation of the closed-session vote with the member's prior unanimous open-session votes on Resolutions 22-47, 24-16, and 24-17 supporting the AVX Project. This individualized confirmation is requested because the cure- and-correct decision must be the Council's collectively, but the underlying Brown Act compliance is each member's individually under Government Code § 54959.

VIl. Reservation of Rights
Nothing in this demand letter shall be construed as a waiver of any claim. I expressly reserve, on behalf of myself and AVX Networks, all rights to pursue the following, in any forum, against any person:
• Government Code § 54959 misdemeanor - Section 54959 provides that "each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of that legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of this chapter, and where the member intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled under this chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor." I reserve all rights to refer any unrescinded or uncorrected action to the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles and to the Attorney General for the State of California.
• Government Code §$ 1090, 1092, 1097, and 91005.5 - individual personal liability for any Council member, City Manager, or other official who participated in any contract or financial decision while having an undisclosed financial interest, including but not limited to any campaign contribution received from Best Best & Krieger LLP, from any client of Best Best & Krieger LLP, or from any other entity having a direct or contingent professional interest in the matters set forth First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the City and against individual Council members in their individual capacities. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87 (2018); Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019). The temporal proximity between my December 18, 2025 FCC Reply Comments (filed in WC 25-253) and the January 20, 2026 closed session (held thirty-three days later, with my FCC filing identified on the City's own May 11, 2026 production as one of the two triggers of that closed session) supports the presumption of retaliatory motive recognized by the Ninth Circuit.
• Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and with contractual relations, against any person whose conduct interferes with (i) the December 18, 2025 federal grant award to AVX Networks under CPUC Resolution T-17896 in the amount of $37,571,833; (ii) AVX Networks's contractual and regulatory relationships in connection with that grant; or (iii) AVX Networks's prospective economic advantage in the Catalina Island broadband market and the federal Build America rulemaking proceedings.
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 526a taxpayer-waste action, against the City and against individual Counci members, for City funds expended in connection with the closed-session actions identified above, including without limitation Best Best & Krieger LLP billings under matter numbers identified in Section VI.F.
• California Public Records Act litigation under Government Code §§ 7923.000 et seq., for the City's continuing failure to produce records responsive to my Public Records Act requests bearing on the closed-session actions identified above.

California Civil Code § 52.1 (Bane Act) civil-rights action, against any official whose threats, intimidation, or coercion interfered with the exercise of my constitutionally protected rights. • Naming of presently-unknown DOE defendants by amendment under California Code of Civil Procedure § 474, upon discovery of facts establishing individual or entity liability.

VIII. Consequences of Failure to Cure
If the Council fails to cure or correct any of the seven challenged actions within thirty (30) days of receipt of this demand, I intend to commence an action under Government Code § 54960(a) seeking a judicial declaration that the closed sessions of January 20, 2026; February 3, 2026; May 19, 2026; March 27, 2024; May 16, 2023; September 17, 2024; and May 21, 2024 were convened or reported in violation of the Brown Act and were therefore unlawful. As to the May 19, 2026 closed session specifically, I intend to seek nullification under § 54960.1, the 90-day window for which expires on August 17, 2026. I will further seek injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs under Government Code § 54960.5, and such further relief as the court deems just and proper — including such relief as the court determines is necessary to address the broader pattern set forth in Section V above.

I am available to confer with the City Attorney or other authorized representative of the Council to clarify the scope of cures requested and to facilitate prompt resolution. I may be reached at [email protected] or (949) 394-7099.

Respectfully submitted,

ANCE WARE
PO Box 172
Avalon, California 90704
[email protected]
(949) 394-7099
Scott Campbell
From: Lance Ware <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 5:08 PM
To: Gabrielle Morones, City Clerk; David Maistros, City Manager; Scott Campbell Cc: Matthew Baker, Finance Director; Anita Taff-Rice
Subject: Demand to Preserve Evidence — June 2, 2026 City Council Meeting & Broadcast This message could be suspicious
• This email is from a similar name to someone you contacted. Please confirm the name or contact the Help Desk for review.

Use the PhishER button to report suspicious messages.

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED City of Avalon - Office of the City Clerk (Custodian of Records) City Manager David Maistros
City Attorney, Best Best & Krieger LLP
410 Avalon Canyon Road, Avalon, CA 90704
Dear City Clerk, City Manager, and City Attorney:

This letter places the City of Avalon (the "City") on formal written notice of its duty to preserve evidence relevant to reasonably anticipated litigation, including proceedings under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code 95 54960, 54960.1, 54960.2) and related claims arising from the conduct, recording, and public broadcast of the June 2, 2026 City Council meeting.

This notice is made in the public interest, in furtherance of the public's right of access to open meetings; it concerns the City's conduct and records and is not a matter of any individual's personal interest.

On June 2, 2026, members of the public present in the Council Chambers observed Council members seated at the dais and members of the public addressing the Council, while the City's online broadcast displayed a notice that the meeting was "cancelled due to AV issue," carried no audible audio, and then terminated. Stated without characterization of intent, these are the objective circumstances. They bear directly on the public's right of access under the Ralph M.

Brown Act (Gov. Code § 54953) and on the integrity of the City's official record of the meeting, and are the subject of reasonably anticipated litigation.

You must immediately suspend all routine or automatic destruction, deletion, overwriting, recycling, re-imaging, trimming, re-encoding, and log-rotation that could affect any of the materials below, and preserve each item in its native/original form with all original metadata intact. This duty extends to materials held by any officer, employee, agent, contractor, or vendor of the City, and to materials on personal devices or personal accounts used for City business (City of San José v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.Sth 608).

1. Recordings and media. Every audio and video recording of the June 2, 2026 meeting in any form or location, including: the original/native file uploaded to the City's video/YouTube channel (not a re-export); any live- 1 This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaDE.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice. stream session data; any in-house, local, or backup recording; any separate audio recording; and the certified "official record" of the meeting. Do not delete, trim, edit, replace, or change the privacy/visibility status of the published video.

2. The Chambers audiovisual & streaming system. The configuration, routing, audio-source selection, and mute state of the Council Chambers audio system, microphones, mixer/DSP, and streaming encoder as they existed on June 2, 2026; all system, event, error, and diagnostic logs from the encoder, mixer/DSP, and streaming/webcasting software or appliance for June 2, 2026; all maintenance, service, repair, and support records for that system from January 1, 2024 to present; and the physical equipment itself (encoder, mixer/DSP, recorders, operator workstation) preserved in current state - no reset, reimage, reconfiguration, or replacement.

