My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_180312
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_180312
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2018 1:22:27 PM
Creation date
3/29/2018 1:22:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/12/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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,March 12,2018 <br /> Page 19 <br /> Mayor Roe wondered whether the issue should return to the Public Works, Envi- <br /> ronment and Transportation Commission. <br /> Councilmember Etten noted this is not a substantive change, so it does not need to <br /> go back to PWET. <br /> Councilmember Willmus concurred. <br /> Public Works Director Culver asked if this possible change should be open to <br /> other entities. <br /> The Council indicated there is no support for opening it up to other entities. <br /> Right-of-Way Ordinance <br /> Mr. Freihammer noted the other ordinance deals with right-of-way, usually deal- <br /> ing with utilities in the City's right-of-way. There would be a City right-of-way <br /> permit for all right-of-way, whether it is State or County. Also, the ordinance <br /> does not address new technology. This will help define where those can be in- <br /> stalled and what type of materials can be used. The existing ordinance does not <br /> define it, so it needs to be defined. The majority of these installations will typi- <br /> cally be on County or State right-of-way. The City should have a say in those <br /> sorts of installations. Additionally, staff regularly receives calls on sidewalk ob- <br /> structions, and this helps the City have more direct control over permits issued by <br /> the County. The County and State are still the direct lead, but the City would <br /> have a say in it. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan noted the City is mandated to provide for such permits, <br /> but conditions can be attached. In terms of formatting, he suggested enumerating <br /> part of the language in Section 707.10, to make it easier to reference the Code <br /> (enumerations and changes highlighted in red): <br /> Permit Issuance: If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this <br /> Chapter, the 374 Director shall issue a permit, subject to the following <br /> procedure: <br /> Action on small wireless facility permit applications. <br /> 1. Deadline for action. The city shall approve or deny a small <br /> wireless facility permit application within 90 days after filing <br /> of such application. The small wireless facility permit and any <br /> associated building permit application, shall be deemed ap- <br /> proved if the city fails to approve or deny the application with- <br /> in the review periods established in this section <br /> 2. Consolidated applications. An applicant may file a consolidat- <br /> ed small wireless facility permit application addressing the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.