Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992/06/30 - Workshop Minutes - PC-HPCCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting June 30, 1992 Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. The meeting was held in the Planning Division Conference Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitlea, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary , , , , PLANNING COMMISSION GOALS AND PRIORITIES There was a discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the Planning Commission. Strengths included the Commissioners being involved for the right reasons, autonomy, the willingness to spend necessary time, respect of the views of others, follow through, preparation of Commissioners, and visionary Commissioners. Weaknesses noted were the need for a mission statement, project orientation instead of policy orientation, reactive vs. proactive, listen to citizen concerns, contacts with outside agencies including the County, design review overshadowing planning. Commissioner Vallette felt there was a lack of written communications from the engineering staff and she thought the Department head should attend some of the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Melcher felt more emphasis should be placed on planning issues as opposed to design review issues. Commissioner Vallette suggested that more citizen input be sought. Commissioner Tolstoy remarked that there had been a lot of input in the formation of the General Plan and the various specific plans. He noted that as the plans have been revised, the City has sought public input and received little. He stated that generally the City only hears the negative comments, not constructive ones. Commissioner Vallette suggested the Commission may wish to appoint a community representative to be sure that citizens have the same access to the Commission that developers have. Chairman McNiel felt the citizens have as much access to the Commission as developers. Commissioner Vallette suggested that Commissioners attend neighborhood meetings in connection with projects. Chairman McNiel did not feel it was always appropriate for Commissioners to attend such meetings, as their attendance may be viewed as support of the project. Commissioner Melcher suggested procedures be established for ex parte communications. He felt that all Commissioners who participate should make a record with a copy forwarded to the appropriate staff person for inclusion in the project file. He also thought an announcement should be made at the meeting when the item is on the agenda. He felt a community representative should not be appointed, but it should be made clear to the public that Commissioners are accessible. He suggested a Planning Division open house, similar to the open house conducted by Building & Safety. He thought Commissioners could be available at the open house. Commissioner Tolstoy felt each Commissioner should return telephone calls, but he observed that he listens only and never makes any commitment. Chairman McNiel stated he also will not provide commitments when meeting with developers. There was a brief discussion of priorities. The Commission felt the Commission should establish mutual, proactive goals. They thought it important to team with staff, become more visionary, work on public relations with the Chamber of Commerce and City Council, and maintain a focus on planning issues. Commissioner Melcher suggested that the Commissioners are members of the community and they should provide their input on matters of community planning. He thought the Commission should be involved in the adoption of the Affordable Housing Plan and the North Town Neighborhood Plan. He suggested the Commissioners surrender routine project planning work to the professional staff. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested there should be more input from the Advance Planning staff. He questioned what items were being worked on by staff. Brad Buller, City Planner, indicated he would be willing to update the Commission on the Advance Planning work programs and priorities. He noted the Planning Division was currently working on items including the fourth portion of the multi-family housing redesignation (northwest section of the City), a land use study of the southwest corner of Haven and Foothill, security management for commercial establishments, the Old Alta Loma Plan, implementation of the Arroyo Seco Study, and an adult business ordinance. Commissioner Melcher suggested involving two Planning Commissioners earlier in the Development Review process, possibly during the completion review process. He questioned if term limits should be imposed. Planning Co~unission Minutes -2- June 30, 1992 Commissioner Chitlea noted that it is nice to have a sense of continuity on the Commission. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that term limits could be a loss to the Commission and that it should be left to individual Commissioners to determine if they wished to reapply. Commissioner Vallette agreed it could hurt the Commission to lose historical expertise. Commissioner Tolstoy felt that it is helpful when making decisions to know why policies were originally adopted. Commissioner Chitlea noted that individual Planning Commissioners may be extremely dedicated and it would be unfortunate to lose a dedicated Commissioner because of a term limit. Commissioner Melcher agreed that term limits were not necessary, in that the City Council takes each appointment seriously. It was the consensus of the Commission that a future workshop should be scheduled for Monday, July 13, 1992, at 4:00 p.m. to further discuss their goals and priorities. , , , · , ADJOURNMENT- ' The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -3- June 30, 1992