CC SR 20151020 01 - Lower Hesse Park ImprovementsMEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
CORY LINDER, DIRECTOR, RECREATION AND PARK ~
OCTOBER 20, 2015
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
LOWER HESSE PARK IMPROVEMENTS
DOUG WILLMORE, CITY MANAGER (;V'V\.I
Project Manager: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Lower Hesse Park Improvements Option 2.
FISCAL IMPACT
A. No Fiscal Impact for Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan Option 1. Option 1
improves approximately half of Lower Hesse Park.
B. If Option 2 is approved, a budget appropriation will be necessary as follows :
Budgeted Amount:
Additional Appropriation:
New Account Balance:
Revised Fund Balance:
Account Number:
$500,000
$500,000
$1,000,000
$17,680,873
330-3033-461-73-00
Parks, Trails & Open Space Improvements
No General Fund money will be spent on either Option 1 or 2.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lower Hesse Park was partially improved in 1999, but the overall condition has
deteriorated significantly . In 2010 the City Council directed staff to work with residents
to develop a plan for Lower Hesse Park. A plan with a mix of mainly passive
improvements with some active recreation elements was approved in 2011.
Subsequently, due to budget priorities and neighborhood concerns, staff was directed
to work with the Pacific View Home Owners Association (PVHOA) to develop a scaled-
back plan. Two options have been developed. Option 1 improves approximately nine
of the park's 18 acres with trail enhancements, a rock play/drainage area, hydro-
1
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 2
seeding, native plantings, and drought-resistant landscaping. Option 2 covers the rest
of Lower Hesse Park (except for a sloped area directly below the Upper Hesse Park
grass area) and includes additional landscaping, fitness stations, picnic nodes.
Staff's recommendation is Option 2 which would give the entire community and
adjacent residents a complete and cohesive park that connects seamlessly with Upper
Hesse Park. The project's goal is to be an award-winning, beautiful park with an
innovative and environmentally-sensitive design that minimizes or eliminates water loss.
The majority of attendees at a September 141h public workshop preferred Option 2 .
BACKGROUND
Hesse Park opened to the public in 1983, but the 18-acre Lower Hesse Park section was
not developed at that time. The 1989 Parks Master Plan recommended 4 to 8 tennis
courts, improved parking and landscaping. In 1999, Lower Hesse Park was partially
improved with a series of trails, a dirt parking lot and a sand volleyball court. The site
connected to the upper section of Hesse Park by a trail on the north side of the property.
Below is an aerial view of Hesse Park's current condition.
Since opening in 1999, the trails and general condition of Lower Hesse Park has
2
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 3
deteriorated with ill-defined trails and low aesthetic appeal. In 2010 the City Council
approved a Tactical Goal to "Improve the City's recreational and educational facilities by
expanding opportunities for active recreational uses and improving access to all parks" with
a sub-goal to provide improvements to Grandview and Lower Hesse Park. After extensive
public outreach and multiple designs by a landscape architect, a conceptual design was
approved in 2011 by the City Council. This plan, known as the "Pacific Plan" included
extensive landscape and trail improvements, lawn areas, landscape buffers, a hardscape
parking lot, three tennis courts, a basketball court, and a small structure that would include
a public restroom, staff office and storage. An initial study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration for this plan was prepared and circulated for public review addressing
environmental concerns raised by some of the neighbors.
LOWER HESSE PARK-Pacific Plan RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA
MIA IEHREH • ASSOCIA HS
In 2012, due to changing Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget priorities and
neighborhood concerns with the scope of the Pacific Plan, the City Council directed staff to
work with representatives from the Hesse Park-adjacent Pacific View HOA (PVHOA) to
develop a scaled-back plan. Staff met with representatives from PVHOA multiple times in
recent years and worked with the project's landscape architect to refine the plan. Originally
budgeted at $1,000,000, the budget was reduced in the FY 15-16 City budgetto $500,000.
The budgetary reduction to $500,000 and the scope change removed active recreation
components (with the exception of the existing volleyball court) as well as a reduction of
3
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page4
the overall scope of the project. Rather than try and enhance the entire 18 acres, the plan
focused instead on the middle section of Lower Hesse Park, approximately 9 acres.
DISCUSSION
This report includes an Option 1 plan for the site that improves approximately half of the
site with improved landscaping, picnic nodes, and trails for the established budget of
$500,000.
Option 2, the recommended option, incorporates the Option 1 design components, but
goes much further, improving virtually the entire park while adding additional elements. The
only unimproved area would be the sloped area located west of the Upper Hesse Park
field. Approximately 16 of the total 18 acres would be improved by Option 2. The budget
for Option 2 is estimated at $1,000,000.
Neither option adds any significant active recreational elements such as a tennis court,
basketball court of children's playground although they could easily be added in the future
to reflect changing community demographics and desires.
The intention for either Option 1 or 2 would be to create an aesthetically pleasing,
accessible, award-winning park design that would be a source of community pride for
generations to come. Given the intensity of California's drought, every effort would be
made to minimize water loss and maintain all or nearly all water on site. State-of-the-art
environmental design and construction techniques would be utilized with a potential goal of
achieving Audobon Society Certification or similar environmental recognition for the project.
Going forward, staff will actively pursue a wide range of grants to help fund and maintain
Lower Hesse Park. A number of residents who attended the September 14th Lower Hesse
workshop expressed interest in establishing a Friends of Lower Hesse Park community
support group that would enable them to volunteer their time, effort and expertise to
improve.
Option 1: Project Description
The following is a list of Option 1 's components:
1) Trails: Improve condition of existing trails, many of which have experienced
considerable erosion impacts. Paths will be stabilized and their widths will be
standardized. Borders will be installed.
2) Drainage Stabilization/Rock Area: Add rock fill "spine" through center of drainage to
improve drainage, prevent erosion, and maintain federal water quality standards.
The large rocks in this area will connect with the existing rock area in Upper Hesse
to provide a unified, natural, unstructured climbing and play area for children and
families. This component would be designed and engineered to maintain practically
all water on site, minimizing or eliminating any runoff.
4
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 5
3) Xeriscape-drought tolerant plantings: A palette of drought-tolerant plants will be
planted within and adjacent to the existing trails system to not only improve
aesthetics, but also reduce water use, weeds, erosion, and landscaping
maintenance.
4) Native -g rasses/Hydro Seeding: A large section of the norther section of Lower
Hesse Park will be hydro-seeded with a mix of native grasses that is drought
compatible. It should be noted that some residents have expressed concerns that
past hydro-seeding did not "take" and was not maintained properly. Therefore, a
thorough site-preparation and ongoing maintenance plan will need to be put in place
to ensure that the hydro-seeded portion of the site becomes well established and
maintained.
5
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 6
5) Native Plant Landscape Buffer: A selection of native plants will be planted along
the western edge slope of the Park by Locklenna Lane to act as an aesthetically
pleasing landscape buffer between the roadway and the park grounds.
6) Compliant Parking Lot: An "MS4-compliant" asphalt, permeable surface parking lot
will replace the existing non-compliant dirt parking lot (approximately 20-25 spaces).
The parking lot will have a gated entry located off Locklenna at Windport.
Porous Asphalt Pervious Surface
7) Irrigation: Irrigation will be done on an as-needed, above-ground basis instead
of on an in-ground permanent basis to ensure low water use. Irrigation would be
removed once plantings and landscaping are established. This approach is
similar to that used by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Land Conservancy for
Preserve habitat re-vegetation efforts.
6
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 7
Below is a conceptual rendering of the Option 1:
Option 1 Legend:
Ill Hydroseeding
• • •
Xeriscape/drought tolerant
Parking Lot
Native Plants/Landscape buffer
Trails
Rock Fill/Drainage Area
Option 2: Project Description
Option 2 includes all of the improvements contained within Option 1, but expands the
projects scope considerably to address almost the entirety of Lower Hesse Park.
The following is a list of Option 2's added or enhanced Components:
1) Trails: Same as Option 1.
2) Drainage Stabilization/Rock Area: Same as Option 1.
7
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 8
3) Xeriscape-drought tolerant plantings: Same as Option 1.
4) Native-grasses/Hydro Seeding: Greatly expanded application of native grasses
will cover the entire northern section of the park and a portion of the southern
section as well.
5) Native Plant Landscape Buffer: same as Option 1.
Below are additional native plant examples:
6) Compliant Parking Lot: Include the installation of bio swales to transport up-
slope runoff toward the main drainage area.
7) Irrigation: Same as Option 1.
8) Fitness stations: A series of fitness stations featuring modern, low-maintenance
workout equipment would be installed at a number of locations along the trails. This
would allow park visitors to have a full-body workout while hiking the main trails
system.
8
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 9
9) Cleanup Volleyball Court: The current sand volleyball court is in poor condition.
Option 2 would improve and modernize the court making it more aesthetically
pleasing and playable. Additional sand would be imported and boundaries and
perimeters established.
10) Open Air Resting Opportunities/Picnic Nodes: the area near the parking lot would
have picnic tables, benches, trash cans and other amenities installed for use by
park visitors. Existing trees would be utilized and additional low-g rowth trees would
be planted to create an inviting shaded environment while minimizing view impacts
from neighboring residences.
9
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 10
Below is a conceptual rendering of the Option 2:
Option 2 Legend:
Ill Hydroseeding
Ill • • u.
I
m
II
Xeriscape/drought tolerant
Parking Lot
Native Plants/Landscape buffer
Trails
Rock Fill/Drainage Area
Fitness Stations
Open Air Resting Opportunities/Picnic Nodes
Cost Estimates: Option 1 and 2
Option 1 would be designed to keep the project within the allocated budget of $500,000.
Design fees are normally within 5% to 7% of the cost of this type of project so the
construction budget would be somewhat less than the budgeted amount.
10
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 11
Similarly, Option 2 could be designed to stay within the $1,000,000 estimate. Designing
the park as one cohesive project would likely result in an economy of scale for a larger
single project.
The following cost estimates are based on the conceptual designs. More precise costs
of individual elements of Option 1 or 2 will likely change when the design is finalized.
Option 1 Conceptual Cost Estimate
Trail Improvements
Drainage
Xeriscape
Hydroseed
Native Plants
Parking Lot
Irrigation/Electrical
Contingency
Design
Estimated total:
$67,000
$87,000
$94,000
$45,000
$39,000
$93,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$500,000
Option 2 Conceptual Cost Estimate
Option 1 Estimated Costs
Xeriscape
Hydroseed
Native Plants
Parking Lot
Fitness Stations
Contingency
Design
Estimated Total:
$500,000
$125,000
$110,000
$40,000
$45,000
$100,000
$25,000
$55,000
$1,000,000
Annual Maintenance: Establishing a sufficient maintenance budget is essential to the
long-term viability of a project of this magnitude. The annual maintenance that would
be needed for this site is estimated at $30,000.
