Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/1992 PRC MinutesCITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Whelan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Plunk, Stitt, Vice Chairman Ruzicka, and Chairman Whelan. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Administrative Assistant Kellee Fritzal, Recreation Supervisor Bob Rose, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MINUTES: Jan. 9, 1992 Motion was made by VC/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of January 9, 1992. C/Stitt and C/Meyer abstained. SPECIAL PRESENTATION: General Plan CDD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the Plan For Resource Management. It is an important component of the City's developing General Plan, containing two important elements: Open Space and Conservation. The Commission inquired of the status of the General Plan, the time frame involved, and the Commission's role in the document's process. CDD/DeStefano briefly reviewed the history of the City's process towards developing a General Plan. It is anticipated that the Parks and Recreation Commission will review the Resource Management Element in February of 1992, and that the entire draft General Plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in March of 1992. The document will then be brought to the City Council for their review. He explained that State planning law requires every City, and County, within the State, to have a General Plan. The minimum of seven (7) mandated elements of a General Plan are: Land Use; Circulation; Housing; Open Space; Conservation; Safety; and Noise. The State mandates that all of these elements be internally consistent. CDD/DeStefano further explained that the issues to be incorporated within the elements of the Plan for Resource Management are more an area of policy rather than specific implementation. He suggested that the Commission, when reviewing the document, think about what they would like included, and January 23, 1992 Page 2 ! then, as a body, decide what should, or should not, be made as recommendations. He then referred the Commission to the two (2) color coded maps representing the existing land uses within the community, and the General Plan ' Advisory Committee's (GPAC) proposed land use classification for the community. He explained that the major land use changes that are going to occur, over the next 20 years, are going to be the development of the undeveloped open land.' Chair/Whelan inquired how it is determined what percentage of the open space should be used for park lands. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission may wish to identify land uses that they would like seen in the open space areas, and/or to establish a policy of the overall standard as to how many acres of active recreation land, per 1,000 people, as well as the number of acres, per 1,000 people, for passive recreation land that is achievable within this community,. C/Meyer suggested that those recreational facilities and opportunities that are assessable to the community should also be explored. C/Plunk suggested that the figures used to determine the guidelines should indicate population based on build out. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's observation, stated that staff has also questioned the provided information that states, "The City presently has a ratio of 1.1 acre of parkland and 8.8 acres of total recreational land per 1,000 residents.". Staff has requested that the consultants research that information. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission determine what it has today, where it should be in the future, and essentially how it should get there, in terms of setting a standard that is achievable, and, through an implementation measure, work towards a Master Plan of all of those recreational uses. C/Meyer suggested that, during the development is^kq review process, the Commission should have the opportunity to provide input in determining if the recreational needs of the community have been satisfied. An element of the Master Plan should be ..,I' I''�; ,y,,.�..,. ,, r t , t r .F. _;�.,!.. .a , i ,� � ;Vf. ':fir kkh. ll�l �'t.l" .�5 .'fir 'w `� January 23, 1992 mage 3 assessing what the Commission feels to be the City's recreational needs. C/Plunk, noting that the Commission is in concurrence of the need for developing a Parks and Recreation Master Plan, suggested developing a Needs Assessment as well. CDD/De5tefano, in response to the Commission's desire to have input in the Development Review process, suggested that the Commission could present a statement to the City Council requesting to develop a Parks Master Plan, and discuss a desire to review those elements of the development process that the Commission wishes to participate in. C/Plunk suggested, and C/Meyer concurred, that the Commission should develop a time line and a business plan. AA/Fritzal, in response to Chair/Whelan's concern that the Commission needs more time to discuss the land use element, suggested that the Commission 1 meet at 6:00 p.m., February 13, 1992 for a study session. The Commission concurred. C/Plunk requested staff to gather data of other city's elements, for comparison purposes, to include some of their policies of preserving open space, establishing park and recreation standards, and determining if it is applicable to our community. C/Meyer requested staff to gather information from those communities that have developed a Needs Assessment. CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/RuzickaIs inquiry, summarized that, on behalf of GPAC and the Planning Commission, he is seeking an understanding of the Commission's feelings regarding the goals and policy statements within the document. Specifically, he would like to know if they are consistent with the direction the Commission believes the City should move forward in, does it contain all the elements the Commission feels are important, and, if not, what should be added to it. Tt is up to the Commission how the document is to be reviewed. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Stitt and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue discussion at 6:00 p.m., February 13, 1992. January 23, 1992 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS: Anniversary AA/Fritzal reported that the Diamond Bar Celebration Improvement Association (DBIA) has agreed to fund the Third Anniversary Celebration, to be conducted April 25, 1992 at 'Sycamore Canyon Park. The event will be planned by a Committee of DBIA, Historical Society, staff and a Parks and Recreation Commissioner. Furthermore, the Historical Society has agreed to be involved 'in the Heritage Park Grand Re -Opening, i.e. display, as was suggested by the Commission. VC/Ruzicka informed staff that Mr. Zirbes, the president of the DBIA,indicated to him that, although they would enjoy participating in the anniversary event, the DBIA is not prepared to fund the celebration. He 'requested a budget analysis of the event. AA/Fritzal explained that funding for the anniversary event was eliminated by the City Council due to budget constraints. She stated that staff was unaware of the information presented by VC/Ruzicka. The matter will be investigated. Don Gravdahl, Vice Chairman of the Historical Society, stated that the Historical Society would like to be included in the Committee that plans the Heritage Park Grand Re -Opening. He further indicated their desire to be able to have a display at the Third Anniversary Celebration. He suggested that perhaps the anniversary event could be celebrated during one of the Concerts in the Parks. VC/Ruzicka suggested that staff communicate with the DBIA about the idea presented by Mr. Gravdahl. The Commission concurred to have the Historical society participate in the Heritage Park Re- opening. Chair/Whelan requested staff to investigate the option of celebrating the Anniversary, as an ice- cream social event, at one of the Concerts in the Park, perhaps in April. By doing so, further funding would not be needed. AA/Fritzal explained that the budget for the concerts was spent last summer. The new budget fiscally begins July of 1992. As of now, this years concerts are proposed to begin the first week in July. In response to the Commission's inquiry, January 23, 1992 Page 5 AA/Fritzal indicated that the cost of a concert is approximately $1,500 dollars. Chair/Whelan indicated to Mr. Gravdahl that other options for funding will be investigated for an ice-cream social Anniversary event. The information will be available at the next regular meeting, February 27, 1992. Chair/Whelan requested a volunteer to be on the sub -committee with a member from the Historical Society. At this time, no one volunteered. AA/Fritzal indicated that, if the Commission so desires, staff will investigate other options to organize the anniversary event, and receive further information from the DBIA, and bring the information back to the Commission at the February 27th meeting. The Commission concurred. Ronald Reagan The staff report indicated that the Ordinance of Park Basketball the City Council supersedes the recommendation of Lights the Commission to turn the lights off at 9:00 p.m. at Ronald Reagan Park. The lights will be shut off at 10:00 p.m., based on the Ordinance. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation. Chair/Whelan requested staff to notify and inform the citizen, who made the request, about the Ordinance. Add'1 Parking AA/Fritzal addressed the Commission regarding the at Peterson Park request made by Councilman Forbing for an estimate to construct additional parking at Peterson Park. It is staff's recommendation that additional parking not be provided due to the already limited supply of parkland. Motion was made by VC/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation. Mid -Year RS/Rose reviewed the six month report on Diamond Recreation Bar's Recreation Services. He indicated that he Review will be submitting, shortly, a report on next year's program. C/Plunk requested that information on the cost per participant be provided in the near future. January 23p 1992 Page 6 Recreational RS/Rose reviewed the report on the Recreational�f',G�$1" Programming/ Programming/Census Information. As requested, the Census Info. Recreation staff has reviewed the programming offered to the Diamond Bar community to determine it's responsiveness to the stated needs and desires of the community. Mission Profile VC/Ruzicka submitted to staff and the Commission a & Priority List copy of his proposed Parks and Recreation Commission's Mission Profile and Priorities