Local Permitting: Recommendations & Models

Man chatting with hands
The Central Valley faces various, acute challenges when it comes to developing, expanding, and improving its broadband infrastructure. In many cases, complex, slow, or vague local permitting processes can be a significant factor in delaying broadband deployment. Fortunately, thoughtful policymakers and strategic planners can make a significant difference in this department. By streamlining certain processes and lowering administrative barriers for infrastructure projects, local jurisdictions can make considerable progress in expanding broadband access for their residents.
 
Below is a comprehensive set of recommendations—drawn from the State of California’s Local Permitting Playbook — that outline smart, practical actions local governments and permitting authorities can take to advance these efforts. These recommendations are paired with examples of local jurisdictions that have utilized select recommendations to advance broadband infrastructure projects. The focus of this report is uplifting real-world strategies that are low-cost and easy to implement, especially for local jurisdictions with limited staff, funding, or institutional capacity to deploy broadband quickly and effectively. With clearer rules, better coordination, and more predictable permitting processes, local governments can play a decisive role in accelerating broadband deployment and closing the digital divide across the Central Valley.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Create a Basic Manual for New Developers    
Local jurisdictions should develop and publish a guide that lays out application checklists, fees, key contacts, design standards, etc. The guide should be easily accessible on any city/county’s website via a webpage, PDF, or as a part of an online application form that can be filled out in a piecemeal manner. By centralizing all the required documentation, local jurisdictions can demystify the application process for new broadband projects. Developers should know the negotiables and the non-negotiables from the start so that they can plan accordingly.

Even a 2-3-page simple manual can drastically cut down on bureaucracy, including emails, phone calls, mail, etc. Additionally, a manual that sets expectations about average and maximum processing times fosters accountability and trust with deployers. Developers want a predictable process to be able to plan around.

2. Allow Digital Application Tracking
Applicants should be able to track the status of their applications in real-time, so they remain privy to any necessary adjustments or course-corrections. Local jurisdictions should also consider sending automated emails and notifications to providers when key stages are reached (submission, environmental review, CEQA review, fee calculation, delay, decision, etc.). As permit volumes grow, automation software can help keep processes efficient without needing to hire many more staff.
 
3. Establish a Clear Point of Contact  
For small local jurisdictions, establishing one coordinator reduces any confusion on the part of applicants as to whether they are corresponding with the correct person. It will ensure that questions and concerns get addressed more efficiently, while preventing other staff from getting sidetracked. Additionally, assigning one person to the job allows them to develop expertise reviewing applications and approving permits, ideally leading to improvements in processes along the way.
 
4. Implement a System for Feedback/Input  
Local jurisdictions should consider establishing a system that allows them to gather information about where applications often encounter challenges. This could involve survey questions designed to identify common pain points, or post-post project calls/meetings aimed at addressing any lingering concerns and establishing good will with future applicants. Over time, learnings gleaned from a feedback process can be used to adjust local jurisdictions’ manuals, checklists, and ordinances.
1. Distinguish Projects by Type & Size
Broadband projects should not be routed through a generic permitting process when a telecom-specific pathway would provide greater clarity and efficiency. Additionally, broadband projects themselves tend to differ in scope. For instance, a minor project might include a last-mile extension to ten homes, while a major project would involve running a new miles-long fiber line through town. As a result, local jurisdictions would be well-advised to develop two-tiered or even three-tiered application processes, so minor projects avoid delays due to requirements tailored more to major projects.  
In some cases, small projects might qualify for “fast-tracked” conditional/provisional permits if they meet most requirements just shy of a minor detail. That way, developers can move forward with major work while the smaller details are sorted out, demonstrating that the local jurisdiction is a partner in the development process.
 
2. Consider Batch-Permitting Processes
If an internet service provider would like to develop multiple sites — each with key similarities, like cost, timeline, construction demands — then some or all of them should be approved with the same permit. This reduces paperwork and fees for applicants. The City of Long Beach, for instance, developed a batch permitting process years ago for small cell wireless facilities, allowing up to 10 sites to be grouped into one application. Notably, AB 965, passed in 2024, mandates that local agencies simultaneously process several broadband sites with a single permit when they are of the same size and scope.
 
