CCP 05-14-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. Definition of`Equipment"(page 3 or 4/32)—propose to change this definition to,"...means any tangible asset used to install,repair or maintain facilities in any right-of-way or which obstructs any right-of-way". 3. The City does not currently have excavation or obstruction permits(page 4 or 5/32). They should be a combined permit when the ordinance is adopted. 4. Definition of"Restore"(page 5 or 6/32)—should state that the right-of-way should be restored to new or better condition instead of returned to the same condition. This is also addressed in right of way restoration(page 11, 12/32)—should state that it will be restored to new or better condition. 5. Permit application submission requirements (page 10 or 11/32)—should include in the application scaled drawings showing the location of all existing roadways and public or private utilities. 6. Right of Way restoration (page 12 or 13/32}--states that the permittee may choose to have the City to restore the right of way. This should be amended to state that the permittee will patch its own work. 7. City Restoration and Permittee Restoration (page 12 or 13/32)—suggested that the time limits for restoration be reduced from 36 months to 12 months. 8. Installation requirements(page 16 or 17/32)--the language"the standard specifications for street openings"should be replaced with"Engineering Standards adopted by the PUC". 9. Undergrounding (page 20 or 21/32)—The City Engineer questioned this section's relevance. However, this language has been adopted by surrounding communities in their ordinances. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council review the proposed Ordinance and direct staff to make any necessary changes. The Ordinance will be presented to the City Council a second time, at the next regular City Council meeting on June 11, 2001, for a public hearing and adoption. 2