3. AV vendor and operator records. All contracts, statements of work, purchase orders, and invoices with any audiovisual, streaming, or IT vendor or contractor (including without limitation Key Code Media, Inc.); all service tickets, work orders, dispatch records, and remote-access logs concerning the Chambers AV/streaming system; and all records reflecting whether any such vendor was on site, was contacted, responded, or was not contacted, in connection with June 2, 2026.

Video-channel administration. All records of administration of the City's video/YouTube channel, including the roster of administrators/managers; upload, edit, and trim history; any additions, deletions, enabling, disabling, or modifications of captions, subtitles, or transcripts for any video; and live-stream start/stop event records.

5. Operators and access. Records identifying every person with operator access to the Chambers AV/streaming system and administrative access to the video channel; the person(s) who operated the broadcast on June 2, 2026; and physical-access records - keys/badges to the AV control area, equipment racks, and Chambers, and keycard/badge access logs and visitor logs for City Hall, the Chambers, and AV areas for June 1-3, 2026.

Surveillance and other camera recordings. All security/surveillance camera recordings of the Council Chambers, any AV control room or booth, City Hall entrances, lobby, hallways, and parking areas, and any additional cameras in the Chambers (beyond the broadcast camera), for June 1-3, 2026; and all door/alarm/intrusion logs for the same period.

7. Meeting-occurrence records. All versions of the June 2, 2026 agenda and any amendments; the meeting notice and any notice of cancellation, with posting records (date, time, location, and person posting); draft and final minutes; the official-record certification; sign-in sheets; attendance/presence records; and all public-comment request cards or slips submitted that day.

8. Communications. All communications - email, text/SMS, chat (Teams/Slack/etc.), voicemail, and contemporaneous notes - to, from, or among Council members, the City Manager (Maistros), City Clerk (Morones), Assistant City Manager (Francis), Finance Director (Baker), AV/IT staff (including Public Works/AV Specialist Jamie Hmielak), any AV/streaming vendor, and the City Attorney (BB&K), concerning: the June 2 meeting; the asserted "AV issue"; the decision to designate the meeting "cancelled"; the decision to begin, mute, or stop the broadcast; and the handling, retention, editing, or release of any recording - for the period May 1, 2026 to present - including any such communications on personal devices or personal accounts.

9. Microsoft 365 tenant data. The City's email and collaboration run on Microsoft 365 (Exchange Online and Microsoft Teams). The City, as tenant administrator, must place and maintain a Microsoft 365 eDiscovery/in- Place Litigation Hold on the mailboxes and accounts of the custodians named in paragraph 7, and preserve - without alteration - the Unified Audit Log, mailbox audit logs, message-trace records, Teams chat and channel messages, and OneDrive/SharePoint content for the period stated, and suspend any retention policy that would purge them.

10. Internet/data-service and connectivity records. All records identifying the City's internet-service provider(s) and data-circuit provider(s) serving City Hall and the Council Chambers, the related service agreements and invoices, and any provider-side or City-side network/connectivity logs or outage records for June 1-3, 2026 bearing on the broadcast.

The duty to preserve is independent of, and broader than, any later records request. Failure to preserve may give rise to evidentiary sanctions and an adverse-inference instruction (CACI No. 204), and may implicate Government Code 99 34090, 34090.6 and Penal Code § 6200. Please confirm in writing within ten (10) days that these holds are in place and that automatic deletion/overwrite affecting the above has been suspended. 2 This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDE.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

Nothing herein waives any right or remedy, all of which are expressly reserved.

Respectfully,
Lance Ware
3 This document was created by an application that isn't licensed to use novaPDF.

Purchase a license to generate PDF files without this notice.

CITY OF AVALON CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: June 25, 2026 AGENDA ITEM: 2
ORIGINATING DEP: City Attorney CITY MANAGER: IMM
PREPARED BY: Scott Campbell, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Rescission of the May 22, 2026 Letter to the Federal Communications Commission and Direction Filing Responses to the Federal Communications Commission in Response to Filing of AVX RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Rescind the May 22, 2026 letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and authorize the City Attorney to file responses to AVX's filings with the FCC.

REPORT SUMMARY: AVX has filed numerous letters with the FCC regarding its activities with Avalon and AVX's pursuit of a broadband project for Avalon. All these letters, without exhibits, are attached to this staff report.

On May 18, 2026, following a confidential closed session on "initiation of litigation" the City Attorney announced the unanimous authorization to file the letter. On May 22, 2026, the City of Avalon filed a responsive letter with the FCC in response to the filings by AVX. Lance Ware sent a letter to the City on May 29, 2026, alleging that the "initiation of litigation" closed session was inappropriate insofar as FCC proceedings are not litigation and demanded that the City rescind its letter and deliberate in open session on whether the City should file any responses. Lance Ware has threatened litigation if the City does not take such corrective action.

AVX'S letters to the FCC merit a response from the City due to numerous statements that AVX has been subject to discriminatory and dilatory treatment by the City and inference that the City does not support AVX's broadband project. Responding to the letters would counter the allegation that the City is obstructing AVX's project as well as correct the record. As an example of a misleading statement, in AVX's most recent filing, it contends that a $37.5 million dollar award to it by the CPUC/FFA "triggered the requirement for Avalon to release $100,000 in matching funding approved two years ago." Such a statement ignores the fact that the $100,000 match was contingent on the establishment of an agreement to define ownership and/or potential credits for broadband services between the AVX and the City. In fact, even AVX's own attorney in its April draft of a Right of Way Agreement acknowledged that so such triggering agreement had not been reached and that the draft Right of Way Agreement, which has not yet been signed, could constitute the agreement.

Other misstatements pertaining to the status of AVX's "application" and its submittals to the City exist. Such a letter from the City is needed to counterbalance AVX's inaccurate statements.

GOAL ALIGNMENT: N/A
FISCAL IMPACTS: None
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mr. Ware may file litigation against the City and the statements AVX filed with the FCC may remain unchallenged.

FOLLOW UP ACTION: The filing of a rescission of the City's May 22 response and the drafting and filing of responses to all of AVX's filings with the FCC...

