Loading...
RPVCCA_SR_2010_11_16_04_Conceptual_Design_Lower_Hesse_CrTYOF MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REVIEWED: Staff Coordinator: r.r.I"J:l'LE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TERIM DIRECTOR,REC.AND PARKS NOVEMBER 16,2010 CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR LOWER HESSE PARK CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER a9-- Katie Howe,Administrative AnalY~ RECOMMENDATION (1)Give staff direction regarding the plan for Lower Hesse Park,based on the conceptual designs developed by City consultant Mia Lehrer &Associates;and (2) direct staff to prepare the initial study and the appropriate level of environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)to analyze the potential development of Lower Hesse Park once the description of the project has been clarified by the City Council. BACKGROUND In the 2010 Tactical Plan,City Council set the Tactical Goal to improve access and active recreation at City parks,with a Sub Goal of improving Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks,and the Council-approved Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan includes Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park improvements funded in fiscal year 2010-2011.In response to Council's Tactical Goal,staff created conceptual renderings depicting improvements to both parks.In November 2009,City Council approved the conceptual improvements as a starting point and directed staff to implement a robust community outreach campaign and to retain a landscape architect to develop alternative conceptual designs for each park. In April 2010,after staff issued a request for proposals and recommended the top staff- ranked landscape architect to City Council,Council awarded a $50,000 contract to landscape architect Mia Lehrer &Associates (consultant)to perform community outreach and to create conceptual designs of each park.Since April 2010,staff and the City's consultant have engaged the community in an extensive public outreach campaign and have created four conceptual designs of Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks (two designs of each park)for Council consideration. 4-1 Conceptual Designs of Lower Hesse Park November 16,2010 Page 2 Staff has brought conceptual designs for Lower Hesse Park for Council consideration this evening,and will bring conceptual designs for Grandview Park for Council consideration on Tuesday,December 7,2010.The scheduling of Lower Hesse Park for November 16,2010 and Grandview Park for December 7,2010 provides ample opportunity for community comments and Council consideration of the two conceptual plans for each park. SITE DESCRIPTION Hesse Park is approximately 28 acres and was purchased from the Palos Verdes Unified School District in 1977.The property is zoned Open Space Recreation- Active.It is regionally divided into two parts.Upper Hesse Park is approximately 10 acres and is improved with a community center,a parking lot,playground equipment, and a multi-use athletic field with extensive landscaping.Lower Hesse Park is approximately 18 acres and is mostly undeveloped,but contains unimproved walking trails,a sand volleyball court,picnic facilities,and a small unpaved parking lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Staff and consultant Mia Lehrer &Associates are presenting two conceptual designs of Lower Hesse Park.The designs take into consideration City Council's recreational facilities Tactical Goal,previous Council direction listed above,community workshops and outreach,staff research,and consultant expertise. The two conceptual plans presented for Lower Hesse Park are the Catalina Plan and the Pacific Plan.Both plans include the facility based programs and amenities listed below.The plans include two flex lawns,each approximately Y.acre in size and seeded with grass.Flex lawns are areas commonly used for drop-in recreation (Frisbee,touch football,etc.),picnicking,and relaxation.In addition,a Family Fun Zone is proposed that would include less structured playground equipment (climbing walls, learning/interactive play equipment,etc.),a small bicycle track appropriate for young children,and a seating area for families/users. The enhanced trail system would increase the number of trails at the park,improve the quality of the trails,add American with Disability Act (ADA)compliant trails;and promote connectivity between Upper and Lower Hesse Park.The existing parking lot would be improved and enlarged for a total of 32-36 parking spaces,and shade structures are suggested for sun/element protection at picnic and activity areas. The primary distinction between the two Lower Hesse Park plans is that the Catalina Plan includes a dog park that is slightly larger than one acre with separate areas for large and small dogs,and two tennis courts;while the Pacific Plan does not include a dog park,and contains three tennis courts and a larger Family Fun Zone. Facility-Based Programs •Flex Lawn (2) •Basketball Court (1 full size) 4-2 Conceptual Designs of Lower Hesse Park November 16,2010 Page 3 •Tennis Courts (2 in Catalina Plan/3 in Pacific Plan) •Family Fun Zone (including tricycle/bicycle loop) •Fitness Station •Picnic Areas (2) •Enhanced Trail System Amenities •Staff Office/Restroom/Storage •Shade Structures •Park Furniture (drinking fountains,trash cans,Mutt Mitt stations) •Parking Lot •Driveway Gates •Landscaping and Irrigation •Greenbelt •Park Signage •Landscape Buffers DISCUSSION Community Outreach Staff and the consultant have engaged the community in an extensive public outreach campaign.In May and June staff set up park improvement outreach tables at ten locations throughout Rancho Palos Verdes and Peninsula shopping areas where they shared project information and collected resident feedback;staff collected approximately 850 resident comment cards on Lower Hesse Park improvements.Staff and the consultant held three community workshops throughout the design process at which conceptual plans were shared and community input was collected.Staff created and continues to maintain a project webpage and listserv,and created a public service announcement on the project,which aired on RPVTV in July 2010.City staff has reached out to target groups,attended HOA meetings and events,and placed informational banners and fliers throughout the city. Character The proposed character of the park is unique and specific to the Palos Verdes Peninsula.Staff and consultants heard residents'desire to create and maintain a beautiful park with a natural,open feel,while using water-efficient and environmentally friendly strategies where possible.Suggested landscaping includes California native, drought-resistant,and Mediterranean plantings all of which will add color and diversity and fire resistance and will require less water.Plantings will be carefully chosen so views are not impacted.Staff and the consultant have worked to maintain much of the existing topography and character that make Lower Hesse Park unique;the riparian zone/greenbelt will be preserved and framed.Privacy buffer plantings will be used to preserve neighboring residents'privacy. 4-3 Conceptual Designs of Lower Hesse Park November 16,2010 Page 4 Traffic/Parking A preliminary parking analysis was conducted for Lower Hesse Park,and parking suggested in the two conceptual plans reflects preliminary analysis findings.Similarly, a preliminary traffic study has been prepared for the Lower Hesse Park neighborhood, which analyzes the existing traffic conditions and accounts for access and circulation along Locklenna Drive,Verde Ridge Road,and Hawthorne Boulevard.The study will be reviewed by the Traffic Safety Commission on December 8,2010.A supplemental report will be conducted in connection with the environmental review of the project following City Council direction on recreational elements that the City Council would like to have included and analyzed in the park plan.Traffic calming measures are proposed,which will aid in access and ingress and egress to and from the site.Below is a list of proposed traffic measures that are being considered and which will be evaluated in the initial study and environmental document: •Stop controls •Red curbing •Deceleration lanes •Median modifications •Signage •Advance warning devices •Optional neighborhood permit parking Enhanced Public Safety The proposed plans will enhance public safety through improved access to the parks for law enforcement officers and park rangers,and increased visibility into the parks for patrols and observation.A staff office is proposed to provide staffing and program supervision during park hours.Gates are proposed to limit access aflerhours,and park signage will define park rules and provide directional information.The proposed landscaping will be chosen partially for fire resistance,enhancing fire safety. Dog Park Inclusion of a dog park in Lower Hesse Park has been a focus of discussion and concern throughout the public outreach process.Outreach has shown that dog parks are popular and desired by segments of the community who enjoy the opportunity to exercise their dogs off leash and enjoy the social aspect of dog parks;and outreach has shown that numerous residents living near Lower Hesse Park oppose a dog park at this location due to noise,sanitation,traffic,and other elements that may be associated with dog parks.Other necessary considerations include specific maintenance,dog park rules and compliance,and park visitor safety. Skate Plaza At the September 21,2010 Council Meeting,grassroots organization Skatepark Palos Verdes addressed City Council expressing the need for a skate facility on the Palos 4-4 Conceptual Designs of Lower Hesse Park November 16,2010 Page 5 Verdes Peninsula,and requesting that one be built in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. At that time,Council directed staff to bring back the topic of skate facilities in the near future for consideration.As a result,staff met with Skatepark Palos Verdes on October 14,2010,at which time the group expressed their opinion that Lower Hesse Park and Ryan Park were ideal locations for a skate facility.As the skate facility proposal has come late in the Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks design process,it was not included in the conceptual plans presented tonight,and has not been included in the public outreach process.Likewise,the feasibility or cost of a skate facility has not been analyzed by staff or the park design consultant. Staff and Council from all four Peninsula cities were invited by Skatepark Palos Verdes to a November 10,2010 informational meeting on skate facilities.Rancho Palos Verdes Councilman Brian Campbell attended,as well as City Manger Carolyn Lehr and Deputy Public Works Director Tom Odom.After discussions on skate facility designs and uses,Councilman Campbell concurred that a multiuse area (or skate plaza)to include skate elements could be considered in the current Family Fun Zone contained in the conceptual park designs for Lower Hesse Park presented this evening. If Council wishes to consider a skate facility at Lower Hesse Park,staff recommends that the public outreach process be reopened to collect resident input focused on a proposed facility.Staff would recommend that the City invite Skatepark Palos Verdes to develop a skate facility preliminary engineering design and business plan to include funding and operations plans to help frame the scope of the review for feasibility and compatibility.If a skate facility is envisioned in the Catalina Plan,the most logical location would be in substitution of the dog park,and if included in the Pacific Plan,the skate facility would most likely replace the Family Fun Zone. CONCLUSION Once Council gives direction about the amenities and design for Lower Hesse Park, City staff will:(1)prepare an initial study and complete the necessary documentation as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)for Lower Hesse Park,(2) after the environmental documents have been completed,they will be presented to the City Council for approval along with the approval of the final design of the improvements to the park,including any mitigation measures that are recommended, as well as project funding and phasing alternatives.Following the City Council's approval of the final plan for the park improvements,(3)staff will recommend a consultant to Council to prepare detailed plans and specifications for the park,and (4) begin the public bidding process for the construction of the park improvements. ALTERNATIVES Following are options for Council consideration: 1.Select the Catalina Plan for Lower Hesse Park as presented. 4-5 Conceptual Designs of Lower Hesse Park November 16,2010 Page 6 1a.Select the Catalina Plan for Lower Hesse Park,and direct staff to provide an evaluation of the dog park facility after twelve months of operation. 2.Select the Pacific Plan for Lower Hesse Park as presented. 2a.Select the Pacific Plan for Lower Hesse Park and direct staff to research different locations on the Peninsula for a dog park. 3.Direct staff to reopen the public outreach process for a skate facility in Lower Hesse Park,and bring public outreach results and any proposal for modification of the currently proposed design plans back for Council consideration.Also, request preliminary engineering and business plans from Skatepark Palos Verdes to be submitted within a four month period of time. FISCAL IMPACT The Council adopted FY 10-11 budget includes $2,004,095 for the Lower Hesse and Grandview Park Improvement Projects.The projects are funded with General Fund money (transient occupancy tax revenue that was received in FY09-10).However,the engineer's estimate shows costs for Lower Hesse Park to range from $2.4-$2.5 Million and costs for Grandview Park at $2.5 Million.Based on the current draft configurations, ongoing maintenance costs for Lower Hesse Park are estimated at $38,000 annually. Depending on the direction provided by City Council regarding the preferred park design and the subsequent review of the elected project through the CEQA process, staff will quantify the anticipated fiscal impact.The fiscal impact will include whether additional project funding may be necessary,and more specific information on potential ongoing maintenance costs.As part of the approval of the final plan,the City Council will have the opportunity to consider the funding mechanisms available for both Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park at that time and make any adjustments to the design, priority,and phasing of both projects. Attachments:Conceptual Designs and Matrices Community Workshop Notes Public Correspondence 4-6 ce:~ lI.:l:;;: .~ Vol =.....::=""=+.....~ =-g; Vol~ ="".....lEce:=-==lI.:l Zce:= 4-7 ce:~ ~:;c ·ue-:l <:>.....~=<==+.....==-~==e-:l~=<.....;;ce: ~==~zce: == t:n:s-D- o ti=.-on:s D- • ~ 0::= ~ w CJ) CJ) W :::I: 0::=w 3:o ...J 4-8 RANCHO PALOS VERDES -LOWER HESSE PARK ACTIVITIES FACILITY BASED PROGRAMS 1 Flex Lawn 2 Basketbaff 3 Discovery Trail 4 Dog Park (Catalina concept only) 5 Family Play Zone 6 Tricycle and Bike Loop 7 Fitness Station 8 Picnic Area and Picnic Groves 10 Tennis 11 Trails -- DROP-IN USE - I- 12 Arts and Crafts 13 Chess Tables 14 Cross Country Running Course 15 Geo-caching 16 Horseshoe Pitches 17 Music in the Park 18 Ping Pong 19 Walking I.logging 20 Activities for Flex Lawn areas Badminton Courts Bocce Cl'Oquet Free Play Lawn Bowflng Lawn Yoge Field Games ralChl Volleyball Frt.bee Kite Flying AMENITIES Staff Office I Restroom I Storage Shade Structures Park Furniture Parking Lot Driveway Gates Landscape and Irrigation Greenbelt Drinking Fountains Mutt Mitts Trash Cans Park Signage Landscape Buffers September 25,20104-9 Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park Improvements Community Workshop #1 May 15,2010 Hesse Park Community Center Present:City staff -Deputy City Manager,Carolynn Petru;Interim Director of Recreation and Parks,Tom Odom;Recreation Program Supervisor,Nancie Silver;and Administrative Analyst,Katie Howe.Mia Lehrer &Associates -Principal,Mia Lehrer;Project Manager,Michelle Sullivan. Michelle Sullivan and Mia Lehrer introduced themselves and shared that they had been selected by the City Council to create alternative concept plans of the two sites,and that this was the first of three workshops to hear from the community and share design concepts.Michelle emphasized that the purpose of this first site analysis community workshop was for the consultant and staff to listen to the community and receive their input and desires related to these two parks and to share with them a site analysis for each park.An informal poll of attendees was taken,and it was determined by number of hands,that of the approximately 50 attendees,48 live right next to either of the two park sites.After a presentation and open forum for discussion,the consultant led attendees on site tours of both parks.Below represents what was covered during the meeting, including the feedback from attendees on the desired improvement and concerns expressed. Site Analysis for Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks •Circulation •View Corridors •Adjacencies •Landscape Typologies •General Grading /Drainage •Current Amenities •Opportunities and Considerations •Panoramic Views of each site Improvements Desired at Both Parks •Neighborhood compatibility •Increase overall accessibility to parks •Native plantings •Remove invasive plants and grasses •Improve landscaping •Consider making parks nature preserves •Water conservation!responsible use of water •Improve trails (including trail borders,erosion control,and ADA accessibility) •Continue to have the trails open for hiking •Interpretive and park signage Page 1 ATTACHMENT -1 •Places to observe and enjoy nature;keep natural character of parks •Dog parks Improvements Desired Specific to Lower Hesse Park •Remove sand volleyball court •Improve existing bench areas -remove surrounding weeds •Shade for picnic areas •Arboretum area •Separate trails so slow and fast walkers do not collide •Park site (maps/signs)showing visitors where to fmd amenities •Dog poop bags •Consideration of the inclusion of a skate park with the amount of acreage available Improvements Desired Specific to Grandview Park •Chemical toilet •Solar powered restrooms •Security cameras at restrooms •Improve runoff and erosion control conditions •Access off of Montemalaga -not Ironwood •Potential for community garden •Trails around the perimeter;the current trail travels up and over the park;you must exit the park on the same trail that brings you in. Concerns -Both Parks •Noise resulting from development •Traffic resulting from development •That the group at Community Workshop #1 is not representative of the community at large •Maintenance costs •Liability and danger of placing a dog park in a residential area •An irrigated grass area will be costly to maintain and an irresponsible use of water •That the City is not listening to neighboring residents'concerns •Maintain neighbors'privacy •Fire safety •Parking •Has the City adequately surveyed the community to assess needs •Disturbance of animals currently in parks •Prefer open spaces to development •That the park wi1110se its natural open space character •Whether the City can financially afford to make these improvements •Outsiders coming to the park •Par courses are not desired Page 2 ATTACHMENT -2 Concerns Specific to Lower Hesse Park •Traffic concerns related to o Grade on Locklenna Drive o Current low visibility of the existing parking lot o Speed at which cars travel on streets adjacent to park o Parking on residential streets •Leave existing bridge as is,and bridges are not necessary •Preserve neighbor privacy -special concern on western border •Maintain views into the park from the northern residential properties,while not allowing park visitors to see into the residential homes •Picnic areas are so isolated that they are not commonly used •Question why additional court sports are needed in Lower Hesse Park Concerns Specific to Grandview Park •Maintaining buffer between Chopra residence and the park •Not planting tall trees that would obstruct RPV resident views as a result of developing the park •Clarifying property line between PVE residential lots and the city owned park property •Parking lot not desired;adequate street parking exists •The steepness and accessibility of the existing access points into the park site •Seating areas could invite teenagers and illegal activity after dark;this activity took place at Grandview in the past •Do not put concrete in;it is unattractive •Keep the improvements simple •Water fountains get vandalized •Stagnant water collects in the water ditch;mosquito concern •Erosion •Adequate police patrol of the park and vehicular access to ensure police patrol within the park Page 3 ATTACHMENT -3 Rancho Palos Verdes Lower Hesse and Grandview Park -Concept Plans