20101005 Late CorrespondenceLI
646, RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
8 Email exchange between Director Odom and Ken DeLong
Respectfully submitted,
?mmmw,
Carlf . - -
W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20101005 additions revisions to agenda.doc
Page 1 of 1
From: Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:00 PM
To: 'Carla Morreale'
Subject: FW: Hesse & Ryan Parks - Staff Report - Late Correspondence
From: Tom Odom [mailto:tomo@rpv.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:38 PM
To: 'Ken DeLong'
Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr'
Subject: RE: Hesse & Ryan Parks - Staff Report
Ken,
Thank you for your comments and I enjoyed talking to you this morning. As I referenced this morning the
conceptual plan for Lower Hesse Park includes two flex lawn areas which would be idea for pick up games of
soccer, flag football, etc. RPV staff was utilized for the upper fields at Hesse and Ryan Parks due to the nature of
the work which was renovation of existing fields including upgrading the amenities. Again, thank you for taking
the time to provide me your comments.
Tom A. Odom
Deputy Director, Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5335
From: Ken DeLong [mailto:ken.delong@verizon.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 12:18 PM
To: tomo@rpv.com
Cc: 'Carolyn Lehr'
Subject: Hesse & Ryan Parks - Staff Report
Tom,
Having read your staff report dated October 5th concerning Hesse & Ryan Parks, I find this to be one of
the better reports that I have seen from the RPV staff. Issues were completely and succinctly
addressed yet very readable. That you used the RPV staff and did not hire another consultant is also
commendable. That you made the effort to understand how the facilities are presently used and the
logical best uses adds to the creditability of the report. Logical planning makes common sense.
I have not compared Upper Hesse Park with the Lower Hesse Park land configurations so I am
speaking with limited knowledge, but could not a similar design as to what you & your staff have
proposed for Upper Hesse Park be applied to Lower Hesse Park?
Ken DeLong
10/5/2010
L 14
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 5, 2010 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
2 Correction to Draft Minutes of September 7, 2010
7 Emails from Tim Galvin; Sunshine
8 Answers to questions posed by Mayor Wolowicz; Staff
responses to email received from Lovell C. Chase Jr.
9 City Attorney Lynch responses to Councilman Stern's email
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20101004 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
Councilman Stern moved, seconded by Councilman Misetich to: Authorize the City
Council's Voting Delegate to vote in support of the adoption of League of California
Cities General Assembly Resolution Nos. 1 (League Bylaws), 2 (Let's Move Campaign),
4 (Responsible Banking), 5 (Unfunded State Mandates), and 6 (Public Safety While
Driving a Motor Vehicle).
The motion passed on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Campbell, Long, Misetich, Stern, and Mayor Wolowicz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Request by Councilman Campbell to Discuss Indemnification and Defense by the
City of Elected and Appointed City Officials
This item was removed from the agenda.
CITY COUNCIL ORAL REPORTS:
Each Council Member reported on his attendance at various organization and
association meetings since the last City Council Oral Reports were provided on August
3, 2010.
CLOSED SESSION REPORT:
City Attorney Lynch reported on the following Closed Session items: 1) With respect to
the two Existing Litigations regarding the Marymount College Argument and Rebuttal in
the Dr. Michael S. Brophy v. Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for Los
Angeles County and Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes et
al., and Jeffrey Lewis v. Carla Morreale, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
case and the Dean C. Logan, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for Los Angeles County
et al. reports were provided and no action taken; and, 2) With respect to the Existing
Litigation regarding Monks v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes; Enstedt and the Portuguese
Bend Alliance For Safety v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes; and Lisa Dennen Monks and
Zone 2 Property Rights v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County a report was provided
and unanimous direction given to the City Attorney and special Counsel.
ADJOURNMENT:
At 9:26 P.M., Mayor Wolowicz adjourned the meeting in the memory of Paul Conrad to
Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at 6:00 P.M. at Hesse Park to conduct interviews of
applicants for the vacancy on the Finance Advisory Committee.
