My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0725
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/26/2016 2:31:57 PM
Creation date
8/17/2016 1:47:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/25/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
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, July 25, 2016 <br />Page 25 <br />Proposal, Section 3, Additional Information, Pa�e 7 <br />Item d <br />Councilmember McGehee asked staff what was intended by this additional infor- <br />mation request. <br />Mr. Lloyd responded it was intended to include a consultant's methods for getting <br />input (e.g. survey methods, etc.). <br />Item b <br />In reading the city's own most recent survey, Councilmember McGehee noted <br />50% of the community weren't on line; so the idea of having the technology com- <br />ponent as a requirement from her perspective didn't seem like a big plus. Coun- <br />cilmember McGehee asked staff to bear in mind that many in the community <br />didn't depend on cell phones or were able to use the internet. <br />Regarding the use of technology, Mayor Roe stated when he read that section, he <br />took it as not engaging the public through technology so much as a consultant's <br />interaction with staff and working more efficiently. <br />Mr. Lloyd clarified that the language was intended to cover a full range of techno- <br />logical advantages. <br />Mayor Roe recognized Councilmember McGehee's concerns, but also spoke in <br />support of not losing sight of electronic efficiencies throughout the process. <br />Public Safety, Section C.1, Pa�e 5 <br />Councilmember Etten asked if it was common to have this section included and <br />sought comparisons with other community comprehensive plan updates. <br />Mr. Lloyd responded that he was not aware of chapters specific for public safety, <br />but at the low end of what may be involved would include a view toward envi- <br />ronmental design. Mr. Lloyd noted this would include intentional landscape de- <br />sign focused on public safety, such as scenarios that didn't' increase the risk for <br />pedestrians or traffic to address design guidelines (e.g. lighting, allowing more <br />eyes on the street, etc.). <br />Section C, 3, Thrive MSP 2040 Outcomes, Page 5 <br />Councilmember Willmus noted the Planning Commission's discussion on this ar- <br />ea, and asked staff to expand on what the Metropolitan Council was actually look- <br />ing for. <br />Mr. Lloyd responded that it was not a requirement or nothing formal was re- <br />quired, but through the Metropolitan Council's latest planning efforts advised <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.