3. Explore Creative Public-Private Partnerships
Much of the work involved in developing broadband infrastructure can be operationalized by third parties. For instance: One model—implemented by the City of Mesa, in Arizona—involves allowing ISPs to fund third-party inspectors for broadband projects under city oversight. Delegating the permitting process to a third-party could significantly expedite the deployment, particularly when it comes to larger projects that demand a high level of resources.
1. Align Permitting Processes
Neighboring local jurisdictions should have application and permitting processes that are aligned. For example, standardized forms, universal fees, and similar design standards allow developers who have already worked with one jurisdiction to come prepared when dealing with another. Perhaps this could be arranged through a County agency, Council of Governments, or by a broadband consortium that develops checklists that every jurisdiction adopts. At the very least, local jurisdictions should informally coordinate to foster shared processes.
 
2. Pool Resources and Expertise
Many local jurisdictions in the Central Valley are too small or under-resourced to undertake broadband projects of a certain size. That is why, especially for larger projects, local jurisdictions should consider sharing staff, funds, institutional and industry connections.
 
For instance, a consortium of local jurisdictions might share a permit inspector or planner who presides over applications across the region. This kind of collaboration could be facilitated by a newly created joint broadband task force, which includes city managers, public works directors, county officials, and even utility reps. Quarterly meetings would allow members to share best practices and common issues. In essence, collective regional power allows small local jurisdictions to match the might of bigger ones.
 
3. “Dig Once” Alignment
Cities and counties should have formalized channels through which to communicate planned road work or utility construction. For example, some local jurisdictions participate in “dig once” portals, which allow utilities, public agencies, and providers to post planned excavation and construction projects in one centralized online portal. In doing so, they allow one another access to underground broadband infrastructure without more unnecessary costs and disruptions.

1. Tap Into City/County-Owned Fiber
Underground city/county-owned fiber can be leased out or licensed to internet service providers, which can handle everything from billing to installation to customer service. By leasing out extra strands to an ISP, local jurisdictions can create an immediate revenue stream, lowering the financial burden. (Likewise, they can do the same with idle conduits, pulling their fiber through it rather than performing new trenching.)

2. Tap Into Vertical Assets
Beyond city/county-owned fiber, vertical assets like water towers, telephone poles, and rooftops, can be leased to ISPs for wireless broadband projects. If the asset is tall enough, an ISP could mount antennas or small radio equipment. Another idea is to offer secure, unused space in a municipal or county building, like a library or city hall, to store a network hub, or even a fiber hut at the edge of town. Simple initiatives like these can reduce costs for deployers by up to 10%, which can make all the difference in rural areas.

3. Take Inventory of Preexisting Assets
Local jurisdictions should develop and maintain an exhaustive, publicly available inventory of pre-existing assets that they and developers can leverage. It could be a simple spreadsheet that is updated monthly or a detailed, real-time GIS-based map that allows users to identify new construction projects and “dig once” opportunities. A GIS map might be beyond a single small city’s capacity, but the county or regional council of governments could assist in creating them.

4. Coordinate “Make-Ready” Work 
For some projects, attaching fiber to existing utility poles, for example, can be faster and cheaper than underground trenching. But poles often need “make-ready” work first, such as moving existing cables or creating safe spacing for installation. Local jurisdictions can aid in this process by coordinating early with pole owners, utilities, and providers so these issues are resolved before they delay construction instead of having to be solved after the fact.

5. Implement Broadband-Ready Development Requirements 
Local jurisdictions can require new developments, major renovations, or large public works projects to include broadband-ready infrastructure, like conduits, extra pathways, and fiber access points. This will make it simpler and cheaper to install broadband service at a later date, instead of tearing up streets or retrofitting buildings post facto.

