06.07.2013 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!