Workshop #2 (July 17,2010)Summary Overview: Workshop #2 was held on July 1ih at the Fred Hesse Jr.Community Center.The Workshop was broken into two sessions;a morning session to review design process on Lower Hesse Park,and an afternoon session to review design process on Grandview Park.In attendance were approximately 60 Rancho Palos Verdes residents,Park Design Consultant staff including Project Manager Michelle Sullivan,Councilman Brian Campbell,and city staff:City Manager Carolyn Lehr,Deputy City Manager Carolynn Petru,Recreation and Parks Director/Public Works Deputy Director Tom Odom,Maintenance Superintendent Emilio Blanco,Senior Engineer Nicole Jules, Administrative Analyst Katie Howe,and Recreation Program Supervisor Nancie Silver.Each park workshop began with the design consultant and city staff sharing information and history on the two park sites.Councilman Campbell,Project Manager Sullivan,City Manger Lehr,and Recreation and Parks Director Odom gave an introduction emphasizing the importance of public input in the design process,creating opportunities for recreation for the residents,and the achievement of a balance of recreational opportunities for Rancho Palos Verdes residents. Following the presentation,the participants were broken into three subgroups that rotated between presentations on park programs,park circulation,and park character.The following is a summary of what was presented and attendee comments received.For each workshop, approximately thirty participants were in attendance,most of whom were residents from the neighborhoods directly adjacent to the parks.Valuable input was received. LOWER HESSE PROGRAMS Each group session reviewed the following: •The program outreach performed by city staff • A summary of what was heard at Workshop #1 •The programs included in current conceptual plans o Tennis Courts (3) o Basketball Court (1) o Restroom /Storage o Parking (30 cars) o Flexible Lawn Area o Dog Park o Additional Picnic Areas o Additional Trails o Viewing Nodes o Exercise Circuit P.1 ATTACHMENT -4 •Program Imagery •Two program space diagrams showing relationships of programs to each other •Two options with program layouts on the site •Site line studies from Upper Hesse to Lower Hesse and from the adjacent neighbors into the park •Precedent study on dog parks PUBLIC INPUT Most workshop attendees live in neighborhoods directly adjacent to the park and stated that they do not want a dog park program in Lower Hesse.At the suggestion to set aside dog park discussions from the park plans,there was greater attendee participation.If it is necessary to include active recreation programs (tennis and basketball courts),attendees would prefer them to be integrated into the site in the least impactful and least visible way possible.There were also comments regarding the inclusion of the additional softball field overlay at the multipurpose field located at Upper Hesse currently under study by city staff;workshop participants would like to retain the existing walking path that rings the current field.Some commented regarding the outreach by the city staff and the concern that it did not reach enough of the population to reflect the wants and needs of the community. The following are comments shared by Workshop attendees: General •The neighboring park users are concerned about development of the park and prefer the activities to be more passive •Lower Hesse is not a park in its current state •Lower Hesse is enjoyed by people who walk in it •Some active uses and other elements might be fine but need to be controlled •Preference for park not to include additional active uses •Parks need to consider recreation for the future and for children.Recreational activities are important. •Is there an option for residents to design the park? •Site lines are important to the adjacent residents •Will there be a park tax? •City staff/consultant should establish programming before determining traffic or character elements of park •Program was preplanned.I was in attendance at Workshop #1;they are not listening to our input. •Like that sand volleyball program was removed and could be substituted by putting volleyball nets up on the flex lawn •Want to ensure that people using the park cannot see into neighboring homes,while these same residents are able to see into the park and/or the ocean. P.2 ATTACHMENT -5 Program Selection •Q:Why can't city rely on school district for active recreation rather than placing it in Lower Hesse?An:The school district supports the entire Peninsula,and school activities take priority.For this reason,the facilities are often not available to the general public.Adding active recreation to Lower Hesse will create more recreational opportunities for youth and Rancho Palos Verdes residents. •Q:Is the design consultant's program at the direction of city staff?An:Yes •Program outreach performed by city staff is invalid;residents where not asked what they DID NOT want in the park. •Provide a bigger outreach program,such as a mailer to each resident •Supportive of youth recreation,with a focus on skate parks;with the 18 acres at Lower Hesse,one acre could be devoted to a skate park. •Participants were supportive of the inclusion of a discovery garden program Other programs to be considered •Activities for seniors,like Bocce Ball • A new and different kind of play area,perhaps with no lawn •Inclusion of a nature center or shuffle board court •Sustainability "stations"to teach about sustainability Park Users •What volume of people will use park? •Currently,large groups come into Upper Hesse Park from other areas •Concern with outsiders from other cities using the park.Neighboring cities have parks as well. •Those closest to the park and who are impacted should have more weight in the design process. Tennis/Basketball Courts •Place basketball and tennis courts adjacent to the Locklenna Lane end of the park,set back from the street,and worked into the grading to conceal them. •Place the tennis courts into slopes to integrate them into the park and to make them less impactful to the park and neighborhood •Place courts in the center of Lower Hesse •Unlighted courts will get less use than will lighted courts •Limit tennis courts to 2 courts •Court sports are a lot of hardscape and will provide little capacity for the community •Prefer no tennis •Tennis courts should be lighted;otherwise they will be underutilized. P.3 ATTACHMENT -6 Flex Lawn •Inclusion of flexible lawn will allow additional area for unstructured play within the park, especially if the Upper Hesse field is being utilized by another group. Dog Park •Many workshop attendees were immediate neighbors of the park,and expressed adamantly that they do not want a dog park. •An attendee expressed a desire for the inclusion of a dog park •One attendee mentioned that his home abuts Hesse Park,and he is concerned with the compatibility of this program in close proximity to his property.His concerns were noise,smell,worn down appearance,and the impact to his property values. •Will placing a dog park on the former Palos Verdes Landfill site alleviate the need for a dog park at Lower Hesse? •One attendee pledged to give $1,000 in support of moving the dog park program to the former land fill site in lieu of having it located within Lower Hesse Park. •Additional dog park comments as follows: o Next to homes is a problem -noise and smell o No one from Rancho Palos Verdes wants a dog park o Is the Annenberg site an option for dog park? o Dog park should be placed at City Hall o There is a need for dog park on the Peninsula,but not in Lower Hesse. o Dog park will negatively impact overall park maintenance. Restrooms •Q:Will the restrooms be locked when the park is closed?An:Yes. CIRCULATION For the Circulation Break-out sessions the following items were reviewed: •Circulation Context Maps •Localized Circulation Diagrams • A traffic study is being generated by the city which will address many of the comments below PUBLIC INPUT There were many questions regarding traffic management,including arrival to the park,access points,and visibility.There also were many parking related questions.Participants would like to minimize the parking,but not to the point that park visitors are parking on the street and displacing residential parking. The following are comments shared by Workshop attendees: P.4 ATTACHMENT -7 Traffic Generation •If park stays the same as it is today,there are existing traffic safety issues that need to be addressed. •Q:How many people will the park enhancements bring in?An.Completion of traffic report will assist in answering this question. •Intense active uses will bring in traffic.The current park uses are not generating a lot of traffic. •Park visitors from other cities will come to the park o There is no need to support cars from outside the neighborhood o Bringing people from outside of area will increase traffic o Parks in other cities exist;people tend to use parks closer to them •Palos Verdes Estates has no active parks •Concern about intense traffic resulting from adding recreation to the park •Concern about traffic resulting from dog park inclusion •Dog park will create traffic problems at Locklenna and Hawthorne •Traffic study should be done prior to finalizing concept plans Intersections and Speed •Q:How do you determine need for stop signs vs.light?An:By preparing a traffic study •Locklenna/Hawthorne intersection is dangerous.Can a light be added? •Will a light at Verde Ridge and Hawthorne increase traffic on Verde Ridge to Lower Hesse? •Can a traffic signal be added at park entrance? •Bring traffic in at one point and out at another,rather than two way egress. •Too many left turns necessary •Berm @ Hawthorne hinders visibility •Topography at Locklenna &Hawthorne hinders visibility •Traffic on streets adjacent to park requires traffic calming measures •Locklenna speed and visibility is a problem.Perhaps right turn only.Come around to future light at Verde Ridge. •Blind curve at Locklenna Lane requires traffic calming •Install speed bumps on Locklenna Lane •Fog causes traffic problems •People don't know how to navigate the area and get lost Parking •Traffic backs up when parking lot does not open early •Not adding additional parking will hurt residents and will put pressure on street parking •Split up parking;break parking lots into 2-3 smaller areas •Add 30 parking spaces at Upper Hesse parking lot •Upper Hesse parking lot full on weekends •Parking is an issue during soccer games;people park on the street. P.5 ATTACHMENT -8 •Distance and grade change make it difficult to see Lower Hesse parking lot •People are not complaining about parking •Eliminate parking along the downhill section of Locklenna,because of poor car sight .lines •Parking on cul-de-sacs a problem.Permit parking for residents is a solution. •Street parking is currently a problem •Free permit parking is a good idea;every house should get certain #of spaces. •Extend permit parking east •Prefer parking lot on the eastside of the park along Locklenna •Do not lose vegetation when creating parking lot •Use permeable paving in parking lot •Do not create visual blight •Screen neighbors from parking lot Trails • A high school aged student mentioned that he was very supportive of the trail expansion to allow for cross country courses,and liked the trail that connects Upper Hesse to Lower Hesse Park. • A participant stated that the park is great the way it is;don't change it. •Retain existing trails,and add new trails. •Create a place where kids can ride bikes,and where it's safe for kids to learn to ride bikes. •Lower Hesse is enjoyed by people who walk in it •Youth need places to play -active recreation areas are needed •Require decomposed granite paths for joggers •Q:Will some paths accommodate wheelchairs?An:Yes •Trails currently labeled ADA accessible,are not accessible. •Improve trails,and do not add structures. •Q:Is there a need for switchback trail?An:It is proposed in one option to allow for better trail connectivity between Upper and Lower Hesse Park. •Like the "wilderness"feel of existing trails at Lower Hesse •No good solutions shown;the trails are best as they currently exist. CHARACTER During the Character Break-out Sessions the following information was reviewed: •Character Imagery to explain the site amenities,materials,and finishes for the park •Park Character existing in Rancho Palos Verdes parks The following are comments shared by Workshop attendees: P.6 ATTACHMENT -9 PUBLIC INPUT The general input is for the park to retain a natural appearance,with natural,drought resistant plantings.The neighbors want screening to mitigate the proposed sport courts.They want to improve on the fencing between the Park and Verde Ridge residences.The workshop attendees also expressed that they want park maintenance to be environmentally responsible, sustainable,and maintainable at a minimal cost.They want to retain views into Lower Hesse Park and to the ocean.Some attendees expressed that they prefer no change at all. General •Prefer natural character •Education and nature would be a focus for the park •Include signage about native planting and wildlife •Screen views of basketball and tennis courts •Like the park to walk •Take safety precautions at bathrooms. •Like the idea of the staff outpost for security reasons •Spend 2 days/week for maintenance •Address the Rancho Palos Verdes issues of traffic,dogs,and views. •Retain wildlife in park •Raccoons a concern •Enforce city ordinance regarding feeding stray cats. •Create buffers considering fire safety,view corridors,and privacy. •Privacy is a problem for some homes that can be viewed from outer trail. •Clarify enhancement vs.modification Site Amenities •Fencing between adjacent residential lots and park is falling apart. •Build fencing that would allow residents to access park from their backyards. •Low profile character wood fence •Include shaded picnic areas with trees Sustainable •Solar lighting in few key locations •Include recycling /compost •Wood recycling trash receptacles •Capture the storm water /runoff •Include permeable paving in parking area •Responsible water use! •Irrigation -low volume water usage •Use of xeric (natives)plants will reduce amount of effort to maintain plantings P.7 ATTACHMENT -10 Landscape •Keep the big trees •Retain indigenous plantings •Preference for natural,drought resistant plantings •No manicured lawns •Create a long-term strategy for gopher control •Do not plant trees that will block views. •Find a balance between trees and views. •Want marsh area to be natural looking P.8 ATTACHMENT -11 GRANDVIEW PARK PROGRAMS Each group session reviewed the following: •The program outreach performed by city staff • A summary of what was heard from Workshop #1 •The programs included in the current conceptual designs o Day Camp o Discovery Play Area o Additional Picnic Areas o Cycling Course o Restroom /Storage o Parking (40 cars) o Flexible Lawn Area o Dog Park o Additional Trails o Viewing Nodes o Exercise Circuit •Program Imagery •Two program space diagrams -showing relationships of programs to each other •Two options with program layouts on the site •Site Line Studies from adjacent residential neighborhood into and beyond the park •Precedent study on dog parks PUBLIC INPUT A summary of the programs were reviewed with workshop attendees.The majority of the workshop attendees were from neighborhoods directly adjacent to the park and were not supportive of the dog park program for this site.At the suggestion to set aside dog park discussions from the park plans,there was greater attendee participation.The neighbors expressed that they like this site to walk their dogs,walk the trails,and that they enjoy the view.It seemed that many were not against the inclusion of a day camp,and that some liked the inclusion of the discovery play area.Retaining views beyond the park was important.Many wanted the park to be more accessible,but were also concerned about safety and security with the proposed development.Most do not like the inclusion of the Cycling Circuit program.They are also concerned about the landscape character and preferred natural,drought tolerant plantings. The following are comments shared by Workshop attendees: General •Concerns on spending/paying for construction •Keep uses as passive as possible P.9 ATTACHMENT -12 •Lock restrooms at night •Security is important o Secure park from vehicles and pedestrians at night o Solar panels for security lighting o Provide fencing in some areas for security •Drainage problems on east side •Do not want construction in open space;will create a hazard zone •Q:What is the phasing for implementation and can it be phased?An:Needs to still be determined •Identify development hazards on plan •There is no community demand for this park •Utility connections need to be reviewed and verified,such as sewer from the restrooms, and electrical line on east canyon •Preserve site lines •Determine programs prior to circulation development •Concern that consultant is limited to program in Request for Proposal •The buffer zone between the park site and Rancho Palos Verdes residents'homes needs to be studied further to provide buffering and to retain the view out to the ocean •During the 4th of July,the neighborhood likes to watch fireworks from this location •If dog park and cycling programs are removed,there would be support for the rest of the park concepts presented •Attendees would still like to be able to walk their dogs Dog Park •Do not want dog park •Signed a petition for a dog park,but does not feel a dog park belongs at this location, since location is isolated and difficult to find,and the topography is challenging. •Expressed that Y2 -1 acre for a dog park is too small •Small and large dogs must be separated •People need to pick up after their dogs Day Camp •Q:How will the day camp be operated?An:It will be similar to a summer program, where children are dropped off for several hours,and there will be a variety of crafts, games,and recreation. Discovery Play Area •Attendees liked concept of a discovery play area •Place discovery play area on west end of park Flexible Cycling Area •Do not like the inclusion of the cycle zone for mountain bikes;there are already a lot of trails on the Peninsula. P.10 ATTACHMENT -13 •Cycling area too active of a use for this park •Locate cycling on east side to provide connection with open space bike trail Restroom/Storage •Prefer that facilities are down the slope closer to Montemalaga,and that development on the flexible lawn area does not impede existing views •Q:Will restroom be locked at night?An:Yes •Eliminate restroom Parking •Want to understand the program capacity and its relationship to the parking count •Concern about size of parking lot •Prefer to have parking further from Ironwood Street,and closer to west end of park CIRCULATION For the Circulation Break-out Sessions the following topics were reviewed: •Circulation Context Maps •Localized Circulation Diagrams • A traffic study is being generated by the City which will address many of the comments below PUBLIC INPUT General input on circulation focused on reducing the amount of parking within the site,and removing the dog park if it would reduce the number of parking spaces required.The concept program diagrams presented did not allow vehicular access from Ironwood Street,and inclusion of permit parking for the residents would help prevent visitors from parking on Ironwood.The workshop attendees from the neighborhood supported this solution.The residents,however,want pedestrian access to the park from Ironwood.Some still supported only parking on Montemalaga;it was explained that this option would be less safe than would parking within the park site. The following are comments shared by Workshop attendees: General •Will circulation change if elements are removed? Vehicular •Are there estimates of how much traffic will be generated by dog park? •What are the concerns with cars parked on the adjacent street? •Make sure grade at vehicular access/egress provides for visibility for safety •Concerned about making a left turn from the park onto Montemalaga •Reduce speed to 25 MPH on Montemalaga -provide traffic calming •Leave Montemalaga as is -no change P.ll ATTACHMENT -14 Parking Parking Count •Q:How were parking counts derived?An:From the park programs and usage. •Q:Is there a legal requirement for parking lot?An:Good planning accommodates parking based on park capacity,programs,usage,and the timing of usages. •40 car parking lot is excessive •Break parking lot into smaller parking lots •Eliminate dog park to reduce parking count •If there is to be no development of dog park and cycling,then parking lot needs will be reduced •Parking on street (Montemalaga)is minimal except church and voting times Location •Q:Does parking lot need to be on site?An:Yes,it will be safer for the public. •Place parking lot at north end of park,and take