08 Crown Castle DAS - City Council - City of Davis
08 Crown Castle DAS - City Council - City of Davis
08 Crown Castle DAS - City Council - City of Davis
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
7901.1.<br />
CPUC Action (See Application <strong>of</strong> NextG Networks <strong>of</strong> California,Inc. (U6745C) for<br />
Authority to Engage in Ground-Disturbing Outside Plant Construction (CPUC D. 11-01-<br />
027 and D. 10-10-007)) – The CPUC prepared a negative declaration for NextG’s<br />
project. NextG also challenged NextG’s right to access the PROW under PUC §§ 7901<br />
and 7901.1, asserting that NextG, which like NewPath builds facilities for wireless<br />
providers but does not directly provide wireless services, was not a “telephone<br />
corporation” and that its facilities were not “telephone lines” under PUC § 7901.<br />
o The CPUC disagreed and concluded that NextG is a “telephone corporation”<br />
permitted to use the PROW pursuant to PUC § 7901 and that the CPUC granted<br />
NextG a CPCN as a telephone corporation.<br />
o The CPUC further concluded that PUC § 7901 applies to wireless carriers, as well<br />
as wireline carriers, because the definition <strong>of</strong> a “telephone line” is broad enough<br />
to reach wireless equipment.<br />
o According the CPUC, the applicability <strong>of</strong> PUC § 7901 is a determination that lies<br />
exclusively with the CPUC in its regulation <strong>of</strong> telephone corporations (i.e., the<br />
CPUC asserts it has exclusive jurisdiction to decide applicability <strong>of</strong> PUC § 7901).<br />
o The validity <strong>of</strong> the CPUC’s decision is now pending before the Fourth District<br />
Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal, Division 3 (Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal Case No. G044796).<br />
State Court Action – NextG challenged the city’s application <strong>of</strong> its undergrounding and<br />
permitting requirements to NextG under PUC §§ 7901 and 7901.1. The city likewise<br />
challenged NextG’s authority to access the city’s PROW under PUC § 7901.<br />
o In February 2011, the trial court agreed with the CPUC’s ruling that NextG was a<br />
“telephone corporation” and that its wireless facilities were “telephone lines”<br />
pursuant to PUC § 7901.<br />
o The Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal stayed the trial court action pending resolution <strong>of</strong> its review<br />
<strong>of</strong> the CPUC’s decision in Case No. G044796 (see Court <strong>of</strong> Appeal Case No.<br />
G045030). A status conference is currently set in the trial court for April 13,<br />
2012.<br />
82504.09001\7355456.2 - 10 -<br />
04-03-12 <strong>City</strong> <strong>Council</strong> Meeting <strong>08</strong> - 14