ADVERTISING, NOTICE AND PUBLIC CONTACT: This item was properly listed on the posted agenda pursuant to the Brown Act.

ATTACHMENTS: AVX's filings with the FCC.

WC Docket No. 25-253
Before the

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Build America: Eliminating Barriers to WC Docket No. 25-253 Wireline Deployments

REPLY COMMENTS OF AVX NETWORKS LLC
I. INTRODUCTION
AVX Networks LLC ("AVX" or "Company") respectfully submits these Reply Comments in response to the Commission's Notice of Inquiry in the above-captioned proceeding. AVX is a California-based telecommunications provider that has been awarded 37,571,833 in Federal Funding Account ("FFA") grant funds by the California Publi tilities Commission ("CPUC") pursuant to CPUC Resolution T-17896. adopted o December 18, 2025, to deploy broadband infrastructure to unserved and underserved communities in Coastal and North Orange County, California, and Catalina Island.

AVX holds a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") U-7406-C from the CPUC, authorizing it to operate as a full-facilities-based telephone corporation providing Competitive Local Exchange Carrier ("CLEC") and Non-dominant interexchange carrier ("'NDIEC") services in California. AVX's experience deploying broadband to Catalina Island a geographically isolated community with approximately 4,400 permanent residents and over one million annual visitors-provides a real-world case study directly relevant to the examination of impediments to deployment of wireline facilities. hens o deployment oF AVX has encountered lengthy delays imposed by at least two municipal employees and consultant in obtaining permits and access to the public rights-of-way ("ROW") for its operations prior to the FFA award. While city elected officials have been strongly supportive of the FFA project, the improper conduct of at least two employees and consultant has not been corrected. Unless Avalon leadership requires non-discriminatory and reasonable processing of permits for AVX to access the ROW, last-mile facilities connecting to deliver Commission action.

II. THE CATALINA ISLAND PROJECT: A CASE STUDY IN MUNICIPAL

OBSTRUCTION
A. Project Overview
AVX's "Digital Equity for Coastal and North Orange County and Catalina Island" project will deploy two redundant undersea fiber-optic cables connecting Catalina Island t he California mainland at Huntington Beach, with interconnection to the California Middl

WC Docket No. 25-253
Mile Broadband Network in Stanton. The project will provide open-access fiber backhaul connecting the island's key population centers of Avalon and Two Harbors. The entire Catalina Island project area is classified as 100 percent unserved, with 1,125 unserved locations and 2,233 unserved units.

The proposed network will offer symmetrical speeds up to 10 Gbps, along with a $40/month low-cost 50/50 Mbps plan meeting CPUC affordability benchmarks, with a ten year price commitment. This infrastructure is essential for telehealth and emergency medica. mmunications for the island's only Critical Access Hospital, public safety coordinati ring emergencies, educational access for students who currently cannot reliably comple online coursework, and economic development for a community where median household B. Unprecedented Community Support
The AVX project has garnered support from an extraordinary coalition including Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn (Fourth District), California State Senator Tony Strickland (36th Senate District), California Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (69th Assembly District, Speaker Pro Tempore), Mayor Casey McKeon (City of Huntington Beach), Catalina Island Health (the island's only hospital and Critical Access Hospital), Catalina Island Tourism Authority, Catalina Island Conservancy, Catalina Island Company, and Catalina Express.

As Supervisor Hahn stated in her December 3, 2025 letter to the CPUC: "This may be our best-and quite possibly our last-opportunity to solve Catalina Island's persistent connectivity problem once and for all."
C. Municipal Obstruction: Fiber Rights-of-Way
Despite this unprecedented support, AVX has been unable to obtain a ROW agreement from operations employees and consultant for the City of Avalon-the only incorporated municipality on Catalina Island-necessary for terrestrial fiber deployment within city limits to provide last-mile connectivity from the FFA submarine cable project.

These employees and consultant have failed to act on AVX's ROW requests for almost two years, despite multiple communications and outreach efforts. Meanwhile other CLEC/NDIEC providers have been granted access to the ROW with little or no permitting requirements. The conduct of these employees and consultant has not been overridden or corrected despite an explicit endorsement of the FFA project by the Avalon City Council.

The imposition of improper and discriminatory requirements for AVX's use of the public ROW and contiguous land areas in Avalon constitutes a de facto moratorium on competitive broadband deployment that effectively protects the incumbent provider.

D. Misapplication of CMRS Regulations to Wireline Backhaul AVX's experience with the City of Avalon extends beyond fiber ROW obstruction.

When AVX sought to deploy point-to-point microwave links to provide interim bandwidth while the subsea fiber project is constructed, the municipal employees and consultant mentioned above applied a newly-adopted wireless telecommunications facility ordinance- designed for Commercial Mobile Radio Service ("CMRS") small cell deployments--to AVX's fixed wireline backhaul facilities. AVX has initiated efforts to obtain access to the

WC Docket No. 25-253
ROW prior to the enactment of the new ordinance, but at least two employees and consultant declined to act on that request until after the new ordinance was enacted. Ignoring a standing request for access to the ROW in order to apply a yet-to-be-enacted ordinance. Such delay constitutes impermissible obstruction. Making matters worse, the newly enacted ordinance does not apply to point-to-point microwave facilities that would have been deployed by AVX. Not only did the conduct of at least two municipal employees and consultant impermissibly delay the provision of competitive telecommunications, it prevented Avalon residents from having access to critical broadband, voice and emergency services.

The documented timeline demonstrates the City's strategic use of regulatory delay:
• July 23, 2024: The City's contract planner informed AVX that "[u]ntil these regulations are amended, the City is unlikely to proceed with review of applications for wireless facilities on city-owned or controlled property." The wireless ordinance was then pending before the Planning Commission.
• August 21, 2024: AVX met in person with City planning staff at the proposed site (Buena Vista Point) to discuss the installation.
• September 20, 2024: The City's planner informed AVX that he intended to apply the newly-adopted wireless ordinance to AVX's pending request, and require a Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan Review, and Coastal Development Permit, with approval by the Planning Commission.
• September 27, 2024: AV submitted comprehensive compliance materials including detailed drawings, visual renderings from multiple viewpoints, utility routing plans, November 5: 2024- The is ram
the questions" but requested additional landscaping and suggested looping in the Public Works Director. AVX requested the formal application materials. No further substantive communication has occurred.
• Present: More than sixteen months after AVX's initial inquiry, the City has not scheduled the project for Planning Commission review or provided a clear path to approval.

The City's regulatory classification is legally incorrect. AV's proposed facility is a point-to-point fixed microwave link providing backhaul for AVX's wireline telephone network—it is not a "personal wireless service facility" under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7). Point- to-point microwave links supporting wireline service constitute telephone plant and facilities under California Public Utilities Code § 7901, not CMRS infrastructure subject to small cell/5G siting frameworks.

The City's application of its wireless ordinance is discriminatory. In its communications with the City, AVX specifically referenced existing facilities at the proposed Buena Vista Point location, including a dish operated by "Lokket" (another provider) and similar microwave equipment operated by Catalina Broadband Solutions on Wrigley Road.

AVX's CEO noted that AVX designed its proposed installation to be "lower than the existing Lokket antenna" at the City's recommendation. Neither Lokket nor Catalina Broadband Solutions was required to obtain Conditional Use Permits or Planning Commission approval under the new wireless ordinance for their existing facilities. Only AVX the new competitive entrant seeking to provide an alternative to the incumbent—-has been subjected to these requirements.

WC Docket No. 25-253
The discriminatory enforcement extends to facilities installed after the ordinance took effect. AVX has documented at least one point-to-point microwave installation on the island that was completed in approximately September 2025more than a year after the City adopted its wireless facilities ordinance-without obtaining the Conditional Use Permits, Site Plan Reviews, Coastal Development Permits, or Planning Commission approvals that the City is requiring of AVX. FCC license records confirm new microwave authorizations were issued in September 2025 for facilities on the island. This is a new installation, not a modification to an existing facility: the equipment is mounted on a temporary tripod placed on stacked cinder blocks, with fresh ground disturbance visible, no permanent foundation, no landscaping, and surface-laid conduit-—none of the stealth, concealment, or aesthetic Separately, AVX is aware of in-place equipment upgrades by other providers that, under the City's new wireless ordinance, should have required at least administrative approval and documentation, yet no such permits appear to have been sought or issued. The City's selective enforcement of its wireless ordinance-requiring full Planning Commission review for the new competitive entrant while permitting incumbents and their wholesale providers to install new facilities and upgrade existing ones without such review creates a barrier to entry that "prohibit[s] or ha[s] the effect of prohibiting" telecommunications service in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 253(a).

III. RESPONSE TO INITIAL COMMENTS
AVX's experience on Catalina Island validates and reinforces the concerns raised by initial commenters in this proceeding.

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation ("ITIF") recommended that the Commission use Section 253 to "establish guardrails against prohibitive requirements that waste resources and impede efficient broadband deployment." AVX strongly supports this recommendation. The Catalina Island situation demonstrates that absent meaningful federal intervention, isolated communities will remain disconnected despite available funding and community support.

ACA Connects stated that "virtually every Member has a permitting or ROW 'horror story.! Sometimes the government review process is endless." The Catalina Island project exemplifies this concern. AVX has secured nearly $38 million in federal funding, obtained CPUC approval, and garnered unanimous community support—yet remains unable to deploy because a single municipality refuses to act on routine ROW requests while simultaneously misapplying CMRS regulations to wireline backhaul facilities.

USTelecom described a "five-month process" employed by one mid-Atlantic city.

While five months is concerning, AV's experience demonstrates that some municipalities engage in indefinite delay—never formally denying an application, but simply refusing to process it or schedule it for decision. AVX's microwave facility inquiry has now been pending for more than sixteen months with no scheduled hearing date. This de facto moratorium approach is particularly pernicious because it provides no avenue for appeal or challenge.
11/

WC Docket No. 25-253
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on AV's experience, the Company respectfully recommends the Commission adopt the following measures:

A. Mandatory Shot Clocks with Deemed-Granted Remedies. The Commission should establish mandatory shot clocks for municipal action on access to the ROW and permit applications, with deemed-granted remedies for failure to act. Without enforceable deadlines, municipalities can effectively veto federal broadband policy through simple inaction.

B. Section 253 Preemption for Federally-Funded Projects. Projects funded through BEAD, the Federal Funding Account, or other federal programs should receive enhanced protection under Section 253. Municipal obstruction of these projects frustrates federal policy and wastes taxpayer resources.

C. Clarification Regarding Wireline Backhaul Facilities. The Commission should clarify that point-to-point fixed microwave links and other transmission facilities used to provide backhaul for wireline services are not subject to CMRS siting regulations under 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7), regardless of the transmission medium. Municipalities should not be permitted to apply small cell/5G permitting frameworks to wireline telephone corporation facilities simply because those facilities include a wireless transmission component.

D. Transparency and Documentation Requirements. Municipalities should be required to provide written explanations for denials or delays, with specific identification of deficiencies and clear remediation paths and concrete timelines for these actions.

E. Expedited Commission Review Process. The Commission should establish an expedited review process for complaints regarding municipal obstruction, particularly for federally-funded projects with time-sensitive deployment requirements.

V. CONCLUSION
The Catalina Island situation demonstrates that without meaningful federal intervention, isolated communities will continue to be left behind. AVX has secured federal grant funding, obtained all required state regulatory approvals, and garnered unanimous community support yet remains unable to deploy because at least two municipal employees and consultant in a community whose ROW is necessary to deliver telecommunications services has failed to act on routine ROW requests while simultaneously misapplying CMRS regulations to wireline facilities and enforcing those regulations in a discriminatory manner against new competitive entrants. The Commission's Build America agenda cannot succeed if local governments can effectively veto national broadband policy through simple inaction or selective regulatory enforcement.

AVX respectfully urges the Commission to adopt strong remedial measures in this proceeding.

WC Docket No. 25-253
Respectfully submitted,
December 18, 2025 Lance Ware
Chief Executive Officer
AVX Networks LLC
310-510-6924
[email protected]
Counsel:

Anita Taff-Rice, Esq.
iCommLaw
1547 Palos Verdes #298
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
(415) 699-7885
[email protected]

BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Infrastructure ) WT Docket No. 25-276 Investment
Modernizing Wireline Infrastructure Policies WC Docket No. 25-253

NOTICE OF EX PARTE PRESENTATION OF AVX NETWORKS
Oral and Written Ex Parte Presentation - March 18, 2026 I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b), AVX Networks hereby submits this notice of an oral and written ex parte presentation made on March 18, 2026, to staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) in connection with WT Docket No. 25-276. This notice is also filed in WC Docket No. 25-253, in which AVX is a party of record having filed reply comments on December 18, 2025.