CEQA -Categorical Exemption
Pursuant to the Council direction on November 10, 2010, Staff prepared and circulated a
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) consistent with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) to address potentially significant environmental impacts that would be caused
by the original Pacific Plan project. The Initial Study (IS) and MND circulated for public
review between December 3, 2012 and January 31, 2013.
As a result of the circulation of the MND, the City received several comments letters,
including the Pacific View HOA, expressing concerns with the scope of the project. The
concerns primarily focused on park activities (including impacts caused by active
recreational sports, i.e. basketball and tennis), bicycling, aesthetics, trails, views, trees,
11
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 12
biological resources, transportation, traffic, noise, and parking and other topics. These
concerns are summarized in an attached matrix (see attachment).
In response to these concerns and Council-directed budget changes previously described,
the project was significantly modified from the Pacific Plan assessed in the circulated MND.
Based on the current scope of the proposed park improvements, pursuant to CEQA, a
MND is no longer warranted. This is because the project no longer includes
improvements that may result in potential impacts to the surrounding environment that
would have to be mitigated to a less than significant level. Thus, the current (scaled-back)
project now qualifies as a Categorical Exemption.
The Categorical Exemption determination is pursuant to Sections 15301-Class1 Existing
Facilities, 15302 -Class 2 Replace or Reconstruction, and 15311 -Class 11 Accessory
Structures from the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines because the project solely consists
of improvements to existing park facilities, such as park furnishings (i.e. benches, picnic
tables, and trash receptacles), trails, volleyball court, and landscaping. These
improvements are minor in nature and are intended to enhance the existing condition of
the park grounds and facilities. Moreover, the improvements to the parking lot, consisting
of replacing the dirt surface with a permeable paved surface to accommodate
approximately 25 cars will enhance circulation, reduce dust, and provide improved and
controlled drainage. Lastly, the existing rock spine will be improved by adding rocks to
support enhanced drainage flows from the park grounds to meet current public health and
safety standards.
Parks Master Plan Update
The City Council approved the following motion at its June 30th discussion of the Park
Master Plan: "Provided general direction acknowledging the concept of "less is more";
to approve modest improvements at Lower Hesse Park and Eastview Park and, to
preserve the general character of the other parks; and, to maintain the character of the
neighborhoods around the park facilities." This directive on "less is more" and favoring
modest, low-neighborhood impact elements was instrumental in creating both Options 1
and 2.
The Parks Master Plan was approved by City Council on October 6, 2015. While a
number of recommendations were included for Upper Hesse Park, the only
recommendation for Lower Hesse Park was to incorporate results of the Lower Hesse
Park Improvement Project once completed." The approved plan for Lower Hesse Park
will be included in the Parks Master Plan with a recommendation that any future park
improvements will not reduce an overall 90% passive ratio (trails, landscaping, picnic
areas, etc ... )
Public Outreach
A Lower Hesse Park Improvements webpage is on the City's Recreation and Parks
website and listserv messages and updates have been sent to Lower Hesse Park
listserv subscribers. Community workshops on the early conceptual design process
12
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 13
were facilitated by consultant Mia Lehrer and Associates and City staff on May 15,
2010, July 17, 2010, and September 25, 2010.
Option 1 and 2 Public Outreach
Staff from Recreation and Parks, Community Development and Public Works
presented the Option 1 and related cost estimates to representatives of the Pacific View
HOA on August 19, 2015. The response was very positive. Questions were raised and
addressed about the effectiveness of hydro-seeding, an unfinished traffic study, the
Parks Master Plan and the City Council's June 3Qth direction to pursue a "less is more"
approach, security, and other issues. It was noted that the undeveloped sections of the
Option 1 plan could be addressed with a larger plan or a phased-in approach in the
future. Staff noted, and the PVHOA representatives agreed that future phases may or
may not include active elements. A minimum percentage of 90% passive usage with a
maximum of 10% maximum of active recreation elements was discussed. Senior
Analyst Waters stated that just such a ratio limit would likely be included in the Parks
Master Plan. (Minutes are attached)
A public meeting was held on September 14th at Hesse Park where both plans were
presented and discussed. Flyers were mailed to Hesse Park adjacent residents and
HOAs. Approximately 30 people participated. The general response to the two plans
were positive. Several attendees were not in favor of a paved parking lot. Questions
and concerns were also raised about the effectiveness of hydro seeding, safety and the
possible need for security cameras, project timeline, maintenance concerns about
fitness stations, shade, and drainage. Staff addressed these concerns at the meeting
and also noted that comments would be included in the eventual staff report presented
to Council (see attached minutes).
Below are a summary of comment card responses from attendees at the September
14, 2015 meeting.
What is your favorite activity at Hesse Park?
Upper Hesse Park
Walking 20
Jogging 1
Sit and watch sunset/sports 2
Bring kids to play area/park 5
Visit community center 1
Lower Hesse Park
Walking 16
Jogging 3
Sports 2
13
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 14
How often do you visit?
How often do you visit Upper Hesse Park?
How often do you visit Lower Hesse Park?
Which do you prefer for Lower Hesse Park?
Option 2
Option 1
Other (none circled)
TOTALS
Daily 14
Weekly 8
Monthly 1
Rarely 0
Never 0
Daily 6
Weekly 7
Monthly 2
Rarely 7
Never 1
TOTALS
9
7
7
Below are average of responses to components by workshop attendees (1-5 scale, 5 is
top score). Native plantings , rock fill area and drought tolerant plants received the
highest scores; basketball and tennis courts received the lowest.
5.V-0
4 .5 0
4 .CO
3.5
3 .\)1}
2.5 0
2.cn
1.5 0
1.00
0 .50
O.C.iJ
•Picn ic TclJ l es
•Roc k Fill Area
•Basketball Co u rt
1
• F il:n ess .Stat ions
•Droug ht ol erant Pla1tings • NcH1 e Gras~I Hvdro·seed i ng
• enn is courts • Ch ildren'sP lavground
14
Lower Hesse Park Improvement Plan
October 20, 2015
Page 15
In the "Changes You Would Like to See" section, attendees noted picnic tables, trim
trees, rest areas, better entrance, basketball, family activities, restrooms and drinking
fountains, enhanced landscaping and keeping its natural state.
In the "Changes You Would Not Like to See" respondents mentioned no changes, no
parking, no fitness stations, no tennis courts or basketball courts, no view impairments,
no picnic or game equipment, and no skate park.
Recreation staff had a follow-up meeting with Pacific View HOA representative John
Freeman on September 21st to discuss the September 14th public meeting and review
any open action items (minutes attached).
ALTERNATIVES
1) Approve Option 1 for Lower Hesse Park. $500,000 is already budgeted.
2) Approve the additional elements of Option 2 as an additional Phase to be
completed in the future when funds are available.
CONCLUSION
Lower Hesse Park is a potential community jewel that would be greatly enhanced by
either Option 1 or 2. Local residents are generally very supportive of the plans which
emphasize improving the existing passive elements on site.
Attachments
A. Minutes from August 19, 2105 meeting with Pacific View HOA (page 16)
B. Minutes from September 14, 2105 public meeting at Hesse Park (page 18)
C. Lower Hesse Park Issues Matrix (page 24)
D. October 12, 2015 Email from John Freeman with attachment from Les Chapin
(page 29)
E. September 22, 2015 email from Frank Shen (page 31)
F. Minutes from September 21, 2015 meeting with Pacific View HOA with email
from Jim Moore (page 33)
G. September 15, 2015 email from Les Chapin (page 35)
H. October 14, 2015 Technical Memo: Lower Hesse Park Rodway Speeds (page
38)
15
ATTENDANCE
City Staff:
Pacific View HOA:
Lower Hesse Park Planning Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2015
3pm
Cory Linder -Director, Recreation and Parks Dept.
Nicole Jules -Deputy Director, Public Works Dept.
Ron Dragoo-Principal Civic Engineer, Public Works Dept.
Matt Waters -Senior Administrative Analyst, Recreation and Parks Dept.
Nancie Silver -Recreation Supervisor, Recreation and Parks Dept.
John Freeman
Jim Moore
Noel Park
Les Chapin
Review of March 5, 2015 Minutes: No comments
Park Concept Plan
Distribution of materials. Brief discussion of basketball usage survey at Ryan Park.
Brief Introduction by Matt Waters followed by run-through of Powerpoint of proposed
conceptual design by Ron Dragoo.
• DG surface preferable to soil due to cost and maintenance factors.
• Questions addressed about native drought tolerant planting.
• Discussion of rock area as a potential for active play which is a fast-growing concept in
recreation programming.
• Noel Park noted that Tony Baker was involved in original choice of native plants. Linder
and Dragoo indicated that his advice would be welcome.
• Questions about most effective time to hydro-seed. Jim Moore stated that it was
originally done at end of rainy season which was ineffective. Dragoo stated that the
hydro-seeding would be done at the appropriate time.
• Dragoo noted that the current dirt parking lot is not in compliance. Proposed mixed
asphalt lot would be. Director Linder noted that the project could include clearing up the
existing parking lot.
• Dragoo reviewed cost estimates. Noel Park mentioned existing piping and an electrical
box which might still be usable.
• Jim Moore requested that colors be adjusted on Powerpoint so that they matched up
better.
• Jim Moore and Noel Park recommended putting money into flat area, not slopes.
Additional Items:
16
• Discussion of Matrix Item #33 traffic study. Following a brief discussion, Deputy Director
Jules noted that the 2012 study would be redone with radar instead of tubes. This is an
ongoing action item.
• John Freeman clarified that the Pacific View HOA would have an opportunity to provide
feedback after the larger multiple HOA meeting (Note: scheduled for 9-14-15). City staff
confirmed.
• Noel Park asked if City had mower that could be utilized around rock nodes.
• Discussion of future phases ensued. Analyst Waters went over the upcoming steps of the
Parks Master Plan. John Freeman noted motions from the June 30, 2015 City Council
Meeting which directed staff to pursue a "less is more" approach to park planning with
an emphasis on better managing existing resources.
• Staff stated that the emphasis is on current plan. Additional phases would include
expansion of the mainly natural elements shown in current plan.
• Director Linder stated without opposition that future phases may or may not include
active elements. Director Linder stated that a ratio of 90% passive usage and a maximum
of 10% active elements would be appropriate. Analyst Waters stated that just such a ratio
limit would likely be included in the Parks Master Plan.
• There was a strong positive response to the conceptual plan as shown by the Pacific View
HOA and an acknowledgement that future phases would be determined at an
undetermined later date depending on funding opportunities and Council direction.
Next Steps
• John Freeman stated that concerns about parking lot security might come up at general
meeting and raised the possibility of cameras.