vehicle road all the way through site. •Do not add parking lot at north end of site •Parking better on west side due to drainage •Make parking lot inconspicuous and provide screening •Make parking minimal •Provide free permit parking on Ironwood for residents •Use Grasscrete product for parking lot paving material Trails General •Connect trails to Palos Verdes Trail System created in 2003 by Trail Task Force •Like trail system •Trail on north side is on private property •No trail behind houses on south •Separate cycling from pedestrian trails •Provide residential pedestrian access from Ironwood Street Cycling •Cycling will be a liability for city •Cycling can be controlled by setting rules.Cycling is good. •Prefer cycling on east side to connect to open space trails •Prefer cycling location on the west side;less steep terrain •Prefer cycling area that allows for young bicycle riders to ride with their families in a safe environment P.12 ATTACHMENT -15 CHARACTER For the Character Break-out Sessions the following topics were reviewed: •Character Imagery to explain the site amenities,materials,and finishes for the park •Park Character existing in Rancho Palos Verdes parks PUBLIC INPUT The participants of this session expressed that they would want the park to be as natural in appearance as possible,to have minimal turf areas,and to include trees that would provide shade,but not on in areas were trees might block views.It was also important that the park structures,such as restrooms,not block views.Attendees prefer a landscape of natural and drought resistant plantings.Safety and park security was also discussed.Fencing at key locations was one way to control after hour park visitation.They also want the park to be more accessible and more comfortable to visit. The following are comments shared by Workshop attendees: General •Views,cycling,and dog walking are enjoyed at the park in its current state. •Parking lot should be small,natural looking,and should use Grasscrete pavement. •No geometric shapes •Manicured look not desired •Fence the park -safety is a concern at night •Make the park a place where residents can take their kids •Reduce noise by closing park at night •Do not like the character of a dog park in the park Sustainable •Green/brown trash receptacles •No asphalt for parking,make it green •Minimize turf •Parking -decomposed granite vs.permeable pavers. o Permeable pavers probably better on slope o Grasscrete product is another option •Make pedestrian trails and family bicycling area sustainable Site Amenities •Include unisex restrooms •Q:What will the restroom building look like?An:Natural in appearance,built with appropriate materials of the area •Have artist work with Rancho Palos Verdes stone •Add a sun clock •Rancho Palos Verdes stone benches P.13 ATTACHMENT -16 •Quickly eliminate sign vandalism that may occur •Don't light park •Create signage in the affirmative and not the negative,for example:It would be better to say "Pedestrian only"vs."No bikes." •Don't use asphalt •Preference for permeable paving Landscape •Tree selection should promote sustainability,a nice habitat,and shade. •Use natural,drought resistant plantings •Demonstration native plant garden with labels •Vegetable garden club P.14 ATTACHMENT -17 Rancho Palos Verdes Grandview Park I Lower Hesse Park Community Workshop #3 -September 25,20 I0 -Summary Overview: Workshop #3 was held on September 25 at the Fred Hesse Jr.Community Center.The workshop was held from 9 to II:30 a.m.The format of the workshop was a presentation on both park projects given by both the City representatives and ML +A followed by two break out groups,one for each park site.The sessions were an open format and allowed participants to visit both rooms to review the concepts and provide their input.There were approximately 60 residents in attendance,along with Rancho Palos Verdes staff and ML +A.In attendance from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes were Mayor Stefan Wolowicz,City Manager Carolyn Lehr,Deputy City Manager Carolynn Petru, Administrative Analyst Katie Howe,and Recreation Supervisor Nancie Silver.ML +A were represented by Mia Lehrer,Project Manager Michelle Sullivan,Jan Dyer and Melissa Guerrero.An overview of City Council goals was given by Mayor Wolowicz and a presentation of the park projects and an overview of the concept design process and where we are now in that process was given by City Manager Carolyn Lehr and consultant Principal Mia Lehrer. The following are comments shared by workshop participants: Lower Hesse I.Traffic: •Do not place speed bumps on Locklenna -though the traffic does need to be slowed down on that street. •Street parking is an issue -explore issuing permit parking for residents. • A traffic engineer needs to be involved and needs to look at the number of accidents along Locklenna. II.Trails: •The proposed connection to the baseball fields is a good improvement -creates a nice loop. •When looking at the path connecting to the Upper Hesse Park athletic field to Lower Hesse Park,look at the value of the path versus the cost to be sure it is worth the expense. III.Programs: •Of the two plans,the Pacific Plan was the preferred option for the majority of participants. •There had been an exercise par course in the park previously,and it was never used. • A community swimming pool is needed. •When looking at adding trails,be sure to maintain the existing trail system. •Preserve the creek. •Placing the active park uses along the edge will contribute to high traffic along Locklenna. •More onsite parking is needed as street parking is a problem. •The picnic area seems to be too far from parking. •The upper park has areas for children -is there a benefit to adding more children's play areas? •There is no breeze at the lower portion of the park so kite flying cannot occur in this area. •There is a desire for bocce ball or croquet. ATTACHMENT -18 IV.Dog Park •Some participants voiced support for a dog park.Some participants did not want a dog park. •Concern that Dog Park might generate a lot of traffic •Some participants felt that dog parks should not be imbedded in active parks. •The landfill is the ideal location for the dog park as it would provide approximately five acres of space. •There was discussion about what happens in a dog park -whether or not it is noisy.There was a concern that dogs residing in the adjacent residences will bark creating a noise problem. •Is one acre too small for a dog park?A small area designated for the dog park will limit the number of dogs that visit. •Can the site next to City Hall be used for the dog park? •The city should collaborate with adjacent cities on the location of a dog park or series of dog parks. •Residences adjacent to the park do not want a dog park. •If you talk about several small dog parks as a strategy,this is a start. V.Tennis Courts •Use the terrain and move the tennis courts below the Upper Hesse Park athletic field -this will help minimize the impact of the tennis courts and protect views. •There is a need and desire for tennis courts. •Concern that the tennis court fencing will block the views of the ocean -how high is the tennis court fencing? • A third alternate design should be looked at without tennis courts and without the dog park. •The tennis courts and related lighting will be invasive visually and noisy. •Do not let the tennis court fences block the views. •Perhaps the tennis courts can be dropped a few feet to protect views. •The tennis courts serve only 2-4 people at a time.Perhaps that area could be used by more people if alternative uses were explored. •It needs to be remembered that the tennis court usage is based on 2 to 4 people per hour per tennis court. VI.Amenities: •There is a desire to have plant material identified by signage.This is an educational opportunity. •The question was asked what size building is planned and what will it be used for?The city explained that the building is very small and activities will happen outdoors.The building would be for storage,a maintenance office,and restrooms. •There was a recommendation made to have an outside phone at the bUilding which will connect directly to the community center for security and communication purposes. •If planning solar,keep in mind that there is a lot of fog here and not a lot of sunny days. •There was a suggestion for small BBQ areas in or near the picnic areas. VII.Maintenance: •The current watering of plants in the park creates a lot of runoff.Be sure that any planted areas are properly irrigated and do not contribute to runoff. •There is a desire for durability in materials for site furnishings. ATTACHMENT -19 GRANDVIEW PARK I.Dog Park: •Concerned that dog park not included in either of the two schemes presented. •People use preserve as a dog park,which is harmful to habitat,so there is a need for a designated dog park where people are allowed to bring their dogs;and there is a need for a dog park in several locations. •It was expressed that the potential for a dog park to be located on the County Landfill Site dog park is on hold until June 2012. •Grandview Park lends itself to a dog park because it is secluded.A flat area should be graded into the topography. •800 signatures were collected in support of having a dog park in Rancho Palos Verdes. • A Dog Park should not be located in Grandview.Participants were concerned about who will clean up after dogs,and how to manage misbehaved dogs.A fence is necessary in the planning of a dog park. •The topography of the Grandview site does not lend itself for inclusion of the dog park program to be located in this park. •Dog Park adds substantially to the parking count. II.Site Character: •If topography is graded,the character of the site will be lost. •Leave the site alone •Want to retain natural character •Like the natural character,supportive of the balanced approach to the programs and their integration on the site. III.View Area: •Review ofView Node early in work session it was discussed that it was not at the correct location and that there should be one for the mountain view and one for the ocean view.In further review of the concept plan,people agreed that view area is at the correct spot. •People go to Grandview Park to view fireworks. •The planting that buffers between Chopra's house and the viewing area should be the height of Chopra's house and no more. IV.North Edge (AtVia La Cuesta Dead End) •There is a private property lot at the top of the site,which is why access cannot occur at Via La Cuesta. •Could an easement be put there? •There are already footpaths there,indicating pedestrian use. V.Eastern Edge of Park •Path along the eastern edge of the site should respect the privacy of the homes.You don't want people looking into your home. •The lower this path is in the topography,which is better for privacy. VI.Other Comments •Put picnic area where there are views. ATTACHMENT -20 •Put something in the western canyon •There is a request for a model or a 3d view for the City Council meeting so the community can understand the site and design better. • A lot of noise will be created during the construction period while re-grading the topography. •Restroom building is too tall. •Traffic concerns exist regarding entering the park site.Suggestions include a stop sign and left turn lane. •An individual expressed not wanting parking in the park. •Others do want parking in the park. •Site activities will bring noise. •There should be native plantings to educate homeowners on which plants to use. •Can there be access from Ironwood? •Can you clarify pedestrian access into the park? •Why do we have to have a Mountain Bike flex area? •The Oak Plan was the clear favorite because the bike paths were in the western canyon. •Participants like the gate at the park entrance. •Ironwood entry will be a problem. •There was a fire in '88.The mustard plants get dry in the summer and create a lot of fire fuel. •The attendees expressed that the designs are addressing the community's concerns,with the programs that were to be included in the park. •Montemalaga has a natural drainage ditch that terminates on the Barkstone Drive. •Clarification of day camp needed. •The community likes simplicity and openness. •An individual expressed that there were too many amenities crammed into this park and wants less activity,more natural and more open space. •Can the plan be phased depending on demand? •Should talk to the other city about putting an entrance at the top of the site. •Ironwood Parking -need permit parking there. •Why is there no active recreation here? •This area is being overdeveloped.The city is putting too much here. ATTACHMENT -21 29514 Baycrest Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 October 22.2010 City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes.CA Gentlemen: In regard to the issue of a proposed dog park in Hesse Park,I strongly protest any such proposal.There is no rationale for a particular subset of people,those who own dogs,to have a special perk for the use of park property. I think that all of the park should be for the use of all of the people all of the time. Very truly yours, ~c Geraldine E.HOwe~ ATTACHMENT -22 July 19,2010 TomOdom Interim Director of Recreation and Parks/Parks • I have recently visited dog parks in Redondo Beach,Laguna Beach,El Segundo and Palm Desert. •All the parks were fenced in dirt areas with very little grass.They also had a very bad urine smell. •None ofthe above dog parks I visited are embedded in an active park area or are located near single family housing.They are primarily stand-alone facilities in non single family areas and/or located in areas isolated from other single use areas. •The second sentence in the opening paragraph of the Recreation &Parks LOWER HESSE PARK AND GANDVIEW PARK IMPROVEMENTS reads as follows: "The park improvement plans are essentially intended to improve accessibility to all user groups and to enhance the esthetic condition of both parks." •The proposed dog park will not enhance the esthetic condition of lower Hesse Park. •Additionally it will create significant traffic,parking and safety issues on a very steep road. •The dog park being proposed at lower Hesse park is not compatible with it's proximity to the single family residential housing surrounding the park. • I attended the Lower Hesse park workshop on 7/20/2010 and did not see or hear anything that alleviated my concerns regarding the proposed dog park "amenity". I respectively request that the dog park be removed from the proposed amenities to lower Hesse park. Thank you,! 11 ~/t'lCl~'k/JV1I~~7~ Norbert Nastanski 29512 Baycrest Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310 541-7615 e-mail:nastano@yahoo.com Ps:The following website makes for interesting reading (written by users)regarding conditions relating to the Silverlake dog park which,during the work shop,the cities park consultant indicated they helped design. http://www.yelp.com/biz/silver-Iake-dog-park-los-angeles ATTACHMENT -23 July 19~2010 Honorable Anthony M.Misetich Rancho Palos Verdes Councilman JUL 22 2010 • I have recently visited dog parks in Redondo Beach~Laguna Beac~EI Segundo and Palm Desert. •All the parks were fenced in dirt areas with very little grass.They also had a very bad urine smelL •None ofthe above dog parks I visited are embedded in an active park area or are located near single family housing.They are primarily stand-alone facilities in non single family areas and/or located in areas isolated from other single use areas. •The second sentence in the opening paragraph of the Recreation &Parks LOWER HESSE PARK AND GANDVIEW PARK IMPROVEMENTS reads as follows: "The park improvement plans are essentially intended to improve accessibility to all user groups and to enhance the esthetic condition of both parks." •The proposed dog park will not enhance the esthetic condition of lower Hesse Park. e Additionally it will create significant traffic~parking and safety issues on a very steep road. •The dog park being proposed at lower Hesse park is not compatible with it's proximity to the single family residential housing surrounding the park. e I attended the Lower Hesse park workshop on 7/20/2010 and did not see or hear anything that alleviated my concerns regarding the proposed dog park "amenity". I respectively request that the dog park be removed from the proposed amenities to lower Hesse park. Thankyou~ 11 tYl~~11 ~~./~~n<~ Norbert Nastanski 29512 Baycrest Drive Rancho Palos Verdes~CA 90275 310 541-7615 e-mail:nastano@yahoo.com Ps:The following website makes for interesting reading (written by users)regarding conditions relating to the Silverlake dog park which~during the work shop,the cities park consultant indicated they helped design. http://www.yelp.com/biz/silver-lake-dog-park-los-angeles ATTACHMENT -24 Page 1 of 1 Tom Odom From:k5kkt@aol.com Sent:Wednesday,September 15,201010:04 PM To:tomo@rpv.com Subject:CHOA Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Hello Tom I enjoyed your talk at the CHOA meeting this evening.I rarely get a chance to listen to or meet any city staff.I had to leave the meeting early or I'd have spoken to you in person.I wanted to ask about (or actually lobby for)more public tennis courts in RPV,specifically in the western region (I live near Crest and Crenshaw in the HOA with Ridgecrest School).My husband and I are not such serious tennis players that we want to buy membership in an expensive private club.When we play it is at the one court at city hall and it's not a great court at that!I heard a rumor that there are courts near Miraleste (is that true???)but this seems a rather long way to drive.I work full time so using the courts at Hesse Park (which I believe have restricted hours) will not work--or am I wrong about that?Also,last year,when we did go to the city hall court, often private lessons were taking place whenever we wanted to play.Is that still going on?In any case,we would love to see more tennis courts in RPV.I'm sure you're constantly juggling priorities,but I thought I'd speak out for public tennis .....public everything really,I can't believe we don't have a public swimming pool or recreation center ...this is the first town I've lived in that doesn't have these shared community resources ...but I'm getting off track. I hope this email does not add too much to your already busy day.And thanks again for taking the time to talk to the CHOA.It was my first meeting and your caring and concern really showed through,even if you can't give everyone everything they want! Marian Locascio 29703 Whitley Collins Drive Rancho Palos Verdes. 9/16/2010 ATTACHMENT -25 Page 1 of2 Carolynn Petru From:Tom Long [tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Tuesday,August 17,201012:46 PM To:jeff corbett;'Tom Long';citymanager@rpv.com Cc:'LeslieChapin';'L Chase jr';corbettc@wellsfargo.com Subject:Re:Lower Hess Park Dear Jeff,RThank you for sharing your concerns.By copy of this I am asking staffto include your e- mail in the council packet when Lower Hesse Park comes before the council again.Tom Long -----Original Message----- From:"Jeff Corbett" Sent 8/17/2010 11 :27 :05 AM To:'''Tom Long'",citymanager@rpv.com Cc:"'LeslieChapin'","'L Chase jr'",corbettc@wellsfargo.com Subject:RE:Lower Hess Park Tom, I appreciate your prompt response. Pursuant to your correspondence below,I will further explain the exact concerns of the local neighbors and your constituents.This is simply not the case of people feeling that the park is their backyard or comparable to someone buying a home next to railroad tracks only to complain about the trains.To propose a dog park so close to residential homes is to change the entire neighborhood and likely lower property values.It defies commonsense to have such a facility potentially so close to the backyards of homes that range in value of $1 million and higher.One only needs to visit the facility at 190th in Redondo Beach to appreciate the smell,noise and the occasional dog fight that could be imposed upon those of us that choice to live on the hill and in this locality. Speaking for my wife and myself,we have been proud residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for the last ten years.In that time we have spent considerable funds updating and improving our home.Our concern is to protect that investment.We are also avid dog lovers and think that such a facility properly located would be nice for those residents on the Hill who would like to utilize it.That location,however,is not Hess Park and certainly not directly behind homes. It is obvious that Hess Park needs some TLC,and change often does come easy for people but as an elected official please be sensitive to our concerns.We ask that you and your fellow council members appreciate your fiduciary responsibilities to all voters and do not damage our neighborhood. Best regards, Jeff Corbett JEFFREY H.CORBETI President &CEO Corb7 International 468 North Camden Drive,Suite 200 8/17/2010 ATTACHMENT -26 Page 2 of2 Beverly Hills,Ca.90210 310-601-3115 (Office) 310-415-3545 (Mobile) CORB7 INTERNATIONAL 7 Levels ofStrategic Development WWW.CORB7.COM Dear Jeff,The council can consider each proposed component separately and can modify,adopt,or not adopt the various components as I understand it.I do not think it will be an "all or nothing"discussion if that is your concern.Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Saturday,August 14,2010 9:29 AM To:jeff corbett;citymanager@rpv.com Cc:'LeslieChapin';'L Chase jr';corbettc@wellsfargo.com Subject:Re:Lower Hess Park Ms.Lehr Pursuant to the Lower Hess Park Development Project,can anyone definitively state that there will be a proposal option for the September 25,2010 meeting that does not include the dog park?Your attention to this matter would be appreciated.We had been repeatedly assured at the last neighborhood meeting that there would be such a proposal. Sincerely, JEFFREyH.CORBETT President &CEO Corb7 International 468 North Camden Drive,Suite 200 Beverly Hills,Ca.90210 310-601-3115 (Office) 310-415-3545 (Mobile) CORB7 INTERNATIONAL 7 Levels ofStrategic Development WWW.CORB7.COM 8/17/2010 ATTACHMENT -27 July 20,2010 Dear Councilman Campbell: JUL 2 2 2010 I live in the neighborhood next to Grandview Park and am writi.ng because I would like for the park to be left as is.I am mostly concerned for my neighbors who border the park.I am certain,that if your home bordered the park,you would also want to preserve the beauty and serene environment of the parkland. Secondly,I was amazed to see in last week's Peninsula News that the city will be raising our property tax in order to have money to complete the sewer project,yet,council members seem so eager to spend millions of dollars to develop parkland that surrounding neighborhoods want left alone. In these tough economic times,how can you even consider raising taxes,and then turn around and spend millions on an unnecessary project?I feel city council needs to get their priorities straight,find the money to pay for sewers without raising property taxes,and stop planning on spending money on unnecessary projects. Sincerely, Linda Hunt 26302 Barkstone Drive RPV ATTACHMENT -28 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:ManuelBaculi@aol.com Sent:Wednesday,November 10,2010 1:13 PM To:parks@rpv.com Subject:lower Hesse Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed We are residents of Rancho Palos Verdes who lives in Faircove Dr. My husband and myself voted the Pacific Plan,simply because that best serve the community living around the area. The dog parks seems too close to the street and sorrounding homes,they will be distracted by ongoing traffic.If a dog park will be built,in my humble opinion,it should be in a more quiet area of the lot.May I inquire why do we have to have a big dog and a small dog park?Are we going to have small children and bigger kids areas also? You have been doing a lot to the community,and if a non-influential person's opinion will in any way make a difference to improve thing,it will be much appreciated. I am sending this e-mail as we will be out of town on the 16th and will be unable to attend the city council meeting. Respectfully yours, Dr.Manuel &Mrs.Myrna Baculi 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -29 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Ellen November [mailto:ellen.november@gmail.com] sent:Monday,September 20,2010 10:10 AM To:Brian.Campbell@rpv.com;citymanager@rpv.com;Douglas.Stern@rpv.com;tom.long@rpv.com;Anthony Misetich;carolyn Lehr;Steve Wolowicz Cc:mortega90274@yahoo.com;paul@pvassets.com;catspydell@cox.net;Charles Crouse;Julie Turner;liz cotton;Susan Seamans;kenny anderson Subject:Skatepark PV Leave Behind All: Tomorrow night at the RPV City Council meeting,I'll be speaking for three minutes along with a few of the members ofSkatepark PV,asking that a skatepark be put on the City Council agenda. I'll be printing out the attached document and handing out a copy to each of you at the meeting.I wanted you to have an electronic copy ahead of time. Specifically,we would like to see a skate park built at either Lower Hesse or Robert Ryan Parks.We are asking that land be granted at either park and that we work in partnership with the City of RPV to make this happen. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ellen November Ellen November mobile:310-384-6912 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -30 Building A Skotepork !liS_U t Iii_MUSE ]][.7 f A Skatepark For The Palos Verdes Peninsula September 21,2010 ATTACHMENT -31 Who is Skatepark PV Skatepark PV committee members: Ellen November Suzy Seamans Charles Crouse Liz Cotton Mike Ortega Ken Anderson Cat Spydell Julie Turner Tisue Rick Edler Paul Galleberg Chairman Co-Chair Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Photographer RHE City Councilperson Facilities Manager,PVLD Realtor and Parent Entrepreneur and Parent Pro-Skater and Parent Publisher and Parent Exec.Director San Pedro/Peninsula YMCA Owner of Sotheby's Peninsula Realtors Attorney and board member of local YMCA Endorsements San Pedro and Peninsula YMCA Stoltz USA,Promenade on the Peninsula Mall Administration of the Palos Verdes Library District Ms.Mitzi Cress,Principal of Peninsula High Art Yoon,Director of Cox Communications Bennett Landscape Medawar Fine Jewelers 800+members of Skatepark PV Facebook group How were we formed: The entire story can be found at: http://www.skateparkpv.org/blog/?p=22 Synopsis:While observing skateboarders being told to disperse for loitering in public places on the Hill,we learned that skateboarding is illegal anywhere on the HilL Skateboarding can result in $90 tickets. After earning that skateboarding is a mainstream sport and is practiced by approximately 3,000 residents,Ellen November decided to become the advocate for the youth of the hilL This prompted an article in the PV News,summer 2009.The article attracted other like- minded residents and Skatepark PV was formed. Where we meet and how often Skatepark PV meets at least monthly at the Community Room of the Promenade on the Peninsula Mall on the second floor next to Border's Books. We normally meet from 4:00 pm to 5:30 pm. ATTACHMENT -32 Skatepark PV Mission Statement To ensure that a safe and welcoming skatepark venue is built on the Palos Verdes Peninsula where skateboarding can be practiced and enjoyed. A skatepark supports fitness for youth in alignment with the prevention of childhood obesity and the support of children's health. Hermosa Beach Skatepark,photos by Ellen November ATTACHMENT -33 Skate park PV Activity to Date: 1.Skatepark PV Expo and Fair.On Sunday,April 25,2010,we held an event on the roof parking lot of the Peninsula Center Library. Over 600 people attended the event. Our goal was to raise money for a feasibility study,which we accomplished. The event included local skate shop skaters skating on rails,ramps and boxes. A private company called PCH Skate hosted a skating area for youth which included their parents signing a liability waiver. Local skate shops had booths where gear was sold. Local bands performed. Food vendors provided drinks and food. A successful raffle was held with goods donated by skateboard gear vendors. The event received very favorable feedback in the local community including an article in PV News. L..'.':";::'.'...':;;:::itMiWillMI """"''''5 the rails;Lower left:Kids skating quarter pipe, Skateboands h;~nnl",rc:'Lower right:Skatepark PV t-shirts ATTACHMENT -34 2.Skate the Hill Following the Expo,PCH Skates and Rolling Hills Estates joined hands to host a Skateboard Day Camp for kids at Ernie Howlett Park.We also arranged for fee skate nights at Ernie Howlett Park form 4:00 pm until dusk every Friday and Saturday night throughout the summer.This was sponsored by Cox Communications and known as Skate the Hill. ~:.<. 1111~lhil:;;i,:L",:'"...X.' Ken Anderson,RPV Resident and Pro Skater, skated with the kids. Photo by Ellen November ATTACHMENT -35 3.Battle of the South Bay Skate Shops This event is planned for October 2010 and is being hosted by the Promenade on the Peninsula Mall.It will be held in the parking lot adjacent to Marmalade Cafe on Drybank and Crossfield Roads,off of Silver Spur Rd. Seven South Bay skateboard shops will each send a team of five skaters to compete. Pro-skaters will be judges and the first annual trophy will be awarded. Live bands,vendor booths,food and a raffle are also part of the event. Again we expect at least 600 attendees.It is a fundraising event for Skatepark PV. This is an exhibition event. 4.Feasibility Study: We are narrowing down which of two different engineering firms we want to hire for the feasibility study.This is our direction to them: a.Look over the possible sites and recommend the one that is most viable. b.Investigate that site and present a conceptual design,impact report and any potential issues like geologic stability,traffic,parking and lighting.This will include preliminary discussion of what overall costs might be at the selected site. 5.On the Agenda: We are presenting our goal of having a skatepark on the Peninsula to both the RPV and RHE city councils.Our goal is to get the park put on the agenda for further discussion. We are looking for at least one of the two cities to grant land to build a skatepark on. ATTACHMENT -36 Our Methodology We are using the book Public Skatepark Development Guide,Handbook for Skatepark Advancement,Second Edition,by Peter Whitley,Skaters for Public Skateparks. Per this guide,a Skatepark starts with a vision.This vision is guided by the Skatepark Advocacy Process. Most of the writings are on the web at: www.skatepark.org/chapter-1-vision/page-4.html Overview of Skateboarding as a sport Statistics from:http://www.chHdrenshospital.org/az/Site1112/mainpageS1112PO.html Boston Children's Hospital,statistics from 1998 Sport Annual Injuries Among Children Bicycling 320,000 Basketball 200,000 Football 159,000 Baseball and softball 117,000 Trampolines 80,000 Soccer 77,500 In-line skating/roller skating 38,000 Snow skiing/snowboarding 29,000 Skateboarding 27,500 Gymnastics 25,500 Ice Hockey 18,000 Ice SkatinR 10,600 Sledding 8500 ATTACHMENT -37 >I Wikipedia has done an extensive and thorough job of documenting what skateboarding is and the history of skateboarding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skateboarding >I Some brief bullet points: •Skateboarding was probably born sometime in the late 1940s or early 1950s when surfers in California wanted something to surf when the waves were flat •Portability,exercise,and environmental friendliness are some of the benefits of skateboarding. •NBC network aired a national skateboarding competition on Sunday afternoon,a time- period when golf or a ball game usually airs.This speaks to how mainstream skateboarding now is. •The closet skate park to PV is in Hermosa Beach,seven miles away.There is a skate park in El Segundo,13 miles from PV.Both of these parks are gated and supervised. There is an ungated and unsupervised skate park at Channel St.in San Pedro,which is seven miles from the hill. Skateboarding vs.Traditional Sports Based on a 2004 sports participation study performed by SGMA International,there are approximately 11.6 million skateboarders in America.This figure is enough to make skateboarding the third most popular sport for American teenagers.Football currently ranks first,and basketball ranks second.The figures reported by the SGMA indicate that skateboarding is more popular than baseball,hockey,tennis and virtually every other traditional sport in the United States.For a sport that initially began as a diversion for California surfers during the cold seasons of the 1960s,that's a pretty impressive fact.In fact,up until quite recently,people were still debating whether or not skateboarding should officially be called a hobby or a sport.The introduction of annual skateboarding competitions such as the X-Games helped legitimize the sport as well as introduce it to a mass audience. Read more:How Does Skateboarding Rank in Popularity Compared to Other Sports?I eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how-does 4580013 rank-popularity-compared-other- sports.html#ixzzOzzwF5UJQ ATTACHMENT -38 30 Reasons for Skateparks Written by Chris Gilligan Wednesday,19 September 200717:31 http://www.skatepark.org/30-reasons-for-skateparks.htm l Need to build a case for skateparks?Here are a few good reasons to get you started. 1.Skateboarders need safe places to recreate. 2.Skateparks,if designed and constructed correctly,are fiscally conservative and require very little maintenance. 3.Compared to other sports,skateboarding is underserved in the area. 4.Skateboarding has millions of participants nationally and it's still growing while more traditional sports are in decline.There are currently abundant facilities for these other sports. 5.Skateboarding is a multi-million dollar industry. 6.Skateboarders represent a vital part of an urban community. 7.A skatepark can attract skateboarding tourists if designed to do so. 8.With national health issues looming for today's youth,it's time to offer a greater number of healthy,athletic choices. 9.The cost to participate is accessible to every economic class. 10.Thousands of other communities have come to understand the value of skateparks. 11.Skating in a park is much safer than skating in the streets. 12.The community already has hundreds,and maybe thousands of skateboarders. 13.In the future there are going to be many legitimate places to skate in the city.The time to embark on that positive future is now. 14.A skatepark is a place where skateboarders and other people who might not cross paths in the street can come together. 15.Skateparks can displace other less desirable activities in an area. 16.The skatepark can be an attraction for family vacations. 17.Skateboarding is "cool,"And a skatepark will enhance the community's reputation. 18.Good skateparks often have volunteer teams to help maintain the facility. 19.Skateparks can draw skateboarders away from less appropriate areas. 20.Young and old people use skateparks. 21.Skateparks support vibrant,healthy communities,just like many other athletic facilities. 22.Skateboarding is mainstream. 23.Skateboarding is a popular spectator sport. 24.Skateparks are flexible in design and can work in many different size plots. 25.The skatepark can be a place to go after schooL 26.Neighborhood skateparks allow younger skaters to recreate safely close to home. 27.Skateboarding is happening with or without a skatepark. 28.There are experts who can help the community plan out their next skatepark. 29.The best time to start the new skatepark is today. 30.lf a city doesn't have a skatepark,it is a Skatepark. ATTACHMENT -39 9 November 2009 To:The City of Rancho Palos Verdes From:Pacific View Homeowners Association (PVHA) Enclosure:An eight Page Document Identified as Attachment A,not included in this Email,have been provided to RPV staff.This attachment includes a one page Lower Hesse Park history,copies of a four page FRED HESSE TRAILS proposed design done by Landscape Architects Land Images,Marina Del Rey,Ca.Included also are three pages of thought to be relevant correspondence in the 1995 to 1997 time frame. A conceptual design review for Lower Hesse Park was held on 5 November 2009.The city of Rancho Palos Verdes Staff presented this conceptual design to past and present board members of the Pacific View Homeowners Association.The following comments to the conceptual design have been generated by the PVHA board members and presented in non prioritized order: 1.Attachment A is prOVided as informational and is a part of the PVHA's submittal. 2.The park needs to be totally fenced on the Locklenna Lane street side to assure that visitors do not park on Locklenna Lane and then walk into the park. 3.Adequate parking needs to be provided to prevent spill over of park visitors on to Locklenna Lane and into the Sea Spray,Driftwood,Wind port and Baycrest cul-de-sacs.The existing steps at the bottom of the park are a park entry that promotes parking on lower Locklenna Lane with potential spill over onto Faircove DriVe and Verde Ridge Road.It is deemed necessary that the final design assures that park visitors park within the confines of the park and not overflow on to PVHA area streets. 4.Newly established parking areas need to be designed with extreme care.The area around the existing parking lot,picnic tables and volleyball court includes some very beautiful,mature,rare native shrubs. They were planted during and as part of the original park development and clearly show what can be done with this type of plant.There are some very lovely mature sycamore trees.The responsible course would be to design the parking area around these valuable landscaping assets.This would have the added benefit of making the parking lot less obtrusive. 5.Picnic areas should contain low level shade trees typical to the picnic areas in upper Hesse Park.Many of the trees in the upper park are not low level.The native sycamore trees in upper Hesse Park are quite tall.Perfectly adequate shade has been created around the small picnic area adjacent to the existing ATTACHMENT -40 parking lot in the upper park using native shrubs and trees.Substantial shade can be created through the use of natives such as Coyote Bush,Toyon and others. 6.The proposed picnic and lawn areas should be researched to incorporate alternatives to grass.Grass requires sprinkling systems,relatively abundant water and continued maintenance.Decomposed granite,even wood chips could be an alternative if the expanse were broken up with attractive landscaping features. 7.The areas of Lower Hesse Park not specifically in the redesign areas should not be left in their present state of a cycle of weeds in the spring,followed by bare ground after the weeds are mowed.The total lower park should be attractively landscaped.These plantings should be done with drought resistant, Palos Verdes appropriate,california native plants.The city of RPV would be considered a leader In the area of minimizing water consumption for landscaped areas.Stunningly beautiful landscapes can be created by designers versed in the use of native plants.It is suggested that the city reach out to Anthony Baker and Rick Dykzeul,both of whom are RPV residents,and recognized as experts in native plant landscaping.Interpretive signage should be provided to identify these native plants. 8.A quantified activity and traffic study needs to be done to identify the predicted increase In activity and traffic in the lower Hesse Park area.The traffic study needs to address specifically the egress from locklenna lane and Verde Ridge Road on to Hawthorne Boulevard. 9.Rest room facilities should be provided to accommodate the planned increased activity as well as drinking fountains near active areas (Basket Ball courts,Volleyball courts,etc).Also needed to be proVided are trash and recycle containers and dispensers with biodegradable poop bags for dog walkers. Signs at each trail entrance need to be included to remind visitors to keep dogs on leashes at all times and to pick up their animals generated excrement. 10.A physical boundary area including a visual privacy boundary is recommended between the park and the Verde Ridge homes on the north side of the park.The visual boundary is required especially for those homes with elevations at the park level.Park visitors are currently able to peer into Verde Ridge homes.This requirement is not as critical for those homes whose elevations are above the park level. 11.The doggie park is not recommended and is the most contentious aspect of the plan presented to the PVHA board members.A quote from a PVHA board member "1 am opposed to a dog park located anywhere in Hesse Park']and another quote from another board member "I am very much against the dog park.People will come from all over South Bay to use it",and one more direct quote ''The doggie park has a really high potential to create a noise,traffic,parking and visual nuisance in our ATTACHMENT -41 neighborhood".It is suggested that the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Vicente,specifically designed for the protection and care of domestic animals,is a better location than lower Hesse Park for a domestic animal doggie park.That proposed facility will have ample parking availability and is not in a densely populated residential area. 12.The tennis courts should be relocated to east of the planned expanded parking area in the below grade area north of locklenna lane to prevent the blocking of views from local homes and to park visitors. 13.The existing trails should be bordered with railroad ties or equivalent to prevent the trails from eroding. This would also remind park visitors to stay on the trails. 