AVX Networks (CPUC Certificate U-7406-C) is a California-certificated telephone corporation and competitive local exchange carrier (CLEC) currently deploying a $37.5 million CPUC Federal Funding Account submarine fiber broadband project to Catalina Island pursuant to CPUC Resolution T-17896 (December 18, 2025). AVX holds the same statutory rights-of-way as AT&T California under California Public Utilities Code § 7901 and the same federal protections under 47 U.S.C. § 253.

II. PERSONS ATTENDING THE MARCH 18, 2026 PRESENTATION
The following persons attended or participated in the oral ex parte presentation made to WTB Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division on March 18, 2026:

Jeffrey Bartlett Meeting Organizer - WTB, Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division (FCC)
Allison Jones Required Attendee - FCC Staff
John Lockwood Required Attendee - FCC Staff
Garnet Hanly Optional Attendee - FCC Staff
Kari Hicks Optional Attendee - FCC Staff
Additional FCC Staff One additional FCC staff attendee present in room - name and title not confirmed
Lance Ware CEO, AVX Networks - Presenting Party (CPUC U-7406-C) III. WRITTEN MATERIALS LEFT WITH COMMISSION STAFF
The following written documents were provided to WTB staff at the March 18, 2026 meeting and are incorporated herein by reference as exhibits to this ex parte notice:
• Exhibit A — Written Leave-Behind (3 pages): "AVX Networks — Ex Parte Notice, WT Docket No. 25-276, March 18, 2026." Comparator table, moratorium instruments, discriminatory treatment documentation, and relevance to WT 25-276. Filed herewith. • Exhibit B — Photo Presentation Deck (10 slides): "AVX Networks — Catalina Island Documented Test Case, WT Docket No. 25-276." Photographic documentation of competing provider installations and moratorium timeline. Filed herewith. • Exhibit C — Cal OES PRA-542 Responsive Records (2 pages): California Governor's Office of Emergency Services CPRA response (June 4, 2024), Bates-stamped Hill PRA542 0001.

Documents six major E911 outages at ZIP 90704 (Catalina Island), January-May 2024, totaling 53+ hours including a single 30-hour event in April 2024. Official state emergency management records. Filed herewith.

IV. SUMMARY OF ORAL PRESENTATION
The oral presentation substantially tracked the content of Exhibits A, B, and C. The following summarizes the substance of the arguments and data presented.

A. AVX Networks and the Catalina Island Project
AVX presented its status as a CPUC-certificated telephone corporation and CLEC holding the same § 7901 statutory ROW rights as AT&T California. AVX described its $37.5 million CPUC FFA grant (Resolution T-17896, December 18, 2025) for deployment of submarine fiber optic cable to Catalina Island - a community of approximately 4,000 permanent residents and 1 million-plus annual visitors that the CPUC formally declared 100% unserved. AVX noted the following documented public safety urgencies:
• E911 failure record: Cal OES records produced under California PRA (PRA-542, Bates stamped Hill PRA542 0001) document six major E911 outages at ZIP code 90704 (Catalina Island) between January 1 and May 17, 2024 alone, totaling more than 53 hours of documented 911 service loss. The April 2024 event lasted approximately 30 hours. A subsequent request for the full historical record (PRA-663) was withheld by Cal OES, citing carrier confidentiality under PUC § 583 — confirming that carrier-specific outage records exist and are being shielded from disclosure.
• PSAP routing vulnerability: The Catalina Island PSAP (Public Safety Answering Point) currently routes 911 calls off-island via AT&T microwave to a mainland PSAP and back. When AT&T's microwave link fails, the island has no 911 answering capability - not degraded service, but zero. AVX had pre-operational discussions with Cal OES about providing a redundant PSAP backhaul path. The City's obstruction of AV's microwave installation is directly blocking that redundancy.
• FAA VOR navigation facility: Catalina Island Airport hosts a FAA VOR (VHF Omnidirectional Range) - a federally mandated navigation aid serving as a GPS backup for instrument approaches by international and domestic flights into LAX. AT&T is decommissioning its copper network serving this facility with no fiber replacement offered. AV holds a contract to provide voice and data service to this federal facility. The City's permit obstruction prevents AVX from activating the licensed microwave circuit that would serve it. • Critical Access Hospital: Catalina Island Hospital is LA County's only Critical Access Hospital. It cannot support reliable telehealth on current infrastructure. AT&T copper is being decommissioned; CBS does not offer voice infrastructure. AT&T is decommissioning its copper plant with no fiber replacement offered. AVX committed in its CPUC grant application to offering voice service and will assume COLR obligations upon activation - the only carrier with such a commitment for this community, and the only path to a functioning redundant 911-capable wireline network on the island. AVX explicitly committed to offering voice service in its CPUC grant application and confirmed this commitment at the March 18, 2026 presentation.

B. The Equipment at Issue and Discriminatory Treatment
AVX described its proposed installation: a CommScope 11GHz point-to-point microwave backhaul link, 4-foot dish on a 5-foot mast, non-CMRS, FCC Part 101 licensed, a wireline backhaul facility not a small cell or CMRS installation. AV presented documented comparator evidence of how the City of Avalon treated other providers at identical or similar city-owned locations during the same period:

Provider Equipment Treatment
Lokket / Extreme WiFi Wireless antenna, Buena Vista One-page TUP, City Manager signature (Jan. 22 Point - same location as AVX 2020). Expired Apr. 23, 2020. No permit since request City replaced with Starlink (Mar. 2026)
Equipment abandoned in place 2+ seasons at no
cost
GeoLinks FCC-licensed PtP microwave, Zero permits. Zero CUP. Zero aesthetic review. within City of Avalon jurisdiction, Zero environmental clearance. Installed tripod on cinder blocks, surface September 2025 — one year after wireless conduit, discarded lead acid ordinance adopted
batteries on site
Catalina Broadband Microwave upgrades and No permits identified for post-ordinance work Solutions (CBS) antenna replacements CBS received city-coordinated conduit stub-out post-ordinance adoption, within during Five Corners Project construction AVX's City of Avalon jurisdiction, conduit route submission was never unmetered city power acknowledged
AVX Networks - CommScope 11GHz PtP, 4' Zero permits. Full CUP required. Planning CPUC U-7406-C dish on 5' mast. Non-CMRS. 9 Commission review. Stealth/concealment. 7901 CLEC. 9-item checklist including environmental
clearance and perimeter fence construction
20+ months. Active de facto moratorium
C. The Moratorium and Its Instruments
AVX presented evidence that the moratorium predated the ordinance used to justify it. The City's contract planner (SageCrest Planning+Environmental) wrote directly to AVX on July 23, 2024 — six weeks before the wireless ordinance was adopted:
"Until these regulations are amended, the City is unlikely to proceed with review of applications for wireless facilities on city-owned or controlled property." AVX's application predated both the moratorium and the ordinance. GeoLinks installed FCC-licensed PtP microwave equipment at city-owned property one year after the ordinance was adopted - with zero permits. AVX still has none.