• John Freeman mentioned that drought-resistant concerns should be included.
• Les Chapin asked if design funding was included in the estimate. Director Linder noted
that that would be addressed as the process moved forward.
• Noel Park noted that over the years there had been concerns about active recreational
uses and that a substantial portion of the LHP budget would be spend on those elements.
He appreciated the new approach.
• Director Linder thanked everyone for their support and effort.
• Noel Park noted that the rocks could be effectively positioned to spread water out
through the area.
• Group discussed meeting dates. General meeting set for 9-14-15 at 7pm at Hesse Park.
Pacific View HOA follow-up meeting on 9-21-15 at 3:30 at City Hall.
Meeting Adjourned
17
Lower Hesse Park Workshop Minutes
September 14, 2015
Meeting Location: McTaggart Hall, Hesse Park
Meeting Start Time: 7:05 pm
A. Staff call to order
B. Agenda overview
C. Staff gave a history of Hesse Park
D. Staff explained two plans
1. Proposed plan
2. Enhanced plan
During the meeting, Corey Linder explained that the City's current design focuses on the trails
as the "spine" or "backbone" of the plan, with other elements arranged to support use of the
trails. For purposes of flexibility, the Recreation & Parks Division currently proposes two
possible plans:
• 1) Basic Improvement Plan
• 2) Enhanced Funding Options Improvement Plan, i.e., Basic Improvement Plan with
additional elements and flexible enhancements. If approved, this Plan would require
additional funding, above the $500,000. This plan could be implemented in addition to
the Basic Improvement Plan with Council approval, or by using a phased approach, with
basic elements implemented first, and enhancements implemented subsequently.
The Basic Improvement Plan incorporates elements to provide:
• Safe outdoor exploration and activity space for children
• Stabilization and maintenance of trails and other areas prone to erosion
o placement of borders
o standard path widths
• Stabilization of sub-soils and drainage areas to prevent erosion, maintain federal water
quality standards, prevent adverse environmental impacts
o use of rock fill to slow down drainage
• Xeriscaping to improve the aesthetic appearance, achieve 36% water reduction goal,
reduce weed invasion, reduce landscaping maintenance, reduce erosion
o planting of native, drought-tolerant plants and flowers along roadway, hillsides
o hydro-seeding (projected 50,000 square feet, at cost of approx. $50,000)
• Establishment of resource conservation technology
o Solar Power
o Recycling/composting
18
o Filtering, reducing, and/or capturing stormwater runoff
• Emplacement of "MS4-Compliant" parking lot for safety, minimization of traffic impacts
& dust
o Open, graded, asphalt or concrete area
o Provision for approximately 25 cars
o Gated entry off Locklenna, at Wind port
The Enhanced Funding Option Plan would incorporate the following optional elements:
• Hydroseeding in broader area (projected 100,000 square feet (see purple areas on
attached colored maps)
• Increased planting of native plants
o greater variation of plants; choices largely dependent on water needs
o closer placement of plants to provide greater root stability
o wider area planted
• MS4-Compliant Parking (See above for explanation) with improved drainage to decrease
water runoff and prevent "rutting"
o Construction of a "Bioswale" drainage system (linear, vegetated ditch that
replaces the traditional concrete gutter with an earthen one) for area
surrounding Lower Hesse parking lot
o Vegetation (biological material) acts as a natural filtration system; reduces water
velocity, allows for collection, conveyance, filtration, and percolation of
storm water
• Additional Fitness Equipment for Cardio and Strength Training
o May include sit-up bench, abdominal body flexer, leg-lift station, chin and pull-up
bar, etc.
• Cleanup of Volleyball Court
o Established boundaries and perimeter
o Imported sand
• Open Air Resting Opportunities
o Locations and Types not yet specified; may include additional picnic tables or
benches
• Additional Drainage Stabilization
o Examples include Rock Fill, in aesthetically pleasing arrangements
o Enhanced visual aspects; also enhanced invitation for children's exploration
E. Open discussion, comments from public
1. **The native plants and hydro seed may welcome a potential fire hazard,
vermin and/or coyotes to come to Lower Hesse Park
19
RESPONSE: Staff to increase level of maintenance
**Suggestion to mow grass to prevent this
RESPONSE: Staff suggests that they will choose species that don't
require substantial mowing; however, if needed will definitely mow
2. **Native plants and drought tolerant sound like a good idea
**Parking doesn't seem "natural", against asphalt concrete parking.
**A safety concern about kids running through the parking lot. Response:
Safety is always a priority; parking lot would be well-designed
**Fitness stations seem like a great idea; however, they may become
rusted and an eyesore.
RESPONSE: Staff mentioned there is better technology now when
compared to the old wooden ones
3. **Resident remembered enjoying the older wooden ones at Upper Hesse
RESPONSE: The warranties now for exercise equipment are great
4. **Add another trail leading from Upper Hesse to Lower Hesse
RESPONSE: possibility of adding another loop to join to other trails
**Add trees to provide shade
RESPONSE: Staff suggested that we may come back as a group to
decide on tree option
**Suggested to add a bird and/or butterfly station
5. **Concerns raised about hydroseeding. The city has planted on the slope
before and all of the plants died. When the plants on the slope were
watered, the slope eroded
**Suggested that the plants get the correct amount of water through a drip
irrigation
**lots of reservations about the use of hydro seed. Was tried twice and did
not work
**Suggested a "grow and kill" method to see if plants could be established
**volunteered time and suggested that neighbors help
6. **Entrance to Lower Hesse may not be safe
RESPONSE: Staff suggested the following to help with safety: gate will be
locked at night, cameras considered, traffic stop possible-safety
concerns will be an implicit part of the design process. Additional sheriff
patrols can be requested.
7. **Has noticed graffiti and partying at Lower Hesse
**Agrees that signs and video cameras may help deter this behavior
RESPONSE: a well-designed park will cover this issue
8. **Is the City in the process of getting to more sheriffs?
RSPONSE: The City recently increased its contract with LA County
20
Sheriff. As well, the city has increased staff size and neighborhood watch
involvement may help.
**If native plants are removed they should be replaced on a 3:1 basis
9. **What is your confidence the park will be constructed for that price?
RESPONSE: $500,000 is not a lot of money, we are staying above
ground. Also we are using the approach of a quantity estimate for bids
which is predicted using the CCI, "California Construction Index"
**What is your plan for presenting to City Council?
RESPONSE: What we are putting together fits and the estimated budget
is flexible and appropriately costed out.
10. **When does the park open?
RESPONSE: The current hours are from dawn to dusk
**Why are we doing this project?
RESPONSE: The Park is not in the best condition, will be more fun and
attractive
11. **likes the idea of cleaning up the trails
**likes walking on and over rocks, but paranoid about the drain at the end
**likes exercise equipment
**recommends touring Dills Park in Paramount for its spectacular views,
native landscaping and fitness stations
**likes to have park benches with shade
12. **Open air resting is important, can enjoy it with appropriate shading,
Upper Hesse would be an example
13. **Not a fan of exercise equipment; however, suggested Dills Park in
Paramount. Nicely blends in the active and the passive
14. **People are not currently complaining about trees, so put more in for
shade
15. **Likes the idea of picnic tables and open areas
**Suggested to put together a priority list for the Enhanced Plan
RESPONSE: Our priority is the middle section for the proposed plan and
we are currently looking for feedback to shape priority
16. **If we decide on an asphalt parking lot, would we need anything special
for drainage and are there extra costs associated with it?
RESPONSE: A new parking lot would help set off costs of managing dust
control, we would use open graded areas and engineered soil to help
water infiltrate
17. **Can we use decomposed granite?
RESPONSE: This would pose a constant maintenance issue much like
with gravel
18. **How many parking spaces can the current lot accommodate?
21
RESPONSE: At most 15 spots
**How many spots with the new proposal?
RESPONSE: Closer to 25 spots
19. **why not just close off the parking lot?
20. **If we improve Lower Hesse more people will want to use it making the
parking lot more attractive and useful. RESPONSE: Residents have
complained about street parking and the loss of parking availability for
residents.
21. **Current lot appears to be DG and has held up well, knows this from
parking there daily
**Possibly we should lay it out better and expand it to where the picnic
area is
RESPONSE: The whole idea of the parking lot is for safety--to take people
off of the street
**concerns were raised with the "Pacific Plan" that street parking was
expected to be overrun
**Attendee asked it their concerns were being taken into account.
RESPONSE: Staff assured attendees that all comments were being
recorded by a minute taker and would be both considered by staff and
included in the final staff report to City Council.
22. **If you are going to cater a park to children you must have a safe parking
area for kids to get out of the car, not on the street
23. **Are you taking recommendations from all of the City and how heavy is
the weight on local HOAs?
RESPONSE: All opinions are valued but there has been a strong showing
of those who live close by and yes, that certainly carries weight. The goal
still remains to fit into the City's goal of being safe and well managed for
both local residents and the the community.
**There is a concern that "hey, the hill needs more tennis courts, so let's
just throw them here"
24. **Where else has open asphalt concrete been used
RESPONSE: various locations, 2 in Northern California, more examples
can be found online
25. **5 or 6 years ago emails and surveys were sent out with 866 responses
of what the city residents wanted. There was a 96% favor for open space
26. **In July of 2010 there was an outreach study and most responses were
for open space and walking trails. Most responses were also against
additional active recreation. RESPONSE: Both the basic and enhanced
plans would allow for flexibility for changes or active enhancements at a
later date based on changed community desires or Council direction. Staff
22
acknowledges and understands that the community response from
adjacent neighbors has been strongly low key, open-space enhancement.
27. **Volunteered the use of Friends of Lower Hesse Park, Sweat Equity,
and mentioned 80 people showed up for a volunteer day
**Suggested fundraising from locals. The impact of a nice park on
surrounding properties will increase home values
**Volunteered $1,000
28. **Will you be presenting the Enhanced Plan on October 2Q1h? When will
this public group be getting feedback?
RESPONSE: City Council's direction is the next step. The public will have
additional opportunities to provide feedback as the project moves forward.
RESPONSE: This project has been given funds for the fiscal year so it is
expected to go out to bid this fiscal year
29. **Has two sons that are both Boy Scouts and need to do a project for
Eagle Scouts. Is there a way to involve them?
RESPONSE: The City has worked with Boy Scouts before and would
welcome their involvement.
30. **The gopher population will have to be dealt with and plants will have to
be protected. Recommends the use of chicken wire
31. Pacific View HOA members John Freeman, Les Chapin, Jim Moore, and
Noel Park were thanked by staff or their ongoing involvement with this
project.
