ALJ/MAB/MOD-POD/jt2 Date of Issuance 6/16/2008

Decision 08-06-021 June 12, 2008

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Verizon California, Inc. a California corporation (U1002C), Complainant, vs. Paul M. Carrick III, an individual; Robert Mitchell Herman as Trustee of the Herman Family Trust, an individual; John N. Dukes, an individual; Gwyneth F. Dukes, an individual; Sidney Sue Slade as Successor Trustee of the MacDonald Family Trust UAD October 18, 1979, an individual; Paul R. Wilens, an individual; Cathy Wilens, an individual; Ramon Arredondo, an individual; Alice M. Reed, an individual; Sherry L. Wothers, an individual; Lawrence H. Selman, an individual; Martha Jean Selman, an individual; Brian Bean, an individual; Lawrence L. Howard, an individual; Armen Markarian, an individual; Hearst-Argyle Stations, Inc., a Nevada corporation; Consuelo L. Hernandez, an individual; Alan H. Reid, an individual; Kathleen Reid, an individual; Robert W. Tucker, an individual; Shelley Tucker, an individual; Leonard Steven Johnson, an individual; James P. Boyle, an individual; Angela M. Boyle, an individual; Elena Rauen, an individual; Kent A. Uhlenhopp, an individual; Shanne Carvalho, an individual; Barry Wothers, an individual; John Moore, an individual; Robert Ronald Cash, an individual; David Ow, an individual; Judd Wiesjahn, an individual; Annalisa Wiesjahn, an individual; Camilo Wilson, an individual; Anna Wilson, an individual; Irene Hall, an individual; Sarah Apostoleris, an individual; Jeff L. Osborn, an individual; Dana Matthew-Osborn, an individual; Stanley Towle, an individual; Cynthia A. Bird, an individual; Donald Brown, an individual; Charles W. Brown, an individual; David Tymn, an individual; Mark S. Hamlin, an individual; Thomas E. Atchison II, an individual; Rhonda Atchison, an individual; Faydra Atchison, an individual; Richard L. Wakeman, an individual; Dana Wakeman, an individual; The D'Orio Family, a limited partnership; Alicia P. Herman, an individual; Charles R. Cortsen, an individual; Susan P. Cortsen, an individual; Beatrice Supnet, an individual; Richard Nathanson, an individual; Xuan T. Casey, an individual; Yossef Zaguri, an individual; Arlette Sabag-Zaguri, an individual; Maryann C. Parsons, an individual; Debrae Joan Lopes, an individual; Michele Margaret Landegger, an individual; Richard Nohrden, an individual; Jeffery J. Bradford, an individual;  Scot S. Reid, an individual; Julie W. Reid, an individual; William A. Pryce, an individual; June R. Pryce, an individual; Sanjay Iyer, an individual; Asha Pandya, an individual; Richard C. Goldsmith, an individual; Laurie B. Goldsmith, an individual; Summit Road Association, an entity of unknown form, Defendants.

(EDM) Case 07-11-019 (Filed November 28, 2007)

(See Attachment F for Service List)

DECISION FINDING THAT CONDEMNATION
WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

DECISION FINDING THAT CONDEMNATION
WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST 22

1. Summary 22

2. Background 22

2.1. Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 22

2.2. California Public Utilities Commission 33

3. Description of the Property Proposed to be Condemned 44

4. Evidence 55

4.1. Verizon 55

4.2. Opposing Defendants 77

4.3. Mark Hamlin 88

5. Discussion of Substantive Issues 99

5.1. California Policy Encourages Widespread Deployment
of Advanced Telecommunications Services 99

5.2. The Proposed Condemnation is Subject to the Public
Interest Test in § 625 1111

5.3. The Property to be Condemned is Necessary for the
Proposed Project 1414

5.4. The Public Benefit of Acquiring the Property by
Eminent Domain Outweighs the Hardship to the
Owners of the Property 1515

5.5. The Proposed Project is Located in a Manner Most
Compatible with the Greatest Public Good and
Least Private Injury 1818

5.6. The Public Interest and Necessity Requires the
Proposed Project 2020

5.7. The Proposed Project is Exempt from Review Under
the California Environmental Quality Act 2020

6. Discussion of Procedural Issues 2222

6.1. Alleged Violation of Ex Parte Contact Prohibition 2222

6.2. Other Procedural Objections 2323

7. Appeal of the Presiding Officer's Decision 2828

8. Assignment of Proceeding 3030

Findings of Fact 3030

Conclusions of Law 3333

ORDER 3535

Attachment A - Scoping Memo and Ruling

Attachment B - List of Defendants

Attachment C - Public Utilities Code Section 625

Attachment D - Excerpt from Information for Property Owners, Utilities, and the Public Regarding Senate Bill 177

Attachment E - Implementation Requirements

Attachment F - Service List

DECISION FINDING THAT CONDEMNATION
WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST

1. Summary

This decision holds that Verizon California Inc.'s condemnation of an easement under Summit Road would serve the public interest. Implementation requirements are also adopted.