List. He reiterated the'need to establish a Master Parks Plan, focusing on priorities both long and short term. The proposal focused on the following categories: administration; budget; acquisitions; capital improvements; retrofitting; programming; sub -committees; and policy. The purpose of the proposal is to focus on high priority items, summarize the Commission's accomplishments, and indicate future plans. The Commission would be able to make any changes, adjustments, or additions as needed. C/Plunk stated that the proposal is more of a calendar in priorities list, than a mission profile: It should probably be reviewed quarterly by the Commission, and semi annually, to be presented by the Chairperson. She made the following suggestions: change "retrofitting" to "maintenance"; divide the capital improvements to separate major and minor projects; change "acquisitions" to "land acquisitions"; and include the JPA and the individual contracts. She indicated that she had envisioned the "White Paper" to be more like this proposal. C/Plunk requested that the Mission Profile and Priorities List be worked into the "White Paper." OLD BUSINESS: Park and Chair/Whelan explained that there has not been any Recreation changes made to the draft "White Paper" as of yet. Issues C/Plunk suggested that the "White Paper" be written in bullet form. In regards to the CIP, she suggested that it should be - a staff function to develop the Mission Profile and Priorities List. Also, items concerning general philosophy should be calendared for discussion at a future date. C/Stitt stated that the community swimming pool should be included in the CIP list. n. -v 1 r�, v I,A..,�� M6 nr�e �.z,.r.'I' ;ii a "I1 rr _, 3anuary 23, 1992 Page 7 C/Plunk requested staff to list which items on the CIP have been completed. She requested the following items to be included in the CIP list: signage indicating "Reservation Area"; benches; and a list of areas of acquisition, or improvements of park. C/Ruzicka suggested, and C/Meyer concurred, that the results from the Park and Recreation Survey should not be heavily relied upon. Proposed AA/Fritzal reported that the Parks and Recreation Adopt -A -Park sub -committee met and developed the Adopt -A -Park Program program, including all aspects of the proposed program, as is indicated in the staff report. The program results are intangible at this point. If the Commission agrees to the proposal, then it will be forwarded to the Council at a future date. AA/Fritzal, in response to C/flunk's concern, stated that the proposed Adopt -A -Park program would be to augment the existing maintenance budget and not to replace it. Chair/Whelan inquired if the proposal contains all the necessary information that would be desired by the Council. AA/Fritzal stated that a fiscal impact report, which will be prepared by staff, and the matrix information previously reviewed by the Commission, would be included within the parameters. C/Meyer suggested that the proposal go before Council along with the "White Paper". C/Plunk inquired if the Council would be able to discuss the proposal, and act upon it, if it is included in with the "White Paper". CDD/DeStefano indicated that, with respect to the Planning Commission's understanding, the study session is an opportunity to present a variety of concepts and ideas to the City Council. The City Council would incorporate those ideas back into the new charge for the new Commission for the ensuing year. C/Stitt, referring to some of the listed capital improvement projects, inquired if the City would ' incur liability if a service group buys equipment from the City and an injury occurs due to a defect in that equipment. January 23, 1992 Page 8 AA/Fritzal stated that service groups, desiring equipment, would finance the money to the City, the City would purchase the equipment, still incurring the liability, but insuring it's proper installation. The Commission concurred to include the Adopt -A - Park program with the "White Paper". ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Plunk requested that future Commission meetings be caiendared and published on a consistent basis. C/Stitt volunteered to be on the sub -committee to assist the DBIA and the Historical Society with the Anniversary Celebration if the financing situation is straightened out. VC/Ruzicka requested staff to determine if Peterson Park could be used for the softball tournament scheduled July 27 - August 1, 1992. He inquired if staff had any information regarding the rumor that Orange County is contemplating in buying the Firestone Boy Scout reservation. CDD/DeStefano stated that he had not heard anything along that line. VC/Ruzicka inquired about the possible development of the property between Pathfinder on Brea Canyon, which would include Sandstone Canyon. CDD/DeStefano explained that the land is zoned for single family homes, and there is a development interest for about 100 homes. It is anticipated that staff will receive a specific development proposal within the next few months. It would undoubtedly require a full EIR to assess all the issues. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Resp,6ctivelyy, le 1Ke1lee Fritzal Secretary Attest: Pat Whelan Chairman I i�• -m .,ti ,,, ��r, „.,�-�, �P.i, 7 T,.�„..,,.,,-. s,., -.i � .,..­ "17 It,