My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-06-01_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
2016-06-01_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/16/2016 10:17:38 AM
Creation date
9/16/2016 10:17:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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 Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2016 <br />Page 10 <br />Ms. Collins noted that as much as the Community Development Department is involved <br />453 <br />in crime prevention when considering redevelopment of certain areas, through crime <br />454 <br />deterrent redevelopment and landscaping, as well as through environmental design; and <br />455 <br />also through city code to address walkability and integrating those aspects in the plan for <br />456 <br />connecting pathways and walkability. As far as community-wide emergency <br />457 <br />preparedness, Ms. Collins noted there was considerable and rigorous training in place for <br />458 <br />city staff to go through, even though that was on the periphery through regional and <br />459 <br />federal mandates. However, Ms. Collins agreed that the more the community could do to <br />460 <br />improve the public perception of public safety, the better (e.g. design, lighting, etc.). <br />461 <br />As mentioned by Mr. Lloyd, Member Daire stated he would be satisfied if this area was <br />462 <br />intentionally documented in the plan that an overall city program was in place and active. <br />463 <br />Related to Member Boguszewski’s written question #4 and 5, Mr. Lloyd again clarified <br />464 <br />that those second outside the purview of the Planning Commission had been removed <br />465 <br />from consideration in the update, but would be in process in a parallel mode but not part <br />466 <br />of the immediate work of the Planning Commission and their role in the plan update. <br />467 <br />In the RFQ, Member Bull stated it was extremely important for community engagement, <br />468 <br />and expressed appreciation that was spelled out. As part of the firm’s proposal, Member <br />469 <br />Bull suggested they discuss their experience and proposed plan for that engagement, <br />470 <br />especially related to immigrant groups in the community. Also as far as only considering <br />471 <br />three candidates, Member Bull urged more flexibility for the discretion of the committee in <br />472 <br />how many firms made it to the short list. Regarding the timing for the RFQ/RFP process, <br />473 <br />Member Bull suggested that 3.5 week timeframe was too tight and should be lengthened. <br />474 <br />Member Murphy, with confirmation by Ms. Collins, noted the RFP could be tweaked while <br />475 <br />the RFQ was under review. <br />476 <br />Regarding Member Boguszewski’s item #6 about adding the equity and climate change <br />477 <br />aspects, Mr. Lloyd noted that had already been addressed tonight and were intended to <br />478 <br />add an additional lens or some mindfulness to goals being adopted and taken into <br />479 <br />account throughout the plan. Mr. Lloyd noted this could include other community <br />480 <br />concerns such as trouble accessing services or programs due to language or <br />481 <br />transportation barriers and suggesting easier ways to get around Roseville and the <br />482 <br />region. Mr. Lloyd reiterated that this was not being proposed as new components of the <br />483 <br />plan but additional ways to review what the community was doing. <br />484 <br />At the request of the Commission, staff reviewed the next steps to present ideas and <br />485 <br />feedback to the City Council, which may result in further edits to the draft RFQ and RFP <br />486 <br />documents; and identifying the scope for public engagement as part of the City Council <br />487 <br />and CEC’s discussions going forward. <br />488 <br />Vice Chair Cunningham opined it would be great to have public comment prior to putting <br />489 <br />out the RFP if that was possible. However, Vice Chair Cunningham noted that allowing <br />490 <br />solicitation of that input throughout the process was an important step to continue along <br />491 <br />the path of more community engagement. <br />492 <br />Member Murphy thanked staff for listening to commissioner comments. <br />493 <br />Member Bull agreed and asked that staff alert the commission to their need of any other <br />494 <br />guidance if needed. <br />495 <br />When presenting this information to the City Council, Member Gitzen suggested it may <br />496 <br />provide more clarity to provide preliminary documents versus the redlined versions. <br />497 <br />Ms. Collins thanked the commission for their input; and clarified that the intent of this draft <br />498 <br />document presentation was only to provide a baseline and timeframe, noting the <br />499 <br />significant input yet needed, but intended as a starting point. Ms. Collins opined that the <br />500 <br />City Council would find tonight’s discussion a tremendous resource for them. <br />501 <br />7. Adjourn <br />502 <br /> <br />Vice Chair Cunningham adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:16 p.m. <br />503 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.