F. Meeting Adjourned
Meeting End Time: 8:30 pm
23
Updated 10-14-15
Discussion of HOA comments on MND
# PG TOPIC/ CONCERN: HOA COMMENTS: RESPONSE/SOLUTION
1 p3 Park Activities I Bicycles Bicycles on trails are not Addressed: Bicycles will not be
compatible with walkers. allowed on walking trails. A
small area may be created
within the family fun zone
designed for small children to
ride small bikes.
2 p4 Aesthetics I Trail, Views, Trails Switchbacks will have a Addressed: Trails will be routed
Connectivity negative impact on views. so they are minimally viewed
from homes.
3 p4 Aesthetics I Trail, Views Pedestrian bridge will require Addressed: the existing bridge
removing two trees (tree removal will remain. The newly
causes negative aesthetic proposed bridge will not be
impact). built.
4 p4 Park Activities and Pedestrian bridge should not be Addressed: the bridge will not
Connectivity built, because no one will use it, be built.
because it connects users to
amenities that are too far from
the parking area.
5 p4 Aesthetics I Trail, Views Replace post and cable fencing Addressed: post and cable will
along the perimeter of the park not be used around the
with shrubs. perimeter of park.
6 p4 Aesthetics I Trail, Views Existing trails are not now Addressed: staff will begin
appealing. improving maintenance to park
immediately, and will improve
the trails through the
improvement process.
7 pS Aesthetics I Views, The switchback trail Addressed: the switchback
Trees improvements would be visible trails (connecting lower and
from residences. upper park areas) will be
(PVHOA requests "photographic routed so they are minimally
evidence taken from all viewed from homes.
potentially affected neighboring
sites") Staff reached out to homes
that may have view impacts.
8 pS Aesthetics I Views, Project has impacts to scenic Addressed: Staff presented
Trees vista? Request flag mock-ups pictures to HOA of new
and "additional mitigation configuration with measuring
measures." rods showing lack of impacts to
scenic vistas.
9 pS Aesthetics I Views, Trees should all be dwarf species. Addressed: the plant palette
Trees Do not allow trees to damage will take into consideration
park amenities or parking. view impacts and damage to
park amenities and parking.
24
10 p6 Environmental I Locklenna Lane looking west; Addressed through new
Aesthetics view impacts. Tennis courts will placement of tennis courts.
block some of these views. Also
evaluate view impacts to Verde
Ridge Road looking southwest.
11 p7 Aesthetics I Tennis Requesting additional analysis Staff to include a condition to
Court Fencing regarding view impacts. 12 Trees as part of project approval.
in MLA Pacific Plan were omitted
in MND view study. Draft: In order to minimize
view impairing landscaping,
landscaping shall be
maintained at a height that
does not significantly impair
the views from the viewing
areas of the residences along
Locklenna Lane (between
Driftwood Lane and Windport
Drive) and from the viewing
areas of the residences along
the south side of Verde Ridge
Road that abut Lower Hesse
Park (between Whites Point
Drive and Locklenna Lane).
Heights no higher than 16 ft
will be used per the City's view
ordinance. If it is brought to
the City's attention that
landscaping is significantly
impairing views, and after City
Staff has confirmed that said
landscaping is significantly
impairing views from the
viewing areas of the
aforementioned properties,
then appropriate measures will
be taken by the City so that the
landscaping no longer
significantly impairs a view.
12 p7 Aesthetics I Tennis MND neglected to evaluate the Addressed: staff researched
Court Fencing PVHOA proposed glass wall alternative fencing options.
tennis court fencing. While solid walls are not an
option, there are more
attractive options.
13 p8 Aesthetics I Tennis Courts should be North-South Addressed through new
Court Fencing orientation. Move courts against placement of tennis courts.
steep slope.
25
Also, Staff conducted site visits
to several residences along
Locklenna and Verde Ridge on
June 11, 2014. With the aid of
range poles placed at the new
tennis court locations, it was
evident that the 10-foot high
fencing would not encroach
into the views of the ocean
from the viewing areas of the
residences along these streets.
14 p9 Biological Resources Blue Butterfly and Gnatcatcher Addressed through mitigation
nesting periods creating short measures identified in the
construction time. MND.
15 p9 Biological Resources Create a project to encourage the Addressed: plants will not be
butterfly to return by planting planted to attract protected
host plants. species.
16 plO Biological Resources Gophers Addressed: staff will
immediately begin addressing
the gopher problem, and will
continue through the
improvement project.
17 pll Hazards and Hazardous Does it interfere with Evacuation Addressed: it does not.
Materials Plans?
18 p12 Noise Ambient noise levels (cars leaving Addressed: determined to be
parking lot and accelerating up insignificant.
Locklenna 10 ft from homes).
19 p13 Transportation/Traffic Parking Capacity: MND states 50 Addressed: 32 spaces
spaces are adequate and the determined to be adequate.
MLA Plan calls for 32. (also
PVHOA comments on pg. 15)
20 p13 Transportation/Traffic Consider slanted parking rather Addressed: straight parking will
than straight in parking. accommodate more cars in a
smaller area.
21 p13 Transportation/Traffic Table 16-2 indicates that 75% of Addressed: The trip generation
the park use will be for tennis rates identified in Table 16-2
courts. If the tennis courts are do not represent 100% of park
eliminated, why build the park use. Trip generation rates are
for just 25% (29 people). industry-standard rates used to
estimate the number of
vehicular traffic generated by a
proposed development. If the
tennis courts were eliminated,
the traffic associated with that
proposed use would not be
considered.
26
22 p13 Transportation/Traffic/L Light synchronization will City controls signals.
ight Synchronization improve right turns but worsen Synchronization will improve all
left turns from Locklenna to turn conditions because gap
Hawthorne opportunities will be created
by the clustering of vehicles.
23 p14 Transportation/Traffic Site Distance for on-street Sight distance is a pre-existing
parking. issue for Locklenna Lane at
Faircove Drive. Staff has
addressed a portion of this
issue by trimming/removing
overgrown vegetation that was
contributing to line of sight
issues at Faircove. On-street
parking can be restricted near
all intersections to preserve the
line of sight for vehicles
entering/exiting the parking
lot.
24 p14 Transportation/Traffic/B Blind curves at Faircove, Addressed through lteris line of
lind Curve Baycrest, and pedestrian park site study.
exit weren't evaluated in MND.
25 p14 Transportation/Traffic/S MND may not have taken grade Stopping Site distance was
topping Distance due to into consideration when evaluated as part of the MND
speed/grade evaluating stopping distances on however, the stopping site
Locklenna and Verde Ridge. distance calculations were not
included. Copies of the
calculation from the consultant
were provided 3-5-15.
26 p15 On-site Parking Safety merits of on-site parking It was determined that there
with or without parking on are merits to onsite parking.
Locklenna Street parking impacts on
neighborhood will continue to
be monitored as improvement
project goes forward.
27 p15 On-site Parking Parking area too far from Experience at park sites shows
amenities. Amenities won't be park users willing to walk to
used. attractive/desired amenities.
28 p16 Utilities/Service Systems Would project have adequate Addressed: yes.
access to existing utilities?
29 p17 Additional Comments Existing trails are not safe. Addressed: staff will begin
immediately improving trail
maintenance
30 p17 Additional Comments Wrought Iron fence on the north Staff and HOA will address both
side of the park requires maintenance and
maintenance. encroachments at a future
date.
27
31 p18 Noise Existing noise measurements. Addressed: yes.
Were they taken in the correct
locations?
32 p19 Trans po rtation/Circu lati MND Appendix D lists Verde Addressed: The language in the
on Ridge as main vehicular roadway study will be revised to reflect
access to Lower Hesse Park. This this.
is incorrect. PVHOA recommends
Locklenna/Hawthorne
intersection be the emphasis of
traffic studies. Redo study?
33 p20 Trans portation/Circu lati Placement of speed tubes. Staff will conduct
on Additional study requested at refresher study with
bottom of steep slope radar located closer to
Faircove. Speeds will
be checked by radar
instead of pneumatic
tubes on the sections
of Locklenna that have
steep grades. This has
not been completed to
date. Staff will have
consultant conduct a
new speed survey on
the same days of the
week and for similar
times as the original
study was conducted.
Note: Completed
October 2015
28
Matt Waters
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net>
Monday, October 12, 2015 4:23 PM
cc
Matt Waters; Carla Morreale; Les Chapin
Comments for October 20, 2015 Council agenda: Lower Hesse Park Improvement
Project
Les Chapin Hesse Park City Council comments for Oct 20 2015.pdf
Dear Mayor Knight and City Council members:
Please see the attached letter from Les Chapin, who is unable to attend the October 20, 2015 City
Council meeting in person and asked me to email this to you.
Les is a former Pacific View HOA President, and he is part of a group of four current and past Pacific
View HOA presidents that have been meeting with RPV staff to discuss the "phased scaled-down
plan" for Lower Hesse Park. (HOA members are Les Chapin, Jim Moore, Noel Park, and myself).
Please include this email and attachment letter in the staff report, public comments for October 20th.
Thank you.
John Freeman, President
Pacific View Homeowners Association
www.palosverdes.com/pacificview
"Working Together for a Better Neighborhood"
1 29
TO: Mayor Knight and City Council Members
RE: Lower Hesse Park Master Plan comments for October 20, 2015 Council Meeting
My name is Les Chapin. 7 October 2015
I have lived at 6710 Verde Ridge Road for thirty seven years with our home's back yard and kitchen window
facing the lower park with the park essentially being an extension of our back yard. We look straight from the
north side of the park into the park at the level of the lower park entrance and volleyball court. I served as
president of our Pacific View Homeowners Association in 2009 and 2010. In 2009 as president of the
homeowners association I received a request from the then Rancho Palos Verdes city manager Carolyn Lehr to
gather an audience of our homeowner's association current and prior board members to allow the city to
present to the neighborhood future plans for the lower park. The meeting was held at my home in November of
2009. In attendance were members of the city staff and councilmen Wolowicz and Stern. That meeting with the
city and the homeowners association was held six years ago and the park remains in its continued state of ill
repair. The trails and lower park improvements were done in 1999 and this eighteen acre lower park has
essentially been ignored for the last fifteen years. Four feet tall dried up wild mustard, fennel and Russian
thistle weeds have had to be mowed annually to remove any potential fire hazards for the neighborhood.
It is such a shame that such a tremendous park facility was allowed to deteriorate to its present condition and is
currently and continually being referred to by the neighborhood as "rodent infested squalor" caused by the
appearance of the park and the fact that gophers have essentially taken over and continue to decimate this
park.
I am hearing of a new concept for the city titled "Less is more", that is doing Less of adding new city amenities
and doing More of maintaining what the city currently owns. If the city had maintained this 18-acre park over
the last fifteen years we would not be discussing major expenditures to now finally repair and update this park.
