ROW Permit Conditions - Project Lightspeed - Updated

[Jonathan Kramer]

Attached to this posting is a fairly current listing of the various permit conditions that have been applied to AT&T/SBC/Pacific Bell in California in connection with obligations and reservation of rights. This list was compiled by John di Bene of AT&T/SBC (thank you!!!), and I've expanded it to include the Walnut Creek conditions that sparked the federal (later state) suit.

The list has permit conditions issued by the following governments:

(Concord, which uses the Redding language)
Fairfield
Foster City
Los Angeles County
Marin Telecommunications Agency
Modesto
Stockton
Redding
Solano County
Walnut Creek

IF YOU HAVE PERMIT CONDITIONS NOT LISTED IN THE POSTING PLEASE EMAIL THEM TO ME ASAP SO I CAN UPDATE THIS LIST.

The most recent report is the the following governments have Project Lightspeed Permit Conditions in place:

City of Concord
County of Los Angeles, CA
City of Los Angeles, CA
Marin Telecommunications Agency (Negotiated ROW Agreement For All Cities/County)
City of Fairfield, CA
City of Foster City, CA
City of Sacramento, CA
City of Stockton, CA
City of Modesto, CA
City of Redding, CA
City of Concord, CA
Solano County, CA
City of Palo Alto, CA
City of Oakley, CA
City of Merced, CA


Jonathan

[marktboehme]

Now that AB2987 is law, what are cities and counties doing regarding CEQA compliance. ATT has made its pitch that the project is categorically exempt for a number of reasons. We think the Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document. Also, what success are you having in getting the facilities undergrounded? Thanks.