REAL WORLD MODELS

Plan & Leadership
Rather than trying to become an ISP, both cities partnered with a regional broadband provider (CalNeva Broadband) to upgrade and extend service using a hybrid fiber-and-fixed-wireless model, where fiber was used to connect certain key points throughout the cities and wireless links connected homes. Essentially these wireless links are a kind of “last-mile.”
Financing
  • As part of the same CASF application, the cities received a $500,000 last-mile infrastructure grant from the state, allowing CalNeva Broadband to bundle the cities’ coverage together.
  • Private capital came from CalNeva Broadband, which paid for maintenance, wireless radios, etc.
  • The cities did not use bonds, general funds, BEAD money, or any private philanthropy.
Deployment & Permitting
Since both cities are extremely low-density and spread out, a fiber-to-the-home model never would have worked, which is why they rolled out a fiber-and-fixed-wireless. Here’s how it worked:
  • First, fiber would be installed at public institutions, preexisting towers, etc.
  • Second, point-to-multipoint (PtMP) radios were installed on things like silos, water tanks, tall buildings, etc.
  • Homes were installed with small rooftop receivers.
  • No trenching required at all.
  • Because much of the broadband infrastructure was already owned by CalNeva Broadband, much of the work—which involved upgrading or extending facilities—was already permitted.
  • There was no complex process involving RFP. The city treated the work as routine right-of-way and building permits.
Partnership Structure
The key actors were:
  • The Public Works and Community Development/Planning departments for both cities, which handled the processes behind permitting and garnering political support.
  • CPUC, which provided the grant money.
  • CalNeva Broadband, which built and upgraded the actual infrastructure.
Results & Conclusions
  • Delivered 50-100 Mbps service.
  • Hundreds of unserved locations now have internet connectivity. 5,400 underserved houses now connected.
  • Modest state funding helped unlock more private dollars for a public-private partnership.
Plan & Leadership
In 2006, the city sought to roll out an ambitious fiber-to-home program but scaled it back due to the 2008 recession. The city then refocused its efforts on an incremental plan that involved establishing key fiber connections to community anchor institutions first (ex/municipal buildings, schools, hospitals, etc., rather than homes). The idea was to use broadband access to improve economic opportunity, public safety, education, and then eventually expand into homes to enhance residents’ overall lifestyles.
 
Financing
  • Instead of taking state grants or going into debt by issuing bonds, the city set aside a very modest amount of money from its general fund every year.
  • This process was extremely slow, frugal, and piecemeal—they laid down just four miles in the first year from City Hall to its police & fire departments, youth center, etc. Once the city could demonstrate success with minimal cost, future investment was justified.
  • The city also relied on federal funding vis-a-vis the city school getting E-rate reimbursements. This created a modest revenue stream for the broadband project.
Deployment & Permitting
  • The city did not have its own municipal electric and gas utility to build from or leverage. 
  • Shafter reduced deployment complexity by building in greenfield areas and city-controlled corridors, where they already had right-of-way. This minimized potential disputes and holdups.  
  • They focused on small, incremental, phased fiber buildout rather than doing it citywide. 
  • They focused first on anchor institutions like police buildings, fire facilities, schools, libraries, etc. 
  • Today, the city has a formalized set of expectations for deployment of new fiber projects, including joint trench layouts, subdivision design standards, etc. 
Partnership Structure

The city partnered with a mix of public-sector, educational, business and private organizations: 

