HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1992 PRC MinutesC/Meyer stated that he would prefer that there be a
statement, in terms of the Intent, indicating that
the General Plan seeks to obtain some sort of
balance between urban open space and recreational
needs, and the preservation of identified scenic
resources.
CD/DeStefano noted the similarity, in Landcaster's
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
General Plan, with C/Meyer's suggestion. He
MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
indicated that, if the Commission desires, he will
STUDY SESSION
deal with the general intent of the Commission,
FEBRUARY 13, 1992
referencing Landcaster's General Plan, and come up
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Whelan called the meeting to order at 6:25
the next meeting. The Commission concurred.
p.m. at the AQMD, Room CC5, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
C/Plunk, referencing the Redland report and their
Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners: Plunk, Meyer, Stitt, Vice Chairman
be verbage in the General Plan indicating that
Ruzicka, and Chairman Whelan.
Diamond Bar is aggressively pursuing it's natural
Also present were Community Development Director
and scenic areas, and it's greenbelt, to enhance
James DeStefano, Administrative Assistant Kellee
the City's identity.
Fritzal and Recreational Supervisor Bob Rose.
OLD BUSINESS:
General Plan
Chair/Whelan explained to the Commission that
discussion on the draft General Plan should focus
on general issues. Issues pertaining to a site
specific should be addressed as part of the "White
Paper".
A. Introduction:
C/Meyer stated that he would prefer that there be a
statement, in terms of the Intent, indicating that
the General Plan seeks to obtain some sort of
balance between urban open space and recreational
needs, and the preservation of identified scenic
resources.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission first
identify that there is this resource in the
community, and then later; In the document, create
a goal or policy that seeks to preserve that image
and/or enhance it.
Chair/Whelan, concurring with C/Plunk, suggested
that such a statement be placed in the Intent
portion of the Introduction, and then be
specifically identified elsewhere in the document.
CD/DeStefano noted the similarity, in Landcaster's
General Plan, with C/Meyer's suggestion. He
indicated that, if the Commission desires, he will
deal with the general intent of the Commission,
referencing Landcaster's General Plan, and come up
with some language for the Commission's approval at
the next meeting. The Commission concurred.
C/Plunk, referencing the Redland report and their
emphasis on City identity, stated that there should
be verbage in the General Plan indicating that
Diamond Bar is aggressively pursuing it's natural
and scenic areas, and it's greenbelt, to enhance
the City's identity.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission first
identify that there is this resource in the
community, and then later; In the document, create
a goal or policy that seeks to preserve that image
and/or enhance it.
Chair/Whelan, concurring with C/Plunk, suggested
that such a statement be placed in the Intent
portion of the Introduction, and then be
specifically identified elsewhere in the document.
February 13, 1992 Page 2
Following discussion, C/Meyer suggested that the
Intent section be expanded to include statements
that addresses the preservation of identified
scenic resources, creating and retaining open
space, identify limits in natural resources, and
add open space and recreational opportunities to
enhance or perpetuate the City's image. The
Commission concurred.
B. Existing Conditions - Open.Space and Visual
Resources:
C/Meyer suggested that the first paragraph be
rewritten with more data describing some of the
open space and visual resources of the City of
Diamond Bar. The paragraph is subjective, and
existing conditions should be more objective in
terms of the writing. The subjectivity should get
back in here in terms of issues and goals.
CD/DeStefano stated that, if desired, the
consultants will rewrite the paragraph. The
Commission concurred.
CD/DeStefano stated that the numbers, indicated on
page 2-3, Section 1.1.1, paragraph two, Parks and
Recreation, are correct in terms of mathematics.
However, it is not a true reflection of where we
are today, and needs to be changed to distinguish
between available, or public property, and quasi -
public property. There is a total resource of 471
acres, but, the actual total public resources are
much less. The Country's 150 acres, the Golf
Course, Paul Grow Park, and the Little League are
not publicly accessible properties. These
specifics reduce the ratio from the indicated 8.8
acres per 1,000 people, to 3 or 4 acres to every
1,000 people. Purely public properties, and quasi -
public properties, should be segregated. We need
to work the paragraph to better justify why we are
ultimately asking for more acres per thousand for
all new projects.
C/Plunk noted that the Redlands determine their
ratio based on the manhour usage of the facility.
Their standard is 5 acres per 1,000, instead of the
2.5 acres per 1,000 that we're asking for.
CD/DeStefano explained that we don't have the
implementation plan that get's us into the
specifics under the manhour usage aspect. What we
do have is the ability to change this goal of 2.5
acres per 1,000, because the goal is based upon an
error in the foundation.
February 13, 1992 Page 3
i
l The Commission concurred that the paragraph should
be rewritten to properly delineate the situation.