This park has walking trails with tremendous ocean views caused by its local topography which should be
exploited by the city as a rare and exemplary facility within the city's park system.
I urge this council to take about thirty minutes of their very busy days and visit the lower park so you can form
your own opinions as to the condition of the park. Check out the present trail conditions including the damage
being done by the gophers, the landscaping, and the Russian thistle weeds that have currently taken over the
park.
Remember that when the October 20 1h city council meeting is over you are going to get into your cars and drive
home. For those of us who live here in Pacific View this~ our home where this city park has needed and
continues to need your support. I request of this council to please strive to finally improve the appearance
and functionality of this park located within the heart of our Pacific View neighborhood.
This is a reminder that when this park is re-landscaped it will probably require at least two full time gardeners to
keep these eighteen acres in premier condition.
I thank you for reading my comments!!
Les Chapin
30
Matt Waters
From: Cory Linder
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, September 23, 2015 7:29 AM
Cory Linder
Cc: Matt Waters
Subject: RE: Lower Hesse Park security
Mr. Shen :
We will incorporate security measures when we ultimately get into the design and construction phase . Unfortunately,
after checking with DPW, speed humps are not allowed (or safe) on steep grades such as Locklenna. We will do
everything we can in working with the community to design and build a park that is safe and maintained .
Thank you for your part icipation .
CORY
From: Cory Linder
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:10 PM
To: Cory Linder
Subject: FW: Lower Hesse Park security
From: frankshenl@aol.com [mailto:frankshenl@aol.com ]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 4:00 PM
To: Cory Linder
Subject: Fwd: Lower Hesse Park security
Cory:
This is Frank Shen, we have met at the meeting on September 14, 2015.
I am not pleased that the Lower Hesse Park will be developed like planned. This will
increase traffic, accident, litters, graffiti, crime, etc. And we are at the gate.
However, as we discussed that if the development will continue, please confirm that a
multiple security cameras will be installed around the game, Winport, etc. as you agreed.
Please also install traffic bumps on Locklenna for the safety because it will be more cars speeding to
the park.
Thanks,
Frank
1 31
From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net ]
Sent: Thursday , August 20, 2 015 10:50 AM
To: Cory Linder (C01yL@rpvca.gov ) <CoryL@rpvca.gov >; Nicole Jules (nicolej@rpvca.gov) <nicolej@rpvca .gov >; Ron
Dragoo (RonD@rpvca .gov ) <RonD@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian (AraM@rpvca.gov) <AraM@rpvca.gov >; Nancie Silver
(nancies@rpvca .gov ) <nancies@rpvca .gov >; Matt Waters (mattw@rpvca.gov) <mattw@rpvca.gov >
Cc: Jim Moore (jdmo88@gmail.com ) <jdmo88@gmail.com >; Noel Park (noel@jdcorvette .com ) <noel@jdcorvette.com >;
Les Chapin (les.al ice@cox.net) <les .alice@cox.net>
Subject: Lower Hesse Park security
At our meeting yesterday, I mentioned the concern about security and the possibility of video cameras at the parking
entrance and nearby for Lower Hesse Park.
Attached is an email I received from a resident , Mr. Chen , who lives directly across from that parking entrance and the
short dead-end street, Windport Dr., expressing his concerns. Please keep that in mind as part of the committee
consideration and proposal for Lower Hesse Park. I'm sure it will be brought up at the community outreach meeting now
scheduled for Monday, September 141h .
Thank you,
John Freeman
2 32
Minutes
Lower Hesse Park Improvements Meeting
September 21, 2015
R&P Conference Room
1. Review of August 19th Minutes and September 14th Minutes
General discussion of minutes from both meetings. No changes suggested.
September 14th minutes will be sent out for comments.
2. Review of September 14 Public Workshop
• Reaction to Proposed Plan:
• Reaction of Enhanced Pan: General public reaction to both plans was overall
positive.
• General Comments: Concerns were raised about safety, parking, hydro-seeding,
loop trail connections, gophers, trees, and use of volunteers that will be followed
up on by staff.
John Freeman submitted the following concerns:
• Open action items from MND: #33 Speed study measurement at lower Locklenna Lane
not completed.(R&P will follow-up with Nicole Jules)
#33 -Radar units have not been placed on lower portion of Locklenna Lane to measure
auto speed. Hence, the lteris statement "the default speed limit of 25mph is assumed" is
invalid.
• Action item for Nicole Jules: (1) conduct speed study on Lower Locklenna Lane points,
and (2) redo lteris study based on actual measured speeds. Note: "the default speed
limit of 25 mph is assumed" on page 1. (R&P will follow-up with Nicole Jules)
• lteris study: page 3 #1 (1) ''Trim the bushes along the bottom of hill side ... "
This helped but need verification by Nicole Jules that you can see the pedestrian exit (at
average speed). I believe it has to be trimmed more. (Staff will follow-up with Public
Works)
• Need staff to identify annual maintenance costs for basic plan and for the enhanced plan
for city council before Oct 20. (Staff will follow-up with Public Works)
• Need staff to identify one-time startup costs associated with basic plan and enhanced
plan. (Staff will follow-up with Public Works)
• Ron Dragoo: verify the MND and project plan is in compliance with Cal Water and state
water restrictions. (Staff will follow-up)
• Will traffic study, and therefore MND, be complete and ready for council approval by
October 20? (Staff will follow-up with Nicole and Ara to confirm )
• Overall plan will be presented to Council on October 20.
• Suggestion: Prepare an overall project "timeline plan" showing dates over next year or
two identifying milestones for Council approval, MND approval. Issuing of RFP, Capital
budget, Selection of vendor etc. (Staff will follow-up with PW)
• View restoration of tree view issues at Upper HP and Lower HP: Have person or
persons from PVHA contact John Alvarez to discuss/resolve.
3. Next Steps
• Update Conceptual Plan Based on Feedback. Staff will update the conceptual
plan and include concerns raised by the public into the accompanying staff
report.
33
Email from Jim Moore Attached (Jim was not able to attend 9-21-15 but submitted the following)
Hesse Park Trails Upgrading Plan 2015
The City has prepared a plan, limited for now at $500,000. I applaud this concept. My
one exception is the $142,xxx for stabilizing the central runoff drainage path. This path
has been in place since our homes were built, 47 years ago. It has worked in every rain
we have had without a problem and I believe it is stabilized as is. The City does
regularly clean out the entrance to the 4 foot drainage pipe, under Locklenna Lane, to
the valley below.
Instead of $142,xxx for drainage stabilization, use $5,000 to move all rocks on the fields
to each side of the drainage path, just to clear the fields for mowing and maintenance.
Also, trim all trees that impact views to the 20 foot height limit. This would leave
$135,000 for new features.
My concept for the modification of Lower Hesse Park is not to change anything that is
working as desired. Most all bushes and trees that are green and growing in the fields
were NOT planted. In particular all the trees along the drainage path have been there
for 4 7 years. Why take them out now, just because they are not in the position desired
by a proposed drawing. Lets take an inventory of the trees and bushes, maintain the
growing items, remove the dead ones and proceed to improve the Fields.
Jim Moore
34
Matt Waters
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Tuesday, September 15, 2015 4:22 PM
LeslieChapin
John Freeman; John Alvarez; Ron Dragoo; Ara Mihranian; Nancie Silver; Matt Waters;
Polly Briggs; Jim Moore; Cory Linder; Nicole Jules
Re: Park Landscaping With Native Plants
I agree with Les on the tree issue. I have cited Dills Park because of its brilliant use of Coastal Sage Scrub
landscaping. The large trees would clearly be inappropriate at Lower Hesse.
Even the tall Sycamores around the existing parking lot block views and should be severely trimmed or
replaced with site appropriate trees.
On Sep 15, 2015 2:38 PM, "LeslieChapin" <les.alice@cox.net> wrote:
Hello to all,
The Ralph C. Dills park is certainly a fine example of what Lower Hesse Park could become. An observation I
have is that in this Dills park, as shown in the photos, there are multiple usages oftrees. The Lower Hesse
Park final designers have to be very careful with the planting of any trees in the lower park. The natural
topography of the park causes any planting of trees to potentially cause ocean view obstructions to neighbors
at higher elevations. The city has not addressed the tree levels at and surrounding the community center in
Upper Hesse Park. Our neighbors on upper Verde Ridge Road have lost their ocean views due to very large
trees in the upper park. As we understand the city requirements there should be no trees taller than sixteen
feet nor higher than the community building roof lines? The trees in the small curbed areas in the upper park
parking lot have certainly outgrown their original aesthetics. The huge trees on the south side of the upper
park that are pushing up the asphalt on Locklenna Lane will become more troublesome if they are not soon
recognized as a potential issue for the city.
And I did want to document my concern relative to the community of gophers currently living in the lower
park. The planting of drought tolerant/resistant and other native plantings will be subject to total plant loss
as the slow growing tender roots are consumed by the gophers. Hydro seeding will cause seeds to germinate
during the rainy season and allow the gophers to feast on more tender root material as the plants try to
survive. It seems impossible to attempt to protect the root structure of hundreds of each individual
plants. The best approach seems to be to attempt to rid the park of the gophers prior to attempting any
plantings.
Les Chapin
From: John Freeman
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 9:23 PM
To: Cory Linder ; Matt Waters ; Nancie Silver ; Ron Dragoo ; Ara Mihranian ; Nicole Jules
Cc: Les Chapin ; Noel Park ; Jim Moore
Subject: Park Landscaping With Native Plants
1 35
Thanks everyone for the presentation and community workshop meeting regarding Lower Hesse
Park. I think the discussion was constructive with some good suggestions and observations. At the
meeting Noel Park mentioned the Ralph C. Dills park in Paramount, CA. See below for email and
the attached pictures of the park which Karen and I took when we visited there in 2011. I encourage
you to take a field trip there and see it firsthand yourself.
Ralph C . Dills Park
6500 San Juan St
Paramount, CA 90723
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ra lph+C. +Dills+Park/@33. 899027 ,-
118. 1969929, 14.5z/data=!4m2!3m1 !1s0x80c2cc9539e2d6af:Ox70c1cb3ec1409f76
John Freeman
From: John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:56 PM
To: Cory Linder (CoryL@rpv.com ) <CoryL@rpv.com >; Carolynn Petru (caro lynn@rpv.com ) <carolynn@rpv.com >;
Eduardo Schonborn (EduardoS@rpv.com ) <EduardoS@rpv.com >; Nancie Silver (nancies@rpv.com )
<nancies@rpv.com >; Nicole Jules (nicolej@rpv.com ) <nicolej@rpv.com >; Jim Moore (j dmo88@gmail.com )
<jdmo88@gmail.com >; Noel Park (noel@jdcorvette.com ) <noel@jdcorvette.com >; Les Chapin (les.alice@cox.net )
<les .alice@cox.net >; Katie Lozano (KatieL@rpv.com ) <KatieL@rpv.com >
Subject: Park Landscaping With Native Plants
Greetings everyone,
In August 2011, Noel Park, then President of the Pacific View HOA, sent an email (see below) to the
RPV City Council and the RPV City Staff urging them to visit the Ralph C. Dills Park in
Paramount. He encouraged them to witness firsthand what beauty and harmony can be designed at
a park by combining drought resistant plantings into a semi-passive, natural environment. It is a real
testament of how a park can be made community and family-friendly without sacrificing the active vs.
passive debate. And it holds up to the park protections required by the RPV General Plan, Natural
Environment Elements: "Future development shall recognize the sensitivity of the natural
. environment and be accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the protection of it."
