2016-12-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 9 needed to be aware of that by providing a filter to guide information and discussion, and 357 not simply open the process up to indiscriminate feedback. 358 Member Bull agreed that while seeking participation by all community stakeholders, 359 trade-offs were necessary in light of cost benefits and prioritization within the 360 comprehensive plan. From his perspective and review, Member Bull opined that WSB 361 provided a good process to accomplish that goal. 362 While it is true that part of the process intent is to further the relationship with the 363 community, Chair Boguszewski provided an example of a fictional subset of the 364 community who may consider themselves as a special sub-community and attempt to 365 steer or alter the comprehensive plan process based on special interests versus the 366 broader goals for the entire community. Chair Boguszewski suggested the need to 367 validate those sub-communities but differentiate those special interests from the broader 368 goals of the comprehensive plan update and planning for the future of Roseville. 369 Member Cunningham opined that such a statement made a lot of assumptions ahead of 370 time; while hearing from those sub-groups may provide ideas for the comprehensive 371 plan not yet considered by the city and its advisors. 372 Chair Boguszewski agreed that might be true, but expressed his concern that the 373 process not get bogged down with biases or unknown prejudices, but instead provide a 374 balance. 375 In referring to the initial discussions of the comprehensive plan update, Member Bull 376 noted staff bringing forward ideas about community values, markets and sustainability, 377 as well as climate controls and other aspects. Out of views like those, Member Bull 378 opined that things may come out of community feedback that may reshape the 379 community during the process, as things that are important to the community come 380 forward. 381 Member Gitzen opined that the process preliminarily outlined by WSB provided a 382 framework for the city to keep the process focused. 383 Ms. Major agreed with that assessment, referencing the table on pages 4 and 5 of their 384 memorandum and identifying various targets, desired input, existing organizations or 385 events, and potential tools to use. Ms. Major noted there was no need to have a meeting 386 without first knowing why. Ms. Major identified targets, focus groups per topics, and 387 stakeholder interviews with key individuals that would help identify who was being 388 addressed and what tools would work best. Ms. Major suggested the PC retain a high 389 degree of flexibility to allow additional groups to be added throughout the process and 390 their potential role in the update, thereby making adjustments on the fly. As another part 391 of the flexible process, Ms. Major noted that would allow goals to be set for the process 392 and then check-in points for those goals to consider adjustments in the middle of the 393 process if so indicated if those goals aren’t being met and without bogging down the 394 overall process. 395 Chair Boguszewski agreed that the team involved could add other organizations if and/or 396 as they’re identified. However, Chair Boguszewski asked WSB representatives if and 397 how that affected their initial contract and if or how the process limited that number 398 before falling into the contract cost overages. 399 Ms. Major referenced page 32 of their proposal, showing suggested engagement tools 400 for the public participation segment and plan elements included and optional add-ons 401 under a contingency of $10,000. Ms. Major advised that these were suggestions based 402 on their firm’s assumptions and past experience, and also allowed some flexibility by 403