14.The plan to allow access into the green belt area needs to be reviewed.This area is not currently accessible and is certainly not a safe playing area for youngsters. 15.The non native plants in the lower park should be removed. 16.The decaying north side wrought Iron fence should be reviewed and the fence repaired or replaced as deemed necessary. 17.All tree plantings including future potential growth should be sensitive to neighborhood views. 18.The gophers in Upper and especially lower Hesse Park need to be controlled.Gophers are present throughout the park and continue to tunnel their way into the yards and gardens of the homes on the south side of Verde Ridge Road. The Pacific View Homeowners Association thanks the city of Rancho Palos Verdes for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project.Thank you for the courtesy of meeting with us to discuss your preliminary design.Working together we can create a completed project which will provide enhanced recreational opportunities for the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and will improve the beauty and quality of life within our neighborhood. The Pacific View Homeowners Association les Chapin,President,les.alice@cox.net,310-377-1139.Any city of RPV Staff or Council Member who would like to view the park in the daylight hours from the Verde Ridge north side of the park you are invited to call me to be sure we are home and you are certainly welcome to come by and view the park from that perspective. ATTACHMENT -42 ( LOWER HESSE PARK TRAILS:HISTORY Shelby Jordan and Jim Moore were.from the outset.the constant coordinators and project managers ofwhat at its completion,became known as Lower Hesse Park Trails.They maintained the concept,but modified the details to meet the community desires as well as the requirements and budget limitations ofRancho Palos Verdes.The resulting passive park ofADA accessible trails,natural vegetation and trees,a walking bridge,scenic view lookouts and a sand lot volley ball court came from the conversion of 16 acres ofunsightly fennel,weeds and teen age hangout pads into the passive and low maintenance trails.The concept and plans that the Recreation and Parks Committee presented to the City Council was reported to be worth $100,000.The conclusion ofthe construction augmented the upper sports par~children's playground and community building,providing a complete Park.The multitudes of community residents,from youth to seniors,that dany use both upper and lower Hesse Park.attest to the success oftbis development.Hesse Park is a true landmark for the City ofRancbo Palos Verdes. The Lower Hesse Trails began in 1994 as a volunteer project led by the Pacific View Homeowners Association (PVHOA).It soon became clear that a basic plan,professionally develo~was required before volunteer effort could be used effectively.We requested the professional services ofThomas A.Lockett,F.A.SL.A.,a leading Landscape Architect,with offices in Marina Del Rey and Palm Springs,to help us establish the basics and a conceptual plan for development by the City.Tom thought the site was beautiful and had great potential to complete Hesse Park We were further encouraged to develop a concept and present it to the City by Councilman Lee Byrd,when he was a speaker at the PVHOA meeting August 1994.. The Recreation and Parks Committee had no plans or active effort to work on Lower Hesse Park,. so Ron Rosenfeld,Director Recreation and Parks,placed an agenda item for the Committee's October 199'meeting to discuss the PVHOA concepts and receive the committee guidelines. From this background an initial proposal was prepared and presented to Paul Bus$ey,City Manager by Shelby Jordan and Jim Moore.A Town Hall meeting January 31,1996 at Hesse Park,sponsQred by PVHOA,had 84 attendees from many sections ofthe City to discuss the Lower Hesse Park development and obtain community input for desired park features.At the April 2,1996 meetins,the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council heard the results of this two year activity and fonnally referred this project back to the Recreation and Parks Committee and asked PVHOA to work with them to prepare estimates ofthe desired features. The Recreation and Parks Committee formed a sub-committee with some oftheir members and with Shelby 1ordan,Jim Moore,and Tom Lockett.The sub-committee met regularly to prioritize park features,estimate the cost ofconstruction and cost ofmaintenance ofeach feature and establish possible phases for the construction ofthe lower park.On December 18,1996 the full Recreation and Parks Committee made the final selection ofdetails for the Lower Hesse Park Trails presentation to the City Council.The Council requested.information about several options and various budget limits as indicated by over ten meetings leading to approval oftb.e first phase and architectural services on Febrwuy 1997.On November 18,1997 the Council provided directions to the staff to continue the developmen~concluding August 18,1998,when a contract was awarded for the construction ofthe Lower Hesse Park Trails. ATTACHMENT -43 ~~AROOrnCnmBlLANDIMAGESj 14025 PANAY WAY .~MARINA DEL RBY,'CALIFORNIA 90292 (310)822-0043 FAX(310)822.3905 '"' FRED HESSE TRAILS f;',... ~ ., /.. ','-"',/,':,'."~..""//(> .,,.;~..,.,.'-'C''.,_''(7'!}/'~\$1/",,'"'C'''...,.'//:;,/GO •'~C,'•.•,/''...'"'',',.,,~.0 ,--,....././@ '.'~c.",..,.-_............;......\\ ~----. "'..'.. ....r7 ","":.~....~ .;. ::.~::..~~;~~j;:<;:~ r"... .- .. .~.~:::. !,: P \.... ~, ~\ 1.\ 'h ~ V If,::'"1 .~~'"4 :..~t'::;/.,;~'!.Q1:­<:]i..';.!;"~!~!:,.,."-lq~'"~;~_'"·,;;:.:~,:li;}:..,,::;~l£~ ,." ~ A T T A C H M E N T - 4 4 ·'... FRED HESSE TRAILS 1.Picnic Grounds I Parking Area KEY to the PLAN The decomposed granite surface of the entry drive,parking area and picnic grounds recalls a native sycamore I oak ravine.With an understory of drought-tolerant plants chosen for seasonal Interest,the groves·of sycamore and oak provide shade and screen the area from neighboring residences.A wave of native Palos Verdes stone banding marks the start of the main trail.The main trail is 10'wide -suit- able for emergency and maintenance vehicle access. 2.Sand Volleyball The volleyball area Is a simple sand "meadow'bordered by slopes hydroseeded In purple and yellow. 3.Oak Circle Oak trees and a circle of stone banding mark the start of a secondary trail (6'wide)through the meadow. 4.Rustic Bench in the Blue-eyed Grass Off a small (4'Wide)trail,a rustic wooden bench sits in a meadow of blue-eyed grass at the edge of the (riparian zone. 5.Rock Overlook I Water Stone Located Ina grove of existing Canary Island pines,the Rock Overlook is the highest view point In the Fred Hesse Trails area of the park.There is seating on large boulders.A hollowed out stone creates a seasonal reflecting pool between ~e viewer and the ocean beyond. 6.Stone Path through Riparian Area This paved stone path passes through the riparian area and Is planted on either side with rushes,al- ders,and seasonal flowers. 7.Conneetorto Upper Park A circle of decomposed granite marks the transition between the existing asphalt path to the upper park playground and the start of the new Fred Hesse Trails.A boulder outcrop provides seating near the existing willow trees. 8.Earth Berm and Rustic Bench Sheltered In an earth berm planted with rosemary and rockrose,a rustic wooden bench is a resting place along the trail,with a view over the park to the ocean beyond (..3 dl'a)ATTACHMENT -45 ( J 9.Sycamore Grove I Rock Outcrop and Log Bench A grove of sycamores crosses the riparian area,connecting two seating areas. 10.Meadow Picnic Area In this grassy picnic meadow,hummocks and mounds create seating areas.A grove of sycamores and oaks screens picnic tables from the homes above 11.Pedestrian Bridge over Riparian Area A pedestrian bridge carries the hiker above the steeper sectlons of the riparian area.Additional willows are planted here,and barrier shrubs prevent access to the rockier reaches of the channel. 12.Oak Circle A circle of oaks,a circle of grass,and a circle of stone marks the dividing of pathways. 13.Entry Stairway A stairway provides neighborhood access to the westerly sections of the park. 14.Headwall I Riparian Sluiceway The existing storm drain is screened with a new fence planted with bougainvillea.The fence creates a frame for neighborhood views up the riparian channel. 15.Hummingbird Gardens Planted to attract hummingbirds,these bench sites provide views to the ocean.Here,as elsewhere in the park,the benches are identifie~by waves of lilac decomposed granite bands. 16.Meadow Bench Along the path on the southerly edge of the riparian zone,a bench sits in the meadow grasses. 17.Meadow Hydroseed The majority of the park is hydroseeded in a low (18"-24")mix of perennial grasses and seasonal wildflowers,including lupine and California poppy. 18.Barrier I Buffer Hydroseed The Buffer zone planting along the fence of the homes above creates a low-growing,but dense bound- ary between residents and park visitors.The Barrier hydroseed keeps visitors out of the lower riparian and storm drain areas.The hydroseed mixes include Matilija poppy and white sage.Shrubs such as lemonade berry and California encelia supplement the hydroseed. ATTACHMENT -46 ( 19.Riparian Zone Hydroseed The riparian zone hydroseed includes low perennial grasses,yarrow,blue-eyed grass,and seasonal wildflowers. 20.Slope Planting at Park Boundaries The slopes at the edges of Fred Hesse Trails are planted with irrigated flowers,presenting a colorful face to the neighborhood.One hydroseed mfx Is purple (sea lavender,lupine)reffectlng the sea be- yond.The other mix Is ye.llow and orange (gazania,California poppy)recreating the image of the beaches below the Palos Verdes bluffs .• ATTACHMENT -47 ( DATE:10 Oct 95 10:Chris Hall FROM:Jim.Moore SUBJECT:Newsletter Articles ENTRY SIGNS FOR PACIFIC VIEW Your board of directors has approved the development of entry signs for the three streets providing access to our homes.A local designer has been commissioned to prepare a logo and sign format.This should be completed in November.Re-cycling grant applications will be available from the city January 1996 and we intend to complete and submit the application during January.The deadline for applications is April and the city council approvals should be made by June. Some of the early logos designs were shown at our annual meeting and the attendees comments were used to direct modifications.Two revisions have been made since then and the current logo looks very good.If you would like to participate in this project,please call Jim Moore at 544-0860 and he will be glad to accept your assistance. LOWER HESSE PARK We have been c;mcouraged by the city council to submit a proposal for the development and use of lower Hesse Park since they have a one time grant of money designated only be spent on parks.Fortunately,during our previous efforts to determine what could be done with this area,Shelby Jordan had contacted his friend and well known landscape architect,Tom Lockett,to review the site with us and suggest development approaches.Tom prepared a report for our use and now we have asked him to prepare a formal proposal that can be presented to the city. The lower park is intended to be less formal and more natural than the existing park with emphasis on passive strolling,hiking,and nature discovery - a place where indigenous plants,birds and animals could exist in a more or less natural state.This is an opportunity for aU homeowners to make their desires known and to make this a community part.Features such as additional playground and picnic areas·with off street parking would be included.Tom has taken some guidance from the original preliminary park plan which did include daylight tennis courts in the lower section. We are advised,now,that tennis courts could not be included with the moneys available at this time,however,space allocation could be made for future development.We are excited by this proposal,the chance for its approval,and the opportunity for new involvement.Let us know how you feel about the park. ATTACHMENT -48 TOt ~'!:r~ ,~::r;1'2?M~ DATE:30 November 1995 S4if-"i3 '!!oJ t;' .~4t!"&>8'0 +-~f'~#~A I*'n~A f?"~I. ;1..p~TpJJ')fL. 1D:Rancho Palos Verdes,attn:Paul Bussey FROM:Pacific View Homeowners Association SUBJECT:Lower Hesse Park Proposed Development BACKGROUND Hesse Park is surrounded by the 346 homes that form the Pacific View Homeowners Association.The entry streets are Locklenna Lane,Verde Ridge and Trailriders.One of our projects is to determine what could be done with the uncompleted lower Hesse Park.The Hesse Park site includes approximately 28 acres and during the park's development apre1iminary plan was generated for the entire site.During the park project it was _determined that a building and partial park would be in the city's best interest and that was concluded on approximately twelve acres.The westerly edge of the existing park is a relatively steep grade,20%slope in places,but the"lower section has about twelve acres useful for typical park utilization.We contacted Tom Lockett,a well known landscape architect, who was recently recognized by the State of California,and his fum Land hnages to help and provide guidance for our association.At our last annual meeting,Mayor Byrd suggested that we submit recommendations. This proposal suggests a development plan for the balance of Hesse Park. PROPOSAL Lower Hesse Park would augment the existing park by becoming a more "natural"site with all native plantings.Crushed rock trails rather than concrete,picnic areas with tables and trees,but no mowed lawns. Additional children play areas to add to the very popular facilities,but to continue the low maintenance,natural environment typical of Palos Verdes before homes.Demographic studies and neighborhood meeting forums would provide the direction for other elements like sand lot volley ball or seniors walking trails.Off street parking crushed rock and stabilized soil would minimize new drainage con,c;erns,however all areas would drain to the existing drainage path that empties in the storm drain at Locklenna.A small maintenance building for supplies,water and possible rest rooms,all depending upon the public input and final choice of desired and acceptable facilities.Typical trees and shrubs native to this area are listed. ATTACHMENT -49 :,1111 J?Zg./)1ZfS PJ2...~'T7tl? "Tr3 6?;.v ~elt-I g7'&Wtt 7 LOWER HESSE PARK 4'~~...,.,oq"..."C;-..A' 17 jJ'oU!7...... ( I have been involved with Hesse Park from the very beginning and had the opportunity to work with Fred Hesse during the development of the 4th city now Rancho Palos Verdes.But history or qualifications is not the issue--the issue is cost! Initially for lower Hesse Park the Pacific View HO believed that volunteer effort could improve the lower area.Shelby Jordan new Tom Lockett and asked him for advise. Tom is a wen known and recognized Landscape Architect.His advice was --develop a foundation,then volunteer effort can be effective.Volunteer effort alone has never provided a permanent solution. Community input was requested at several public meetings to provide the guidance for desired features to be included,but in a PASSIVE PARK.A park of natural plantings that would augment the existing formal Hesse Park,provide features not now available .and be a public asset.This is a beautiful area with fantastic potential. Currently lower Hesse is not natural.This entire area was leased to a farmer who grew .alfalfa,which was harvested every year.What remains is a mongrel of fennel and weeds whose 100 foot edge must be disc twice a year for fire abatement and at city cost.Yes even bare land ha;s a'maintenance.And low maintenance cost was a prime driver in the planning of the suggestions for Lower Hesse Park.The $18,000 figure is the long term estimate.1'h:e fust few years should be less than $10,000. .Determining what should be included was a major challenge for the Park and Recreation committee,the sub-committee and the city staff.and as usual,many compromises were involved.From the community input,a shopping list of features,their estimated costs .and maintenance costs were developed and they were presented to you in the original pack~ge.A word about these costs.They are conservative estimates,used by professionals for inital planning.The next step is a PRELIMINARY DESIGN that is used to obtain bids from construction firms.This is when you know the true costs and or features that can be included for a fixed sum of money.The estimates are intended to be safe numbers,not mis-lead and especially not LOW BALL the project.You are not congress and this is not the old defense business.Currently we have estimates---bids are costs.Authbrize a preliminary design and then we can have real costs. The community wants many features and we can not have them all,but one thing everyone involved has wanted was a COMPLETE Park.The first three options are not complete and will provide very little t6·the community.By most,they are not considered a Park.Option 4 is complete,is stand alone,is a proper foundation and can remain forever and be a community asset.It can also provide for future volunteer efforts.Option 4 is the minimum that should be done. ATTACHMENT -50 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Teri Takaoka [terit@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,November 08,2010 3:09 PM To:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park petition Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red From:L Chase jr [mailto:lchase@lovelljr.com] sent:Monday,November 08,20103:07 PM To:cc@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park petition Dear Council Members and Parks: I am sending this email to let you know that a package of 250 petition signatures for no dog park at Hesse Park was delivered to the City Clerk at RPV City Hall on November 8,2010.It is expected that the packet will be included in the November 16, 2010 council meeting packet for Lower Hesse Park.The signatures were obtained by standing at the entrance to Ralph's store at Crest and Hawthorne.Additionally,signatures were obtained from neighborhoods that are not next to Hesse Park,as well as,some signatures of residents near the park. Petition: "We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes,ruin the tranquility of the neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice." Thank you in advance for your consideration to the above matter. Lovell Chase Lovell C.Chase,Jr. 6955 Kings Harbor Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310.541.6792 Ichase@lovelljr.com 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -51 November 8,2010 City Council Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Lovell C.Chase,Jr. 6955 Kings Harbor Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 (310)541-6792 emaillchase@lovelljr.com RECEIVED CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES NOV 08 2010 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re:November 16,2010 City Council meeting,packet for Lower Hesse Park Dear Council Members: Enclosed are 250 signatures on a petition to eliminate the dog park proposal in the fmal plans for the renovation of Hesse Park.The signatures were obtained by canvasing neighbors near Hesse Park and outlying neighbors.Additionally,signatures were obtained at Ralph's Grocery store at the intersection of Crest and Hawthorne. Petition statement: "We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility of the neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice." Thank you in advance for your consideration to the above matter. Sinre~a~ Lo ell C.Chase,Jr. ------.- ~_. ATTACHMENT -52 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Address ATTACHMENT -53 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Address Signature ATTACHMENT -54 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name Address Si nature ATTACHMENT -55 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility of the neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Address Si nature ATTACHMENT -56 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. i IPrintNameAddressISign~e 1-('RQ~e f\~'~l-f ~~~V?te-Cj'IfL1\ 1f!J(~re e 9lAC~1%Li lP 1 J\t f\Wf>~·~fl.rY lzl/\l;. ATTACHMENT -57 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Address Si na re ATTACHMENT -58 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility of the neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take LIS seriollsly and hear our collective voice. Print Name Address r "cJ ..'"."."ri'V {,~.,..