My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_1008
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_1008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/25/2018 11:05:04 AM
Creation date
10/25/2018 11:04:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/8/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, October 8, 2018 <br /> Page 16 <br /> Mayor Roe thought that item was an example of why it might be a good idea to <br /> somehow combine the lists. He tended to agree that there are different purposes <br /> perhaps in some of the items,but he did not think there was need for two lists. <br /> Councilmember Etten noted there are items that are not hash tagged but on both <br /> lists. He thought the two lists crisscross more than what is being shown. It may <br /> be that a combined list makes some sense. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte stated she was looking at this differently because there <br /> are two lists. The City has the Pathway Master Plan which is the master list and <br /> maybe the Parks Constellation list is an overlay or a subset. <br /> Mayor Roe thought there may be a way to have two lists and also a consolidated <br /> list. <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated the City is trying to connect parks and food <br /> sources and transportation hubs and churches and schools and these are all part of <br /> the community. It seems that it is to have one Master Plan. She understood if <br /> parks, for their purposes want to have their own little set of connection to keep <br /> track of, that was fine, but she thought this was clearly one Master Plan for the <br /> City. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated the Parks plan was developed in a time period and <br /> thought that would stay as a reference separate and then the City look at how the <br /> two lists can be combined. If the City were to combine the lists, he thought the <br /> Park list would stay because that was done in a separate process. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte indicated she would be fine with that. She asked staff if <br /> the City had to report or provide a Pathways Master Plan for the City park system <br /> to any other government entity. Is the City required to have that or provide that in <br /> any other fashion. <br /> Mr. Brokke stated the City does not have to report for any reason other than it is <br /> part of the City accreditation process, so the City does include it for that. Wheth- <br /> er it is overlaid, he thought the two lists were separate because the map can get <br /> pretty busy so having separate maps to work from or look at is a good idea. Over- <br /> laying all of it is the intent, the constellation concept of connecting the parks and <br /> business and community was really meant to overlay on the Pathway Master Plan <br /> and work together. From an organization standpoint, he thought it made sense to <br /> overlay it but then still have the separate one directly related to parks. <br /> Mayor Roe stated in looking at the scoring, some of the pathways are scored dif- <br /> ferently. He thought it seems like it would be helpful to have an overall list and <br /> then the City can still maintain the two separate focuses and the maps. He would <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.