RPVCCA_CC_SR_2012_07_17_06_Lower_Hesse_Park_Status_UpdateC~OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CAROLYNN PETRU,DEPUTY CITY MANAGERIINTERIM«D
RECREATION &PARKS DIRECTO
JOEL ROJAS,COMMUNITY DEVELO
JULY 17,2012
STATUS UPDATE REGARDING THE PROPOSED LOWER
HESSE PARK MASTER PLAN
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER oSL
Project Manager:Eduardo Schonborn,AICP,Senior Plannffi
RECOMMENDATION
Direct Staff to pursue the environmental documentation,but for a modified project that
eliminates the basketball and tennis courts,and replaces them with a picnic area,as
supported by the Pacific View Homeowners Association.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 16,2010,the City Council directed staff to proceed with the environmental
review process for the Pacific Plan alternative for Lower Hesse Park (known as the Lower
Hesse Park Master Plan).Staff solicited and received 6 proposals from qualified
consulting firms for the preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).In April 2011,City
Council authorized a contract with Willdan Engineering to prepare the necessary
environmental documents for the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan.The MND document is
nearly complete and ready to be circulated for public comments and consideration by the
City Council.However,due to recent Council actions and discussions,Staff is presenting a
status update and seeking direction.
As the Council will recall,the Council recently took action to move the park improvement
project to the Unfunded CIP projects list.Staff is also aware of Council statements made
during the goal setting workshops about the need to prioritize the City's funding to major
6-1
Status Update -Lower Hesse Park Master Plan
July 17.2012
infrastructure projects,such as San Ramon Canyon,ahead of other capital projects.
Therefore,before circulation of the document and notwithstanding Staffs recommendation,
Staff is providing a status update to the Council and requesting direction on whether to
continue with the proposed design,a smaller project,or to halt all work associated with the
environmental documentation.
BACKGROUND
PROJECT SITE BACKGROUND
On February 16,2010,the City Council adopted its 2010 Tactical Plan to establish the City
Council's goals and priorities and therefore direct the work of City staff for the upcoming
year.One of the tactical goals adopted includes the following:
Goal:Improve the City's recreational and educational facilities by expanding opportunities
for active recreational uses and improving access to all parks.
Sub-goal:Provide improvements to Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park.
On April 20,2010,the City Council authorized a contract with Landscape Architect
consultant Mia Lehrer &Associates to engage the public in community outreach,and to
create conceptual designs of Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks for Council consideration.
Recreation and Parks Department Staff then worked with the consultant to perform site
analyses,hold community workshops to share concepts and collect community input,and
create conceptual designs of the two parks.Public outreach included three community
workshops during which community input was gathered and preliminary designs were
shared.Staff also took public outreach tables to shopping centers and special events
throughout the Peninsula to share information with the public and to gather input.
Based on the community input,on November 16,2010,two conceptual designs for Lower
Hesse Park were presented for review by the City Council.After hearing public testimony,
the City Council directed Staff to proceed with the environmental review process for the
"Pacific Plan"for Lower Hesse Park (a.k.a,the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan).As
illustrated in the attached plan,the Pacific Plan project includes the following:
Park Amenities,Trail Improvements,and Aesthetic Features
•Improve,expand,and realign the existing trail system on the property.Th is
includes expansion of trail access to more of the site,including the open
area at the northern section of the park,and creating a trail that links Lower
Hesse Park to the walking path around the existing athletic fields located on the
Upper Hesse Park site.Some of the trails would comply with the requirements
of the Americans Accessibility Act Guidelines (AAAG)and California Title 24.
•Repair the existing bridge that crosses over the seasonal drainage course that
traverses the site.
6-2
Status Update -Lower Hesse Park Master Plan
July 17,2012
•Install a new pedestrian bridge over another section of the seasonal drainage
course that traverses the site.
•Update and construct viewing and picnic nodes with benches,picnic tables,
drinking fountains with dog bowls,trash cans,BBQs,and landscaping (trees
and shrubs)etc.
