CA SB 378 now requires cities to allow microtrenching, any changes to plans?

[rbi]

SB 378 now requires that cities/counties/districts allow microtrenching by right. The "shall" language in CA law means they don't have the option to say no, nor is there any discretionary review. The way the adverse impact language is written also greatly restricts the scope of reasons they can use to deny a request... they'd need actual scientific evidence proving ongoing health/safety impact which obviously doesn't exist.

Section 65964.5
(b)
(1) The local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations shall allow microtrenching for the installation of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber, unless the local agency makes a written finding that allowing microtrenching for a fiber installation would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.
(2) Upon mutual agreement, a microtrench may be placed shallower than 12 inches in depth.
(3) To the extent necessary, a local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations shall adopt or amend existing policies, ordinances, codes, or construction rules to allow for microtrenching pursuant to this subdivision.

The law explicitly prevents cities from using excessive fees as a backdoor mechanism to ban microtrenching.

Part (d) basically means this applies to charter cities (aka "home rule" cities) like San Francisco as well, even if they'd prefer it did not.

(c) A local agency may impose a fee on an application for a permit to install fiber consistent with Section 50030. The reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, as that phrase is used in Section 50030 , shall be limited to the reasonable costs of the local agency to process and issue the permit and inspect the installation that is the subject of the permit, including any costs incurred if the applicant elects to expedite processing and review.
(d) The Legislature finds and declares that installation of fiber is critical to the deployment of broadband services and other utility services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.

How does this affect Sonic's plans going forward? Is SF still refusing to issue permits for microtrenching in buried utility neighborhoods? It wouldn't surprise me if they were dragging their feet but they don't really have a choice here.

In theory this should open up all cities and neighborhoods in California regardless of underground utility status.

[virtualmike]

The bill is considered dead at this point. There was supposed to be a hearing last April but it was cancelled at the request of the author. According to the bill history, it was returned to the Secretary of the Senate on Feb 1.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20240SB396

[apl]

That link refers to a newer bill, SB396.
SB378 appears to have been passed and signed into law in 2021.

I'm pretty sure that Dane has referred to this on a few occasions, and commented not too long ago that (despite the plain language of the law) SF in particular was still making microtrenching difficult or impossible.

For many years, the standard answer has been that Sonic can't run their fiber to undergrounded customers until micro-trenching was allowed. But the converse – that they would start to run fiber to those customers once it was allowed – was never promised.

My understanding is that (even without extra bureaucratic obstruction) microtrenching is still significantly more expensive than running fiber from poles. And given their other standard line, that Sonic wants to use the resources they have to get fiber to as many people as they can, I would guess that they are in no hurry to devote any of those resources to microtrenching.

That's just speculation on my part. But my direct questions:

• Are there any cities where Sonic is now running fiber to customers with existing undergrounded utilities?

• What would it take to make this happen in my city (Berkeley)?

have gone unanswered.

[virtualmike]

My mistake. My searches on "CA SB 378 microtrenching" on the CA legislature site directed to 396 and I didn't notice it. The info for SB 378 shows that indeed it was signed in 2021.