New Search
<br /> i <br /> a con iet between the definition and the application of this rule. The term "Major Facility <br /> Upgr de" is defined as "the extension or reconstruction of any facility in which a wire, cable, <br /> cond it. or pipe greater than 4001inear feet in length is installed or replaced within the public <br /> way". However, on numerous occasions our Construction Division has been asked why they <br /> have of notified all the other licensed and franchised utilities in the City of Eugene when <br /> simpl diagonally crossing a street with a service line. In R-7.302-C, Item 2, "Notice <br /> Requ'rement" it specifically notes once again the basic requirement of an installation of <br /> great r than 400 linear feet. <br /> Findin Notification is not required for simple service crossings, and permit <br /> appl ants are not required to provide notification to other providers unless the proposed <br /> proje t exceeds 4001inear feet. The only different interpretation that might apply would be <br /> if the oplicant submitted multiple permits which appeared to be directly connected, would <br /> likely be constructed concurrently, and when combined, would exceed the 400 foot <br /> notifi ation requirement. No changes were made to the rule as a result of this comment. <br /> Comment 3. The issue of "street segments" is some what troublesome to us since <br /> R-7.3 ~-C, Item 1, sub-Item 1.2, states that we cannot under any circumstance cut a street <br /> segm nt more than once in a calendar year. Since we cannot be assured that the type of <br /> const u,aion being performed by another provider is conducive to the addition of our <br /> facilities the opening of the segment by the provider may be of no benefit to any other <br /> comp n~~. In addition, the installation of "some type" of a facility by our company to meet <br /> this r quirement may not be needed at the time and yet may be required by an applicant for <br /> servic within a short time later. Since we are really the only major underground provider <br /> in mu h of the older, established area of Eugene we find the requirement to be somewhat <br /> inequitable and not on a level playing field with our competitor, EWEB, who is overhead in <br /> the sane areas. <br /> Finding. The section in question applies only to future utility projects that fit the <br /> descri ~tion of a major facility installation or major facility upgrade, and notice of the <br /> propo ed activity has been received by the provider. It is not intended to limit installation <br /> of es ential facilities that could not be foreseen. However, the utilities have a civic <br /> oblig tion to plan facility installation and take advantage of joint trench or cooperative <br /> oppo ities whenever possible, in an effort to reduce impacts on the general public. The <br /> rules :designed to protect the integrity of the street surface, and they apply even-handedly <br /> to all roviders who wish to make street cuts; providers who install facilities overhead are <br /> not si zilarly situated for purposes ofthis rule. In addition, R-7.302-C-1-1.3 contains specific <br /> excep ions. No changes were made to the rule as a result of this comment. <br /> Comment 4. Section 1, D-2 of the Manual titled Authority, states in line one, "The <br /> inspe for has the authority to order changes in construction technique". We question whether <br /> this s ould refer to something like "standards" instead of technique since we determine the <br /> mean'ng to infer that the inspector is qualified to make determinations about how we <br /> Administrati e Order - 3 r:ladminord\rules\OOrowrl2ao.wpd(09/13/00) <br /> <br />