~., (p l5 .J (.f!f ('f!v(·c·/)1-;J')I C'l{lj I ")I .Signature I ATTACHMENT -59 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our locaJ elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name s.S~ Si nature ATTACHMENT -60 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. ,Si2nature ATTACHMENT -61 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name Address tlP?3lL ~jJ1natllr«:l __-I ATTACHMENT -62 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local horne owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name Address Si nature ATTACHMENT -63 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only' Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name ATTACHMENT -64 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility of the neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name Address ATTACHMENT -65 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name ATTACHMENT -66 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation ofFred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name Address cto21/erde Rid ATTACHMENT -67 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the . renovation of Hesse Park . We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation ofFred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park: Trails located at 29301 Hawthome Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facilit;y so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to.the surrounding homes,. ruin the tranqtJilit;y ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property v~ues.We think it . .unfair to force local home owners in the areas SUITOunding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smeD ~security issues that this filcility will bring.Furtliermore~we feel that this 1;Ype of amenity should be more appI'Opl'bqely located somewhere ~Ise 00.the peninsula to ~ those that would want to utilize it..It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voiC4.'. ATTACHMENT -68 Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation ofFred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tran,q~ility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property v~ues.We think it . unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this filcility will bring.Furthennore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropri"'ly located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.·It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. PriBtName Si ature ATTACHMENT -69 For Raneho Palos V~rdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final pJaBs for the . renovation ofHesse Park '. We the undersigned demand that our local represen1atives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation ofFred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails lcxmed at ~9301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facili1;y so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to.the surrounding hOlnes,. ruin the t:ranq1JJ1i1;y ofthe neighbodlood and potentially damage property ~ues.We think it . .unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell f,llld security issues that this fiIciIity win bring.FurtheJ'lllOl'O,we feel that this type of am~should be more appropriately located somewhere ~lse on the peniosuJa to ~ those that would want to utilize it.·It is our hope that our local elected officials will 1ake us seriouSly and hear our conective voice. PriatName Address dE /~'l 7J1111tJY!kL j 719?-V~1?t.;.!t:YJJ?i /?f?~. £t;f/ Lit /~j-/j,A~/·;;t 'uJ .T r (./1' 11Jhtfc ·.1ZEFcC &~7-u v~fr-ttY k_¥1'tI~t-- , 1 ATTACHMENT -70 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name Address ~ian~tIJre ATTACHMENT -71 Print Name ..if) Si nature 2 ATTACHMENT -72 Print Name Address , 3 I ,~..... I ATTACHMENT -73 ).----------.------r------, :-"'"Print Name Address Si nature~\~ @~ 4 ATTACHMENT -74 Print Name Address Signature .f{\t..l1A At>2./tl-4v'-t. -5L.(I 7 ,...,.,0 OL-.fi:c...r9..Jt S'1 f.}..Ll 1<14 ....."1../0 P~C-."5 I/~.u 'aJ?ff f:..L€'/,v , 'YJ?Rr.1T ...JJ.4-(1..(e.p it-'l..7 'if}.f'jrJ fJ J:.1f /U ]j K ..~(..L 7.r i l./!JJJN<'TIt;.w.-G .z.c;lo3 <;~",OPN (fl~nco 1~-N cA 902-7'5', t/J1-UJ f)~'A U.~, Ie.Y'.p ~f}f Uk.oL P./'tJ f/;d ~t>..z-7 t!:, X~A)('d-AJf ,J..''1 (l :l..MoRt'et..P t:t /:Jr:. /~,PI!<:.-A-'1 0 ~:r-S- t 2 ATTACHMENT -75 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility of the neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Print Name Address 1 ATTACHMENT -76 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility of the neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice. Address ATTACHMENT -77 For Rancho Palos Verdes Residents Only' Petition to eliminate dog park proposal in final plans for the renovation of Hesse Park We the undersigned demand that our local representatives immediately cease and desist with all plans to include a Dog Park in any potential renovation of Fred Hesse Jr.Park &Hess Park Trails located at 2930 I Hawthorne Boulevard,Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca.To include this type of a facility so close to a residential area would cause irreparable harm to the surrounding homes, ruin the tranquility ofthe neighborhood and potentially damage property values.We think it unfair to force local home owners in the areas surrounding Hesse Park to deal with the inevitable noise,smell and security issues that this facility will bring.Furthermore,we feel that this type of amenity should be more appropriately located somewhere else on the peninsula to accommodate those that would want to utilize it.It is our hope that our local elected officials will take us seriously and hear our collective voice.. Print Name Address ATTACHMENT -78 From:Bruce Megowan [mailto:bmegowan@cox.net] Sent:Saturday,May 15, 2010 5:10 PM To:astrid@mlagreen.com;michelles@mlagreen.com Cc:tomo@rpv.com Subject:Dog Park -Rancho Palos Verdes It was a pleasure speaking with you today at the Community Forum to discuss the design elements of lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park in Rancho Palos Verdes. Attached is a proposal for the construction of a dog park which includes a lot of research on design elements for state of the art dog parks as well as construction cost estimates.We have received over 800 signatures on petitions to establish a dog park on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.I have also included a list of names of 359 Rancho Palos Verdes citizens who have signed the petitions I hope this proves useful to you in looking at incorporating a dog park in one or both of the proposed locations. I do have one recommendation,and that is that any dog park must have a separation of the park into two areas for large dogs and small dogs,with the large dog area about twice the size of the small dog area.Optimum size of a dog park is about 1.5 acres.Because of this,I think that it may make sense to design a larger dog park for the Grandview Park,as there seems to be more room there for this use,and forego a dog park at lower Hesse Park because of the number of other proposed uses there. I appreciate your efforts in this. Bruce Megowan Investment Services Group 310-541-2980/cell 310-259-7125 ATTACHMENT -79 DOG PARK PROPOSAL·PALOS VERDES LANDFILL SITE -ROLLING HILLS ESTATES Community Benefits 1)Allows dogs to exercise and socialize safely.Puppies and adult dogs need room to run,and enclosed play areas permit them to do so while preventing them from endangering themselves and others (for example,by running into the path of an oncoming vehicle).In addition,dogs who are accustomed to playing with animals and people other than their owners are more likely to be well- socialized and react well toward strangers. 2)Promotes responsible dog ownership.Dog parks prevent off-leash animals from infringing on the rights of other community residents and park users such as joggers,small children,and those who may be fearful of dogs.Parks also make it easier for a city to enforce its leash laws,as resident dog owners with park access have no reason to allow their canine companions off-leash when outside of the park. 3)Provides an outlet for dog owners to socialize.Dog parks are a great place for owners to meet other people with common interests.The love people share for their dogs reaches beyond economic and social barriers and helps to foster a sense of community.Park users also benefit from the opportunity to ask questions of other owners and find solutions to problems they might be having with their pet. 4)Dog owners are a substantial group of park users.The U.S.Humane Society states that thirty-nine percent of U.S.households own at least one dog.On average,owners have almost two dogs (1.7).The overwhelming numbers of dogs and dog owners would seem to warrant specific consideration for them as well.The demand for a dog park was demonstrated by our group collecting over 800 signatures on a petition to build a dog park on the former Palos Verdes Landfill site,which has been submitted to Andy Clark of the Parks Department. 5)Make for a better community by promoting public health and safety.Well-exercised dogs are better neighbors who are less likely to create a nuisance,bark excessively and destroy property.Their presence in the park,along with their owners,also helps to deter crime. 6)Provide a legal area to off-leash dogs.A balanced approach to accommodating dog owners in public open space may achieve higher levels of compliance by dog owners with relevant leash laws.Currently there is no place on the Palos Verdes Peninsula where dog owners may legally run and exercise their dogs off-leash.If dog owners perceive laws to be unfair it may elicit a defiant rather than a compliant response from dog owners -they may ignore the laws in protest.If,on the other hand,laws are perceived to be fair people will be more likely to voluntarily comply. 7)Provides elderly and disabled owners with an accessible place to exercise their companions. Dogs provide companionship to many single or widowed elderly people,and a dog park provides an excellent place for them to take their dogs and enjoy the outdoors. 8)Many other communities have established dog parks.Dog parks are not a brand new phenomenon.Many other communities have developed dog parks recognizing the strong demand. Some of the many places that have off-leash areas for dogs in California are:San Diego,Laguna Beach,Costa Mesa,Los Angeles,Venice,Napa,Sonoma,Berkeley,Santa Monica,St.Helena, Huntington Beach,Davis,Laguna Niguel,Claremont,Redondo Beach,Redwood City,Danville,San Jose,Santa Clara,Foster City,and San Francisco.See http://www.ecoanimal.com/dogfun/ca/south.html#la for a list of other dog parks in Los Angeles County. Dog Park Design Elements The Ideal Dog Park is designed to Include: ATTACHMENT -80 1)Two acres or more surrounded by a 5'to 6'fence.The dog areas should not be squared off or have 90 degree corners but should be rounded off so that dogs cannot be trapped by other dogs. 2)Separate areas for large dogs and small dogs (Le.1 to 1.5 acres for large dogs and .5 to .75 acres for small dogs) 3)Shade and water.Shade is needed for both the dogs after they exercise to cool off but also for people, particularly the elderly.Hopefully,the dog park design will incorporate existing on-site trees for shade and benches would be positioned in these areas.If not,shade structures can provide shade over benches (see below)Specialized water fountains with permanent bowls to water the dogs as well as water fountain for people. Combination people and dog drinking fountain with slow draining dog dish ATTACHMENT -81 4)Adequate drainage.This is particularly important around the dog watering station.Below is an example of permeable pavers that are used to prevent muddy areas from forming around the dog watering station.The pavers should be surrounded by a border of 1-2 inch pebbles. For more information on LID design concepts featuring Permapave NW pavers,please see www.permapavenw.com or email pavers@permapavenw.com. 5)Parking close to site. 6)Surface materials:Higher use areas should have a material like decomposed granite or eucalyptus wood chips.The San Pedro dog park gets eucalyptus wood chips donated by local tree trimming and removal firms. This surface also provides a cushiony feel to it and can also help prevent injuries for elderly people who might fall.Fleas also hate the scent of eucalyptus,and will be quickly driven away from any area that smells of eucalyptus ...Grass can be used in areas not right around the entry area,but is not generally used in the high traffic zones as it tends to get very thin very quickly due to dog urine and also has higher maintenance costs. ATTACHMENT -82 7)Covered garbage cans with regular trash removal. 8)Pooper scooper stations.Pooper Scooper for clean up:and a roll of plastic bags for fecal removal with waste bins closely spaced. 9)Benches.These are needed for the elderly and disabled,but should be relatively limited as dog owners should be encouraged to stand and interact with their dogs to keep them under control.Benches should be located away from the dog park entrance.Concrete benches are preferred.The surface should be incapable of allowing a dog's limb to get stuck in a narrow slot typical in the design of park benches.Benches should not have armrests or slats but should be solid.All -in -one picnic tables and shade structures are also available ATTACHMENT -83 10)Wheel chair access.Parking lots should be paved,and the entrance and areas leading to benches or tables and shade structures should be paved to provide handicap access. 11)Regular maintenance.Volunteer groups can be useful in helping to keep the park clean and maintained. 12)Bulletin board that allows users to post notices 13)Entry·double gated.Two entry gates to prevent dogs from congregating around the entrance to possibly intimidate new dog arrivals.If there is only one entrance and exit gate,or one entrance and one exit gate,the dogs in the park quickly learn where newcomers will enter.They then congregate at the entrance which can result in fights or dogs escaping from the park.If there are a couple of ways for dogs to come in and out,they will not target a particular gate.To prevent fights between entering dogs and dogs already in the park,the dog park entrance should be far from the main center of dog activity. ATTACHMENT -84 safety gate for dog run to prevent dogs entering from interacting with dogs leaving. gate only opens in- cannot open from park dogs enterin wait here while owners remo .....e collars and leashes dog run Exit only ~"'I-_ gate opens gate #1 from both si des Fig.1 Path ATTACHMENT -85 Liability Issues: At least one reason for the lack of claims is legal:the "dangerous condition"immunity from public liability probably relieves the public agency of liability,especially for the acts of third parties using the public property (Gov't.Code section 830 et.seq.;Jones v.Czapkay (1960)182 Cal.App.2d 192).Nevertheless,the City should take precautions to protect itself (and the taxpayers)from potential liability.There are several ways to limit liability,including: A.Express assumption of liability and indemnification by users of the off-leash areas This can be accomplished by conditioning the issuance of dog licenses on an express indemnification agreement,or by a "permissive use"ordinance change.The city of Claremont chose the latter approach.Its off-leash ordinance states in part: "The use of an off-leash area by a dog owner or other person having care,custody,or control of that shall constitute agreement by the dog owner and the person having care,custody,or control of that dog to ...a waiver of liability of the city,and his or her agreement to protect,indemnify,defend and hold harmless the city from any claim,injury,or damage arising from or in connection with such use."(City of Claremont Ordinance 11.02.125(E).) B.Signage:Full and complete signage,both advising visitors that the park is an off leash area and that they use the area at their own risk,and advising dog owners of their assumption of liability and hold harmless agreement. C.Insurance:I have seen several sources that state that due to the California law providing strict liability to a dog owner for any biting or damage caused by their dogs that the City is not liable for any problems created by the dog.Therefore there should be no additional insurance coverage needed and the City's current liability policy should provide coverage with no additional premium. ATTACHMENT -86 Dog Park Rules: 1.Puppies and dogs must be properly inoculated,be healthy (have no contagious conditions or diseases), and be parasite-free (both internally and externally). 2.To help prevent dog fights,owners are encouraged to inquire about any dogs already in the run which are unfamiliar to them,prior to entering the run.Observing dogs'body language is also recommended 3.No dogs known to be aggressive towards other dogs or people (or exhibiting any threatening behavior) may enter the run. 4.No bitches in heat may enter the run at any time. 5.Owners must clean up after their dogs. 6.Owners are asked to closely supervise their dogs,and at no time should an owner leave the run without their dog(s). 7.If the dog run is located near local residences,hospitals,schools or libraries,owners should discourage their dogs from barking excessively.This is especially important prior to 10AM and after 9PM. 8.Parents must refrain from bringing toddlers and small children into the run.Parents are strongly discouraged from bringing children less than 12 years of age.Children should at no time be allowed to run with or chase after dogs in the dog run. 9.Do not bring rawhide or food into the dog run as dogfights may result.Also be wary of using your dogs favorite toy which he/she may be very protective of with other dogs. 10.For safety reasons,please remove pinch (prong)and spike collars from your dog prior to entering the dog run.Many dogs and puppies have been injured by playing with another dog who was wearing a pinch collar.A basic flat buckle collar (with city license,Rabies and identification tags)is recommended. http://www.dogparksusa.org/manual.htm Dog Park Manual Costs Start-up Costs Gross Estimated Budget: Fencing:( 5 foot chain link fencing 2,000 liner ft.@ $1 O/If,per A-1 Steel Fencing -323-228-8598):$20,000 3 triple gated entrance/exits(Two for large dog park at separate sides of the park and one for small dog park): $2,500 Water Fountains (ADA compliant people and dog combo approx.$3,000 each -see picture above):$6,000 Concrete work:800 square feet of concrete patio area would cost approx.