Water Resources, Energy Resources, Solid Waste:
C/Meyer suggested that the new name of the Gas
Company should be properly reflected in the
document under Energy Resources.
Resource Management Issues:
o Open Space
C/Meyer stated that it seems too single minded to
just say that we are going to actively pursue the
preservation of open space area, since we live in
an urbanized area. It should indicate that we are
striving for a balance of the types of recreation,
both passive and active, -in the utilization of our
land resources.
C/ Stitt, disagreeing with C/MeyerIs interpretation,
�.stated that he interpretedthestatement to mean
just that the City needs to determine which areas
will be preserved and protected.
Chair/Whelan suggested that C/Meyer's comment about
looking for the balance of urban use and open space
by providing adequate park and recreation
facilities to the residents, be more appropriately
placed in the Issue Analysis.
C/Plunk indicated that there should be reference to
a balance of open space protection, as well.
C/Meyer explained that "protecting open space" can
be taken at face value, whereas it could end up not
be used for anything, but preserved only as open
space. We should be opening up our options, and
looking for balance, where open areas could provide
for urban types of needs, if desired. The
Commission concurred to place C/Meyer's comment
under the Issue Analysis.
o Biological Resources -The Commission accepted
this subsection, as is.
r— o Parks and Recreation
VC/Ruzicka indicated that there should be some kind
of trails linking the open space or parks together.
February 13, 1992
Page 4
However, noting the ambiguity of the entire
statement, specifically, "to provide continuity
between open space areas for biological resources",
he inquired if the intent is to provide continuity
with human recreational uses and biological use.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the connection for
biological resource purposes should be added to
subsection two, and then strengthened in subsection
three, with a similar sentence also dealing with
people and the linkages between park facilities.
The Commission concurred.
C/Meyer suggested that there should be reference
made to recreational facilities that are accessible
to our residents, yet not within our corporate
boundaries.
C/Plunk suggested identifying and delineating the
parks facilities that are readily accessible, back
in the Existing Conditions of the Parks and
Recreation, so that we do not duplicate.
Transportation and advertising van be looked into
as a Goal.
C/Meyer stated that the issue in his mind is not
going out and buying more park land, and baseball
diamonds, but creating a better bus system to get
kids to the facilities that are under utilized.
VC/Ruzicka, disagreeing with C/Meyer, stated that,
though we are all aware of the outside facilities
available to us, there are some specific needs,
that we have here in Diamond Bar, that would not be
duplicated, and would be heavily used.
These specific recreational needs should be
addressed and provided for now, and in the future.
C/Meyer suggested, then, that the Issue Analysis
should be elaborated to indicate that there are
various age groups that have different recreational
needs that should be provided for.
Chair/Whelan proposed the following wording, "There
is a need to actively plan for adequate recreation
facilities, in site, to serve the growing needs of
the local residents, through the utilization of
existing facilities within City boundaries and
throughout the area, present additional recreation
of parklands is necessary to meet community needs."
February 13, 1992 Page 5
Following discussion, C/Stitt stated that he does
not have a problem with the Issue Analysis
statement as it stands. It seems to be right to
the point. The Commission concurred to leave the
Issue Analysis as is.
o Water - The Commission accepted this
subsection, as is.
o Energy
C/Stitt, uncomfortable with the statement
"laboratory for testing new energy technologies",
cautioned that this could be an open invitation to
something that we may not want. There are a
variety of energy issues, nuclear for one.
CD/DeStefano explained that, with the onset of the
AQMD in Diamond Bar, that issue is from an overall
general discussion about encouraging new technology
within the City and thereby creating an identity
for Diamond Bar.
C/Stitt indicated that he would prefer to have the
sentence omitted.
VC/Ruzicka suggested that the statement should
stili retain the City's desire to be the leaders in
energy sources.
CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that, on page
2-18, there is a whole objective that deals with
the testing of new energy technologies. The
Commission can deal with the technical aspects of
energy technology when reviewing that section.
The Commission concurred to omit the last sentence,
as suggested by C/Stitt.
o Solid Waste
Chair/Whelan stated that the wording, under the
Issue Analysis, should be changed from ..."the City
is now..." to "...the City should be encouraged to
work...".
o Agriculture
February 13, 1992
Page 6
CD/DeStefano indicated that the beginning sentence,
in the Issue Analysis, "There is no need..." is
harsh. He suggested that it be reworded as, "The
City should develop specific policies dealing with
the eventual convergence of agricultural lands to
suburban land uses as agriculture becomes less
econom-ical." The Commission concurred.
