New Search
has been provided to ELI. <br />Comment 3: ELI commen#ed 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 EL1 "marketing plans" to serve customers <br />and have an opportunity to "undercut any plans for competitiveness". <br />Findings: In response to this comment,- staff recommended that some <br />modifications should be made to the annual notification provisions. 1 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. !f 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 />EL! expressed its strong feelings that the City has no legal right to impose such a burden (~ ' <br />on the initial provider. <br />Findings: 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 ofistandards 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 />Findings: 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 />or intentional torts. <br />,~ <br />Exhibit C - 2 02/05/98 <br />