$7,500 (per Lindahl Concrete (310) 326-6626). Demolition and Grading (24 hours @170/hour per R.E.R Inc.310-901-6834):$4,000 Grass seeding,Decomposed granite or mulch and ground prep:$6,000 Water meter and waterline and irrigation:$12,000 Bulletin Board:(See picture above ):$1,200 Signage:$1,300 Dog Poop bag dispenser (see picture above):5@ 600 each:$3,000 ATTACHMENT -87 Benches-Concrete (see picture above)(3@ $750 each):$2,250 (optional combination picnic bench and canopy (pictured above)is $3,000 each) Trash containers:2@ $270 each:$550 Total of above costs:$66,300 General Conditions/Overhead @6%:$4,300 Profit @ 7%: $5,000 Design fees/continency @ 5%:$3,400 Total Costs:$79,000 Note:These cost estimates do not include costs for paving the entrance road or parking area. Maintenance Costs The maintenance of dog parks varies tremendously,depending on the size of the park and the surface materials used. Trash containers should be emptied daily and waste scoops restocked when needed.While owners are typically required to clean up after their dogs,it is inevitable that some areas will be missed,especially if dogs are running free.We believe staff will be needed to clean up the area regularly.Clean-up rounds should be made weekly to make sure that the park is free from excessive waste.It is also recommended that the fencing and other equipment be hosed down frequently to prevent urine stains and odors. Park professionals in other areas of the country estimate approximately $8,000 in annual maintenance costs. This includes about 3 hours per week in cleaning labor,grass cutting,refilling scooper dispensers,printing costs for dog park literature,etc. ATTACHMENT -88 ATTACHMENT -89 Woods Old Parking Lol Exlstfng Asphalt DrI"IO Grassy SIDpe •()10'ed 60' IJ'"I IOl>AtJOo I'.f()'o<)' \"~\\\1 1\Iill\\\\\\\\\\\\\~ Schematic Design E3.A..SIC P.A..RK Off-Leash Dog Park at Veterans Park,Shreveport June 2009 SPAR Plannng &Development ATTACHMENT -90 Requirements for Use of the Dog Park: All Dogs using the dog park should have a dog tag issued by the City of Rolling Hills Estates.To obtain a dog tag,the dog owner would have to show evidence of vaccinations and a valid dog license from their city of residence.To raise funds for maintenance of the dog park,the city could charge an annual fee for obtaining the dog tag. ATTACHMENT -91 Primary Fir Primary La House Nun Direction P Street Street Desi Direction S Suite No PO_Box Sharon Chipman 28829 Crestridge Road Jill Benjamin 29770 Ridgebluff Grant Waldron 6093 Scotmist Drive Vince Sirhan 27102 Grayslake Road Rachel Eynon 32650 Nantasket Drive Andrew Huniu 5818 Sunmist Drive Deidre Manns 30612 Via Rivera Mida Reyburn 5853 Flambeau Road Amanda Light 29030 Clevis Road James Day 7056 Crest Road Ann Mosich 28111 Ridgefern Court Daniel Park 7090 Via del Mar Julie Olson 5733 Wildbriar Drive Karen Murray 42 Mela Lane Jan Spivey 30456 Via Cam bon Marva Burt 31 Sweetbay Road Kathy Swenson 31 Packet Road Deborah O'Hara 6112 Quennridgl Drive Valerie Yardumian 53 Oceanaire Drive Lori Delane 30525 Rhone Drive Fielding Tebbs 27029 Shorewooc Road Mirian Vaya 30686 Via La Cresta Natsumo Steadly 30615 Calle de Suenos Karen Dumas 26563 Basswood Avenue Marilyn Peschel 27911 Golden Meadow Cindy Yancey 6780 Kings Harb Drive Randy Oneal 29024 Clevis Road Bernard Weinstein 6895 Alta Vista Drive Susan Zerha 27989 Beachgate Drive William Hughes 26951 Whitestone Road Danilo Cabal 65 Aspen Way Mark Ziay 3417 Palos Verd Drive Melanie Mottram 30103 Via Victoria Jill Crump 27028 Whitestone Road Tracy Moon 2 Nuvola Court Milagros Mayesh 4 Moonmist Drive Sean Dumas 26563 Basswood Avenue Anthony Maggio 5317 Manitowac William Petrie 4129 Exultant Drive Dolores Davis 1 Crestwind Drive George Bender 27931 San Nichol Drive Bob Brisco 1 Flying Man Lane Livia Varsanyi 32622 Nantasket Gerogina McGovern 5008 Elkridge Drive Kathleen Pantucci 5439 Whitefox Drive Penny Stein 28325 Lunada Ridge Greg Royston 6338 Sattes Drive Marian Duntley 28633 Trailrider Drive Aimee Bruening 6162 Arrowroot Lane Kim Van Biene 21 Oceanaire Drive Irene Tsai 5635 Seaside HE Drive ATTACHMENT -92 Susan Yuzuki 29007 Warnick Road Via Vanetek 7127 Crest Road Jose Gonzalez 5630 Ravenspur 302 Kimberly Cyrus 28126 Peacock R Drive 304 Jules Angelley 6032'Groveoak Laura Mueller 5956 Flambeau Road Hejn Li 28017 Ridgebluff Court Jun Jean 28111 Ridgethorn Court Sheila Kottke 28408 Quailhill Drive Susan Addleman 1988 W General Street Mary Schneider 6 Barkentine Road Alex Schoenfelc 93 Laurel Jill Hall 27444 Halescorne Road Diana Hefferman 26636 Fond Du L.Road Jessica Hey 1930 Avenida Aprenda Douglas Shaw 28752 Crestridge Road Tiffany Sin 28403 Coveridge Drive Judy Bush 6030 Montemala Drive Jennifer Fiedler 27515 Warrior Drive Lori Duston 26535 Basswood Avenue Merin Dahlerbruc 5217 Elkmont Drive Beth Mecozzi 32333 Forrestal Drive Marisa Teora 1906 Avenida Estudiante Melissa Marshall 7034 Willowtree Drive Tanner Tellenbach 26838 Indian Peal Road Robert Sorrentino 6826 Faircove Drive Mary Flynn 29034 Warnizk Road Judith Hart 28019 Hazelridge Debbie Banderas 6009 Scotmist Drive Joan Kraus 6108 Monero Drive Gaye Jacobs 6973 Kings Harb Drive Joy Carter 5917 Ocean Ten Drive Beth Ryan 5333 Littlebow Road Joel Gayner 5500 Palos Verd Drive S Mia Chung 26433 Basswood Avenue Adrain huete 36 Chuckwagc Road Mary Arnold 30321 Diamonte Lane Paula Boothe 5327 Ironwood Street Christina Welch Jeanine Griggs 6825 Kings Harbor Ana Jones 6600 Beachview Drive 137 John Tiberi 30438 Avenida De Calma Sheil Mori 27767 Longhill Drive Alana Lagerhaus,1137 Bayview Drive RJ Stevens 32418 Conqueror Drive Chris Crabtree 16 Narcissa Drive Carolyn Meyer 26673 Honey Creek Sodria Zic 1 Via Veneta Terri Matani 5431 Meadowda Lane Nancy Cheelosh 6608 Eddinghill Leanne Twidwell 32 Sweetwate Road Sheryle Payne 52 Via Capri ATTACHMENT -93 Patricia Schluper 28111 N Ridgecove Court 12 Rashida Mendu 26710 Fond du Lac Ashley Park 28111 Ridgepoint Court A.Pizzocchiel 29600 Island View Amanda Beranek 5806 Ocean Ten Drive Grnek Kim 5032 Blackhorse Drive Zenda Foon 30227 Avenida Seleda Monka Bauer 68 Narcissa Drive Katrina Dair 28805 Blythewooc Drive Dolly Oses 29024 Clevis Road Jennifer Kelly 28216 Lomo Drive Lori Domeracki 28421 Seamount Drive Cc Eva Muchnick 6307 Rio Linda Drive Frank Merola 2 Moonmist Drive Patricia Clark 30 Sea Cove Drive Beau Griffis 12 Barkentine Jim Real 6866 Verde Rid~Road Robin Fontenat Dana McNamara 4962 Silver Arrm Drive Kevin Cahill 2 Sail View Avenue Virginia Knauss 26513 Rockhurst Lane Carolyn Anthony 30174 Avenida Tranquila Robin Roth 5917 Armaga S~Road H Elyett Silverman 5721 Crestridge Road Chris Labarbera 6050 Ocean Ten Drive Elaine Matsuda 6626 Channel Vi Court Doran Richard 5016 Rock Valle'Road Frances Manning 26815 Basswood Avenue Laurie Bucher 5327 Valley Vie\,A Road Julie Mccarl 30424 Via Rivera Barry Cosette 5951 Armaga S~Road D Karen Sartori 30822 Rue De La Pierre kimberley Foley 6260 Vis Canada Alex Megeff 2628 Sunnyside Road Brenda Doumere 28126 Peacock Holli Williams 30 Sweetbay Road Larry Park 28111 Ridgepoint Court Carol Hughes 26951 Whitestone Road Janet Taylor 6120 Armaga S~Road Terry Jenness 27065 Shorewooc Road Ann Gamsgaan 4343 Palos Verd Drive S Jessicq Carter 26541 Silver Spur Road Sharon Kang 28111 Ridgethorn Court Lynn Doran 4110 Maritime Road Anne Miyamura 5331 Whitefox Drive Stephanie Carpenter 30113 Cartier Drive Robbin Gregson 2021 W Elberon Street Christine Pack 28060 Lobrook Drive Alma Johnsin 26624 Nokomas Road Stevie Beitscher 28866 Crestridge Road Ray Mckown 6475 Parklynn Drive Evelyn Barri 27811 Hawthorne Boulevard ATTACHMENT -94 Sunshine 6 Limetree Lane Carlos Leon 700 Coast Road Sandy Coffey 28925 Moro Bay Drive Debbie Sledge 5535 Graylog Street Bridgette Wallman 27118 Shorewooc Road Kay Nibarger 7310 Via Marie Celeste Ryan Wu 11 Via Malona Nick Yacobucci 5750 Whitecliff Drive William Tucker 5105 Oconto Avenue Chris Kall 6760 Kings Harb Drive Jacquelin Riuz 28805 Trailriders Drive Junichi Kemko 5947 Armaga S~Road Birgit Snodgrass 2464 Rue Le Ch,Road Jeff Vanetek 7127 Crest Road Dee Nelson 28731 Shireoaks Drive Armanda Fuette 28902 Gunter Road Jan Jensen 28425 Coveridge Drive Ann Williams 30422 Cartier Drive Judy Herdman 5808 Finecrest Drive Beth Griep 28752 Plainfield Barb Dancy 7442 Via Lorado Elizabeth Haynes 29045 Clevis Road Kimberly Kohler 27925 Alvarez Drive Marlene Baranek 5806 Ocean Ten Drive Marta Merola 2 Moonmist Drive Lisa Thompsen 28035 Golden Me Drive John Tellenbach 26838 Indian Peal Road Mary Clarke 30339 Rhone Drive Vannort / I 85 Vanderlip Drive Gina kanemaki 6624 Moneco Drive Arthur Wertheim 32653 Seagate Drive E Annie Moody 5065 Silver Arrm Drive Cole Griffis 12 Barkentine Road J.R.Matheson 20 Nuvola Court Robert Cote 6529 Beachview Drive Suzanne Pakkala 26754 Hyte Road Rosie Bermudez 6454 Seabryn Drive Tes Lanes 5 Aspen Way Suzanne Dean 5202 Silver Arrm Drive Lisa Saathoff 27112 Mesaba Drive Scott Smith 3307 Narino Drive Amy Sullivan 4129 Exultant Drive Mark Fine 6519 Madeline Cove Annie Tang 5392 Valley view Road Liz Gibson 30507 Rhone Drive Kim Di Angelo 28130 Braidwood Drive Marianne Hunter 1 Cinnamon Lane Hayden Gregory 26621 Honey creE Road David Lukac 68150 Palos Verd Drive E Ellen November 6711 Monero Drive Christine Smith 3307 Narino Drive Julie McGovern 5008 Elkridge Drive ATTACHMENT -95 Sue Kung 3 Coveridge Drive Allyn Trott 4 Via Sevilla Francesca Bishop 29229 Whites Poi Drive Marlene Beranek 5806 Ocean Ten Drive Gary Draffen 30215 Avenida Selecta Tasaka 5032 Blackhors€Road Brian Hood 4118 Maritime Road Patty Price 28140 Bridge Cov Court Donna Bazan 27915 Ridgebrool Court Sarah Buzby 25636 Mazur Drive Crista Peters 19 Sweetbay Road Shannon Streitfeld 5230 Middlecrest Joseph Kelly 28141 Ridgecove Court Leni Estrella 6162 Arrowroot Lane Eva Columbi 30284 Cartier Drive Melanie Streitfeld 5330 Middlecres Road Rod Ige 30001 Avenida Classico Lea Anthony 28703 Blythewoo(Drive Lynda Palmer 31009 Ruclaylois Bethany Hutsh 12 Barkentine Road Jill Corcoran 3 Singletree Lane Tylere Liberman 7318 Berry Hill Drive Daniel Ball 26733 Grayslake Road Kathy Standev 29344 Whitley Collins Caryl Weinstein 5987 Peacock Ridge 220 Donna Niedermey 29519 Ocean Por Drive Roberta Irish 6002 Ocean Terl Drive Thomas Austin 2036 W General Street Adrienne Herman 26853 Basswood Wendy Rosato 4868 Eldridge Drive Steven Solari 4145 Palos Verd Drive S Alfred Peschel 27911 Golden Meadow Karl Wasst 27131 Grayslake Road Mike Davin 26715 Basswood Tom Light 29030 Clevis Road Judy Green 3200 La Rotunda 406 Rachel King 26620 Menominel Place Carol Wharton 91 Cypress Way Cathy Siegel 7011 Lofty GrovE Drive Nancy Ross 4920 Golden Arr Drive Lynn Ige 30001 Avenida Classico Lori Dehloville 30130 Cartier Drive Martha Alvarez 10202 Bill Hughes 26951 Whitestone Road Gail Cooper King Harbc Drive Virginia Bradfield 5682 Mistridge Drive Donna Kelly 28141 Ridgecove Court Sandra Heffernan 32209 Valor Place Jake Schoenfelc 93 Laurel Drive Edith Utterbeg 28816 Covecrest Drive Leslie Apecechec:26410 Birchfield Avenue Maria Durand 28748 Doverridge Drive ATTACHMENT -96 Robert Jones 3 Crestwind Drive Andy Schwab 6600 Beachview Drive Kim Reher 26918 Circle Verd Drive Austin phillips 3243 Parkhurst Drive Pamela Tansavatdi 12 Avenida De Camelia Eric Auerbach 6780 lings harbo Drive Mike Burch 26964 Basswood Avenue Cassie Jones 40 Cinnamon Margie Bower 29177 Ocean ridgE Drive Sondra Williamson 28364 S Western Avenue 508 Tracy Farman 4187 Maritime Road Jeff Victoroff 29010 Doverridge Drive Sue Hargrave 5430 Bayridge Road Ami Berlin 5721 Crestridge Road Abby Larocca 26373 Silver Spur Road Don Merrill 6936 Kings Harb Drive Mary Stewart 30166 Avenida Esplendida Edna Colmenero 4207 Rousseau Lane Rob Stockberge 3049 Crownview Drive Claire Ealy 36 Via Capri Barbara Farmer 26431 Birchfield Alley Joel Cohen 5987 Peacock Ridge Sherry Tan 29105 Oceanridge Julian Kim 6961 Larkvale Drive Ted Vervari 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard 101 Val English 3577 Vigilance Drive Gabrielle Mecozzi 32333 Forrestal Drive Chad Wilson 6507 Ocean Cre Drive 116 Emily Mckean 28406 Ridgethorn Court 140 Amalia Rodriquez 28126 Peacock Ridge Stan Smith 33 Rockinghol Road R.Buchholz 27067 Silver Mool Lane May Mohit 29614 Island VielJl Drive Darian McThel 26228 Barkstone Drive Barbara Wellwood 6633 Abbottswo(Drive Melissa Rojas 26947 Basswood Avenue Kathleen Harris 30707 Rue de la Pierre Heather Weiss 5701 Whitecliff Drive Kerry Burch 29015 Clevis Road John Ballinger 38 Pacifica del Mar Michaell Naylor 27128 Freeport Road Cindy Seo 5 Amber Sky Drive Robert Millert 28077 Palos Verd Drive E Bob Jones 4113 Rousseau Square Diane Daley 6118 Queenridg(Drive Steve Carter 26541 Silver Spur Road Carolyn Recknor 6748 Kings Harb Drive Sandra StembridgE 28731'Trailriders Drive Matthew Yuamamot 26534 Hawkhurst Drive Juan Leon 704 Crest Road Sharon Zahoryin 6222 Moongate Drive Doug Clifford 30167 Via Borica ATTACHMENT -97 Ted Veguari 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Keryl Kurtz 27131 Grayslake Road Karen Crum 26752 Basswood Avenue Zeljko Zic 1 Via Veneta Tracy Austin 2036 W General Street Troy Thompsen 28035 Golden Me Drive Susan Cote 6529 Beachview Drive Kelly Toman 5510 Bayridge Road Valerie Real 6866 Veres Ridge Susan Gean 26740 Silver Woo Drive Bob Bush 6030 Montemala Drive Judith Hong 4926 Delacroix Road Steve Schrader 26636 Fond Du Lc Road Nancy Parsons 7361 Berry Hill Drive Raghu Mendu 26710 Fond du Lac Laura Pope 30747 Rue de la Pierre Emily Schwarz 30147 Avenida de la Colma Julie Strassner 30803 Via La Cresta Barry Anderson 29519 Stonecrest Road Tiffany Cheng 29410 Seaspray Drive Darlene Huntington 32622 Nantasket Drive 58 Dan Bruening 6162 Arrowroot Lane Fuedith Holt 5509 Diversey Drive Julie Draper 5062 Delacroiz Road Edith Beckham 26114 Barksdale Drive Colleen Cotter 14 Golden SPI Lane Deanna Davisson 27838 Longhill Drive Jin Burch 26964 Basswood Avenue Farahnaz Hoseini 29908 Avenida Refinida Sophia Kall 6760 Kings Harb Drive Olga Jones 3 Crestwind Drive Karen Cristanelli 5945 Armaga S~Road D Megan Southgate 10337 Rio Linda Drive Michelle Engl 30060 Avenida Tranquila Virginia Soet 6908 Willowtree Drive Vall Light 2903 Clevis Road Kathy Liberman 7318 Berry Hill Drive Kris Stafford 27739 Hawthorne Boulevard Giti Dai 4892 Elkridge Drive Craig Weintraub 6740 Los Verde~Drive 7 Tammy Hung 3458 Via Cam pesina Joe Ollivier 2 Cinnamon Lane Roz Mousavi 12 Arrowhead Lane Herr Catausan Donna Gianelli 28907 Newstar Drive David L Emenhiser 6620 Channelvie Court Donald Gonzalez 6576 Eddinghill Drive John &Vic Schoenfelc 94 Laurel Drive ATTACHMENT -98 City County State Zip Country RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 ATTACHMENT -99 RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90274 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 ATTACHMENT -100 RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90274 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90274 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 ATTACHMENT -101 RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV rpv RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90274 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 ATTACHMENT -102 RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90274 90275 90275 90275 90274 90274 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90274 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 ATTACHMENT -103 RPV RPV RPV rPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV RPV CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90274 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 90275 ATTACHMENT -104 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 RPV CA 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes CA 90275 ATTACHMENT -105 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:L Chase jr [lchase@lovelljr.com] Sent:Monday,July 19,2010 11:32AM To:cc@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com Subject:RPV Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park outreach survey Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Dear Mayor Wolowicz,City Council members and Staff The results from the RPV Recreation and Parks "outreach survey"were released July 12,2010. It looks like RPV Recreation and Parks Department took an outreach 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 25+years ago. The RPV Recreation and Parks department should conduct outreach surveys fairly to ensure the overall integrity and validity of the results,and to ensure that they present both sides of the results,not just one side. I FEEL LIKE THE MAN STANDING IN FRONT OF THE TANKS IN TIANANMEN SQUARE,CHINA, PROTEST OF 1989!!!CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF ARE NOT LISTENING TO THE MAJORITY!!! Lovell C.Chase,Jr. 6955 Kings Harbor Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310.541.6792 Ichase@lovelljr.com 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -106 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Sandy-Coffey@ahm.honda.com Sent:Monday,September 14,20096:53 PM To:cc@rpv.com;citymanager@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com Subject:RPV dog park As a member of the RPV community,a parent of school age children,a professional in the community and the proud owner of 2 dogs,I am writing this email to encourage you to support the effort to establish a dog park in the RPV area.It would be put to great use. sandy 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -107 From:Ken Oyda [mailto:kendyda@verizon.net] Sent:Monday,July 12,2010 9:58 AM To:parks@rpv.com Subject:Hesse and Grandview Recreation and Parks Thank you for the copy ofthe surveys.It seems abundantly clear that the most people don't want an over developed park.Del Cerro is an exampleof a passive park. Both surveys seem to indicate a strong desire for Walking Trails,Public Restrooms, Picnic Area w/Benches and Grassy Play area.Thsi approach would be most acceptablde to the surrounding neighborhood and in keeping with the concept of passive parks.I wonder how many people that said they want more would really come to the park and make the expenditure worthwhile?There is something to say for less is more. Ken Dyda ATTACHMENT -108 From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Tuesday,August 17,2010 12:46 PM To:jeff corbett;'Tom Long';citymanager@rpv.com Cc:'LeslieChapin';'L Chase jr';corbettc@wellsfargo.com Subject:Re:Lower Hess Park Tom, I appreciate your prompt response. Pursuant to your correspondence below,I will further explain the exact concerns ofthe local neighbors and your constituents.This is simply not the case of people feeling that the park is their backyard or comparable to someone buying a home next to railroad tracks only to complain about the trains.To propose a dog park so close to residential homes is to change the entire neighborhood and likely lower property values.It defies commonsense to have such a facility potentially so close to the backyards of homes that range in value of $1 million and higher.One only needs to visit the facility at 190th in Redondo Beach to appreciate the smell,noise and the occasional dog fight that could be imposed upon those of us that choice to live on the hill and in this locality. Speaking for my wife and myself,we have been proud residents of Rancho Palos Verdes for the last ten years.In that time we have spent considerable funds updating and improving our home.Our concern is to protect that investment.Weare also avid dog lovers and think that such a facility properly located would be nice for those residents on the Hill who would like to utilize it.That location,however,is not Hess Park and certainly not directly behind homes. It is obvious that Hess Park needs some TLC,and change often does come easy for people but as an elected official please be sensitive to our concerns.We ask that you and your fellow council members appreciate your fiduciary responsibilities to all voters and do not damage our neighborhood. Best regards, Jeff Corbett JEFFREY H.CORBETT President &CEO Corb7 International 468 North Camden Drive,Suite 200 Beverly Hills,Ca.90210 310-601-3115 (Office) 310-415-3545 (Mobile) CORB7 INTERNATIONAL 7 Levels ofStrategic Development WWW.CORB7.COM ATTACHMENT -109 Dear Jeff,The council can consider each proposed component separately and can modify, adopt,or not adopt the various components as I understand it.I do not think it will be an "all or nothing"discussion if that is your concern.Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem,Rancho Palos Verdes From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Saturday,August 14,2010 9:29 AM To:jeff corbett;citymanager@rpv.com Cc:'LeslieChapin';'L Chase jr';corbettc@wellsfargo.com Subject:Re:Lower Hess Park Ms.Lehr Pursuant to the Lower Hess Park Development Project,can anyone definitively state that there will be a proposal option for the September 25,2010 meeting that does not include the dog park?Your attention to this matter would be appreciated.We had been repeatedly assured at the last neighborhood meeting that there would be such a proposal. Sincerely, JEFFREY H.CORBETI President &CEO Corb7 International 468 North Camden Drive,Suite 200 Beverly Hills,Ca.90210 310-601-3115 (Office) 310-415-3545 (Mobile) CORB7 INTERNATIONAL 7 Levels ofStrategic Development WWW.CORB7.COM ATTACHMENT -110 From:James Moore [mailto:jdm4pv@yahoo.com] Sent:Wednesday,December 02,2009 10:32 PM To:saras@rpv.com Cc:'Diana Park';'Marilyn Jakubowski';'George Wong';'Jon Davis';'Jim Real';'John Freeman'; NOEL PARK Subject:Re:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Sara, Thank you for passing on the link to the parks status.Also,I wanted to support Noel's comments,concerns and recommendations to leave all trees,shrubs and healthy plants that are in Lower Hesse Trails.It has been a major struggle to keep and maintain them and encourage their growth.Native plants do pretty well,but with help they can add beauty to an area that has too many weeds,fennel,rocks and brown grass.Please keep what is healthy and spend some effort to replace the weeds,fennel,rocks etc which will add to the vitality of whatever comes in the guise of improvement.The homeowners comments that said leave it as is,really means keep the trails,plants,trees and add more of the same.No one meant to keep the rocks and fennel. Jim ---On Tue,12/1/09,NOEL PARK <noel@jdcorvette.com>wrote: From:NOEL PARK <noel@jdcorvette.com> Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants To:"'Diana Park'"<ddeepark@cox.net>,"'Marilyn Jakubowski'"<genejI80@aol.com>, "'George Wong'"<bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com>,"'Jim Moore'"<jdm4pv@yahoo.com>, "'Jon Davis'"<jadavis@alum.mit.edu>,"'Jim Real'"<vjreall@cox.net>,"'John Freeman'"<jrfree@cox.net> Date:Tuesday,December 1,2009,11:17 AM From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,December 01,2009 8:58 AM To:'NOEL PARK' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Hi Noel, ATTACHMENT -111 I just wanted to let you know that the web page for the Lower Hesse/Grandview Park Development is now available at http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/recreationparks/Lower-Hesse- Park-Grandview/.There is a link on the page where you can sign up for the listserv as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Sara Singer ~City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 3:25 PM To:I Sara Singer I Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Thanks for your courtesy.Someone also mentioned the possibility of a Iistserve.If you can remember to let me know when this stuff gets going,I will certainly participate. ATTACHMENT -112 From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 