Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />Attachment B <br />DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 11, 2015 <br />Page 11 <br />Mr. Culver responded that, as part of the City's normal erosion control permitting <br />process, the developer had to maintain construction entrances to prevent that ma- <br />terial getting into the streets, addressed via sweeping requirements. Mr. Culver <br />advised that staff made periodic inspections, and developers were required to <br />"sweep on demand," and if they did not comply, the City held an escrow account <br />on demand allowing reimbursement if the City was required to perform that <br />sweeping. <br />Etten moved, McGehee seconded, accepted the HR LLC (TPI Hospitality) Envi- <br />ronmental Review Worksheet (ERW) requirements established by City of Rose- <br />ville Resolution No. 11198; and directed staff to approve permits when such nec- <br />essary information and project details comply with City and State Code. <br />In general, Councilmember McGehee stated that she appreciated this document <br />and developer responses, and the way staff reviewed it. However, Councilmem- <br />ber McGehee stated that her only caution is to have the form's future format not <br />indicate a developer didn't have to answer a question without a further explana- <br />tion of rationale in not requiring them to do so (e.g. traffic study). <br />Mayor Roe suggested stating, as an example in this case, that the traffic study ex- <br />isted elsewhere to address the rationale in not requiring a response from the de- <br />veloper. <br />Councilmember McGehee suggested, whenever something was referenced by the <br />RERW, it become part of the document or at a minimum a summary of the refer- <br />enced material. <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee and Roe. <br />Nays: None. <br />15. Business Items — Presentations/Discussions <br />a. Review Draft Policy Priority Planning Document <br />City Manager Patrick Trudgeon provided an overview of this iirst look by the <br />City Council of staff's attempt to identify strategic initiatives as part of the City <br />Council Retreat held in February and iive strategic priorities, key outcome indica- <br />tors (KOI), and targets it had established, along with Department Heads, at that <br />time. A Summary Document (Attachment A) and Retreat Facilitator Craig <br />Rapp's Summary Report (Attachment B) were referenced by Mr. Trudgeon, as <br />outlined in the RCA. <br />Mr. Trudgeon noted that this first look at strategic initiatives developed by staff <br />was intended to provide talking points for further discussion and a general over- <br />view of those initiatives. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the intent was to provide <br />check-in and reporting opportunities by staff to the City Counci] on those efforts <br />