New Search
a conflict between the definition and the application of this rule. The term "Major Facility <br />Upgrade" is defined as "the extension or reconstruction of any facility in which a wire, cable, <br />' conduit_ 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 not 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 />Requirement" it specifically notes once again the basic requirement of an installation of <br />greater than 400 linear feet. <br />Findin Notification is not required for simple service crossings, and permit <br />applicants are not required to provide notification to other providers unless the proposed <br />project exceeds 4001inear feet.. The only different interpretation that might apply would be <br />if the applicant submitted multiple permits which appeared to be directly connected, would <br />likely 't+e constructed concurrently, and when combined, would exceed the 400 foot <br />notification 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-7.30'-C, Item 1, sub-Item 1.2, states that we cannot under any circumstance cut a street <br />segment more than once in a calendar year. Since we cannot be assured that the type of <br />construction 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 />compan~~. In addition, the installation of "some type" of a facility by our company to meet <br />this requirement may not be needed at the time and yet may be required by an applicant for <br />service. \vihin a short time later. Since we are really the only major underground provider <br />in much 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 same areas. <br />Finding. The section in question applies only to future utility projects that fit the <br />.description of a major facility installation or major facility upgrade, and notice of the <br />proposed activity has been received by the provider. It is not intended to limit installation. <br />of essential facilities that could .not be foreseen. However, the utilities have a civic <br />obligation to plan facility installation and take advantage of joint trench or cooperative <br />opportunities whenever possible, in an effort to reduce impacts on the general public. The <br />.rules are designed to protect the integrity of the street surface, and they apply even-handedly <br />to all providers who wish to make street cuts; providers who install facilities overhead are <br />not similarly situated for purposes of this rule. In addition, R-7.302-C-1-1.3 contains specific <br />exceptions. 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 />inspector has the authority to order changes in construction technique". We question whether <br />this should refer to something like "standards" instead of technique since we determine the <br />meaning to infer that the inspector is qualified to make determinations about how we <br />Administrative Order - 3 r:\adminord\rules\OOrowrl2ao.wpd(09/13/00) <br />