#PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 7901.1 INSTALL#

The larger controversy is over the second question for the state Supreme Court: Does a provision in § 7901.1 permitting local governments to control the ‘time place and manner’ in which telephone corporations access roads give a local government the ability to regulate the aesthetics of telecommunications towers in the public right-of-way? Cities and counties contend that they may use the § 7901.1 provision to regulate the location, height and appearance of antennas.

#PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 7901.1 INSTALL#

The first question for the state Supreme Court is this: Do Public Utilities Code §§ 79.1 - which give “telephone corporations” the right to install lines and other fixtures in the public right-of-way - extend to wireless telecommunications providers? Lower courts have generally said yes. Circuit Court of Appeal decision striking down a similar ordinance in the City of La Cañada Flintridge was wrong (see CP&DR Legal Digest, August 2006). In June, the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld a San Diego County zoning ordinance that establishes a detailed permitting process for antennas - and said that a Ninth U.S. The second case involves an award of damages to the owner of an adult cabaret in San Bernardino who was subjected to an unconstitutional zoning ordinance.Įxactly how far local governments may go in regulating antennas has been the subject of extensive litigation during recent years. One of the accepted cases permits the state high court to delve into the touchy issue of local authority over wireless telecommunications antennas. Effective January 1, 2007.The California Supreme Court has recently accepted two land use cases and ordered an appellate court decision regarding fees to be depublished. (d) A local entity may not enforce against the holder of a state franchise any rule, regulation, or ordinance that purports to allow the local entity to purchase or force the sale of a network. (5) Nothing in this section precludes an applicant and a local entity from mutually agreeing to an extension of any time limit provided by this section. (4) The local entity shall adopt regulations prescribing procedures for an applicant to appeal the denial of an encroachment permit application issued by a department of the local entity to the governing body of the local entity. (3) If the local entity denies an application for an encroachment permit, it shall, at the time of notifying the applicant of the denial, furnish to the applicant a detailed explanation of the reason for the denial. An application for an encroachment permit is complete when the applicant has complied with all statutory requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). (2) A local entity shall either approve or deny an application from a holder of a state franchise for an encroachment permit within 60 days of receiving a completed application. (c) (1) For purposes of this section, an “encroachment permit” means any permit issued by a local entity relating to construction or operation of facilities pursuant to this division. (b) Nothing in this division shall be construed to change existing law regarding the permitting process or compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) for projects by a holder of a state franchise. (a) The local entity shall allow the holder of a state franchise under this division to install, construct, and maintain a network within public rights-of-way under the same time, place, and manner as the provisions governing telephone corporations under applicable state and federal law, including, but not limited to, the provisions of Section 7901.1.

Public utilities code 7901.1