2016-06-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Page 8 Member Bull noted those larger concepts were not addressed in the previous plan, and 349 suggested that including those cultural impacts and makeup and integrating them into 350 sections of the plan, may make the process bigger than a simple update. 351 Mr. Lloyd clarified that some aspects are already being incorporated (e.g. bike facility 352 planning to encourage a future goal of commuting) in the current plan, leading to better 353 health, individually and communally. Mr. Lloyd noted that some of those were intentional 354 and others simply occurring by accident; but were being introduced to keep them in mind 355 as part of the process. 356 In the RFP, Member Bull noted the consultants were asked to respond to their 357 capabilities to address Roseville’s needs and timeline to do so, but noted they were not 358 included in the RFQ. Member Bull asked how the consultant could meet the parameters 359 without having some idea of the scope other than the bullet points; or whether or not 360 they’re qualified to make a proposal. 361 Ms. Collins responded that there were several schools of thought involved; but the main 362 issue was the city didn’t know at this point to what degree it wanted for updating the 363 comprehensive plan, and involving several pricing options and timeframes. Ms. Collins 364 noted it was typically incumbent upon the consultant to alert the city to any specifics or 365 specialties of their firm; or laities for their rationale in proposing to work with the city. Ms. 366 Collins noted that this was part of staff’s desire to receive the Commission’s input before 367 proceeding further. 368 Member Bull opined that the more inclusive the scope the better the firm could respond to 369 meeting that scope, including the budget and timeframe and avoiding additional scope 370 creep and fees, and harder to manage the process without that specificity. 371 Vice Chair Cunningham stated her preference would to get the RFQ moving forward as 372 defined by staff. As far as the terms of the RFP, especially those parts most pertinent to 373 the Planning Commission, Vice Chair Cunningham stated she didn’t feel comfortable 374 issuing the RFP without looking at those sections more directly affecting the Commission. 375 Member Daire opined it was easier to come up with operational and capital budget plans 376 if the framework was in place versus a more challenging process in trying to develop a 377 street plan based on a public response group and independent consultant, coming 378 forward as a gelled plan with the problem of how to integrate it (e.g. transportation, 379 housing, open space/recreation, etc.). Member Daire expressed concern that those 380 response groups could become advocacy groups for their specific concentration or 381 concern with the outcome bending the development of the community accordingly, and 382 concentrating more money in those areas and further shrinking the city’s resource pool. 383 Member Daire stated he perceived this proposal to be a bottom up versus top down 384 planning process, and opined there would be inherent difficulties in bottom up versus top 385 down and representative groups considering multiple facets of the comprehensive plan. 386 As referenced in the second paragraph (page 2) of the RFQ, Member Kimble noted the 387 new suburban development competition trend for returning to urban cities, opinion that 388 was an enormous trend that created competition for inner-ring suburbs such as Roseville. 389 When considering a consulting firm’s capacity, Member Kimble suggested the need to 390 also understand what other comprehensive plans they’re working on or other cities if 391 they’re willing to share that information. Member Kimble opined that this provided a sense 392 of timing of a deliverable product, and the capacity of their firm. Member Kimble agreed 393 with including the issues of equity, good health and climate, noting many cities discussing 394 these aspects and involving the City of Roseville’s competitiveness as part of the 395 comprehensive plan. Member Kimble suggested there may be other areas to look at 396 involving real trends being talked about among cities. Member Kimble suggested a 397 proposer address that potential, current trends, and any omissions they found in what the 398 community was currently doing, which may speak to the city’s perceived lack of 399 knowledge or what people are seeking. 400