” The order itself “acknowledges that local citizens and local government are often in a better position than the to measure local impact and to identify alternative sites. The role continues to be that of the agency of last resort, intervening only when a utility contends that local actions impede statewide goals …. In a 1996 opinion adopting the general order governing wireless facility construction, the PUC states the general order “recognize that primary authority regarding cell siting issues should continue to be deferred to local authorities…. The commission regulates “a utility’s relations with its customers”, the decision says, but municipalities “are forbidden from yielding to the PUC their police powers to protect the public from the adverse impacts of utilities operations”…Ĭonsistent with these statutes, the PUC’s default policy is one of deference to municipalities in matters concerning the design and location of wireless facilities. Nor does the authority given to the CPUC override local control or responsibilities. Moreover, the statute leaves room for additional local action and there are significant local interests relating to road use that may vary by jurisdiction. Instead, it has taken the limited step of guaranteeing that telephone corporations need not secure a local franchise to operate in the state or to construct local lines and equipment. The Legislature has not adopted a comprehensive regulatory scheme. Cities can’t effectively prohibit telecoms companies from building infrastructure or regulate their operations, but… The ruling said that state law only restricts some of the broad discretion and power that cities have under the California constitution. Section 7901 ensures that telephone companies are not required to obtain a local franchise, while the Ordinance ensures that lines and equipment will not unreasonably incommode public road use.īut municipal authority goes beyond that, according to the Supreme Court. The statute and the ordinance can operate in harmony. Neither the plain language of section 7901 nor the manner in which it has been interpreted by courts and the PUC supports plaintiffs’ argument that the Legislature intended to preempt local regulation based on aesthetic considerations. Today’s California Supreme Court decision endorsed that finding… the visual impact of ugly equipment falls within the dictionary definition of incommoding. section 7901 of the California public utilities code says telecoms infrastructure can’t “incommode the public use of the road or highway”, and 2. The unanimous opinion also opened the door to further regulation of cell sites and other telecoms facilities – wired or wireless – by drawing a line between specific limits the legislature put on local oversight of construction activities, and the general ability of cities to set standards for the appearance, placement and, potentially, other aspects of wireless equipment after it’s built.Īn earlier appellate court decision ruled that cities can set aesthetic standards for wireless facilities because 1. Its interpretation goes beyond lower court decisions and adopts a narrower view of state-level restrictions on municipal control of telecommunications infrastructure.
In a landmark decision, the California Supreme Court gave cities a major victory today, ruling that the way San Francisco regulates the appearance of wireless facilities is legal, and isn’t preempted by state law or California Public Utilities Commission regulations.
0 kommentar(er)