After Noel's encouragement, my wife Karen and I visited the Ralph C. Dills Park on August 30,
2011. I took a series of pictures of the park as we strolled through it, and I have organized them as a
2 36
virtual tour in the attached document. Take a look. Our experience confirms Noel's. I hope that we
can and will learn from the lessons of Dills Park, of what can be accomplished in Lower Hesse Park
Trails.
Please visit the Ralph C. Dills Park and please keep this example in mind as we further refine our
committee recommendations.
John Freeman
From: NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 9: 19 AM
To: 'cc@rpv.com'; 'Carolyn Lehr'; 'tomo@rpv.com'; 'Katie Howe'; 'nancys@rpv.com'
Subject: Park Landscaping With Native Plants
Noel Park, President
Pacific View Homeowners Association
6715 El Rodeo Road
I recently had the uplifting experience of walking through Ralph C. Dills Park in the city of Paramount. It is located along
the east bank of the Los Angeles River between Rosecrans Ave. and Somerset Blvd. The park was extensively redone
in 2009, making amazing use of California native drought resistant plants. It is an absolute jewel, and a welcome oasis
adjacent to a quite dense residential neighborhood. It does combine considerable "active" recreation opportunities within
its surroundings of beautiful landscaping.
I would modestly suggest that this tour de force of landscape architecture reflects many of the ideas which our HOA
members have suggested during the community outreach process for Hesse and Grandview Parks. I have often
personally expressed great confidence in the talents of Mia Lehrer and her staff. I have no doubt that, given the freedom
to do so, they could achieve equally spectacular results for us. Even more so given the spectacular settings of Hesse
and Grandview as opposed to the actually very constricted, flat, and obviously viewless Dills Park property.
That said, a visit to Dills Park only convinced me more than ever that renderings and drawings can never have the same
impact on the eye as seeing the real thing. I would STRONGLY urge all of you to visit this outstanding park to help you
to see what can actually be possible at Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks.
3 37
arch beach
CONSULTING
TE C HNI C AL M E M O RANDUM
TO: Nicole Jules, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Public Works
FROM : Dennis M. Pascua
Principal Transportation Planner
DATE : October 14, 2015
SUBJE C T: UPDATED -Existing Roadway Spe e d s on Locklenna Lane and V e rde Ridge Road,
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The following Technical Memorandum is an update to the original Technical Memorandum dated
August 15, 2012.
Roadway Speeds
As part of the existing conditions data collection, the City requested that radar speed surveys be
collected on Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road. The radar speed surveys were collected
on both roadways during a typical weekday on Thursday, October 8, 2015, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00
a.m., and from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p .m. The radar equipment was stationed at 6658 Locklenna Lane
and 6633 Verde Ridge Road.
The radar speed surveys were collected using standard engineering practice. The 50th percentile
and 851h percentile speeds were calculated and are shown in Table A. The raw data for the radar
speed surveys is attached to this memorandum.
Table A -Existing Speed Survey Results
Segm e nt Hours #of Samples SQth Percentile 55th Percentile
Locklenna Ln -eastbound 7-9 AM 43 28 MPH 31 MPH
3-5 PM 45 26 MPH 31 MPH
7-9 AM 36 26 MPH 32 MPH Locklenna Ln -westbound
3-5 PM 38 28 MPH 34 MPH
Verde Ridge Road -eastbound 7-9 AM 55 30 MPH 34 MPH
3-5 PM 47 28 MPH 34 MPH
7-9 AM 39 30 MPH 36 MPH Verde Ridge Road -westbound
3-5 PM 58 28 MPH 33 MPH
Prima Fade Speed Limits
Since there are no posted speed limits on Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road, the prima facie
speed, per California Vehicle Code -Section 22352, is the established speed limit as discussed
below:
arch beach
CONSU L T I NG
11 55 Camino Del Mar, # 125
Del Mar, CA 9201 4
(949) 637-9007 phone
(858) 925-6 190 fax
www .archbeachconsu lt in g .com
38
Technical Memorandum-UPDATED Roadway Speeds on Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road
October 14, 2015
Page 2 of 5
California Vehicle Code Section 22352
" ... 22352. (a) The prima facie limits are as follows and shall be applicable unless changed
as authorized in this code and, if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving
notice thereof:
... (2) Twenty-five miles per hour:
(Al On any highway other than a state highway, in any business or residence district unless
a different speed is determined by local authority under procedures set forth in this code.
(BJ When approaching or passing a school building or the grounds thereof, contiguous to
a highway and posted with a standard "SCHOOL" warning sign, while children are going
to or leaving the school either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The
prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching or passing any school grounds which
are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the
grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a standard "SCHOOL"
warning sign. For purposes of this subparagraph, standard "SCHOOL" warning signs may
be placed at any distance up to 500 feet away from school grounds.
(CJ When passing a senior center or other facility primarily used by senior citizens,
contiguous to a street other than a state highway and posted with a standard "SENIOR"
warning sign. A local authority is not required to erect any sign pursuant to this paragraph
until donations from private sources covering those costs are received and the local
agency makes a determination that the proposed signing should be implemented. A local
authority may, however, utilize any other funds available to it to pay for the erection of
those signs ... "
Both, Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road are within a "residence district", so per the California
Vehicle Code, the speed limit on both roadways is 25 MPH. As shown in Table H, the 501h and 85th
percentile speeds (between 26 MPH and 36 MPH) on both streets currently exceed the prima facie
speed limit of 25 MPH. Average speed on Locklenna Lane is 28 miles per hour (MPH) and 26 MPH
eastbound in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, respectively, with an 85th percentile speed of 31
MPH for both peak periods. For the westbound direction, average speed is 26 MPH and 28 MPH
in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, respectively, with an 851h percentile speed of 32 MPH and 34
MPH in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods, respectively.
Average speed on Verde Ridge Road is 30 MPH and 28 MPH eastbound in the a.m. and p.m. peak
periods, respectively, with an 851h percentile speed of 34 MPH for both peak periods. For the
westbound direction, average speed is 30 MPH and 28 MPH in the a.m. and p.m. peak periods,
respectively, with an 85th percentile speed of 36 MPH and 33 MPH in the a.m. and p.m. peak
periods, respectively.
The proposed project would add 129 daily trips to Locklenna Lane, which is approximately 15
percent of the roadway's daily traffic. On Verde Ridge Road, the proposed project would add
42 daily trips, which is approximately two percent of the roadway's daily traffic. With exception
to the segment of Locklenna Lane between the proposed driveway and Hawthorne Boulevard,
a majority of the traffic destined to the park would be from the surrounding, adjacent residences.
The City does not have any specific significance criteria for roadway speed, however, since the
current (i.e., without project) 50th and 85th percentile speeds on both roadways are above 25 MPH,
the City may consider the installation of the following traffic calming measures, as developed by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
39
Technical Memorandum -UPDATED Roadway Speeds on Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road
October 14, 2015
Page 3 of 5
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
The following traffic calming measures are some of the measures recommended the publication
titled Traffic Calming: State of the Practice by the ITE and FHWA, August 1999:
• Speed humps (also known as -a.k.a., speed bumps, road humps, undulations).
o Advantages
• Effective on mid-block speeds (shown to reduce speeds by five to 10 MPH).
• Low cost.
o Disadvantages
• Unattractive.
• Increase in noise.
• Increased liability.
• Raised Crosswalks/Intersections (a.k.a., speed tables, speed platforms).
o Advantages
• Effective on mid-block streets.
• Allows for aesthetic treatments (stamped/textured designs).
• More gentle than speed humps.
o Disadvantages
• Not as effective as speed humps.
• More expensive than speed humps.
• Increase in noise.
• Increased liability.
• Neighborhood Traffic Circles (a.k.a., intersection islands).
o Advantages
• Aesthetically pleasing.
• Calms traffic on both intersecting streets.
• Less right-of-way (ROW) required when compared to roundabouts.
o Disadvantages
• Difficult for larger vehicles to maneuver.
• Not effective on mid-block speeds.
• Pedestrian and bicycle safety.
• Driver confusion due to minimal channelization.
• Roundabouts (a.k.a., rotaries).
o Advantages
• Effective on higher volume streets.
• Aesthetically pleasing.
• Channelizes vehicles into travel paths.
• Calms traffic down on both intersecting streets.
• Pedestrians and bicyclists protected by "splitter islands".
o Disadvantages
• High cost due to maintenance and construction.
• Requires additional ROW not found on residential streets.
40
Technical Memorandum-UPDATED Roadway Speeds on Locklennp Lane and Verde Ridge Road
October 14, 2015
Page 4 of 5
• Not effective on mid-block speed.
• Driver confusion when compared to standard intersections.
• Chicanes (a.k.a., deviations, serpentines, twists).
o Advantages
• Effective mid-block speed control device.
o Disadvantages
• If poorly designed, cars will cut path through centerline.
• High cost due to curb realignment and landscaping.
• Loss of on-street parking.
• Neckdowns (a.k.a., bulb-outs, intersections narrowings, safe crossings).
o Advantages
• Shortens pedestrian travel at crossing.
• Increases pedestrian comfort at intersection.
• Effective mid-block or intersection speed control device.
• Tighter curb radii slows down turning traffic.
o Disadvantages
• High cost due to curb realignment.
• Loss of on-street parking.
• Center Island Narrowings (a.k.a., midblock medians, median chokers).
o Advantages
• Aesthetically pleasing.
• Increased pedestrian comfort (provides for refuge in middle of street).
• Effective mid-block speed control device.
• Less cost than neckdowns and narrowings because there is no need for
curb realignment.
o Disadvantages
• May be difficult for larger vehicles to maneuver.
• Loss of on-street parking.
• Chokers (a.k.a., midblock narrowings, pinch points).
o Advantages
• Shortens mid-block pedestrian crossing.
• Increases pedestrian comfort along the roadway.
• Increases pedestrian frontage.
• Effective mid-block speed control.
• Narrow travel way slows down mid-block traffic.
o Disadvantages
• High cost due to curb realignment.
• Loss of on-street parking.
• One-way Street/Loop
o Advantages
• No opposing traffic.
• Reduces "cut-through" traffic.
41
Technical Memorandum-UPDATED Roadway Speeds on Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road
October 14, 2015
Page 5 of 5
o Disadvantages
• Inconvenient for existing residents.
• Not a speed-reducing device.
• Wider travel lanes allow for higher speeds.
• Radar Enforcement
o Radar enforcement coupled with police officer presence would be a highly
effective speed control measure, but extremely expensive since an officer would
be dedicating a majority of his time monitoring traffic in one specific
neighborhood. The placement of radar enforcement would work while the
equipment is on the street, however high vehicle speeds may return once the
equipment is removed.
Should the City pursue the installation of traffic calming measures, it is recommended that, at the
least, the residents along Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road be notified of the City's decision
to pursue the installation of these devices and that a series of public meetings and/or design
charrettes take place so that a consensus is made between the City and the residents on which
specific measures may be implemented, if any.
Also, it should be noted that stop signs are not a form of speed control; they are meant to assign
vehicular right-of-way at an intersection. The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
provides guidelines to the installation of stop signs and all-way stop controlled intersections:
• Entering volumes from the major street approaches averages at least 300 vehicles per hour
for any 8 hours of an average day; and
• The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movement entering the intersection
from the minor street approaches averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours.
Unwarranted stop control measures can lead to unsafe driver behavior such as running of the stop
sign because of low traffic volumes. For reasons like that, agencies are reluctant to use stop signs
as speed control measures. In addition, the vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes along the
residential side streets that intersect with Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road would not
warrant stop sign installation.
Attachment: Raw speed survey data
42
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY: Thursday
o• M ~-•o-~
Speed ALL Vehicles mph
<=10 f!'-"'f
11 ."?:!!
12 '":';-'""
13 I . .:.~
14 ?..,":.''\
15 ·;rr'°'~
16
17
18 2
19 2
20 1
21 1
22 1
23 2
24 2
25 4
26 1
27 4
28 4
29 6
30 3
31 7
32 2
33
34 1
35
36
37 tit.-~,
38 ii:'<!'
39 =11
40 l'.\'.;'~
41 ifl!li",
42 i:;i,;..,,
43 l!L
44 I~ "
45 »:lllllr
46 ,,.,_,
47 =>W"I
48 ~:!:'J ~
49 ·~ 50 :·,,,.
51 :·e;;:
52 >.~-~
53 :!;.~.
54 ~<:j
55 ::.:~:
56 '-"""""
57 '~
58 ·-~ "" 59 .at"~
60 ro ~
61 t/J>
62 -63 ~
64 D
65 !:i ~
66 tl"''
67 I ' 68 * 69 .~
>=70 'II""
Class I Count
ALL I 43
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location: 6658 Locklenna Ln
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-001
Eastbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
n.
~ 38
I
-0 40
Q)
Q) a. 42
Cf)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6 8
Number of Vehicles
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50th I 85th 1 10 MPH I I Percent
in I % I# Below Pace I Ranqe Percentile Percentile Pace #in Pace Pace % I# Above Pace
18 -34 I 28 mph I 31 mph I 23 -32 I 35 I 81% I 16% 17 I 3% /1
43
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY: Thursday
"
Speed ALL Vehicles mph
..
<=10 ,,. <.
11 l~\,,-rf'f-
12 ,:_'":.-""·"'
13 ....
14 t• ..... J__
15 J;;"~.\
16 '.
17
18 1
19 1
20
2 1
22 4
23 4
24 4
25 5
26 4
27 3
28 5
29 1
30 5
31 3
32 2
33 2
34
35 1
36
37
38 ~· 39 ""'~''"!:'.;
40 ~~
41 ~,!:'s"lli
42 UL~
43 ' 44 >?.l"",I
45 ~Mk
46 >tqJlf
47 :fW.f.
48 '!iiF<l
49 if'"oil..'l'I!
50 ~'b<U.
51 Of.'l.M~
52 ~i.'Z!':>
53 ·="'
54 -l"il'!'
55 ""'""' 56 ii>PJ';:;J
57 :;,,,_
58 '~ ""~
59 ~·"'b
60 ~ ~·s
61 ;;\I'll
62 (/JSJ
63 a \Ill!
64 "~ ..
65 l"!l«<
66 c
67
68 !Jc"l'l ~ ...
69 ~ ~·
>=70 m ~ ~
Class I Count
ALL I 45
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Service s
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location: 6658 Locklenna Ln
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-001
Eastbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
0...
~ 38
I
-0 40
<l>
<l>
0.. 42
Cl)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6
Number of Vehicl es
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50th I 85th I 10 MPH I I Percent in I
% I# Below Pace I Ranae Percentile Percentile Pace # in Pace Pace % I# Above Pace
18-35 I 26 mph I 31 mph I 22-31 I 38 I 84% I 4% 12 I 12% /5
44
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY : Thursday
Speed AL L Vehicles m ph
. --
<=10 ,, Yiti·
11 ~~~.;;.
12 'T.:·
13 '•'·
14
15
16 1 ·~
17
18 1
19
20
2 1 1
22 1
23 2
24 3
25 4
26 5
27 4
28 3
29 2
30 2
3 1 1
32 3
33
34 2
35
36
37 1
38
39
40 ;~·,\;A
4 1 w-.. ~
42 m"" '
43 WI"~
44 •'<! ~
45 L(;'n,
46 •'h!/.~'
47 1hlri:!.
48 ~ .....
49 ·f!P'~
50 rr....:::!
5 1 ,~..,. ..
52 ~-.
53 ;;rn,i.
54 . -·~
55 :i.~t.\,
56 ::.w,::;;;
57 ~"Z•'<
58 ~t<) '
59 """'" 60 !:Iii
61 '"hl~
62 r~
63 ' m ~
64 ~
65 :i,,,.
66 '" ·~
67 -g
68 ill' -1'
69 ~~
>=70
JI ""
C lass I Count
AL L I 36
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Pre pared by: Nation al D ata & S urvey ing Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location: 6658 Lock lenna Ln
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Pro ject#: 15-5673-001
Westbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
0..
2 38
I
"O 40
Cl)
Cl) c. 42
(J)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6
Number of Ve hi cles
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50 th I 85 t h 1 10 MPH I I Pe rce nt in I
% I# Be low Pace I Ra n ge Percen t ile Perce nt ile Pace #in Pace Pace % I# A bove Pace
16-37 I 26 mph I 32 mph I 23-32 I 29 I 8 1% I 11% 14 I 9% 13
45
DATE: 10 /8/2015
DAY: Thursday
Speed ALL Vehicles mph
·-~~·~ ~·.-
<=10 ~-,:::_:·:
11 !n"l'ln
12 ·~;;r-J:I,
13 t'iL
14 F/?';~
15 'i1~'f
16 ;i:ii]::
17 ~
18 ~.n
19
20 1
21
22 2
23
24 3
25 5
26 2
27 2
28 4
29 3
30 3
31 1
32 2
33 1
34 5
35 1
36 1
37
38 2
39
40
41 ~ ..
42 .. ~
43 '!'. q
44
45 [".;.!fl
46 "11~·
47 lfr..i,;
48 'llsil~
49 ;l,, n"
50 ' 'it"
51 ,.,.:;!!'
52 ~i'-~'
53 ,,,,:17
54 i ~
55 I "!!
56 lit~
57 11 ~
58 ~ oil;
59 'ti
60 ll ~
61 0
62
63
64
65 ~ ~·
66 l?I
67 m
68 m
69
>=70
Class I Count
ALL I 38
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location: 6658 Locklenna Ln
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-001
Westbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
Cl..
~ 38
I
"O 40
Q)
Q)
c_ 42
(/)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6
Number of Vehicles
SPEED PARAMETERS
I SO th I 85th 110 MPH I I Percent in I
% I# Below Pace I Ranqe Percentile Percentile Pace # in Pace Pace % I# Above Pace
20-38 I 28 mph I 34 mph I 25-34 I 28 I 74% I 15% /6 I 11% /4
46
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY: Thursday
.-...
Speed ALL Vehicles mph
...
<=10 ,_
11 "'ill'!
12 ': ":~'.·
13 .,
14
15
16 1
17
18 3
19 2
20 1
21 2
22 2
23 4
24 5
25 8
26 6
27 8
28 7
29 8
30 5
3 1 8
32 5
33
34 3
35
36
37 1
38
39
40 ~~;-,;
41 e;t; '
42 ;~<;,.
43
44 ~.i:-
45 '1\c.':""
46 lr.'!]l,a
47 ~""""''
48 -1"<;$
49 ~
50 "1''-~l
51 ;<';._~l-~
52 """'-'
53 fj'JRJ
54 ~~.'J>'i
55 ill; gll~
56 IP.:'\ll.:.
57 ~"l;i
58 {J• "
59 ~3>"
60 ·~"'I
6 1 ~ ..
62 I 19·>1<
63 " 64 ~
65 1P::I
66 'B ~
67 ..
68 '!HI
69 -
>=70 "1A'"'
Class I Count
ALL I 79
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location: 6658 Locklenna Ln
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-001
Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
CL ::2: 38
I
"O 40
Q)
Q)
0.42
(J)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of Vehic les
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50th I 85th 110 MPH I I Percent in I I Ranne Percentile Percentile Pace #in Pace Pace % I # Below Pace % I# Above Pace
16-37 I 27 mph I 31 mph I 23-32 I 64 I 8 1% 1 13% /11 I 6% /4
47
DATE : 10/8/2015
DAY : Thursday
--
S p ee d ALL V eh icles mph
_,
<=10 ~_.~~~
11 i;-11~
12 .J·n'.:-.t
13 '-'~=·
14 '= 15 'j;;,...
16 -.--
17
18 1
19 1
20 1
2 1
22 6
23 4
24 7
25 10
26 6
27 5
28 9
29 4
30 8
31 4
32 4
33 3
34 5
35 2
36 1
37
38 2
39
40
41
42 0
43
44 ~ i!"
45 ' u
46 if} -
47 lm5'
48 ~
49 .. ~ ..
50 ~
51 ~ c
52 ,,. n 'll'
53 _m '
54 I c
55 '"' 56 Jilli'
57 ~
58 ~
59 ~ ~
60 ~
61 m
62 ..