  • The Richland School District, which gained fiber connection thanks to the E-rate subsidies 
  • The Kern County Sheriff’s Department, which was an anchor institution that helped facilitate fiber-to-fiber connection  
  • Various agribusinesses and logistics companies, which at times helped extend the fiber network into Shafter’s business and industrial corridors 
  • Smart Fiber Networks, which will help the city invest in its fiber connections and last-mile services 
Results & Conclusions
  • Federal E-rate reimbursements through schools can offer unique support for broadband projects.
  • While the city’s fiber doesn’t directly serve residents yet, the city now has more fiber connections from which to do so more easily in the future.
Plan & Leadership
  • The city implemented its $13 million Fiber Optic Master Plan over six years.
  • The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility presides over the project.
  • The project is a public-private partnership between the city and a local ISP called Onward.
Financing
  • Instead of applying for state grants or drawing upon state funds, the city bonded out the capital, raising $13 million.
  • This allowed Rancho Cucamonga to maintain far more control over its budget, timeline, deliverables, etc.
Deployment & Permitting
  • The city specifically installed conduits and cables while new housing and commercial buildings are under construction, minimizing costs. This is known as a “dig once” approach.
  • Much of the underground conduits were already extant and owned by the city, so permitting was mostly handled internally.
Partnership Structure
  • The city owns the dark fiber and leases it out to Onward, which provides last-miles service to homes and businesses.
  • This city’s works/utilities departments collaborate closely with Onward, which handles everything from billing, payments, fees, customer support, installation. In other words, Onward has the technical nuts-and-bolts expertise, while the city ensures that its physical infrastructure is being put to use in the public interest.
Results & Conclusions
  • The city now offers its own internet plans.
Plan & Leadership
  • During the pandemic, San Rafael set out to build a Wi-Fi mesh in Canal, a low-income, predominantly Latino area without reliable internet access.
  • Canal’s broadband project was a truly grassroots, bottom-up, locally-driven effort done from scratch.
  • The project was led by San Rafael’s Director of Digital Service and Open Government, who pulled together a coalition of public, private, and nonprofit partners.
  • It relied heavily on volunteers, donations, and key community organizers coming together to build an ad hoc broadband network in a very short period of time.
Financing
  • The project cost ~$250k, thanks to donations from Marin Community Foundation and the Pincus Family Foundation and a budgetary allocation from Marin County.
  • Hardware providers like Cisco sold equipment to the organizers in bulk at a discount, lowering total costs.
Deployment & Permitting
  • The city installed 20 Wi-Fi antennas onto city-owned assets like street light poles, community centers, school buildings, etc. 
  • San Rafael then connected Canal’s network to the city’s broader fiber network (called “MIDAS”) to ensure reliability.
  • The network was designed to be maintained and managed by administrators remotely, so that they didn’t have to physically go around fixing problems with individual antennas.
Partnership Structure
The project hinged on collaboration between:
  • Philanthropic organizations
  • The San Rafael government (including the city schools’ CTO)
  • A Cisco Systems employee, who volunteered his time to design the mesh
  • A Marin IT engineer
  • The Canal Alliance, a local nonprofit that facilitated community outreach and planning
Results & Conclusions
  • Canal delivered free, fast Wi-Fi to all residents in a matter of months. Students were shortly allotted Chrome books for school, improving educational quality.
  • This unconventional DIY model is replicable for other underserved communities. All it requires is close collaboration between public and private actors, philanthropic largesse, and vested interest by key community members to make it happen.

Source

Plan & Leadership
  • In 2024, Oakland began developing “OaklandConnect” as part of its Broadband Master Plan.
  • It’s a city-owned, open-access fiber initiative aimed at delivering high-speed broadband to underserved areas in the city.
  • The project required significant cross-departmental coordination, using a hybrid public-private model that relies on public ownership with ISPs handling service delivery.
Financing
  • The primary source of funding was a $14 million grant from the CPUC, but the city also collected $2 million by issuing general bonds.
Deployment & Permitting
  • Instead of installing fiber all at once, Oakland implemented a phased approach, specifically targeting areas that needed it most, like West Oakland, Downtown Oakland, Fruitvale District, and East Oakland.
  • They will build 12 new miles of fiber, upgrade 12 existing miles, and construct 9 miles of last-mile fiber to connect 27 affordable housing developments.
  • The city used a “dig-once” approach to minimize permitting overhead, street disruptions, and construction costs. It also used preexisting assets, like rooftops of city property, to mount the fiber itself.
  • The city connected its own fiber to California’s open-access middle-mile network, minimizing any dependence on private backbone providers.
Partnership Structure
There were multiple actors involved in the project, including:
  • City of Oakland Information Technology Department, which authored the plan and led implementation.
  • Oakland Housing Authority (OHA)
  • #OaklandUndivided
  • Various ISPs
  • California Department of Technology
Results & Conclusions
  • The network will be operational by 2027 and expand affordable broadband connectivity to 30,000+ households.