•Enhance the aesthetic condition of the existing greenbelt that runs east-to-
west through the middle of the site with the importation of rock
material and new landscaping (trees and shrubs).
•Plant drought tolerant ornamental trees and shrubs selected from a colorful
plant palette.
•Install "mutt mitt"stations.
•Plant shrubs around the north,south and west property lines to provide a
landscape buffer for adjacent residents.
Recreation Improvements/Modifications
•Remove the existing sand volleyball court.
•Install three tennis courts (non-illuminated).
•Install an outdoor basketball court (non-illuminated).
•Install two flex lawn areas (approximately Y-.-acre each)for informal use by
the public for picnics,games,etc.
•Install an approximately 1-acre family play zone intended for less structured
playground equipment.
•Construct an outdoor fitness station area that is a more contemporary type of
par course.
•Create an educational or interpretive Discovery Trail network on-site.
Accessibility,Maintenance and Utility Improvements
•Construct a staff office/restroom/storage building.
•Improve ingress and egress to the park by expanding the driveway entrance
width and improving the parking lot circulation with a two-way circular pattern
driveway aisle with a hammer-head turn-around.
•Expand and improve the existing parking lot to accommodate 32 vehicles.
•Install park identification signs at the entrance off Locklenna Lane.
•Install post and cable fencing along the perimeter of the park adjacent to the
roadway.
•Repair and install irrigation for the proposed lawn area,landscape pods,and
picnic areas.
ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Council direction of November 10,2010,Staff completed a preliminary
environmental review of the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan and determined that
6-3
Status Update -Lower Hesse Park Master Plan
July 17,2012
preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be necessary to comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)to address potentially
significant environmental impacts that would be caused by the Pacific Plan project.On
February 21,2011,Staff distributed a Request for Proposal (RFP)to 21 environmental
firms,resulting in the receipt of six proposals.On April 19,2011,the City Council
authorized a contract with Willdan Engineering to prepare the necessary environmental
documents for the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan.
Staff directed Willdan to commence work on the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan in October
2011,which began with the preparation of several technical reports,including a traffic
impact analysis,noise assessment,gnatcatcher survey and biological assessment of the
Lower Hesse Park site.The technical reports serve to establish existing conditions,
support the discussion and conclusions in the Initial Study,and to assess the project's
environmental impacts.Ultimately,the combination of the Initial Study,technical reports
and other supporting documents,and the mitigation measures will constitute the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND)document.
In April 2012,Willdan provided Staff with a screencheck draft of the environmental
document,which was then distributed internally for review and comment on the draft
document by several City Departments,including the City Attorney's office.A substantial
amount of comments and edits were gathered and sent back to the consultant,who is now
approximately 90-percent complete with addressing Staff comments and edits.Once
completed and finalized,the MND document will be ready for circulation to all appropriate
public agencies and to the general public for comments in accordance with CEQA.Staff
believes that if the Council wishes to continue with the environmental review for the Lower
Hesse Park Master Plan project as directed by the Council in 2010,the document could be
ready for circulation by September.
DISCUSSION
As indicated above,in April 2011,the City Council authorized a contract with Willdan
Engineering to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration,including the necessary technical
reports for the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan MND.The contract amount was for $60,598
plus a $3,030 contingency,for a total contract authorization of $63,628.A total of
$56,882.40 has been paid to Willdan for the work completed thus far,including expenses.
To date,the technical studies that have been completed include traffic,noise,biological
and gnatcatcher surveys.Although a substantial amount of the environmental work has
been done on this project,in light of the City Council's recent action on June 19,2012 to
move the proposed project from the Funded List to the Unfunded List in the approved 2012
CIP and Council statements made during the goal setting workshops about the need to
prioritize the City's funding of major capital projects,Staff is seeking direction from the
Council on how to proceed with this project at this time.
