Wireless telecommunications facilities.
The bill has significant implications for state and local laws regarding telecommunications infrastructure. It mandates that small cells be treated as permitted uses, which shifts power from local authorities, who traditionally manage infrastructure siting, to a more centralized state framework. Furthermore, SB649 allows local governments to impose specific fees for the use of their infrastructure, such as vertical assets like poles, ensuring they can recover costs associated with the deployment of these facilities. Additionally, the bill prioritizes public safety and compliance with health regulations, aligning with existing federal requirements.
Senate Bill 649, introduced by Senator Hueso, aims to facilitate the deployment of wireless telecommunications facilities, specifically small cells, across California. The bill establishes that small cells are a permitted use in designated areas, subject to streamlined permitting processes set by local governments. By reducing the regulatory barriers for small cell installations, the bill seeks to accelerate the deployment of advanced wireless communication technologies, thus enhancing connectivity and addressing growing demands for broadband access, especially in underserved areas.
The sentiment surrounding SB649 is mixed among stakeholders. Proponents, primarily from the telecommunications industry and some local government officials, view the bill as a necessary step to modernize California's infrastructure and close the digital divide by incentivizing investment in broadband technology. Conversely, some local officials and community advocates express concerns that the bill undermines local control and could lead to negative outcomes for urban planning and aesthetics, as small cells proliferate with less oversight.
Contention arises over the balance of authority between state and local governments regarding telecommunications infrastructure. Critics argue that the bill favors large telecommunications companies at the expense of local governance, potentially allowing for increased deployments without adequate consideration of community needs and characteristics. Additionally, the requirement for local agencies to comply with specific permitting processes and charge fees adds complexity to local implementation, with some officials concerned about the financial and administrative burdens imposed on their municipalities.