Up to bat

The crack of a ball hitting the sweet spot of a bat isn’t necessarily the sound some La Cañada residents want to hear repeatedly on a summer evening, while they sip iced tea in their backyard. However, many area softball and baseball enthusiasts contend the noise resounding from a backyard batting cage is less intrusive than many other residential spring and summer sporting pastimes, such as at homes that have a swimming pool, tennis court or trampoline.

Noise and aesthetics were the primary concerns of a batting cage ordinance presented to the City Council Monday night by the planning commission and city staff.

The proposed ordinance, which was ultimately sent back to staff for changes based on Monday night’s community input and council redirection, would regulate lighting, hours of use and placement of backyard batting cages.

“I can’t help but laugh a little,” Councilwoman Laura Olhasso said. “I don’t think there are many communities that would even be discussing this — how lucky we are that we can have this discussion.”

Although only city staff and one resident spoke in favor of the ordinance — and that resident said he wasn’t opposed to the cages, only possible noise connected with aluminum bats — opponents of the ordinance showed up in droves to ask the council to take another listen and look before signing off on an ordinance that would “limit La Cañada youths’ ability to compete” in baseball and softball.

During its meeting, the council viewed photos of the only three currently permitted permanent batting cages installed in La Cañada neighborhoods: on Bonita Vista Drive, El Vago Street and Berkshire Avenue.

The proposed ordinance came about after the council asked the planning commission to study and establish development standards for batting cages. City staff surveyed a small number of residents living near the current batting cages, and received less than 40 responses, of the 165 surveys mailed out. Although most of those were favorable responses, “some people were really, really opposed [to batting cages] and thought they should be in parks, not in residential areas,” said Patrick Clarke, city planner.

The ordinance, as presented on Monday night, would have required a 15-foot setback from property lines for permanent baseball batting cages, a block wall to be constructed on the property line side of the cage, a conditional use permit for lighting for the cage, a limit of three hours use of the cage in any 24-hour period, a restriction on aluminum or other metal-type bats and regulation baseballs or softballs.

After testimony from several residents, the council discussed its views on the issues and agreed with Councilman David Spence to “pare down” the ordinance, since the proposed draft was “sort of overkill on an issue that we don’t have a major issue with,” Spence said.

Changes include a new setback requirement based on 10% of the size of the lot with a minimum of 5-feet and a maximum of 15 feet. The block wall requirement was discarded, as was a three-hour daily limit on hours of use.

The public hearing was continued to June 16, at which time city staff will bring back to the council a revised version of the ordinance.

In other business, at Monday’s meeting, the council took another look at the proposed 72-hour parking ordinance on public streets. The proposed ordinance would require vehicle owners to move their vehicle at least one-half mile away, or into a private driveway, for 24 hours after parking for 72 hours on a public right of way. The ordinance is meant to improve enforceability of current state law, which doesn’t specify a distance and creates a loophole that allows drivers to move their car a few inches, in order to conform to the 72-hour restriction, according to city staff.

Two residents showed up in opposition to the proposed parking ordinance, one concerned that the law would make it easier for neighbors to use the ordinance for vindictive purposes, and the other resident concerned about an elderly person who would be unable to park their car one-half mile away from their home in order to comply with the ordinance.

Some council members expressed similar concerns about some portions of the ordinance as it was read and the council opted to send the ordinance back to staff for modifications and clarifications, which will be coordinated with the Sheriff’s Office. The public hearing on that ordinance will not be continued, and a revised ordinance will be presented to the council for adoption at a future council meeting.

Public Works Director Edward Hitti said he’s confident that “with some minor clarifications the ordinance will give enough tools for the city and officers to enforce the law.”