CC_Minutes_2015_1116 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 16, 2015 Page 34 City of Roseville from various vantage points, Councilmeinber McGehee aslced the consultants how they felt about recommending it or whether they were con- cerned it may have become unwieldy. Mr. Gozola expressed his exciteinent to see the ordinance in action; and if any is- sues came up, noted it could be tweaked at that time to fulfill the goals of the City of Roseville, as was the typical way of all new ordinances once put into practice. Councilmember Laliberte noted the number of references throughout to "as de- tennined by the City Forester," and sought verification that this was applicable to in-house staff and/or consultants. Mr. Gozola advised that he typically crafted the language to designate the Com- munity Development Department for however they delegated that task. However, Mr. Gozola advised that the Planning Commission wanted specific language to say that whoever was assigned to that task had to have one or those two creden- tials, thus the additional language added to Section B, Subsection 4. For an internal project for the Parks Departinent, Councilinember Laliberte ques- tioned if they would also have to seek sign off as written from the Cominunity Developinent Department. Mr. Gozola responded that, if the particular project was subject to the threshold for improvements, they would need to do so. On page 6 of the draft ordinance (line 177), Councilmember Etten noted the refer- ence to disturbance plan, in identifying� which significant trees and their various iinpacts, and if that included significant, heritage and common trees; and whether that was too specific and should simply list heritage or common types as well. Mr. Gozola agreed with that suggestion, noting he would revise langl.iage to "in- ventoried trees" as a way to keep it more open. On page 7, lines 210-216, Councilmember Etten noted the DBH for deciduous trees and then referencing that table, questioning how to make that and the height work together. Mr. Gozola responded that it would be based on the actual inventory itself; and some way was needed to equate what type of tree it was compared with the conif- erous loss to deterinine any penalty/credit in a given situation as calculated. Mr. Gozola noted this would be accomplished simply by doing the initial height to inches calculation for inventory and for replaceinent. On page 4, Section E. 3(Common Trees — line 133 — 137), Councilmember Etten noted the tree classifications and height for three designations; while on page 6, it