Staff has identified the following 4 primary options for the City Council to consider with
regards to the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan project:
6-4
Status Update -Lower Hesse Park Master Plan
July 17,2012
OPTION 1:COMPLETION OF THE CEQA PROCESS FOR THE LOWER HESSE PARK MASTER PLAN AS
DIRECTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER 2010
As indicated above,Staff and a CEQA consultant have been working on the preparation of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan project
described earlier pursuant to City Council direction in November 201 O.Should the Council
elect for Staff to complete the CEQA process for the "Pacific Plan"project,then the
following will occur:
•The Draft MND document will be completed and circulated for a 30-day
public review period (September 2012);
•During the 30 day comment period,the public will be provided a forum at a
future City Council meeting to voice any comments on the environmental
document (October 2012);
•Staff and the City's consultant will respond to comments at the conclusion of
the comment period (October/November 2012);and,
•Staff will return to the City Council for approval of the final MND,and for
direction on how to proceed with the proposed project (December 2012).
Pros:
It is important to note that approval of an MND does not constitute approval of the project
the MND analyzes.This is because the MND is solely an informational document,and a
separate City Council action is needed to approve the project that is being analyzed.Thus,
the main benefit of this option is that it gives the City Council the most flexibility in
approving a project at Lower Hesse Park sometime in the future.This is because with
approval of the MND for the "Pacific Plan"project,the City Council as the ability to
subsequently approve the entire scope of the project that was analyzed in the MND,or a
modified project with lesser impacts,or no project whatsoever.
Another benefit is that because the CEQA documents are almost finished,completion of
the MND would disclose to the public all of the environmental impacts (or lack of impacts)
associated with the project that was originally proposed.This information may be helpful
for the City Council and the public if and when it considers other future projects at this site
or park projects at other park sites.Lastly,another benefit is that if the CEQA document is
completed and approved now and the proposed project put on hold,it allows the City
Council to re-visit the currently proposed project sometime in the future without have to "re-
do"the completed environmental analysis.
Cons:
While completing the MND could avoid further environmental analysis for a future project if
the current project is put on hold,CEQA does not define or specify the period of time that
an approved MND is valid.Thus,if the City Council approves the MND,but a project is not
implemented for several years,if there are any substantive changes to the future project or
the surrounding area that were not analyzed in the current MND,then the current MND
6-5
Status Update -Lower Hesse Park Master Plan
July 17,2012
may not suffice for a future project.Another disadvantage of this option is that public
circulation of the MND with the complete project analysis may give an impression to the
public that the City Council intends to move forward with the complete project analyzed in
the current MND when in fact the City Council may only wish to pursue a reduced or
modified project.This is because the public may not understand or accept the fact that
completion and approval of the MND for the complete project does not constitute final
approval of said project.
OPTION 2:PURSUE A MODIFIED PACIFIC PLAN DESIGN THAT ELIMINATES THE BASKETBALL AND
TENNIS COURTS.AND REPLACES THEM WITH A PICNIC AREA (Staff's Recommendation,which is
also supported by the Pacific View Homeowner's Association).
As identified in the attached correspondence,John Freeman (President of the Pacific View
Homeowners Association)identified a revised design that includes eliminating the
basketball and tennis courts,and replacing them with a picnic area.
Pros:
This option would continue to provide improvements to Lower Hesse Park that were
originally envisioned by the Council in 2010 while implementing a plan that has the
consensus of the immediate neighborhood.Since most of the environmental
documentation has been completed,Staff would refine the project description and the
analysis contained in the document to be specific to the modified project.Further,it is not
anticipated that new technical studies would need to be done since the studies have been
based upon the current project that is presumably more impactful than the modified project
since there are active recreational amenities.
This option would also reduce the costs associate with the improvement plan.As specified
in the attached Lower Hesse Park-Pacific Plan Concept Cost Estimate,the grand total
estimate to complete the current proposal is $2,770,041.This modified plan would reduce
that amount by about $120,000 since the basketball and tennis courts would no longer be
part of the improvements.Rather,picnic benches and barbecues would replace the active
recreation courts and the existing topography would be utilized,which would presumably
also reduce grading and related construction costs.
