My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0319_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0319_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:38:43 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:20:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
111
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
B) Creating a new Comprehensive Plan whiell reflects the current vision of the <br />community and meets the requirements set forth in the System Statement, or; <br />' C) Assessing each of our plan's eleven sections and eleven appendices to determine <br />� which of these is still relevant and which have become obsolete and to undertake <br />� technical updates of those relevant sections and recreate the obsolete sections in a <br />fi manner consistent with the System Statement. <br />, Each of these alternatives has its own merits and drawbacks (or pros and cons) and each <br />� will require some level of external assistance from consultants who may have more time <br />7 andJor expertise for completing certain portions of the plan. The following is a brief <br />]� outline of staffs assessment of the pros and cons of each alternative: <br />1] <br />�� <br />I '� <br />L� <br />:5 <br />'_� <br />Malcing Technical Updates <br />p� <br />o Least expensive (tentatively estimated at less than $35,000); <br />o Fastest— could be completed within 6 months; <br />o Least controversial. <br />Cons <br />]' o Would not reflect current community values as conceptualized in the Imagine <br />]� Roseville 2025 document (the existingplan is infoz�aec� by the 1992 Vista 2020 <br />I �� visioning exercise); <br />�� o Would continue to utilize our current Comprehensive Plan, which staff views as <br />? 1 unwieldy (at nearly 7 inches in depth and estimated to be at least 1,500 pages in <br />.�.? length); <br />:�=� o Would likely involve the least amount of community participation and could <br />�� result in frustration by citizens who wish to participate in substantive changes; <br />�� o Particular sections of the current Comprehensive Plan are heavily framed around <br />��� the adoption (by reference) of Master Plans which are either outdated or <br />'_? unsupportedby the community and have proven to be too rigid to be effective <br />' � comprehensive planning tools; <br />�� o Several sections of the current ComprehensivePlan fail to provide any statements <br />;7 i? of vision, goals or objectives (which is a key purpose of a comprehensive plan); <br />� I o May not be possible; Community Development staff spent several weeks <br />?� attempting to make technical updates to the Economic Development and <br />� 3 Redevelopment section of the plan only to conclude that a technical update was <br />�{� G infeasible, if not impossible due to changes in, or dissolution of, referenced <br />i 5 organizations, changes in definitions and terminology, etc. <br />� <br />�•-� <br />,, <br />, <br />.i L. <br />�� <br />��,� <br />i' 1 <br />� <br />Rewriting the Entire ComprehensivePlan <br />P� <br />o Would reflect current community values as conceptualized in the Iznagir�� <br />Roseville 2025 document; <br />o Could be a valuable and usable tool for guiding the community's mission, goals, <br />objectives and strategies; <br />Council Comp Plan Memo 031907 �'���` �- Of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.