Local government: broadband infrastructure development project permit processing: microtrenching permit processing ordinance.
The bill stipulates that local governments must permit microtrenching for fiber installations unless they can demonstrate a specific adverse impact on public health or safety. It also mandates local agencies to adapt their policies to accommodate these changes. Importantly, the bill establishes that the deployment of fiber is a matter of statewide concern and not merely a local issue, thus affecting all cities, including charter cities, across California. While local agencies can impose fees to cover reasonable costs related to processing and inspections, the act requires no reimbursement for the costs incurred by the agencies implementing these mandates, as they are expected to have the capacity to levy necessary fees.
Senate Bill No. 378, known as the Broadband Deployment Acceleration Best Practices Act of 2021, aims to streamline the local permitting process for the installation of broadband infrastructure, specifically through the technique of microtrenching. Microtrenching allows for the installation of fiber optic cables in narrow trenches, minimizing disruption to existing infrastructure and expediting deployment. This legislation seeks to facilitate the broader access to high-speed internet services, which has become increasingly vital, especially during times that demand remote work and online services.
The sentiment surrounding SB 378 appears largely positive among supporters who emphasize the urgent need for enhanced internet infrastructure. Proponents argue that the bill addresses essential elements of 21st-century connectivity and supports economic development, education, and telehealth services. However, there remains a concern among some groups related to the potential implications on local governance and the fiscal burdens that may arise from such mandates, suggesting a nuanced public discourse on balancing state and local interests.
Notable points of contention include the concern of local agencies about the imposition of state mandates that may strain their resources or limit their ability to regulate local matters effectively. Critics of the bill may argue that imposing these processes uniformly could overlook local needs and conditions, which could lead to inadequate compliance with pre-existing standards. There is also apprehension about the lack of requirement for state reimbursement, which could place additional financial burdens on local governments and complicate their budgetary constraints.