Cons:
This option would slightly prolong the timeframe for implementing public improvements at
Lower Hesse Park.The MND document would have to be modified and completed,and
subsequently follow the steps identified above in Option 1 regarding circulation,public
comment,and City Council approval.
This option would limit the City Council's ability to re-visit the full project that is the subject
of the current MND sometime in the future without the need for additional environmental
analysis.If in the future the City Council decided to pursue the larger project due to a
change in priorities or new revenue sources,then further environmental analysis and
6-6
Status Update -Lower Hesse Park Master Plan
July 17,2012
documentation would likely be required,which could require additional Staff time and
funding.
OPTION 3:IDENTIFY A SMALLER,SCALED-DOWN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR LOWER HESSE PARK
The City Council has the option of directing staff to pursue a smaller scaled-down version
of the project identified by the Council in November 2010.Depending on what scaled-
down project is identified,Staff would need to assess whether the scaled-down project is
adequately addressed in the MND.If the Council decides to reduce the scope of the
improvement plan,then it is imperative to have a clear,detailed and well-defined scope of
what the smaller project will entail.This will help Staff in determining whether the existing
reports and draft MND are adequate or whether it will require additional environmental
analysis.
Pros:
If the scaled-down project is adequately addressed in the MND,Staff could utilize the
document that has been completed thus far or modify it to address a smaller project.It is
not anticipated that new technical studies would need to be done since the studies have
been based upon the current project that is presumably more impactful than a smaller
scaled-down project.
Cons:
This option would also prolong the timeframe for implementing public improvements at
Lower Hesse Park since a new decision would need to be made by the City Council for
identifying a new scaled-down project.Based upon how the City Council elects to scale-
down the project,Staff would require time to re-assess the project and substantially modify
the document to ensure that it adequately assesses the scaled-down project.Nonetheless,
the MND document would have to be modified and completed,and subsequently follow the
steps identified above in Option 1 regarding circulation,public comment,and City Council
approval.
Lastly,this option would limit the City Council's ability to re-visit the full project that is the
subject of the current MND sometime in the future without the need for additional
environmental analysis.If in the future the City Council decided to pursue the larger
project due to a change in priorities or new revenue sources,then further environmental
analysis and documentation would likely be required,which could require additional Staff
time and funding.
OPTION 4:DIRECT STAFF TO PURSUE NO PROJECT AT LOWER HESSE PARK AND STOP ALL WORK
ON THE CURRENT MND
At this time,the City Council may elect to direct Staff to cease all work on any project for
Lower Hesse Park.Should the Council wish to pursue this option,Staff would cease all
further work on the environmental documentation and end the current contract with the
CEQA consultant.The City Council would then have the ability to re-evaluate whether to
6-7
Status Update -Lower Hesse Park Master Plan
July 17,2012
proceed with any type of project at Lower Hesse Park during the Council's annual goal
setting session and review of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Pros:
This would allow Staff to work on other projects that the Council deems to be of higher
priority.Further,the estimated construction costs of $2,770,041 would not be spent and
could potentially be redirected to other projects deemed to be higher priority by the City
Council in the future.
Cons:
This could potentially waste the recent environmental work that is close to completion for
the Lower Hesse Park Master Plan Project ($56,882.40).Further,there would be no public
improvements made to Lower Hesse Park despite public input received through the years,
and most recently through the 2010 park master planning process,that some
improvements and beautification to Lower Hesse Park are desired by the public.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A Courtesy Notice alerting the public of this agenda item was mailed on June 27,2012 to
the 218 property owners that are within a 500-foot radius from the Hesse Park site.
Subsequently,the same Notice was published in the Peninsula News on June 28,2012.
Further,the notice was posted on the City's website,and emailed to the 295 email
addresses that are registered on the Iistserve for this project.As of the preparation of this
Staff Report,Staff has received two comments in response to the Notice.One requests an
additional amenity to the tennis court area of the project,while the other expresses concern
with the methodology and conclusions of the Community Outreach that was conducted in
2010.
