New Search
Findin .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 with 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 have such a facility. <br />This is clearly an issue of betterment, as I addressed in prior comments, ~t~e do not feel the <br />City should place such a requirement on the providers. In addition, we do not feel 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 />Findin. 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 a1~-ays requiring new <br />"construction," and adding "driveway approach" to the listed improvements. These <br />provisions maintain compliance with ORS 447.310, and is applicable to ever<~one who 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 «Yitten 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 by 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 safen~. 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 appro~-al 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 />Administrative Order - 6 r:\adminord\rules\OOro~~TlZao.~i~pd(09/13/00) <br />