2017-01-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 7 segment of the Roseville community during this engagement process, and whether or 265 not they were noticed as a quorum of the PC in attendance, at a minimum tie back into 266 the more formal, noticed meetings; and involving small meetings as well as the more 267 formal meetings. 268 CEC Commissioner Tomlinson expressed his curiosity of how the PC picturedthat 269 formal kick-off meeting: if held on the City Campus (e.g. OVAL) or elsewhere; what its 270 format would look like. 271 Ms. Major asked to stop for a moment and differentiate for a moment between the kick- 272 off meeting for the PC and City Council that the public would obviously be welcome to 273 attend; and how to best organize the more formal process serving as a kick-off to get 274 public feedback and their exciting ideas.Ms. Major noted those were two separate areas 275 from the team’s perspective. 276 For the first one, Chair Boguszewski stated he saw that as the PC gaveling it into 277 session as an actual PC meeting; with the second event hosted by WSB as a third party, 278 and including the City Council, PC, CEC, and all others for an informal meeting where 279 the purpose was for the city groups to listen to the public’s ideas and feedback. 280 Under that scenario, Ms. Major recommended notification processes be very different for 281 both.While not wanting to burn out the community on comprehensive plan-related 282 notices, all which should be legal and open to the public, Ms. Major suggested making 283 the opportunities exciting and enticing for the community to attend and become involved 284 in the process for their city. 285 Chair Boguszewski suggested a format similar to the community engagement eventon 286 diversity held at different locations, but still large public spaces and easily accessible. 287 Ms. Major agreed, similar to the Parks Master Plan process; and noting that the City 288 Council Chambers didn’t always provide the best place for those public meetings to be 289 held. 290 Chair Boguszewski agreed that the City Council Chambers tended to lend an aura of 291 official business rather than starring members of the public; reiterating the city’s need to 292 retain their role in simply listening to that public feedback. 293 Public Engagement Plan 294 As outlined in their November 29, 2016 memorandum, Ms. Major advised that the draft 295 public engagement plan was preliminarily prepared in advance of tonight’s meeting 296 based on staff feedback by Mr. Lloyd and his colleagues with their initial ideas and 297 comments.Ms. Major noted that while they wanted the PC to feel that some items were 298 ongoing, the gaps were intentional for PC input.Ms. Major asked that the PC comment 299 on the preliminary proposal, especially since they knew those organizations listed, as 300 well as others not listed, better than their team could know. 301 Chair Boguszewski noted that, at the same time this plan was desired to be reality based 302 for content, it was also intentionally presented as a deliverable reflecting different levels 303 of depth representing foresight versus immediate need.Chair Boguszewski asked if 304 there were other comprehensive plan updates that the WSB team collectively produced 305 that the PC could review as comparables, or review a range of the team’s involvement– 306 whether three pages or broader –that could serve as documents in the website 307 repository as examples or ideas of what other communities have used for community 308 engagement and the amount of detail involved. 309