FISCAL IMPACT
As indicated above,a total of $63,628 has been authorized,and $56,882.40 has been paid
to Willdan for the work completed thus far on the MND for the Lower Hesse Park Master
Plan.Should the Council decide to pursue consideration of the MND and Master Plan
project,the remaining balance up to $6,745.60 would be spent on finalizing the document
for public circulation to public agencies,responding to comments,preparing the Mitigation
Monitoring Program,and filing the Notice of Determination.Further,additional Staff time
(approximately 80 hours)would be used to monitor and manage the consultant's work and
work prod uct.
Attachment
•Lower Hesse Park-Pacific Plan Concept
•Lower Hesse Park-Pacific Plan Concept Cost Estimate
•Comments received in response to Notice
6-8
LOWER HESSE PARK
PACIFIC PLAN CONCEPT COST ESTIMATE
6-9
Lower Hesse Park—Pacific Plan Concept Cost Estimate Lower Hesse Park -Pacific Plan Concept Eestimate
'om Oescriptlon Qty.Unit Unit Cost SubtotJ.1
Prolilrams
Basketball 1 ea $30,00000 $30,000
TeMls Courts 3 ea $30,00000 $90,000
Trails -Refurbishment DG topperWlIt1 metal header 21,000 'f $125 $26,250
Trails -New DG'Mth metal header 13,630 'f $5 00 $68,\50
Trads·Upper Hesse to lower Hesse DG'Mth metal header 17,000 'f $5 00 $85,000
Parkmg Lot
Paving 14,500 'f $450 $65,250
Paver Stnpes .00 If $200 $1,200
Famly Play Zone (30%landscape area)30,000 'f $500 $150,000
Flex Lawn 100,000 'f $0 65 $65,000
Play Lawn 12,500 $0 65 $8,125
Fitness Sialion 1 I,$20,00000 $10,000
Discovery TraIl Gardens 41,000 'f $400 $HI4,OOO
Enhanced EntrY 1 ea $10,000 00 $10,000
Amenltie'
Restroom Restroom Co With some local customlzatton +1 ea $180,00000 $180,000
Storaoe.KJosk+Slaft Office
Restroom BUilding structure,plumbing,
eleetncal sewer water
Shade Structure 1 I,$80,000.00 $80,000
Landscape NeIghborhood Buffer and Park Park Planting 80,000 ,f $350 $280,000
Trees 100 .,$20000 $20,000
Imgatlon Moderate 243,000 'f $125 $303,750
PICniC Tables 10 eo $1,50000 $15,000
SSQ •eo $50000 $3,000
Benches •eo $1,20000 $7,200
Dog MIT 5 eo $35000 $1,750
ughllng staff office area,parking tot 8 eo $1,20000 $9,600
Trash Cans 8 eo $35000 $2,800
Dnnklng Fountain wi Dog Bowl 4 eo $1,20000 $4,800
Bndge 30'x 10'.abutment.WlI'lg walls 1 I,$40,00000 $40,000
Engln..rinil
General 1
"
$25,00000 $25,000
Cleanng and Grubbing 410,000 'f $0 15 $61,500
Rough Grading
CuI &FIll Balance 8,000 Of $2000 $160,000
UlIIllIes
Electncal panel 1 I,$3,00000 $3,000
Water meter,domeslic backflow 1 I,$1,50000 $1,500
S.....,conneClion al street 1
"
$15,00000 $15,000
line,4'depth to restroom bUilding 1
"
$11,50000 $11,500
Stom>connecllon 1 I,$5,000.00 $5,000
ComlT1Jmcallon telephone,cable 1 I,$1,20000 $1,200
S 782,975
S 947,900
Note The CoS!:Esbmale IS based on the concept plans prepared September 25,2010 S 283,700
SUBTOTAL S 2,014,575
CDndng.ncy 25':'S 503,644
S 2,518,219
Soft Cost (DeSIgn &Englneenngjl0%S 251,822
GRANO TOTAL S 2,770,041
Lower Hesse Park -Pacific Plan Concept Eestimate
'om Oescrlptlon Qty.Unit Unit Cost SUblot.!
