New Search
EXHIBIT "C" <br /> Comments and Findinas <br /> Construction Within and Use of the Public Wav <br /> Administrative Rule R-7.302 <br /> Written comments were received from: Electric Lightwave, Inc. (ELI); and the <br /> niversity of O egon, Telecommunication Services, to which I make the following findings: <br /> Comm nt 7: Electric Lightwave, Inc. (ELI) commented that Rule R-7.302-C-1.2 <br /> i posing stye cut prohibitions was overly restrictive. The primary concerns expressed <br /> ere: (a) ELI does not always know 12 months in advance where it will need to install <br /> acilities to se a its customers; (b) because new providers must in many cases construct <br /> ew facilities serve customers, by restricting new street cuts and discouraging the <br /> lacement of verhead facilities (requiring undergrounding) the City will create an unfair <br /> dvantage for roviders with existing facilities in the public way. <br /> Findin s: In response to comment 1.(a): The proposed rule accommodates <br /> ituations whe a provider is unable to reasonably anticipate the need to instal! facilities <br /> 'n order to serv a customer. R-7.302-C-1.3 allows for exceptions to the prohibitions, with <br /> <br /> f~,„ n example f a condition which may justify an exception being "to provide necessary <br /> tility services o a property where no other practicable alternative exists to provide such <br /> ervice." This pproach preserves the ability of a provider to serve new customers while <br /> rotecting pu lic assets in the right-of--way from avoidable damage of •premature <br /> egradation. I response to comment 1.(b): The standards set forth in the proposed rule <br /> pply equally t all providers placing or operating facilities in the public way, irrespective <br /> f the number f existing facilities they may have previously placed in the public way. Any <br /> dvantage a p ovider may have by virtue of owning existing facilities in the public way has <br /> of been crea ed though these rules, but rather exists through the provider's previous <br /> nvestment in acilities. Requirements to place facilities underground apply only to new <br /> evelopments here typically no provider-owned facilities exist prior to development, and <br /> o cases whe a overhead facilities exist along a street subject to a street capacity <br /> nhancement roject. Therefore, undergrounding requirements of the rule have the same <br /> mpact on exis ing providers as "new" providers. <br /> Comm nt 2: ELI commented that section R-7.302-C-1.3.3 references an exception <br /> ermit fee for utting streets less than five years old and that the fee was not included in <br /> ocumentatio received by ELI. <br /> Findin s: The proposed rule does not set or alter fees but merely referenced a fee <br /> et previously hrough a separate administrative order. A copy of that permit fee schedule <br /> Exhibit C - 1 ozio5iss <br /> <br />