AVX further presented that: (1) the City's outside counsel (Best Best & Krieger LLP, BBK) subsequently acknowledged to AV's regulatory counsel that the wireless ordinance does not apply to AV's equipment — yet the City's response was a 9-item improvement checklist; (2) Item 9 of the checklist ("Provide environmental clearance documents") was not raised at the site walk meeting at which the checklist was discussed, was not required of Lokket, GeoLinks, or CBS at the same location, and appeared for the first time in the written document issued after the meeting; (3) Item 4 requires AVX to build or extend municipal perimeter fencing as a condition of accessing a power meter - not required of any other provider.

Obstruction Confirmed as of March 10-11, 2026 - Ten Days Before This Filing: AVX conducted a site walk at Buena Vista Point on March 10, 2026 with City Public Works Director Robert Greenlaw, City Manager David Maistros, AVX construction consultant Josh Olsen, and a sitting City Council member. City staff agreed on the same installation location AVX proposed approximately two years ago. Mr. Greenlaw described AV's drawings as 'good.' No geotech study, PE stamp, or environmental clearance was raised during the meeting. The following day, March 11, 2026, Mr. Greenlaw issued a 9-item written checklist that included Item 3 (RF safe zone documentation - applying CMRS ordinance requirements to non-CMRS equipment), Item 4 (construction of a new fence and gate not required of any other provider), and Item 9 (environmental clearance documents not raised at the site walk and not required of Lokket, GeoLinks, or CBS at the same or similar locations). The checklist routes processing through SageCrest Planning - the same contract planner who issued AVX's written moratorium on July 23, 2024. The moratorium and its instruments remain active as of the date of this filing.

D. On-the-Record Public Statement
AVX presented the following public statement made by a former Mayor Pro Tem of the City of Avalon at a noticed City Council meeting on March 3, 2026:
"AVX has sought basic approvals from the city including a microwave point-to-point permit - standard wireless equipment similar to installations elsewhere on the island - from the outside it appears that AV is being held to a different or shifting standard. As they move through the city's processes, requirements seem to change creating delays that hinder progress on a project that benefits this entire community." AVX submitted that "different or shifting standard" constitutes discriminatory ROW management and a loss of the § 253(c) safe harbor - and that this is not AVX's allegation, but an on-the-record public statement by a former city official at a noticed council meeting, left standing without response.

E. BBK's Conflict of Interest in This Docket
AVX noted that BBK filed reply comments in WT Docket No. 25-276 on February 4, 2026, on behalf of a 30-city municipal coalition opposing WTB authority (ECFS ID: 102042089917318; authors:

Karish, Lederer, Leanza, Lay) - the same date BBK launched a public webinar series teaching cities how to manage wireline ROW - while simultaneously advising the City of Avalon to impose the exact practices this proceeding targets.

V. RELEVANCE TO WT DOCKET NO. 25-276 AND REQUESTS
AVX presented the following as a documented test case for the Commission's inquiry into the discriminatory application of wireless permitting rules as barriers to wireline deployment, and made the following requests:

Ask 1 - Named Test Accept AVX/Avalon as a documented test case in WT Docket No. 25-276 - a Case: CMRS-based wireless ordinance selectively applied to a non-CMRS wireline CLEC while FCC-licensed wireless operators at identical city locations required zero permits.

Ask 2 - De Facto The Commission's authority to address de facto moratoria is directly at issue.

Moratorium The moratorium here predated the ordinance used to justify it, confirmed in Authority: writing by the City's own contract planner. AVX requests that the Commission address this pattern in its WT 25-276 order or companion rulemaking.

Ask 3 - BBK BBK filed in this exact docket on February 4, 2026 opposing WTB authority Conflict in This (ECFS 102042089917318) — while simultaneously billing the City of Avalon to Docket: impose the practices this proceeding targets. AVX requests that the Commission take notice of this conflict in evaluating BBK's municipal coalition filing.

Ask 4 - Bureau AVX requests that WTB and WCB coordinate on this fact pattern. AVX is a Coordination: party of record in WC Docket No. 25-253 and the same law firm is advising the same city on parallel wireline and wireless obstruction strategies. The facts are specific, contemporaneous, and verifiable on the public record.

Ask 5 - Federal AVX requests that the Commission note that the obstructed installation would Public Safety serve a FAA VOR navigation facility (GPS backup for LAX approaches), the Facilities: island's PSAP 911 backhaul path, and a Critical Access Hospital — all currently dependent on a single AT&T microwave path that Cal OES documents show has failed six times in unreliable AT&T; legacy copper and microwave infrastructure with no documented redundancy — Cal OES records show this infrastructure failed six times in 4.5 months. The selective blocking of redundant federal pubtelecommunications infrastructure warrants the Commission's particular attention.

Respectfully submitted,
AVX Networks
CPUC Certificate U-7406-C
By: Lance Ware, Chief Executive Officer
[email protected] | 949-394-7099
Regulatory Counsel: Anita Taff-Rice
iCommLaw | [email protected]
Filed: March 20, 2026
This ex parte notice is filed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b) within two business days of the March 18, 2026 oral presentation. Exhibits A, B, and C (written leave-behind, photo deck, and Cal OES E911 records) are filed herewith in their native format via ECFS in both WT Docket No. 25-276 and WC Docket No. 25-253.

AVX NETWORKS
Ex Parte Notice • WC Docket No. 25-253 • March 19, 2026 Meeting with WCB Competition Policy Division • Party of Record [email protected] Party & Background
AVX Networks (CUCU-7406-C) is a California certificated telephone corporation and facilities-based CLEC with the same §7901 statutory ROW rights as AT&T. AVX filed reply comments in WC Docket No. 25-253 on December 18, 2025. AVX has engaged directly with FCC mapping staff on Catalina Island coverage data in connection with the incumbent's POTS retirement and COLR proceedings.

Community Context
Location Healthcare Visitors Broadband Status
1M+ annual visitors. AT&T 4- 100% unserved. Confirmed
Catalina Island, CA 26 miles LA County's only Critical day outage July 4, 2025. offshore No road access Access Hospital. Cannot do Multiple overlapping provider by FCC fabric map 4,000 residents reliable telehealth. outages. 911 degradation challenge AND CPUC service quality analysis.
documented.

Five Years of Private Investment
• Obtained CPUC CPCN U-7406-C - full facilities-based telephone corporation certification • Self-funded microwave backhaul infrastructure to establish interim service • Successfully challenged incumbent's overstated FCC coverage filings without any City support to correct the record or encourage competition
• Engaged CPUC mapping staff on POTS retirement and COLR proceedings as incumbent announced withdrawal • Awarded $37.5M CPUC Last Mile broadband grant - Resolution T-17896, unanimous CPUC approval December 18, 2025. Two redundant submarine cables, ~69 miles, Catalina to Huntington Beach. In active deployment.

ROW Agreement - AT&T: 0 Pages. AVX: 30 Pages.

Provider Regulatory Status ROW Agreement
S7901 Rights Status
Pages
0 pages. No
standalone
agreement. City staff
AT&T + Crown CPUC-certificated Yes confirmed in writing Castle telephone corporation Feb. 24, 2026: §7901 Operating freely. utilities "may not
necessarily" require
Whittier / GCCOG oint Powers Entit
oes NOT hold $790 Executed. Grant
(comparable CPUC No i pages. BBK drafted proceeding in other grant) uthority. Does NO
old §253 right member cities.

AVX Networks - CPUC-certificated 30 pages. BBK- $37.5M federal grant CPUC U-7406-C telephone drafted. Franchise- blocked.
corporation - like obligations. Dark
identical §7901 fiber dedication. In-
status to AT&T. kind compensation.

AV submitted its
own draft July 15,
2025 - as requested
by the city. No
Provider ROW Agreement
Regulatory Status 97901 Rights Status
Pages
response. Not
executed. 8 months.

The arithmetic is simple: AT&T - 0 pages. Whittier/GCCOG, which holds neither §7901 franchise rights nor §253 authority - 6 pages, used by other Gateway Cities Council of Governments (a Joint Powers Authority of which Avalon is a member).

AVX, a §7901 certificated telephone corporation with identical rights to AT&T and a $37.5M federal grant - 30 pages from BB&K firm, 8 months after AVX provided a draft ROW, along with a full explanation of our rights to the City Manager, Public Works/Capital Improvements Director, at their request. The city's own staff acknowledged in writing on February 24, 2026 that 37901 utilities may not need a standalone ROW agreement at all. The 30-page demand is not ROW management. It is a BBåK's Of Counsel, Bennett Givens, assigned to draft the Avalon ROW agreement wrote in January 2025 that he was "continuing to research what exactly the City owns and controls" in its own rights-of-way -while AT&T has occupied that same ROW for decades without any agreement, and while BB&K accepted the 6-page GCCOG agreement in other cities, for an entity with far fewer legal rights.

The Obstruction - §253 Case Study
What AVX Has What Competitors Required What AVX Was Required CPUC CPCN U-7406-C §7901 statutory Lokket: one-page TUP, expired Apr. Full CUP + Planning Commission franchise Same ROW rights as AT&T 2020, abandoned. City replaced with Stealth/concealment requirements $37.5M CPUC grant, awarded FCC Starlink (confirmed Mar. 2026). Aesthetic review Microwave: 23+ party of record WC 25-253 POTS/COLR Structure occupied at no cost, no months (Apr 2024) ROW draft: 8 engagement with FCC CPUC confirmed response. GeoLinks: Sept. 2025 months (Jul 2025) Dark fiber 100% unserved installation confirmed no permits. Prior demands Still no approval installations not independently verified.

CBS: No permits identified for post-
ordinance upgrades and antenna
replacements. Initial buildout not
independently verified. AT&T / Crown
Castle: no standalone ROW agreement
(city staff confirmed in writing, Feb.

The City's Three Mutually Exclusive Positions
Situation The City's Position - Public Record §253 Consequence "This is the broadband application that
City claims credit for the $37.5M federal we had submitted through an outside City claims to be the grantee - while grant vendor." (City Manager report to refusing to grant the actual grantee a council, Mar. 18, 2025, public record) ROW agreement
AVX asks for a ROW agreement to Silence. Formal ROW draft submitted Effective prohibition under §253(a). build the grant the city claims to have July 2025. 8 months later a 30 page §253(c) safe harbor forfeited. submitted one-sided counteroffer.

You cannot invoke ROW management authority only when it gives you leverage over a builder - while disclaiming operational role in the industry you are regulating. The §253(c) safe harbor requires both reasonable and nondiscriminatory On the Public Record
Former Mayor Pro Tem, City of Avalon, public statement to the City Council, March 3, 2026:
'AVX has sought basic approvals from the city including a microwave point-to-point permit - standard wireless equipment similar to installations elsewhere on the island - from the outside it appears that AVX is being held to a different or shifting standard. As they move through the city's processes, requirements seem to change creating delays that hinder progress on a project that benefits this entire community. Each month of delay is another month our residents, hospitals, schools, and businesses continue to operate without reliable connectivity that they urgently This is not AVX's allegation. It is a former city official's public statement, left standing on the council record without response. "Different or shifting standard" is the §253(c) safe harbor test. The city fails it on its own record.

Resolution 22-47 (August 2022): The Avalon City Council unanimously committed to waive permitting fees for broadband grantees, expedite broadband permit processing, and implement Dig Once coordination. Confirmed on the public record by the city's former Mayor Pro Tem on March 3, 2026: it "has not been" implemented. No fee waiver. No expedited review. No permit of any kind. Three and a half years.

The wireless ordinance governing every AVX permit was drafted by BBK, passed on the consent calendar with zero discussion and zero public hearing on September 3, 2024 - five months after AV's permits had been pending for 18+ months. At that same meeting, a city official stated the city "does not control broadband." It then enacted an ordinance controlling who can build it.

