Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2006 PRC Minutes1 1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ROOM CC -8 OF S.C.A.Q.M.D.ITHE GOVERNMENT CENTER 21865 Copley Drive APRIL 11, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Dave Grundy called the Parks and Recreation Commission Study Session to order at 6:16 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the SCAQMD/Government Center Building, 21865 Copley (Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Low led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lew Herndon, Benny Liang, and Ruth Low; Ted Owens, Vice -Chairman and Dave Grundy, Chairman. Staff Present: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services; Ryan Wright, Recreation Supervisor ll; Krista Berentis, Recreation Coordinator, and Marisa Somenzi, Senior Administrative Assistant. Also Present: Daryl May, D.B. AYSO; John Rivera and Ramon Martinez, FC] Soccer, and David Prather, DBWV. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None Offered. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1 Approval of Minutes of March 23, 2006 Regular Meeting. VC/Owens moved, C/Liang seconded to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2006 meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2. OLD BUSINESS: Herndon, Low, Liang, VC/Owens, Chair/Grundy None None 2.1 Draft Park, Athletic: and Facility Use Policies and Procedures — Working from Page 22 forward, the Commissioners discussed the following items/changes: APRIL 11, 2006 PAGE 2 P&R COMMISSION STUDY SESSION CILow (last sentence of Page 22 11. Purpose of the Use Policy) felt the idea was already embodied in the policies but felt that the sentence was too vague with respect to what is meant by "personal and/or private gain." For example, if she threw a wedding it would be a "gain" to her because she would have goodwill among her friends. Because it was vague and unnecessary she believed the sentence should be removed. CSD/Rose explained that the intent of the sentence was to avoid having someone rent the facility and then sublet it for financial gain. On the other hand there are different types of rentals an example of which would be that a real estate person might bring a group in and charge individuals for the seminar and the City does nothing to stop that practice. CILow agreed and said that was why she considered it to be a conflicting statement. CILow — Page 24 under *Note (near the middle of the page) asked why "Clause reinstated per Commissioner Lyons request at 2123106 Commission Meeting" was in the document and CSD/Rose responded that it was put in only to remind the rest of the Commission how the wording under *Note came to be added back into the policy. CILow (Page 24 V. 2) felt that for clarity there should be one term to define both a hold date for possible use and held date for soft reservation. She suggested the paragraph be changed as follows:"... pay the required deposit for a specific room, date and time, now referred to as soft reservation. The soft reservation will be held from the time the appointment with staff is made until the appointment date and time. The meeting with staff shall occurwithin seven (7) calendar days of setting the appointment, or else the soft reservation shall be forfeited." CILow said she could not tell if the reservations procedure applied to all of the facilities within the City or simply to the Diamond Bar Center or, if they applied to all of the centers excluding the Diamond Bar Center, CSD/Rose explained that Section 5 under 1 mentions Heritage and Pantera Park and the document should probably be highlighted at the top. Instead of calling it "Building and Room Reservations Policies" it could be called "Heritage and Pantera Park Community Room Reservation Policies." It specifically excludes the Diamond Bar Center. This document should contain language similar to that of the Diamond Bar Center. Rather than "center" they should probably be called "community rooms." CILow (Page 25, Item 11) said she had a problem with the statement because if she had a "soft reservation" she would have seven days someone could "bump" her and they would get another seven days. It did not seem fair to her because her reservation period would have been lengthened from seven to potentially 12 days. CSD/Rose said this wording came from the City Council to allow the City the flexibility to be able to move people around. He said he would take CILow's concern about the paragraph. CILow said she understood wanting to include flexibility but if someone is bumped during the seven day period the group's ability with the higher priority would have less time i.e. the balance of the original period. VC/Owens suggested that there APRIL 11, 2006 PAGE 3 P&R COMMISSION STUDY SESSION should be a specific period of time permitted for the second group such as ' four days. C/Low agreed stating her concern was that it not be unnecessarily dragged out for the first person/group. CILow pointed out that there was no number 12. on Page 26 so the last two paragraphs should be renumbered to 12. and 13. CSD/Rose believed that the first sentence on Page 26 (Use may be denied....) was actually Item 12. CILow (Page 32 and 33) indicated 1, 2, 3 etc. rather than a, b, c, etc. under G. Cancellation Policy. Chair/Grundy pointed out that both Cancellation Policy (heading on Page 32) and General Operation Regulations (heading on Page 33) were numbered G. VC/Owens pointed out typos on Page 22 under 11. Purpose of the Use Policy - ..that the facilities are operated in a manner....; under IV. Group Priority Rating on Page 23, the last line; change the second 3. to 4. at the bottom of 29 and number the remaining items consecutively. Pages 10 througF121 — VC/Owens asked if the fees for portable restrooms (Page 15 D. 3) was the actual cost and CSD/Rose responded that this item is under negotiation with PUSD. VC/Owens asked if the document should reflect that the charges were based on actual costs to the City and CSD/Rose responded yes and said he would add that statement to the end of the sentence. Pages 1 through 9 CSD/Rose said he had only one note from the last meeting regarding D.B. based teams within an organization: Teams that meet the residency requirement of 60 percent will be considered separately from the portion of the organization that does not meet the 60 percent residency requirement. He said he included that statement under the definition for qualifying organizations or teams. Chair/Grundy said he noted that there were suggestions the percentage could be increased to perhaps 75 percent. Daryl May felt the proposal at the last meeting to look at individual teams was a good proposal in