Mayor
Draft City Council Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 10 of 11
From: Tim Galvin [tjgalvin@cox.net]
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 1:33 PM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: City Council Review of City's Height Regulation Within the Frount Yard Setback
Staff report for City Council Meeting Oct. 5, 2010
Safety Issue.
The city's staff report "A Request to Consider Initiating a Code Amendment to Revise the City's Hedge Height Regulation
within the Front Yard Setback Area" states the current regulation intent is to avoid the "closed in" or "walled in" appearance of
the homes along a street. Although I agree with this intent, I do not think that is the most important concern. What is most
important is safety. The safety concern is only addressed as an afterthought in Option C.
One of my neighbors has a six foot hedge that runs the 20 feet along the driveway from the garage to the sidewalk. The city,
for many years, has tried to have the hedge reduced without success. This blind corner creates two major safety concers.
The first safety concern is when the property owner backs the car from the garage and into the street. The driver, whos car is
in reverse, cannot see the oncoming downhill traffic until the car is in the street. There are many times when the oncoming
traffic has had to stop to avoid an accident. So far no accidents. This is also a concern for children and adults on bikes. The
street is very steep and the bikes would have a very hard time stopping in time.
The second safety concern is a adults and childern on the sidewalk. The driver coming out of the garage and backing down
the driveway cannot see the pedestrian approaching on one side of the sidewalk. Possibly even more important the
pedestrian can not see the car coming down the driveway and could easily walk in back of the car that is traveling in reverse.
It is very important for the city counsel and the staff to address the safety issues. This should not be neglected in favor of
easier enforcement.
Enforcement.
As I read the staff report I get the feeling that the propose of the staff recommendation is to make a change that will make it
easier for the staff to enforce. The city has not done a good job in enforcement of this city code. My neighbors hedge has
been an issue for the city for several years. The city staff even tried to deny a building permit until the hedge was cut. That
was unsuccessful and the neighbor built their add on anyway. I am sure that the enforcement has suffered because the city
has not provided adequate tools to the code enforcement staff. People know that if they just ignore the city's notice the issue
will just go away. Going from the present code requirement to a higher height (Option B) or the a shorter length of height
reduction (Option C) will not solve the enforcement issue.
My suggestion, after the proper time period after owner notification, the city should cut the hedge, any foilage that that is
a safety concerns and send the bill to the owner. Foilage other than a hedge should be considered since some passage holes
will make a hedge not a hedge.
Tim Galvin
7333 Berry Hill Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes
10/4/2010
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 9:22 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: hedge heights
October 3, 2010
MEMO from Sunshine
TO: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
RE:
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 2010
FRED HESSE COMMUNITY PARK, 29301 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD
7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION
7. A Request_to Consider Initiating a Code Amendment to Revise the City's Hedge Height Regulations
within_the Front Yard Setback Area (Case No, ZON2010-00293), (Kim)
Recommendation: Provide feedback on staff's proposed request to initiate a Code Amendment to revise the
City's hedge height regulations in the front yard setback areas of residential properties contained in Chapter
17.76.030 — Fences, Walls and Hedges of the Rancho Palos Verdes Development Code (RPVDC).
I am sure you have heard the clich6... Throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Just because we don't proactively pursue enforcement of our very clear and specific codes (due to a
supposed shortage of Staff), doesn't mean we should create a code which will generate many more
staff hours spent on discretionary interpretations.
I urge you to go with Option A.
And, I urge you to direct the City Manager to come up with a plan to better address the City's needs in
relation staff's skills. I was totally stunned when the name of the Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement Department was changed to the Community Development Department.
This means that we are now using our most highly paid staff to generate lengthy updates of the City's
approved Plans and apply for grants to build things the residents don't want.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is almost "built out". We need a Planning, Building and Code
Enforcement Department to do just that. With very little new building going on, Code Enforcement is
going to be our long term need. We don't need new codes which require us to employ lawyers and
interpreters.
Option A proposes that the Council "do nothing". The Council did not approve the proposed Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Strategic Plan. So, the City has no Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Strategic Plan. I was not kidding when I suggested that you adopt a new General Plan with just one
page devoted to each of the seven "elements" required by the State of California.
Do notice that the City Council simply gets to vote up or down on what is handed to you on an agenda.
In the mean time, this City's Founders, long time residents and newcomers are fraught with frustration.
Who should I call to report that the foliage from a private party's back yard is obstructing the public
right of way?
10/4/2010
7
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tom Odom, Katie Howe, and Emilio Blanco
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
Carolyn Lehr
DATE:
October 3, 2010
SUBJECT:
CC meeting 10-5-10 item #8 athletic fields
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Tom, Katie, and Emilio,
It is heartening to see progress in improving and increasing active fields in our
parks. This work is long overdue and is in the right direction. Please help with
these few questions.
Thanks,
Steve
1. Just confirming that laser leveling at Ryan field will eliminate the now
existing slope in the left field of the soft -ball field and make the entire field
flat and usable for baseball and soccer (as shown on page 8-8)?
Staff's Answer: Laser leveling will be used to level and fine grade the
infield only.
The outfield will be professionally surveyed to address and point out low
and high areas and then soil calculations will be completed. The outfield
top dressing will be used to raise low points to grade and a tractor will be
used to remove high points to grade. This work shall increase usable
dimensions for outfield play.
2. What is meant by adding an irrigation field to infield?
Staff's Answer: The infield will have an irrigation system added for
dousing the infield. The irrigation system controls dust and retains
moisture for improved maintenance and hardens the field for improved
game conditions.
3. Just confirming that on pages 8-3 and 8-9 reference to the pony league
size base path should be 75 and not 80 feet.
Staff's Answer: Staff contacted the Peninsula Pony League, and Mark
Busch, Pony League Coach, informed staff that Pony League uses 80 -ft.
base paths and not 75 -ft. base paths.
Page 1 of 2 d
C:\WINNT\Profiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 201010-05 #8 field improvements.doc 10/04/10 12:32
While local league practice/game measurements can slightly differ, further
research on typical Pony League base path measurements yielded the
following:
50 -ft baselines are used for Shetland (5-6 yr olds)
55 -ft baselines are used for Pinto (7-8 yr olds)
60 -ft baselines are used for Mustang (9-10 yr olds)
70 -ft baselines are used for Bronco (11-12 yr olds)
80 -ft baselines are used for Pony (13-14 yr olds)
4. The plans show the T -ball base paths as 50 feet. Although that is the size
cited in some official references it is my understanding that for all four little
leagues on the peninsula the dimensions for T -ball play is the same as
standard little league play at 60 feet. To encourage consistency in the use
by those leagues I suggest you contact the local leagues to as to the size
at their fields.
Staff's Answer: The 50 -ft base paths for T -ball were added to the diagram
to emphasize the versatility of the infields for different ball play. The ball
fields at Hesse and Ryan Parks can accommodate base paths at 50, 60, or
80 feet depending on the use and the preference of the league and or
coaches.
Staff has contacted the four little leagues on the Peninsula to inquire as to
desired base path lengths and is awaiting responses. Staff proposes to
offer both 50 -ft base paths and 60 -ft base paths for T -ball to accommodate
Peninsula little league play, as well as more standardized city recreational
offerings. The bases positioned on 60 -ft base paths are portable bases
positioned by underground anchors. This way they may be removed if a
group would like to play on 50 -ft baselines, or may be left in place should a
group prefer 60 -ft baselines. Either way, neither the bases nor anchors will
be trip hazards because bases may be removed, and anchors are beneath
the soil level.
Page 2of2
C:\WINN'RProfiles\terit\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB\cc meeting 2010 10-05 #S field improvements.doc 10/04/10 12:32
From:
Tom Odom [tomo@rpv.com]
Sent:
Monday, October 04, 2010 5:01 PM
To:
'Carla Morreale'
Cc:
'Katie Howe'; 'Teri Takaoka'
Subject: FW: HESSE AND RYAN PARKS ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
For late correspondence.
