T-Mobile West LLC v. City and County of S.F., 6 Cal. 5th 1107

San Francisco adopted an ordinance (Art. 25) requiring permits to install and maintain wireless "personal wireless service" facilities in public rights-of-way; some permits depend on meeting local aesthetic guidelines (historic districts, protected views, parks).
Plaintiffs (wireless/telephone corporations) allege the ordinance (1) is preempted by Pub. Util. Code § 7901 and (2) violates § 7901.1 by treating wireless providers differently from other telephone corporations; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
Section 7901 grants telephone corporations a statewide franchise to construct lines and erect equipment along public roads so long as they do not "incommode the public use of the road."
Section 7901.1 states municipalities may exercise reasonable control over the time, place, and manner of access to roads, and such control must be applied equivalently to all entities.
The trial court and the Court of Appeal rejected plaintiffs' claims; the California Supreme Court reviewed whether § 7901 preempts local aesthetic regulation and whether § 7901.1 forbids the City’s differentiation between temporary permits and ongoing, aesthetic-conditioned permits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 7901 preempts San Francisco's ordinance conditioning certain ROW permits on aesthetic criteria	§ 7901 grants a broad right to construct lines except where the path of travel is obstructed; aesthetics-based permit conditions are preempted because they hinder statewide telecommunications deployment	§ 7901 guarantees a state franchise but does not divest municipalities of their traditional police power to regulate location and manner (including aesthetics) unless the statute clearly preempts	The ordinance is not preempted; § 7901 and the local aesthetic regulation can coexist because § 7901 does not expressly or impliedly occupy the field nor directly conflict with local aesthetic regulation
Whether the ordinance violates § 7901.1 by applying aesthetic, site-specific permit requirements only to wireless providers	§ 7901.1's reference to control over time, place, and manner applies to both temporary and permanent access, so unequal treatment of wireless providers breaches the statute's "equivalent manner" requirement	§ 7901.1 was enacted to permit municipalities to manage temporary construction access; it does not restrict local regulation of longer-term occupation or aesthetic controls under § 7901	§ 7901.1 is limited to temporary access during construction/installation; because the City applies temporary access rules equivalently, there is no § 7901.1 violation

City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health & Wellness Center, 56 Cal.4th 729 (discusses preemption principles and presumption against preemption where local police power traditionally exercised)
Big Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 38 Cal.4th 1139 (explains burden of proof for preemption and presumption in favor of local regulation in traditional local areas)
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 4 Cal.4th 893 (defines conflict/field preemption tests)
Visalia (Western Union Tel. Co. v. Visalia), 149 Cal. 744 (distinguishes state franchise rights from local police power to regulate manner and location)
Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 51 Cal.2d 766 (discusses state franchise supremacy and local regulation limits)
City of Los Angeles (Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. City of Los Angeles), 44 Cal.2d 272 (addresses state authority to grant franchises vs municipal power)
T-Mobile West LLC v. City & County of San Francisco, 3 Cal.App.5th 334 (Court of Appeal decision upholding the ordinance, relied on by the Supreme Court)