terms of taking some of the organizations and letting .the teams that consist of predominately D.B. kids practice at the facility with the caveat that the field allocation would be scaled down to be proportionate to a single team practicing rather than taking into account the entire ' organization's nurnbers. Chair/Grundy asked if language should be added to include ad-hoc, subcommittees or subsets of organizations. CSD/Rose felt that teams needed to be part of non-profit organizations and the policy referred to D.B. APRIL 11, 2006 PAGE 4 P&R COMMISSION STUDY SESSION based teams within the organizations. John Rivera wondered how the allocation would be done. For example of the 11 teams in his organization, three of the teams would have about 80 percent kids who were D.B. residents. How would those three teams be allocated and how would the City enforce those time slots? RSIWright said that without having a field monitor it would be difficult to enforce. Chair/Grundy felt that self -policing with the threat of sanction for non-compliance would be an affective way to monitor field usage. John Rivera felt that this type of policy would serve a death knell to the FCI because he could only allow three teams to practice on the D.B. field and where would the other teams practice. He understood the lack of resources but as a President of the organization they have been the D.B. based team for over 15 years. Chair/Grundy reminded Mr. Rivera that this is a "tiering" policy for priority and not an exclusionary policy. He felt there were always opportunities for field allocation. Discussion ensued about the residency percentage requirement and how staff had administered the field allocation process in the past. Daryl May believed that if CSD/Rose's proposal for lighted fields was implemented field allocation problems would disappear. CSD/Rose said that after learning last summer that it would cost the City $25 million to grade the area where the City wanted to build a new sports complex and discussion with Lorbeer were at a deadlock brought up the idea of establishing a percentage of residents for programs and that no organization would get fields unless they met the percentage because D.B. does not have the facilities to adequately serve all of the organizations. The answer that came back to him was that no one should be excluded. The good news is it that it looks promising for the city to have more lighted fields as well as the potential to work with PUSD to improve Lorbeer field. The City and Commission has no desire to eliminate D.B. kids even though they are not part of the 60 percent residency requirement. In his view the only purpose for the 60 percent is to provide a tool to exclude a new organization that might come to D.B. asking for its share of facilities. Chair/Grundy referred the Commission to Page 23, Section 1V. 1. C. ii and reiterated that this was a policy designed to give priority rather than do away with any organization so that the residents are able to take advantage of their facilities. General discussion ensued. VC/Owens suggested consideration be given to having batting cages because kids can get a lot of practice in without having to use field space. APRIL 11, 2006 PAGE 5 P&R COMMISSION STUDY SESSION John Rivera felt that 60 percent residency was a good number and it would give his organization a right to request only enough space for three teams. The efficiency of how the fields are designated is a separate issue. RSMright agreed with C/Low that Items 1 through 6 on Page 8 provided "tie- breakers" for organizations. C/Low said she saw no problem with the language contained in the draft and had not gathered from the discussion that the organizations and Commissioners objected to the language. CSD/Rose suggested that the schedule and the name of the organizations could be added to Item 3 on Page 8 for clarification. Following discussion, the Commissioners indicated thatthey agreed with the 60 percent residency requirement. C/Liang said he was concerned about giving D.B. based organizations a fair chance and therefore he felt it was best to leave the residency requirement at 60 percent. Chair/Grundy reiterated that the 60 percent residency requirement would remain intact for Group B and C and that adding a definition for °organization" would provide a description for the portion of a non-profit organization that is comprised of teams, units, and so forth that can meet the ' residency requirement. C/Low said she was okay with the 60 percent and agreed with C/Liang that the policy should not exclude the little guys. However, she would not want to place a burden on the City to have to police the program. Staff needs the discretion to use the fields to an optimum level. VC/Owens agreed to retain the 60 percent requirement and believed the way the document was currently written gave staff the ability to be flexible and work with the groups to adjust usage accordingly. He felt it was essential to have the field designations, and the document as written would give staff the flexibility to monitor the program. Chair/Grundy asked for voice vote confirmation from the Commissioners to keep the 60 percent requirement and inclusion of wording allowing description of a subset of an organization. Four of the five Commissioners agreed. C/Low was in favor of the 60 percent but did not believe the subset language was necessary. She said she was in agreement with the majority as long as the subset language did not place unnecessary burden on staff. Chair/Grundy felt that a staff member could come up with appropriate subset ' language. Daryl May thanked staff for taking time to let the organizations be heard so that the document becomes a document the City and the organizations can live with. Everyone is here for the kids and the premise of coming together is APRIL 11, 2006 PAGE 6 P&R COMMISSION STUDY SESSION to create a document for the kids and to protect their limited time on the fields from outside groups coming in. Pages 4-9 No further input. Chair/Grundy recapped that the Commission would be looking for the final Draft to come back for consideration and recommendation for Council approval at the April 27 meeting. Chair/Grundy summarized the Commission's recommendations: 1) Staff will revise the wording as recommended by the Commissioners; 2) Review field allocation efficiency relative to input from the guests 3) Investigate the batting cages. �sl�l`LfI�I.L�I�►�il�`.���`�6LL-� ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by C/Herndon, seconded by VC/Owens and with no further business before the Parks & Recreation Commission, Chair/Grundy adjourned the study session at 8:05 p.m. Respectfull e, Secretary Attest: