2017-01-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 19 one aspect in the demographics with people from the older generation maybe no longer 820 around in 2040, but those auxiliary dwelling units created for the parents now available 821 or vacant and creatingimpacts for how the city handles them (e.g. rentals); or how the 822 community provided a vehicle for kids who wanted to stay within the community to 823 realistically do so. 824 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Major agreed that an additional column 825 dealing with methods for participation could be identified, selected and engaged.Ms. 826 Major noted that was one reason she didn’t provide for an all-inclusive list at this stage; 827 clarifying that the WSB team had been hired to make suggestions, with the community 828 filling in the details specific to Roseville.At the suggestion of Chair Boguszewski, and 829 influences to the WSB team by the CEC, school leadership and school students, Ms. 830 Major agreed that the PC consider additional columns as well as how to select who was 831 involved, times for involvement, locations, types of questions, and how best to record 832 responses. 833 Chair Boguszewski suggested that be documented, thereby allowing the PC to make 834 sure each group is valid, as well as for input from the public. 835 Given the available time, Member Bull suggested not only covering weekday meetings 836 due to work schedules and other variables, but allowing a neighborhood network tool as 837 another outreach method not currently on the list.Member Bull stated he was concerned 838 about how to make non-Caucasian groups feel welcome to participate, just using the 839 representation of the room tonight in its homogenous look. Member Bull opined that 840 ways were needed to reach out to them for their participation and engagement; and 841 stated he would look to the CEC and WSB team for that. 842 Chair Boguszewski suggested identifying the leaders in those various communities and 843 going to them at one of their regular meetings and as part of their agenda. 844 Ms. Major advised that, in talking to staff, the Human RightsCommission and CEC had 845 already made inroads into those areas, and therefore it would only be necessary to build 846 on those relationships, since there was no substitute for time and energy already 847 expended. 848 Member Bull suggested teeing that involvement with Rice Street redevelopment. 849 CEC Commissioner Sparby noted as actual tools were drilled down and stakeholder 850 interviews noted, he would be leery of any undue influence in the process and ensure 851 they remained very transparent.Member Sparby noted as an example, if consultants 852 intended to meet with developers or other in the process, as well as other meetings 853 beneath the surface like one-on-one interviews, that transparency may be lost. 854 Chair Boguszewski advised that that comment fit into the direction providedto himin 855 conversationswith Councilmembers, again reiterating that one-or two be identified from 856 the PC to be point people and invited to any and all meetings. 857 Ms. Major clarified that “one-on-ones” were never just between the consultant and that 858 party, but all involving duly noticed opportunities and open to the public but sometimes 859 the only way to get people to talk. 860 CEC Member Sparby asked how that transparency would be addressed without a 861 redundancy in written comments or summary, and who, what and where that would be 862 processed or become available. 863 Discussion ensued regarding the importance of other ideas, different meeting concepts, 864 social media components for notices and to receive feedback; and difficulties with 865