New Search
has been provided to ELI. <br /> Comment 3: ELI commented that section R-7.302-C-2 requiring annual notification <br /> by providers of anticipated projects in the coming 24 months presented an unfair <br /> advantage for its competitors who would know of ELI "marketing plans" to serve customers <br /> and have an opportunity to "undercut any plans for competitiveness". <br /> Findinas: In response to this comment, - staff recommended that some <br /> modifications should be made to the annual notification provisions. I concur with that <br /> recommendation, and the revisions have been incorporated in the final rules. The intent <br /> of the notification is to provide the City with adequate information to anticipate and manage <br /> impacts to the public rights-of--way, and provide other providers with information helpful in <br /> planning for coordination of work and collocation of facilities. The rule as modified does <br /> not require that ELI's or any other provider's marketing plans or proprietary information be <br /> published or disclosed to other providers. If ELI or any other provider determines certain <br /> information disclosed to the City to be proprietary, it may so signify on the information <br /> submitted. The City will respect such designations and protect such information from <br /> disclosure to the extent allowed by law. <br /> Comment 4: ELI commented that section R-7.302-E-3.2, which allows that a <br /> permit issued may contain conditions requiring the initial provider in an area to provide <br /> extra capacity for later providers, is an intrusion into the business plans and choices of ELI. <br /> ELI expressed its strong feelings that the City has no legal right to impose such a burden <br /> on the initial provider. <br /> Findinas: Requirements for the provision of extra capacity are not immediately <br /> imposed by the proposed rule. R-7.302-E-3.3 provides that prior to imposition of permit <br /> conditions relating to provision of extra capacity, the City Engineer shall complete a <br /> standards development process, which provides an opportunity for interested parties to <br /> review and comment on such standards. The comments and concerns of ELI and other <br /> providers will be considered in the development of standards and requirements related to <br /> the provision of extra capacity. <br /> Comment 5: ELI requested that the indemnity provisions contained in section R- <br /> 7.302-H-2 be modified to recognize that the permit applicant is not required to indemnify <br /> the City from loss, cost or damage arising from negligence or intentional actions of the City. <br /> Findinas: In response to this comment, staff recommended modification of the <br /> indemnification provisions. I concur with that recommendation, and revisions have been <br /> incorporated in the final rules which clarify that the permit applicant is not required to <br /> indemnify and hold the City harmless for loss or damages caused by the City's negligence <br /> <br /> or in#entional torts. <br /> <br /> Exhibit C - 2 02/05/98 <br /> <br />