Amended in Senate July 8, 2015

Amended in Senate July 2, 2015

Amended in Assembly April 6, 2015

Amended in Assembly March 26, 2015

California Legislature—2015–16 Regular Session

Assembly Bill No. 57

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 begin delete a city or county is presumed to have failed to act within a reasonable time upon end delete a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility begin insert is deemed approved end insert if the city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within begin delete 90 days for a collocation application, or 150 days for a siting application other than a collocation application, and end delete begin insert the reasonable time periods specified in applicable decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, end insert all required public notices have been provided regarding the begin delete 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. end delete begin insert application, and the applicant has provided a notice to the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed. 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 1.  

Section 65964.1 is added to the Government
Code, to read:

65964.1.  

(a)  begin delete (1) end delete begin delete   end delete begin delete A city or county is presumed to have failed
to act within a reasonable time upon a end delete begin insert A end insert collocation begin insert or siting end insert
application for a begin delete previously permitted end delete wireless telecommunications
facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, begin insert shall be deemed approved end insert
if begin delete both end delete begin insert all end insert of the following occur:

begin delete

(A)

end delete

begin insert (1) end insert  The city or county fails to approve or disapprove the
begin delete completed end delete application within begin delete 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. end delete begin insert 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. end insert

begin delete

(B) All

end delete

begin insert (2) end insert begin insert   end insert begin insert The applicant has provided all end insert public notices regarding the
application begin delete have been provided end delete begin insert that the applicant is required to
provide under applicable laws end insert consistent with the public notice
requirements for the application.

begin delete

(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.

end delete begin insert

(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.

end insert begin insert

(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.

end insert begin insert

(b) This section does not apply to eligible facilities requests.

end insert begin delete

(b)

end delete

begin insert (c) end insert  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.

begin insert

(d) As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:

end insert begin insert

(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.

end insert begin insert

(2) “Eligible facilities request” has the same meaning as in
Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

end insert