My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2015_1116
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
CC_Minutes_2015_1116
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2015 9:52:39 AM
Creation date
12/8/2015 10:22:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/16/2015
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, November 16, 2015 <br />Page 34 <br />City of Roseville from various vantage points, Councilmeinber McGehee aslced <br />the consultants how they felt about recommending it or whether they were con- <br />cerned it may have become unwieldy. <br />Mr. Gozola expressed his exciteinent to see the ordinance in action; and if any is- <br />sues came up, noted it could be tweaked at that time to fulfill the goals of the City <br />of Roseville, as was the typical way of all new ordinances once put into practice. <br />Councilmember Laliberte noted the number of references throughout to "as de- <br />tennined by the City Forester," and sought verification that this was applicable to <br />in-house staff and/or consultants. <br />Mr. Gozola advised that he typically crafted the language to designate the Com- <br />munity Development Department for however they delegated that task. However, <br />Mr. Gozola advised that the Planning Commission wanted specific language to <br />say that whoever was assigned to that task had to have one or those two creden- <br />tials, thus the additional language added to Section B, Subsection 4. <br />For an internal project for the Parks Departinent, Councilinember Laliberte ques- <br />tioned if they would also have to seek sign off as written from the Cominunity <br />Developinent Department. <br />Mr. Gozola responded that, if the particular project was subject to the threshold <br />for improvements, they would need to do so. <br />On page 6 of the draft ordinance (line 177), Councilmember Etten noted the refer- <br />ence to disturbance plan, in identifying� which significant trees and their various <br />iinpacts, and if that included significant, heritage and common trees; and whether <br />that was too specific and should simply list heritage or common types as well. <br />Mr. Gozola agreed with that suggestion, noting he would revise langl.iage to "in- <br />ventoried trees" as a way to keep it more open. <br />On page 7, lines 210-216, Councilmember Etten noted the DBH for deciduous <br />trees and then referencing that table, questioning how to make that and the height <br />work together. <br />Mr. Gozola responded that it would be based on the actual inventory itself; and <br />some way was needed to equate what type of tree it was compared with the conif- <br />erous loss to deterinine any penalty/credit in a given situation as calculated. Mr. <br />Gozola noted this would be accomplished simply by doing the initial height to <br />inches calculation for inventory and for replaceinent. <br />On page 4, Section E. 3(Common Trees — line 133 — 137), Councilmember Etten <br />noted the tree classifications and height for three designations; while on page 6, it <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.