Programs
Basketball 1 "$30,000 00 $30,000
TenniS Courts 3 "$30,000 00 $90,000
Trads -Refurtllshment DG IDpperwlIh metal header 21,000 'f $125 $26,250
Tralts-New DG WIth metal header 13,630 'f $500 $68,\50
Trads·Upper Hesse [0 lalNer Hesse DG WIth metal header 17,000 'f $5 00 $85,000
Parkmg lot
PavIng 14,500 ,f $450 $65.250
Paver Stnpes .00 If $200 $1,200
Famly Play Zone (30%landscape area)30,000 'f $500 $150,000
Flex Lawn 100,000 "$065 $65,000
Play Lawn 12,500 $065 $8,125
Fitness 518110n 1 I,$20,00000 $20,000
Discovery Tr.lIl Gardens 41,000 'f $400 $164,000
Enhanced Entry 1 "$10,00000 $10,000
Am.nWe,
Restroom Restroom Co With some local cuSlOmlzatlon +1 "$180,00000 $180,000
Storage,Kjo$k+$laff Office
Restroom Building structure,plumbing,
eleetncal sewer water
Shade SUucture 1
"
$80,00000 $an,ooo
Landscape Nelgnborhood Buffer and Park Park Planting 80,000 ,f $350 $280,000
Trees 100 e.$20000 $20,000
ImgatJon Moderate 243,000 'f $125 $303,750
PICniC Tables 10 e.$1,50000 $15,000
BBO •e.$50000 $3,000
Benches •e.$1,20000 $7,200
Dog MIT 5 e.$35000 $1.150
ughtJOg slaff office area,parking lot 8 e.$1,20000 $9,600
Trash Cans 8 e.$35000 $2,800
Dnnking Fountain wi Dog Bowl 4 e.$1,20000 $4,800
Bridge 30'x 10',abutment,WlI'lg walls 1 "$40,00000 $40,000
Engln••ring
General 1 I,$25,00000 $25,000
Cleanng and Gl\lbbll'lg 410,000 'f $0 15 $61,500
Rough Grading
CUi &Fill Balance 8,000 "I $2000 $160,000
Utilities
Electflcal panel 1 I,$3,00000 $3,000
Water meter,domestic backflow 1 I,$1,50000 $1,500
Sewe,connection at street 1 I,$15,00000 $15,000
line,4'depth to restroom bUlldmg 1
"
$11,50000 $11,500
Srorm conner:tlon 1 I,$5,00000 $5,000
ComrromcalJon telephone,cable 1 I,$1,20000 $1,200
$782,975
S 947,900
Note The CoS!:Esllmate IS based on the concept plans prepared September 25,2010 S 283,700
SUBTOTAL S 2,014,575
CDndngMcy M"S 503,644
S 2,518,219
Soft Cost (DeSlgn &EnglneenngllO%S 251,822
GRANO TOTAL S 2,770,041
6-10
LOWER HESSE PARK
PACIFIC PLAN CONCEPT
6-11
GRANDVIEW PARK
Concept Plans
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA
MIA LEHRER + ASSOCIATES
LOWER HESSE PARK - Pacific Plan
6
-
1
2
COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE
6-13
Eduardo Schon born
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Regarding the three
deeply appreciated
tennis courts to be
Neil Ziak [neilmz@mac.com]
Thursday,June 28,20124:07 PM
Eduardo Schon born
Tennis Courts
tennis courts planned for lower Hesse Park master plan.It would be
if a wooded backboard could be constructed at the back of one of the
able to practice hitting tennis balls.
Thanks you very much.
neilmz@mac.com
1 6-14
Eduardo Schonborn
From:John Freeman Urfree@cox.net]
Sent:Monday,July 09,2012 9:26 AM
To:cc@rpv.com
Cc:Eduardo Schon born
Subject:Lower Hesse Park status update -City Council agenda 7/17/2012
Attachments:Pacific View HOA Plan background.pdf
Re:City Council agenda 7/17/2012:Lower Hesse Park status update
Dear Mayor Misetich and City Council members:
Thank you for considering this status update matter for Lower Hesse Park.