63 ~
64
65
66
67
68
69
>=70 'll
C lass I Co unt
ALL I 83
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by : National Data & Su rv eying Servi ces
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Locat ion : 6658 Locklenna Ln
Posted Speed : 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-0 01
Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18 =i
~
20 =::i
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36 ~
a.. ::::? 38
' "C 40
Q)
Q)
C..42
Cf)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Nu mber of Ve hicl es
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50t h I 85th I 10 MPH I I Perce nt
in I % I # Be low Pace I Ranae Percen tile Pe rce ntile Pace # in Pace Pace % I # Above Pace
18 -38 I 28 mph I 33 mph I 22 -31 I 63 I 76% I 3% /3 I 21% /17
48
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY : Thursday
...
Speed ALL Veh ic les mph
<=10 "·.·
11 r·~~~:
12 't
13 ..
14 ; __ .;..:..·~
15 '-· ., ,
16 ~~ ~ ~
17 t:1: 'f.;j
18 ·;~,
19 ·~·
20
21 1
22 2
23 1
24 1
25 2
26 4
27 7
28 5
29 4
30 3
31 4
32 5
33 6
34 5
35
36 2
37 1
38 2
39
40 .. --
4 1 .:=
42 rr:"'"
43 ~~o~
44 ~.I'
45 ~;JI;!°{
46 ii..~"-'.:
47 "~
48 "\J<
49 ~ii<:!
50 "~-;ti
5 1 ~-IU'"
52 ="'"'~
53 ~.-,-;;.
54 •.•. f;,;-r.'
55 ;..w,,.,
56 ... ~
57 IJ'J,;1
58 <:>,,~
59 irl-' LlO
60 'fl.""
6 1 m'l'
62 ,.,,_
63 111~ ~
64 ~
65 II'
66 ~.::;
67 -
68 'l:!:l"'
69 ~.,,
>=70 ii.ill!'~
Class I Count
ALL I 55
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepa red by: Nat ional Data & Survey in g Se rvi ces
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Locati on : 6633 Verde Ridge Rd
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-002
Eastbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
0...
:::? 38
I
"O 40
Q)
Q) c.. 42
Cf)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6 8
Nu mber of Vehic les
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50th I 85 th 1 10 MPH I I Percent in I
% I# Be lo w Pace I Ra n ge Pe rcentile Percent ile Pace # in Pace Pace % I # Above Pace
2 1 -38 I 30 mph I 34 mp h I 25 -34 I 45 I 82% I 9% 15 I 10% 15
49
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY: Thursday
Speed ALL Vehicles mph
--
<=10 .,. ..
'· .
11 ~·]:r~ •_j,,
12 ''·~-
13 ' .
14
15 ~I.'···::
16
17
18 1
19
20 2
21 3
22 1
23 1
24 3
25 1
26 5
27 5
28 7
29 5
30 1
31 3
32
33 1
34 3
35 2
36 2
37
38 1
39
40 ~~~,.
41 -iji
42 -43 D .,
44 " "" 45 )Ji}•«
46 ,,i:!,\;
47 •.r ~
48 "iV
49 oiv,;
50 _".ii(~
51 ~'""~ 52 ~~.~~
53 ~ir11;;
54 ~;ll""
55 C.-.AT.\
56 a<ii. '
57 ~~
58 ~· 59 ;;._
60 "'ii'~
61 ~
62 , .. ~~
63 D
64 'll
65 ,..,,'lt
66 'fl"~
67 m
68 IP'
69 n
>=70
Class I Count
ALL I 47
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location: 6620 Verde Ridge Rd
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-002
Eastbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
0..
~ 38
I
-0 40
Q)
Q)
0.. 42
(f)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6 8
Number of Vehicles
SPEED PARAMETERS
Ranae I SOth I
Percentile
85th 110 MPH I
Percentile Pace
I Percent
# in Pace Pace in I % I# Below Pace I % I# Above Pace
18-38 I 28 mph I 34 mph I 20 -29 I 33 I 70% I 2% /1 I 28% /13
50
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY: Thursday
~·-·
Speed
mph ALL Vehicles
·---
<=10 :-:t..1'
11 ,,;•~a~
12 ·-¥~
13 ' ...
14 :tl ... '..:':~
15 ";:_~~._;
16 .. , <
17 .. -:~..'
18
19
20 1
21 1
22
23
24 2
25 1
26 4
27 2
28 2
29 3
30 5
31 4
32 2
33 3
34 2
35 1
36 4
37 2
38
39
40 fk.~.:;::
41 l.~'i
42 ,,,;v:
43 h"
44 ml''
45 ~:!if!>:
46 ':il"-'1.0
47 :::<:>•
48 '::FL
49 (~~
50 'Ult;,
51 ,y ... ,.;1
52 '"'"'•· 53 .~Yl;:l
54 ~ .... ~
55 ~i~
56 ;'.V.I.
57 J>.K:'
58 .. ._
59
..,_
60 •<!',>;;
61 '!i.7'!.
62 '::pfil'.
63 ~
64 Ii'.<'
65 ~J"'
66 ..,..
67 ~
68 ,,:~,
69 ~
>-70 ll,..1.lll;!!
C lass I Co unt
A LL I 39
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: Nationa l Data & Surveying Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location: 6633 Verde Ridge Rd
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-002
Westbound Spot Speeds
'
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
Cl..
2 38
I
'O 40
(l)
(l) c.. 42
(/)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6
Nu mber of Vehicles
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50t h I 85th I 10MPH I I Percent in I I Ran~e Percentile Pe r ce ntile Pace # in Pace Pace % I# Below Pace % I # Above Pace
20-37 I 30 mph I 36 mph I 24-33 I 28 I 72% I 5% 12 I 24% 19
51
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY: Thursday
-··
Spee d A L L Vehic les m ph
<=10
11 ,,
12 f~~J
13 ---'1'¥ .. ,-~
14 '""'·"" 15 JZ"'
16 .,::;",,;;;
17
18
19
20
2 1 2
22
23 2
24 6
25 6
26 4
27 5
28 7
29 5
30 3
31 2
32 4
33 5
34 4
35
36 1
37 2
38
39
40 ·"'"~"'
4 1 ·-~
42 , '!!;,
43 ;
44 ,..;F
45 ·~ ,,
46 I~ g(
47 .,, '
48 ~m.
49 ~'Ill
50 """' 5 1 iJli
52 ,,.. '
53 r'<l-
54 ltl..ea;:
55 Jrtl:1'\ll'
56 """" 57 '~~
58 .. '
59 ""' 60 l1i> IP
6 1 '111
62 ~~
63 "" ~
64 ' '!'
65 •!''""
66 "' ~
67 ~~""
68 ~~
69
>=70
Cla ss I Cou nt
ALL I 58
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepa red by : Nation al Data & Surveying Se rvi ces
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location : 6620 Verde Ridge Rd
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-002
Westbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
Cl..
2 38
I
"'O 40
Q)
Q)
0.. 42
(/)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6 8
Nu mber of Vehicl es
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50t h I 85th I 10MPH I I Pe rcen t in I
% I # Be low Pace I Ranae Pe rcentile Percentile Pa c e #in Pace Pace % I # A bove Pace
2 1 -37 I 28 mph I 33 mph I 24-33 I 47 I 81% I 6% 14 I 13% /7
52
DATE: 10 /8/2015
DAY: Thursday
.....
Spee d ALL Veh ic les mph
.. ·--··
<=10 4---·-;,;:
11 )• ":·' ~ ""
12 " -
13 .. ·
14 .:~.~
15 :::-:-,~:~
16 ··'
17 .--~_,,_
18
19
20 1
21 2
22 2
23 1
24 3
25 3
26 8
27 9
28 7
29 7
30 8
3 1 8
32 7
33 9
34 7
35 1
36 6
37 3
38 2
39
40 --
41 "l~"
42 ~""
43 ;.)'~ '
44 11'·.:'!~I.-:
45 ""'"~ 46 .lli!oll
47 i!~lJ
48 ~
49 ''"~".:
50 {J;".~~t;.,
5 1 •'~ :r:;
52 .!~~
53 ~~~;
54 ~· ,. .. va
55 ~;s;;.
56 .....,,,,.,
57 '""'X
58 mt;.,
59 ,.'?,,'.';'!
60 ~~,~~i
6 1 .,,,,.io
62 ~-· 63 ~
64 3~
65 ',;;';.rn\
66 """""' 67 LiJc'.l
68 U!l'~
69 It ;\l
>-70 i?fill'
Class I Count
ALL I 94
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: Natio nal Data & Surveying Servi ces
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Locati on: 6633 Verde Ridge Rd
Posted Speed : 25 MPH Proj ect#: 15-5673-0 02
Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
n. ~ 38
I
"O 40
(()
(()
a. 42
Cf)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6 8 10
Nu mber of Ve hi cles
SPEED PARAMETERS
Range I 50th I
Perce ntile
85th 1 10 MPH I
Percentile Pace
I Percen t
# in Pace Pace
inj
% I# Be low Pace I % I # Ab ove Pace
20. 38 I 30 mph I 34 mph I 25. 34 I 73 I 78% I 9% /9 I 13% /12
53
DATE: 10/8/2015
DAY: Thursday
.
Speed ALL Vehicles mph
<=10 -,
.•."··
11 ;ti,Kr-f?i:
12
13
14
15 ... ,~'
16
17
18 1
19
20 2
2 1 5
22 1
23 3
24 9
25 7
26 9
27 10
28 14
29 10
30 4
3 1 5
32 4
33 6 ..
34 7
35 2
36 3
37 2
38 1
39
40
41 ~'
42 .:!" ~ ·J
43 ''""""' 44 .~
45 ~'"' '·-
46 Oji "'~
47 '""'~ 48 '<;·?..ct
49 ,, .ir:~
50 "1'.'.'1"3
51 ~ . .,,
52 -..."t!!'!\
53 .,,,.~..,.
54 ']{Jr;'(
55 f:>.'u:·
56 <'>1 "''
57 "!J ~~
58 :r.it"
59 ~~
60 !l"~ '!ii
61 ,•,7•;;
62 MS
63 nLIPZ!',i
64 -
65 !Jl!".ti7
66 '.,,..~
67 '6<{-ref'
68 '~~
69 ·-~'
>=70 rrfi-it
Class I Count
A LL I 10 5
I
I
Spot Speed Study
Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Location : 6620 Verde Ridge Rd
Posted Speed: 25 MPH Project#: 15-5673-002
Eastbound & Westbound Spot Speeds
10
12
14
16
18 I:=!
20
22 =
24
26
28
30
32
34
I 36
CL ~ 38 =
I
"U 40
Q)
Q)
C..42
(/)
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of Vehicl es
SPEED PARAMETERS
I 50th I 85th 110 MPH I I Percent
in I % I# Be low Pace I Ranae Percentile Percentile Pace #in Pace Pace % I # Above Pace
18 -38 I 28 mph I 33 mph I 24 -33 I 78 I 74% I 11 % /12 I 15% / 15 54