New Search
Finding. The only change proposed in this section was the addition of a requirement <br /> that plans identify the tree species if the work zone falls within the critical root zone of a <br /> street tree. Identification is necessary so staff can evaluate the proposed impacts and the <br /> tree's ability, based on species, to recover from the potential impact, whether it is an aerial <br /> impact or an underground impact to a tree's root system. The level of accuracy and detail <br /> required on utility plans does not exceed the requirement of any other project that takes place <br /> in the public way. Plans that do not contain directional indication, scale, or relationship to <br /> known points cannot be evaluated for impact and potential conflicts ~~~ith existing facilities <br /> and other public infrastructure, including street trees, and will be returned to the provider for <br /> correction and resubmittal. No changes were made to the rule or Manual as a result of this <br /> comment. <br /> Comment 10. Bicycle/Wheelchair Ramps and Bypasses Requirements in Section <br /> 3-B of the Manual. We do not agree with the City's requirement that we construct a new <br /> ramp and bypass just because we work at or near a location that does not ha~~e such a facility. <br /> This is clearly an issue of betterment, as I addressed in prior comments, «-e do not feel the <br /> City should place such a requirement on the providers. In addition, we do not reel the City's <br /> offer, "The City will reimburse the permittee for only the material cost of the portland <br /> cement concrete placed" to be very equitable since the provider is having to assume a major, <br /> not negotiable, improvement to the City infrastructure. <br /> Finding. The only change to the existing subsection 15 of Section 3-B was the <br /> addition of "bypasses" and the allowance of "upgrading" as opposed to alw~a~~s requiring new <br /> "construction," and adding "driveway approach" to the listed impro~~ements. These <br /> provisions maintain compliance with ORS 447.310, and is applicable to even~one «~ho works <br /> or has facilities in the public right-of--way. The quoted sentence about the level of the City's <br /> reimbursement is an existing, unamended provision. No changes were made to the rule or <br /> Manual as a result of this comment. <br /> Comment 11. Temporary Patching and Permanent Restoration, Section 3.G of the <br /> Manual In paragraph two you mention that the "permittee may seek prior ~tTitten approval <br /> of the Inspector to leave a trench open overnight." This is not a realistic requirement at all <br /> since the decision to leave a trench open overnight is normally determined b~~ a problem with <br /> construction and not something that is planned in advance. It is impractical to apply for a <br /> special permit on the same day of the requirement? <br /> Findin .The primary consideration in this situation is public safety. Open <br /> excavation in the public way is a hazard. Subsection 7.307(1) of the Eugene Code, 1971, <br /> requires permittees to temporarily patch any excavation in a vehicle travel area, bike lane, <br /> sidewalk, or bike path on the same day as excavation unless prior approval to leave the <br /> excavation open overnight is given by the City. There is no special permit, application, or <br /> involved process required by the City with respect to the request, nor any implication that the <br /> request will be granted. The request may be made by phone or in person, and must include <br /> <br /> Administrative Order - 6 r\adminord\niles\UUro~trl2ao.wpd(09/13/00) <br /> <br />