Our Pacific View Homeowners Association and our residents support reasonable,
responsible general improvements to Lower Hesse Park.
We have previously requested that the Pacific View HOA Plan which we submitted
October 2011 be considered as an alternative to the Mia Lehrer plans.Please see
attached pdf document for some historical details of what RPV residents want and what
residents do not want.
Our Pacific View HOA Plan replaces the current proposed tennis and basketball courts
with a Family Play Zone/Picnic Area,yet supports the other trail,landscaping and
design improvements.
The overwhelming majority of 866 RPV residents surveyed by the City indicated
they want to continue preserving the family-friendly semi-passive Lower Hesse
Park environment.This reconfirms the original design of Lower Hesse Park from
25+years ago.
We agree.Thank you.
John Freeman,President
Pacific View Homeowners Association
www.palosverdes.com/pacificview
"Working Together for a Better Neighborhood"
7/11/2012
Page 1 of 1
6-15
RPV Recreation and Parks Community Outreach survey
Lower Hesse Park
The results from the RPV Recreation and Parks “outreach survey”were released July 12, 2010.
It looks like RPV Recreation and Parks Department took a survey of what they think residents
WANT, but neglected to take one of what residents DON’T want.At first glance it looks like
residents want all kinds of development at Lower Hesse Park.Not true in my opinion.
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/recreationparks/Lower-Hesse-Park-Grandview/Community-
Outreach.pdf
I can’t see the “don’t want side” votes from the charts.But, here’s a fair summary of the survey
taken on Lower Hesse Park completed by the 866 RPV residents:
RPV residents want:
1.Walking trails (506 yes =58% yes)
2.Picnic areas with benches (389 yes =45% yes)
3.Public restrooms (403 yes =47% yes)
4.Grassy play area (324 yes =37%)
RPV residents do NOT want:
1.Sports fields (734 no = 85% no)
2.Sand Volleyball Court (689 no = 80% no)
3.Tennis courts (665 no = 77% no)
4.Basketball Court (653 no = 75% no)
5.Dog Park (587 no = 68% no)
Conclusion:
The overwhelming majority 866 RPV residents surveyed indicated they want to
continue preserving the family-friendly semi-passive Lower Hesse Park
environment.
This reconfirms the original design of Lower Hesse Park from 25+ years ago.
The RPV Recreation and Parks department should conduct surveys fairly to ensure the overall
integrity and validity of the results,and to ensure that they present both sides of the survey
statistics, not just one side.
John Freeman
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
July 19, 2010
6-16
Ba
s
k
e
t
b
Pu
b
l
i
c
Do
g
Im
p
r
o
v
e
Na
t
u
r
e
/
Gr
a
s
s
y
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
Na
t
i
v
e
Pa
r
Pi
c
n
i
c
Pl
a
y
g
r
o
Sa
n
d
Sp
o
r
t
s
Te
n
n
i
s
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
No
Lo
w
e
r
H
e
s
s
e
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(8
6
6
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
)
21
3
40
3
27
9
28
4
21
3
32
4
28
9
30
3
22
6
38
9
26
4
17
7
13
4
20
1
50
6
91
1112
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
Ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
C
o
u
r
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
Do
g
P
a
r
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Na
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
Gr
a
s
s
y
P
l
a
y
A
r
e
a
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
T
r
a
i
l
s
Na
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
Pa
r
C
o
u
r
s
e
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
T
r
a
i
l
Pi
c
n
i
c
A
r
e
a
w
/
B
e
n
c
h
e
s
Pl
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
E
q
u
i
p
.
