Bill Text: CA AB57 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session | Amended

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Telecommunications: wireless telecommunication facilities.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Passed) 2015-10-09 - Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 685, Statutes of 2015. [AB57 Detail]

Download: California-2015-AB57-Amended.html

---

BILL NUMBER: AB 57	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	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  colocation
  collocation  or siting application for a wireless
telecommunications facility.
   This bill would provide that a  colocation  
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  the time periods established by the commission
  90 days for a collocation application, or 150 days for
a sit   ing   application other than a  
collocation application,  and 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 sit   ing application for a
wireless telecommunications facility. 
   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  colocation or
siting   city or county is presumed to have failed to
act within a reasonable time upon a collocation application for
a  previously permitted  wireless telecommunications
facility, as defined in Section 65850.6,  shall be deemed
approved  if both of the following occur: 
   (1) 
    (A)  The city or county fails to approve or disapprove
the  completed  application within  the time periods
established by the Federal Communications Commission in In re
Petition for Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994 (2009). 
 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.  
   (2) 
    (B)  All public notices regarding the application have
been provided 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. 
   (b) 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.