Chair/Whelan suggested that the last sentence, on
page 2-5, under Agriculture, also be changed to
indicate that the intent is to monitor the eventual
phase out of this incidental amount of agriculture
grazing that remains in the City. The Commission
concurred.
o Mineral Resources
C/Plunk inquired if the wording, "There is no
need..." should also be omitted, as it was in
subsection 7.
CD/DeStefano concurred. However, in this
particular case, there is no identified mineral
resources, or identified issues from that
standpoint.
The Commission concurred that the paragraph should
be rewritten.
Chair/Whelan called a recess at 7:30 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 7:40 p.m.
Overall Goals:
CD/DeStefano explained that the overall goal is for
the entire element, the broad far reaching
statement. The objectives are a more refined
statement of the gaol, and the strategy is one step
more in the refinement process.
o Objective 1.1
C/Stitt, regarding the statement -"or are visible
from", pointed out that it is not within the
City's realm of power, or capability, to control in
terms of what is being done in another area, in
another City.
CD/DeStefano explained that the intent was to
preserve the visual features within the community,
not those visible from the community.
I
L
MW
February 13, 1992 Page 7
C/Meyer stated that just because something is not
within our corporate boundary, doesn't mean it
doesn't have an impact on us. If we recognize
something beyond our corporate boundaries, we
should stand up and say something.
CD/DeStefano pointed out that this issue is dealt
with more specifically in the Strategy subsection.
He suggested the following verbiage for Objective
1.1, "Preserve significant visual features which
are within the City of Diamond Bar, and work with
adjacent jurisdictions to preserve significant
visual features visible from the City of Diamond
Bar."
Chair/Whelan suggested the following verbiage,
"Preserve significant visual features from within
the City of Diamond Bar, with an emphasis on the
preservation of remaining natural hillsides, also
encourage the preservation of significant visual
features, visible from the City of Diamond Bar."
C/Plunk suggested that the wording also indicate,
to "develop a policy to work with".
C/Stitt concurred with the Commission's consensus
to the change in wording of objective 1.1.
o Strategy 1.1.1 - The Commission accepted this,
as.
o Strategy 1.1.2
C/Meyer stated that the wording is awkward, and
needs further review. The Commission concurred.
o Strategy 1.1.3
CD/DeStefano suggested deleting subsection A. It
should be a City wide strategy and should not be
affected�by The Country. The Commission concurred.
The Commission concurred that Strategy 1.1.3 should
be better worded.
o Strategy 1.1.4
The Commission concurred that it needs to be better
worded. 'They concurred to delete subsection A.
o Strategy 1.1.5
C/Meyer suggested adding the words "if feasible" to
the end of the statement.
February 13, 1992 Page 8
C/Plunk suggested that the strategy should mention
that a plant can be relocated to a park site, if
there is no room to relocate the plant on the
premise.
C/Meyer stated that the statement be worded, "...to
be relocated on or off site, if feasible." The
Commission concurred.
o Strategy 1.1.6
C/Plunk suggested that the statement be reworded to
indicate "pre-existing" development.
CD/DeStefano suggested that it should probably say
"...protect use for existing development.", and
"...retain opportunities for views from new
development.". The Commission concurred.
VC/Ruzicka inquired if the statement should include
a philosophy for preserving views by specifying a
building heighth limitation.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the statement be
strengthened by adding, "Require that dwelling
units, structures, and landscaping be sited in a
manner which includes those four items.". The
Commission concurred.
o Strategy 1.1.7
C/Plunk suggested changing the wording "...without
there...".
C/Stitt suggested just deleting the wording
"...from both within and without...". The
Commission concurred.
o Strategy 1.1.8
CD/DeStefano suggested adding the wording
" ..adjacent to the City such as the Hills of
the
City,of Industry..." and so forth.
i
Chair/Whelan suggested adding to "...adjacent
to
the City," the words "and it's sphere
of
influence".
CD/DeStefano stated that subsection A will
be�
deleted, and weave the whole thing into
one
strategy with the language just indicated.
The
Commission concurred.
February 13, 1992 Page 9
o Strategy 1.1.9
The Commission concurred to delete it because it is
covered adequately in the Uniformed Building Code
and the Hillside Management Ordinance.
o Strategy 1.1.10
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry,
suggested that it can be written as a directive to
develop policies that enact and maintain
provision... and so forth. He then suggested that
the statement be reworded to cover the same issues
but add more of that aesthetic or visual discussion
contained in the Hillside Ordinance. The
Commission concurred.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by Meyer, seconded by VC/Ruzicka
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting to
6:30 p.m., Thursday, February 20, 1992, at the
AQMD, Room CC5.
Respectively,
tellee A. Fritzal
Secretary
Attest:
-4/ ail --
Pat
Whelan
Chairman