Sa
n
d
V
o
l
l
e
y
b
a
l
l
C
o
u
r
t
Sp
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
Te
n
n
i
s
C
o
u
r
t
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
T
r
a
i
l
s
No
C
h
a
n
g
e
t
o
P
a
r
k
Sk
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Pu
b
l
i
c
P
o
o
l
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
RP
V
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
(8
6
6
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
)
14
4
32
1
21
6
21
4
17
6
27
2
23
8
24
8
19
5
30
3
22
1
13
7
11
3
14
4
38
8
73
99
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
Ba
s
k
e
t
b
a
l
l
C
o
u
r
t
Pu
b
l
i
c
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
Do
g
P
a
r
k
Im
p
r
o
v
e
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Na
t
u
r
e
I
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
i
v
e
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
Gr
a
s
s
y
P
l
a
y
A
r
e
a
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
T
r
a
i
l
s
Na
t
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
Pa
r
C
o
u
r
s
e
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
T
r
a
i
l
Pi
c
n
i
c
A
r
e
a
w
/
B
e
n
c
h
e
s
Pl
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
E
q
u
i
p
.
Sa
n
d
V
o
l
l
e
y
b
a
l
l
C
o
u
r
t
Sp
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
Te
n
n
i
s
C
o
u
r
t
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
T
r
a
i
l
s
No
C
h
a
n
g
e
t
o
P
a
r
k
Sk
a
t
e
P
a
r
k
Pu
b
l
i
c
P
o
o
l
A
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
RP
V
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
6-17
1
John Freeman
From:John Freeman <jrfree@cox.net>Sent:Thursday, October 06, 2011 10:07 AMTo:Carolynn Petru (carolynn@rpv.com)Cc:'katieh@rpv.com'; 'Tom Odom'; 'EduardoS'; 'Siamak M'Subject:Revised Pacific View HOA PlanAttachments:Revised PacificView_HOA_Plan 100511.jpg
Hello Carolynn,
Attached is the “Revised Pacific View HOA Plan” dated October 5, 2011 with changes based upon a
meeting with city staff and based upon discussion and approval of this at our HOA board meeting of
October 5, 2011.
On September 27, 2011 I met with Tom Odom, Katie Howe, Eduardo Schonborn, and Siamak
Motahari to review and discuss the “Pacific View HOA Plan” for lower Hesse Park.This plan had
been submitted to the city council and city staff in April, 2011.
As I have mentioned previously at public meetings, one of our main objections to the Pacific Plan
submitted by Mia Lehrer & Associates is the location of their proposed tennis courts and basketball
courts.They were drawn at the highest point of Lower Hesse Park on a flat grassy knoll,15 feet
above street level.Additionally 12 to 20 feet chain link fences are required surrounding the courts,
and Mia Lehrer indicated planting even taller trees to block to view of the fences that will block the
courts and the ocean view.This will obviously completely obliterate any ocean views which we all
cherish and protect.
As a result of this, our previous Pacific View HOA Plan (1) eliminated the basketball courts and (2)
relocated the tennis courts from that location to a location 6 feet below street level near the parking
area.Our HOA board felt that lower elevation location would at least minimize any view
impairment.I was told at our meeting last week that putting the tennis courts and concrete pad at our
proposed location would require extensive grading and retaining walls to maintain the level court, as
well as cutting into the down sloping terrain.And the result from all that might be even more
objectionable.
Therefore, we have completely removed the basketball and tennis courts from the attached “Revised
Pacific View HOA Plan”.In place of the original locations we have indicated a “Family Play
Zone/Picnic Area/Discovery Area” which we feel is more consistent with the overall character of
Lower Hesse Park and is more consistent with the expressed wishes of RPV re sidents including the
345 residents in the Pacific View Homeowners Association living nearby. We all want to protect this
natural park.
We request that you consider this revised design in your upcoming environmental review, and include
it for consideration to the City Council.
The RPV General Plan states:
“It is the goal of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to conserve, protect, and enhance its natural
resources, beauty, and open space for the benefit and enjoyment of its residents and the
residents of the entire region.
6-18
2
Future development shall recognize the sensitivity of the natural environment and be
accomplished in such a manner as to maximize the protection of it.”
(From the RPV General Plan, Natural Environment Element.)
Thank you,
John Freeman
Pacific View Homeowners Association
6-19
6
-
2
0