My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-04-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2014
>
2014-04-22_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/17/2014 4:14:11 PM
Creation date
4/17/2014 4:05:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
4/22/2014
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
126 and approves those plans and specifications, it needed to monitor and follow -up <br />127 with the contractor and /or subcontractors on frequent inspections to avoid those <br />128 vendors from being tempted to cut some corners and install water service at 6' <br />129 versus the proscribed 8' as specified. Member DeBenedet questioned why a <br />130 property owner should be responsible for that situation, when they had nothing to <br />131 do with the system's design or inspection process, opining that therefore the onus <br />132 was not on the property owner. <br />133 <br />164 Discussion among staff and commissioners included how to prove underground <br />165 storage facilities were being maintained and cleaned out as applicable as <br />166 diminishing capacity was indicated with potential revoking of credits unless <br />167 mitigation efforts were forthcoming; preferred annual inspection of any property <br />168 receiving credits, whether by staff or engineers as applicable and depending on <br />169 the type of system (e.g. rain garden, pond, or underground infiltration system); <br />170 confined space entry requirements for inspection of underground systems; <br />171 whether citizen - driven complaints would initiate more frequent inspections than <br />Page 4 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.