California Assembly Bill AB57 Amended / Bill

 BILL NUMBER: AB 57AMENDED 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.