Tom A. Odom
Deputy Director, Department of Public Works
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5335
From: Tom Odom [mailto:tomo@rpv.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:00 PM
To: 'Ichase@lovelljr.com'
Subject: HESSE AND RYAN PARKS ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
Good Afternoon Mr. Chase,
Thank you for your comments on improvements to Hesse Park. The improvements to the Upper Hesse Park athletic fields
that Council will consider on the October 5, 2010 Agenda are revisions to an existing, budgeted project in the Fiscal Year
2010-2011 Capital Improvement Plan; it is not a newly proposed expenditure.
Because the improvements to the Upper Hesse Park athletic fields are renovations, and not creation of new fields, staff does
not anticipate a significant traffic impact. In relation to new traffic resulting from the conceptual plans of Lower Hesse Park,
subject to Council approval and community input, staff is currently working on a preliminary traffic study to determine traffic
impacts and appropriate traffic mitigation measures. Staff will be releasing this traffic study once it is completed.
The City has conducted three community workshops to collect community input on the Lower Hesse Park (and Grandview
Park) conceptual designs during which traffic concerns have been discussed, and staff will be notifying citizens that reside
within 500 feet of the parks of the Council Meeting date when Council will consider the conceptual designs of Lower Hesse
and Grandview Parks.
Please contact me if I can provide additional information.
Sincerely,
Tom Odom
Deputy Public Works Director/
Interim Recreation and Parks Director
310-544-5335
From: L Chase jr [mailto:lchase@lovelljr.com]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:00 PM
To: citymanager@rpv.com; parks@rpv.com; traffic@rpv.com
Subject: HESSE AND RYAN PARKS ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
I am contacting you about a scheduled agenda item for the October 5, 2010 RPV City Council meeting: "HESSE AND
RYAN PARKS ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS".
I have two major issues with the agenda item:
1. The proposed changes to upper Hesse Park, which are expensive, are coming before the City Council
r
10/4/2010
without any inputs from electorate.
2. Now we have a second project, Upper Hesse Park Athletic Field Enhancement, coming before the City
Council to further develop Hesse Park without any input from a traffic study. The other project is Lower
Hesse Park development. Last December there was a serious traffic accident at Verde Ridge and
Hawthorne where the driver of one of the cars was seriously injured, almost died 4 times while in the
hospital! ! ! Now we are adding 2 significant projects that will add traffic on Hawthorne. Still no input to
the Council on how to better manage traffic.
I think that the City Council should step back and begin to analyses how RPV can better protect the health and welfare of its
citizens.
Lovell Chase
Lovell C. Chase, Jr.
6955 Kings Harbor Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310.541.6792
Ichase@lovelljr.com
10/4/2010
From: Carol W. Lynch [CLynch@rwglaw.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 6:16 AM
To: 'douglas.stern@cox.net; 'carlam@rpv.com; 'joelr@rpv.com; 'clehr@rpv.com'
Subject: Re: Item 9
.. .
I believe that we said in the license that the foliage etc. had to be to the director's
satisfaction. We can certainly mention the facts in the oral background report.
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Stern Cox Mail <Douglas.Stern@cox.net>
To: Carla Morreale <carlam@rpv.com>; Joel Rojas <joelr@rpv.com>; Carol W. Lynch; Carolyn
Lehr <clehr@rpv.com>
Sent: Sat Oct 02 14:33:01 2010
Subject: Item 9
I saw nothing in the report to indicate that staff had addressed any potential impact of
allowing landscaping and the fence in the trail easement. Was there no such analysis
undertaken? If not, why not?
Also, I think it material that this home was erroneously built 15 feet closer to the trail
easement than had been authorized. This fact should be made known to the City Council. It
may matter to some.
And please include this with the late correspondence on item 9.
Douglas Stern
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If
you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent
responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the
sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without
copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
1