BILL NUMBER: AB 57 AMENDED
BILL TEXT
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 8, 2015
AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 2, 2015
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 6, 2015
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 26, 2015
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Quirk
DECEMBER 2, 2014
An act to add Section 65964.1 to the Government Code, relating to
telecommunications.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 57, as amended, Quirk. Telecommunications: wireless
telecommunication facilities.
Existing law requires a city, including a charter city, or county
to administratively approve an application for a collocation facility
on or immediately adjacent to a wireless telecommunications
collocation facility, as defined, through the issuance of a building
permit or a nondiscretionary permit, as specified. Existing law
prohibits a city or county from taking certain actions as a condition
of approval of an application for a permit for construction or
reconstruction for a development project for a wireless
telecommunications facility.
Under existing federal law, the Federal Communications Commission
issued a ruling establishing reasonable time periods within which a
local government is required to act on a collocation or siting
application for a wireless telecommunications facility.
This bill would provide that a city or county is presumed
to have failed to act within a reasonable time upon a
collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications
facility is deemed approved if the city or county fails to
approve or disapprove the application within 90 days for a
collocation application, or 150 days for a siting application other
than a collocation application, and the reasonable
time periods specified in applicable decisions of the Federal
Communications Commission, all required public notices have
been provided regarding the application. The bill would
authorize these periods to be extended by mutual consent of the
applicant and the city or county. The bill would provide that if a
city or county fails to approve or disapprove an application for
collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications
facility within a reasonable period of time, the application is
deemed approved. The bill would provide that, in any action in a
court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to a specified federal law,
a city or county bears the burden of proof to disprove the
presumption that it failed to act within a reasonable time to approve
a collocation or siting application for a wireless
telecommunications facility. application, and the
applicant has provided a notice to the city or county that the
reasonable time period has lapsed.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 65964.1 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
65964.1. (a) (1) A
city or county is presumed to have failed to act within a reasonable
time upon a A collocation or siting
application for a previously permitted wireless
telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6,
shall be deemed approved if both all
of the following occur:
(A)
(1) The city or county fails to approve or disapprove
the completed application within 90 days.
When an application is incomplete as filed, the 90-day limitation
does not run during that period of time that it takes the applicant
to respond to the city or county's request for additional
information. a reasonable period of time in accordance
with the time periods and procedures established by applicable FCC
decisions. The reasonable period of time may be tolled to accommodate
timely requests for information required to complete the application
or may be extended by mutual agreement between the
applicant and the local government, consistent with applicable FCC
decisions.
(B) All
(2) The applicant has provided all
public notices regarding the application have been
provided that the applicant is required to provide
under applicable laws consistent with the public notice
requirements for the application.
(2) A city or county is presumed to have failed to act within a
reasonable time upon a siting application for a wireless
telecommunications facility, other than a collocation application, if
both of the following occur:
(A) The city or county fails to approve or disapprove the
completed application within 150 days. When an application is
incomplete as filed, the 150-day limitation does not run during that
period of time that it takes the applicant to respond to the city or
county's request for additional information.
(B) All public notices regarding the application have been
provided consistent with the public notice requirements for the
application.
(3) The 90-day and 150-day periods of paragraphs (1) and (2) may
be extended by mutual consent of the applicant and the city or
county.
(4) If a city or county fails to approve or disapprove an
application for a collocation or siting application for a wireless
telecommunications facility within a reasonable period of time, the
application is deemed approved.
(5) In any action in a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to
Section 332 (c)(7)(B)(v) of Title 47 of the United States Code, a
city or county bears the burden of proof to disprove the presumption
that it did not act within a reasonable time to approve or disapprove
an application pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2). The grounds that
the city or county may show to overcome the presumption of a failure
to act within a reasonable time include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(A) Novel or unusual circumstances prevented completion of review
of the application within the 90-day or 150-day period.
(B) A complete review of the application within the prescribed
90-day or 150-day period would require the city or county to give
preferential treatment to the applicant over other types of land use
applications.
(3) (A) The applicant has provided notice to the city or county
that the reasonable time period has lapsed and that the application
is deemed approved pursuant to this section.
(B) Within 30 days of the notice provided pursuant to subparagraph
(A), the city or county may seek judicial review of the operation of
this section on the application.
(b) This section does not apply to eligible facilities requests.
(b)
(c) The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless
telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in
California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in
Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a
matter of statewide concern.
(d) As used in this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
(1) "Applicable FCC decisions" means In re Petition for
Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994 (2009) and In the Matter of
Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities
Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd. 12865 (2014), as they
may be modified or superseded by subsequent decisions of the Federal
Communications Commission.
(2) "Eligible facilities request" has the same meaning as in
Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.