In July 2025, AVX formally notified the city that it had active open trenches in the ROW - and that AVX had the right to place its §7901 facilities in those trenches while open. Dig Once is city policy under Resolution 22-47. The city did not respond. The trenches closed. AVX's costs to re-open them are now materially higher.

AVX's Position in WC Docket No. 25-253
• AVX supports the Commission's authority under §253 to address de facto moratoria, discriminatory ROW treatment, and in-kind demands imposed on certificated CLECs.
• Shot clocks with deemed-granted remedies would have resolved AVX's situation 18 months ago and enabled deployment in a 100% unserved community.
• The City's outside counsel - Best Best & Krieger LLP - filed reply comments in WC Docket No. 25-253 on December 18, 2025 opposing this proceeding on behalf of a 25-city municipal coalition (Karish, Lederer, Leanza, Lay) - while billing the City of Avalon to impose the exact practices being targeted. BBK also filed in WT Docket No. 25-276 on February 4, 2026. Same firm. Same authors. Both dockets. Both days. • AVX respectfully requests the Commission consider Catalina Island as a documented §253 case study as it develops rules in this proceeding.
• A §253(d) petition for declaratory ruling was filed by Gigapower LLC on December 22, 2025 seeking preemption for local ROW obstruction. AV's facts are stronger: a named federal award, ARPA/State funds at stake, and city officials' own admissions in the public record. AVX is prepared to file a parallel §253(d) petition or participate as a similarly situated party.

AVX has filed reply comments in WC Docket No. 25-253.

Lance Ware, CEO AVX Networks (CUCU-7406-C) • [email protected] Regulatory Counsel: Anita Taff-Rice, CommLaw ([email protected]) scott. campbell
Monday, June 22, 2026
15:56:57
Notice of Ex Parte Presentaion of AVX Networks.pdf

AVX NETWORKS
PO Box 172, Avalon, California 90704
CPUC U-7406-C
June 13, 2026

VIA ECFS
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
45 L Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20554
Re: Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments (Docket No. 25-253); Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments (Docket No. 25- 276)
Dear Secretary Dortch:

Pursuant to Section 1.1206(b)(2) of the Commission's rules, AVX Networks ("AVX") submits this response to the ex parte communication filed by the City of Avalon on May 22, 2026.

The City's filing states that Avalon "wants modern broadband communications infrastructure" and "shares AVX's goal" of broadband deployment on Catalina Island. Yet rather than focusing time and resources on preparing a right-of-way agreement for AVX, the City has chosen to prepare a multi-page, counterproductive ex parte filing.

While AVX takes issue with many of the assertions in the ex parte communication, it will not attempt to rebut them point by point. AVX observes only that the filing itself confirms the conduit at issue exists, that the matching funds were committed, and that the supporting resolutions were adopted without dissent. AVX confirms that it continues to be committed to overcoming obstacles to complete the much needed FFA project for Catalina Island, which has been designated as 100 percent unserved. Outside counsel for Avalon has consistently adopted an oddly litigious and aggressive mindset for what should be a routine permit and right of way agreement process.

AVX will not attempt to guess at the reasons. What it will do is continue to work to deliver much-needed broadband to the unserved population of Avalon and Catalina Island in the most efficient and effective way possible. AV continues to hope that local leaders will rally around the project that they publicly support and release the $100,000 fund already approved. Such symbolic support would provide AV with some assurance that Avalon leadership is prepared to facilitate the broadband project. Even if Avalon chooses not to follow through on the approved funding, A VX expects the city to proceed to approve a right of way agreement and to issue permits expeditiously to make up for lost time.

The City acknowledges in its ex parte filing that this matter is a set of local permitting questions. The problem is that the City does not have written, uniform and non-discriminatory set of requirements with which AVX can comply. Nonetheless, AVX has attempted to resolve the issue across a table rather than in legal proceedings. The Commission's open proceeding examining local obstructions to installation of broadband facilities and possible preemption of such obstructions provides a welcome opportunity for relief.

Across the country, broadband deployment is delayed less by any shortage of willing carriers or funding than by lack of local processes (or lack thereof) that generate disputes, delays and legal fees for local residents waiting for leaders to work productively to close the digital divide.

The aggressive attitude in the ex parte filing, opposing a funded project that Avalon's Council endorsed, is surprising and appears to be an effort to punish AVX for contributing to the Commission's understanding of concrete difficulties faced by wireline providers seeking to deploy broadband. Such approach is inappropriate and is at odds with the interest of Avalon residents.

To put the Avalon ex parte filing in context, AV notes the following sequence of events.

A VX filed comments identifying difficulties it had experienced in Avalon attempting to get a right- of-way agreement and permits for last-mile fiber that will interconnect with its $37.5 million FFA submarine fiber project linking Catalina Island with the California mainland. AVX filed those comments on December 18, 2025, the day the California Public Utilities Commission awarded the FFA grant in recognition that Avalon's substantial delays in processing AV's rights-of-way agreement could become an impediment. The FFA award triggered the requirement for Avalon to release $100,000 in matching funding approved two years ago for the FFA project.

AVX anticipated that the funding would be released in January 2026 at the city council meeting, but the item was not on the city council meeting agenda. To date the funding has not been placed on a city council agenda or released to AVX. Instead, strangely, the City has held three different closed-door sessions apparently discussing possible litigation with AVX despite no such threat from AVX. Therefore, AVX can only assume that the City understands that it has exposed itself to legal liability due to its obstruction of issuing a right-of-way agreement or permits and its delay in approving AVX's proposed microwave installation until a new more onerous wireless ordinance could be enacted.

If the City wants broadband, as it states, the answer is not to penalize AVX for responding to the Commission's request for information about carrier difficulties in deploying broadband facilities. AV continues to hope the City will reverse course and execute a nondiscriminatory right-of-way agreement, release the $100,000 in approved funding, and direct its outside counsel to facilitate rather than litigate. The facts are that AV's project is the largest award in Avalon's history, and is needed to fill a critical gap in communications services for geographically isolated residents on Catalina Island, many of whom are low-income.

AVX is prepared to finish the submarine cable and hopes that the City leadership will ensure that AVX can build the last-mile network needed to connect Catalina residents to the facility.

Respectfully submitted,
Lance Ware
Chief Executive Officer
AVX Networks