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 abegin delete colocationend deletebegin insert
collocationend insert or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility.
This bill would provide that abegin delete colocationend deletebegin insert city or county is presumed to have failed to act within a reasonable time upon a collocationend insert or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facilitybegin delete is deemed approved,end delete if the city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application withinbegin delete the time periods established by the commissionend deletebegin insert 90 days for a collocation application, or 150 days for a sitend insertbegin inserting
application other than a collocation application,end insert and all required public notices have been provided regarding the application.begin insert
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, end insertbegin inserta 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 sitend insertbegin inserting application for a wireless telecommunications facility.end insert
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
Section 65964.1 is added to the Government
2Code, to read:
(a) begin insert(1)end insertbegin insert end insertAbegin delete colocation or sitingend deletebegin insert city or county is
4presumed to have failed to act within a reasonable time upon a
5collocationend insert application for abegin insert previously permittedend insert wireless
6telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6,begin delete shall
if both of the following occur:
7be deemed approvedend delete
8(1)
end delete
9begin insert(A)end insert The city or county fails to approve or disapprove the
10begin insert completedend insert application withinbegin delete the time periods established by the begin insert 90 days. When
11Federal Communications Commission in In re Petition for
12Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994 (2009).end delete
13an application is incomplete as filed, the 90-day limitation does
14not
run during that period of time that it takes the applicant to
15respond to the city or county’s request for additional information.end insert
16(2)
end delete
17begin insert(B)end insert All public notices regarding the application have been
18provided consistent with the public notice requirements for the
19application.
P3 1(2) A city or county is presumed to have failed to act within a
2reasonable time upon a siting application for a wireless
3telecommunications facility, other than a collocation application,
4if both of the
following occur:
5(A) The city or county fails to approve or disapprove the
6completed application within 150 days. When an application is
7incomplete as filed, the 150-day limitation does not run during
8that period of time that it takes the applicant to respond to the city
9or county’s request for additional information.
10(B) All public notices regarding the application have been
11provided consistent with the public notice requirements for the
12application.
13(3) The 90-day and 150-day periods of paragraphs
(1) and (2)
14may be extended by mutual consent of the applicant and the city
15or county.
16(4) If a city or county fails to approve or disapprove an
17application for a collocation or siting application for a wireless
18telecommunications facility within a reasonable period of time,
19the application is deemed approved.
20(5) In any action in a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant
21to Section 332 (c)(7)(B)(v) of Title 47 of the United States Code,
22a city or county bears the burden of proof to disprove the
23presumption that it did not act within a reasonable time to approve
24or disapprove an application pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2).
25The grounds that the city or county may show
to overcome the
26presumption of a failure to act within a reasonable time include,
27but are not limited to, the following:
28(A) Novel or unusual circumstances prevented completion of
29review of the application within the 90-day or 150-day period.
30(B) A complete review of the application within the prescribed
3190-day or 150-day period would require the city or county to give
32preferential treatment to the applicant over other types of land use
33applications.
34(b) The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless
35telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact
in
36California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in
37Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a
38matter of statewide concern.
O
96