2016-12-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 11 photographing materials or charts used at those meetings (e.g. the room itself, displays, 450 etc.) and then include that information on the public website. 451 Based on their experience and the process laid out by WSB, Member Kimble observed 452 that her understanding was that the schedule itself was a work in progress. Member 453 Kimble admitted that the concept of more PC involvement was new to her and what 454 iteration was collected and the approach to get it approved. However, Member Kimble 455 asked if the intent was, as the community engagement process evolved, it was used 456 solely as a way to collect information and before the next step, to identify that collection 457 of information as an indicator. However, Member Kimble asked if a percentage of input 458 was combined with current trends and best practices or used to build consensus along 459 the way. In other words, Member Kimble asked how WSB intended to develop the input 460 and strategies around that input. 461 Ms. Major stated that she didn’t like to generalize too much as each project was 462 individual; and therefore she liked to start with a broad beginning with no final solutions 463 identified. Ms. Major advised that the intent was to determine what the issues were; and 464 reiterated that WSB was open to hear ideas from the PC and the community from an 465 educational and informational perspective. Ms. Major advised that the WSB process 466 started with nothing on paper beyond their initial questions; and then to develop issue- 467 based solutions as they’re identified through the community engagement process. At 468 that point, Ms. Major noted that WSB presented those initial concept draft ideas to the 469 community through follow-up engagement opportunities provided by the community as 470 things they wanted to get into the process and allowing them as neighborhoods to talk 471 about trade-offs to make them a reality. Ms. Major noted that WSB was available to 472 facilitate those community decisions, and allowing the community to hear each other and 473 their local government as WSB proposed final solutions at an open house later in the 474 process. Ms. Major noted the importance of the community being able to hear about and 475 walk through the process and see that their idea is still in the mix in some aspect; or if 476 not still there, follow-through as to why not. Ms. Major encouraged the city to return to 477 those stakeholders having provided feedback after the process is over to continue 478 relationship-building as one of the goals of the broader process. 479 Member Kimble expressed her support of that idea, by using meeting minutes and an 480 executive summary of the feedback that included their big ideas; and opined that a 481 percentage of people would probably land on the same or similar subjects; resulting in 482 building a continuum. 483 Member Bull asked how people could be encouraged to participate in community 484 engagement when asked to shape Roseville for the 2040 era versus now. 485 While recognizing it was difficult to get people to think more than five minutes into the 486 future, Ms. Major noted their firm’s review of current studies, trends and demographics 487 from their professional based allowed for scenario-based planning (e.g. driverless cars 488 on the street) and how those imaginary things become concrete concepts. Ms. Major 489 noted that this outside the box thinking allowed for future-based scenarios. Ms. Major 490 advised that people weren’t expected to be designers or long-term planners and figure it 491 out, but just to identify their issues, goals or how Roseville could become the community 492 of their dreams. 493 Chair Boguszewski agreed and clarified that while not asking people to come up with 494 solutions, they might have issues, needs or values they wanted incorporated into their 495 community. 496