2:39 PM To:'NOEL PARK' Cc:'Ara M' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Noel, Thank you for submitting these comments.I will be sure to include them in the notes to the designers.We are working on a City webpage dedicated to this topic to keep the community informed on any upcoming meetings or public input opportunities related to these park designs. Please be on the lookout for this new page,and if you have any questions in the meantime,do not hesitate to contact me directly at the number below. Thank you, Sara Singer ~City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e--mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] ATTACHMENT -113 Sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 1:57 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants I think that there is mention of this in the Pacific View HOA written comments,but watching the power points at the Council meeting raised the issue in my mind again.I would have said something,but I'm only too painfully aware of how fast the 3 minutes goes by. In the area of the existing parking area off of Locklenna, there are several quite large and mature native plants,which must have been planted at the time of the existing park development.There are also several mature Sycamore trees,which are native and appropriate to this location.I note that there is already a small"picnic node"adjacent to the parking area,which is nicely shaded by these plants and trees.It would appear from the power point slide that the expanded parking lot contemplated would cause the removal of these native shrubs and trees At the lower end of the watercourse through the park,adjacent to Locklenna,there are at least 3 mature California Walnut trees,which are also appropriate for our area.It would appear from the power point slide that the bridge across the watercourse,just above Loclenna,would be in the same place currently occupied by the walnut trees. It would truly be a shame,and a great mistake in my humble opinion,to lose these mature and valuable native plants.I devoutly hope that they can stay in place and be a part of the theme of any expanded park facilities,as well as a symbol of the often demonstrated wisdom and sensitivity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the role of the native plant population in its heritage. I am confident that sensitive designers will be able to find ways to preserve these valuable plants and work the parking,trail and bridge facilities in around them,thus preserving these outstanding existing landscape assets.I am reminded of photos which we all have seen of beautiful gardens, and in some case actual homes,which have built around mature existing trees.Not only are the trees preserved,but brilliant and inspirational design is very often the result.I am confident that you all can achieve similar brilliant results in this case. ATTACHMENT -114 From:Roberta Wong [mailto:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] Sent:Monday,December 07,20099:49 PM To:aram@rpv.com;saras@rpv.com Cc:Les Chapin;Diana Park;Gregg Swartz;Jim Real;Jon Davis;Linda LoConte;Marilyn Jakubowski;Noel Park Subject:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design To Whom It May Concern, My name is George Wong and we are original homeowners at 29503 Baycrest Drive for over 42 years.RPV was not a City yet,Locklenna was not a through street,the current Hesse Park was a Barley Field,and the homes on Verde Ridge were in the developing stages. The incorporation of Rancho Palos Verdes into a City and the development of Hesse Park have made this community a beautiful place to live and enjoy.Our home is across the street at Lower Hesse Park.We have made great use of the Park's trails and walks from Baycrest,down Locklenna,up Verde Ridge to Hawthorne through the Park,and Locklenna to Home,every day (weather permitting). I was at the November 5th Pacific View Homeowners Board meeting when the conceptual improvement plans were presented.Here is my feedback as a neighbor and resident who uses the Park frequently.There were exercise stations at Upper Hesse Park and I have used them often as my Granddaughter prompted me through each station.But over the years the eqUipment deteriorated and slowly,all the stations had disappeared.The sand volleyball court at Lower Hesse Park was built because someone said that there was not a sand volleyball court in RPV.This facility has hardly been used and I can attest to it,living across the street from the Park.And the net was recently replaced.Why?The exercise stations were not used much either. The proposed plan looks great and I am all for Progress and Development of parks, etc.for RPV.But are we "overkilled"?Do we need a dog park for small dogs and one for large dogs in each park?Can we fit about 50 cars in the proposed parking area?Exercise stations???The trails are great and I see many people using them mornings and early evenings.These trails should be retained and enhanced.What about Maintenance? There are,however,negatives to the proposal simply because a few irresponsible citizen do not abide by rules and regulations and makes things uncomfortable for the majority of the neighbors and residents.Namely,dogs not on leash and dog owners not picking up after their animals.People eating &drinking and then leave their trash littering the streets and grounds.There are trash barrels in the park! I will have to assumed that a feasibility and practicality study has been made so that the finished park plan is "money well spent"and the residents and citizen can enjoy the parks and its amenities.I submit this feedback as my own personal opinion to go along with the submittal from the Pacific View Homeowners Association as well as those submitted individually by our members. Respectfully submitted,George Wong ATTACHMENT -115 From:Jim Real [mailto:vjreaI1@cox.net] Sent:Tuesday,December 08,2009 1:56 PM To:Roberta Wong Cc:<aram@rpv.com>;<saras@rpv.com>;Les Chapin;Diana Park;Gregg Swartz;Jon Davis; Linda LoConte;Marilyn Jakubowski;Noel Park Subject:Re:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design George Well said.You've gently yet firmly given them some perspective. -Jim Jim Real Creative Director/Writer Jimrealcreative.com 310-686-1687 On Dec 7,2009,at 9:48 PM,Roberta Wong <bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com>wrote: To Whom It May Concern, My name is George Wong and we are original homeowners at 29503 Baycrest Drive for over 42 years.RPV was not a City yet,Locklenna was not a through street,the current Hesse Park was a Barley Field,and the homes on Verde Ridge were in the developing stages. The incorporation of Rancho Palos Verdes into a City and the development of Hesse Park have made this community a beautiful place to live and enjoy.Our home is across the street at Lower Hesse Park.We have made great use of the Park's trails and walks from Baycrest,down Locklenna,up Verde Ridge to Hawthorne through the Park, and Locklenna to Home,every day (weather permitting). I was at the November 5th Pacific View Homeowners Board meeting when the conceptual improvement plans were presented.Here is my feedback as a neighbor and resident who uses the Park frequently. There were exercise stations at Upper Hesse Park and I have used them often as my Granddaughter prompted me through each station.But over the years the equipment deteriorated and slowly,all the stations had disappeared.The sand volleyball court at Lower Hesse Park was built because someone said that there was not a sand volleyball court in RPV. This facility has hardly been used and I can attest to it,living across the street from the Park.And the net was recently replaced.Why?The exercise stations were not used much either. The proposed plan looks great and I am all for Progress and Development ATTACHMENT -116 of parks,etc.for RPV.But are we "overkilled"?Do we need a dog park for small dogs and one for large dogs in each park?Can we fit about 50 cars in the proposed parking area?Exercise stations???The trails are great and I see many people using them mornings and early evenings. These trails should be retained and enhanced.What about Maintenance? There are,however,negatives to the proposal simply because a few irresponsible citizen do not abide by rules and regulations and makes things uncomfortable for the majority ofthe neighbors and residents. Namely,dogs not on leash and dog owners not picking up after their animals.People eating &drinking and then leave their trash littering the streets and grounds.There are trash barrels in the park! I will have to assumed that a feasibility and practicality study has been made so that the finished park plan is "money well spent"and the residents and citizen can enjoy the parks and its amenities.I submit this feedback as my own personal opinion to go along with the submittal from the Pacific View Homeowners Association as well as those submitted individually by our members. Respectfully submitted,George Wong Windows Live Hotmail gives you a free,exclusive gift.Click here to download. ATTACHMENT -117 -----Original Message----- From:eahaig@netzero.net [mailto:eahaig@netzero.net] Sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 10:47 AM To:CC@rpv.comi cc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park We are opposed to the proposed changes to Lower Hesse Park. We don't understand the pressing need for a dog park.The pleasure of dogs seems to take a priority over PEOPLE who live in your city,pay good money for houses,and pay local taxes. The dog park would only bring increased traffic to the neighborhood.It would only increase noise levels for the neighborhood.It seems the desire of dog owners,both within RPV and outside RPV,take priority over the people who live near the park,pay property taxes,and enjoy the open space of the park.This is a concept that is hard for me to comprehend,that the wants of dog owners would take priority over the residents of the area,who have decided to make RPV their home.Residents who seek the peace and serenity of an area.Now that is being threatened.The 455 signatures of people who do not live in RPV should be disregarded, they should focus on their own City rather than trying to change ours.They want City land for their dogs and then complain that you are not giving them enough.You have been elected to represent the residents of RPV,not dog owners outside the City. Why must this be in a crowded residential neighborhood,while Upper Pt. Vincente has ample room and remains unused.Or why not place a dog park by the new Annenburg animal center.Or the land fill area.Tempering the proposed development with increased Sheriff patrols and Park Rangers, just points out how the development would adversely affect the neighborhood. Further,what type of study was done showing the demand for the recreational facilities?The softball league says they need diamonds,but has not raised any money for the supposed pressing need.Also,what is the demand for tennis courts and basketball courts.Are they being fully utilized at other locations and our local schools?Where is the evidence that these facilities will be used? I don't understand the Council's desire to build facilities that would adversely affect people in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.You have never meet a building or development that you did not like.Witness the Annenburg Facility or glorified animal shelter that you have approved at Lower Vicente.Instead of leaving something as natural open space,you decide that another building is needed. The trails and current natural habitat of Lower Hesse Park is a beautiful setting and it would be tragic if it was paved over for parking lots,basketball courts,tennis courts and dog parks. Thank you, Brian Haig ATTACHMENT -118 Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program -Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/c?cp=mlZupRoR19IOj-ZdXd_WNgAAJlE I -Fq134yzDXWQ_OYZUhPhAAYAAAAAAA:AA:AAAANAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUgAAAAA= ATTACHMENT -119 From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcolVette.com] Sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 1:57 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants I think that there is mention of this in the Pacific View HOA written comments,but watching the power points at the Council meeting raised the issue in my mind again.I would have said something,but I'm only too painfully aware of how fast the 3 minutes goes by. In the area of the existing parking area off of Locklenna, there are several quite large and mature native plants,which must have been planted at the time of the existing park development.There are also several mature Sycamore trees,which are native and appropriate to this location.I note that there is already a small "picnic node"adjacent to the parking area,which is nicely shaded by these plants and trees.It would appear from the power point slide that the expanded parking lot contemplated would cause the removal of these native shrubs and trees At the lower end of the watercourse through the park,adjacent to Locklenna,there are at least 3 mature California Walnut trees,which are also appropriate for our area.It would appear from the power point slide that the bridge across the watercourse,just above Loclenna,would be in the same place currently occupied by the walnut trees. It would truly be a shame,and a great mistake in my humble opinion,to lose these mature and valuable native plants.I devoutly hope that they can stay in place and be a part of the theme of any expanded park facilities,as well as a symbol of the often demonstrated wisdom and sensitivity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the role of the native plant population in its heritage. I am confident that sensitive designers will be able to find ways to preselVe these valuable plants and work the parking,trail and bridge facilities in around them,thus preselVing these outstanding existing landscape assets.I am reminded of photos which we all have seen of beautiful gardens, and in some case actual homes,which have built around mature existing trees.Not only are the trees preselVed,but brilliant and inspirational design is very often the result.I am confident that you all can achieve similar brilliant results in this case. ATTACHMENT -120 From:Leslie Chapin [mailto:les.alice@cox.net] Sent:Saturday,November 14,20095:59 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Dear City Council and City of Rancho Palos Verdes Staff, Attached fmd initial comments to the conceptual plans to upgrade Lower Hesse Park from the Pacific View Homeowners Association. Pacific View Homeowners Association Les Chapin,President 6710 Verde Ridge Road 310-377-1139 les.alice@cox.net ATTACHMENT -121 9 November 2009 To:The City of Rancho Palos Verdes From:Pacific View Homeowners Association (PVHA) Enclosure:An eight Page Document Identified as Attachment A,not included in this Email,have been provided to RPV staff.This attachment includes a one page Lower Hesse Park history,copies of a four page FRED HESSE TRAILS proposed design done by Landscape Architects Land Images,Marina Del Rey,Ca.Included also are three pages of thought to be relevant correspondence in the 1995 to 1997 time frame. A conceptual design review for Lower Hesse Park was held on 5 November 2009.The city of Rancho Palos Verdes Staff presented this conceptual design to past and present board members of the Pacific View Homeowners Association.The following comments to the conceptual design have been generated by the PVHA board members and presented in non prioritized order: 1.Attachment A is provided as informational and is a part of the PVHA's submittal. 2.The park needs to be totally fenced on the Locklenna Lane street side to assure that visitors do not park on Locklenna Lane and then walk into the park. 3.Adequate parking needs to be provided to prevent spill over of park visitors on to Locklenna Lane and into the Sea Spray,Driftwood,Wind port and Baycrest cul-de-sacs.The existing steps at the bottom of the park are a park entry that promotes parking on lower Locklenna Lane with potential spillover onto Faircove Drive and Verde Ridge Road.It is deemed necessary that the final design assures that park visitors park within the confines of the park and not overflow on to PVHA area streets. 4.Newly established parking areas need to be designed with extreme care.The area around the existing parking lot,picnic tables and volleyball court includes some very beautiful,mature,rare native shrubs. They were planted during and as part of the original park development and clearly show what can be done with this type of plant.There are some very lovely mature sycamore trees.The responsible course would be to design the parking area around these valuable landscaping assets.This would have the added benefit of making the parking lot less obtrusive. 5.Picnic areas should contain low level shade trees typical to the picnic areas in upper Hesse Park.Many of the trees in the upper park are not low level.The native sycamore trees in upper Hesse Park are quite tall.Perfectly adequate shade has been created around the small picnic area adjacent to the existing ATTACHMENT -122 parking lot in the upper park using native shrubs and trees.Substantial shade can be created through the use of natives such as Coyote Bush,Toyon and others. 6.The proposed picnic and lawn areas should be researched to incorporate alternatives to grass.Grass requires sprinkling systems,relatively abundant water and continued maintenance.Decomposed granite,even wood chips could be an alternative if the expanse were broken up with attractive landscaping features. 7.The areas of Lower Hesse Park not specifically in the redesign areas should not be left in their present state of a cycle of weeds in the spring,followed by bare ground after the weeds are mowed.The total lower park should be attractively landscaped.These plantings should be done with drought resistant, Palos Verdes appropriate,California native plants.The city of RPV would be considered a leader in the area of minimizing water consumption for landscaped areas.Stunningly beautiful landscapes can be created by designers versed in the use of native plants.It is suggested that the city reach out to Anthony Baker and Rick Dykzeul,both of whom are RPV residents,and recognized as experts in native plant landscaping.Interpretive signage should be provided to identify these native plants. 8.A quantified activity and traffic study needs to be done to identify the predicted increase in activity and traffic in the Lower Hesse Park area.The traffic study needs to address specifically the egress from Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road on to Hawthorne Boulevard. 9.Rest room facilities should be provided to accommodate the planned increased activity as well as drinking fountains near active areas (Basket Ball courts,Volleyball courts,etc).Also needed to be provided are trash and recycle containers and dispensers with biodegradable poop bags for dog walkers. Signs at each trail entrance need to be included to remind visitors to keep dogs on leashes at all times and to pick up their animals generated excrement. 10.A physical boundary area including a visual privacy boundary is recommended between the park and the Verde Ridge homes on the north side of the park.The visual boundary is required especially for those homes with elevations at the park level.Park visitors are currently able to peer into Verde Ridge homes.This requirement is not as critical for those homes whose elevations are above the park level. 11.The doggie park is not recommended and is the most contentious aspect of the plan presented to the PVHA board members.A quote from a PVHA board member "I am opposed to a dog park located anywhere in Hesse Park"and another quote from another board member "I am very much against the dog park.People will come from all over South Bay to use it",and one more direct quote "The doggie park has a really high potential to create a noise,traffic,parking and visual nuisance in our ATTACHMENT -123 neighborhood".It is suggested that the proposed Annenberg Project at Lower Vicente,specifically designed for the protection and care of domestic animals,is a better location than Lower Hesse Park for a domestic animal doggie park.That proposed facility will have ample parking availability and is not in a densely populated residential area. 12.The tennis courts should be relocated to east of the planned expanded parking area in the below grade area north of Locklenna Lane to prevent the blocking of views from local homes and to park visitors. 13.The existing trails should be bordered with railroad ties or equivalent to prevent the trails from eroding. This would also remind park visitors to stay on the trails. 14.The plan to allow access into the green belt area needs to be reviewed.This area is not currently accessible and is certainly not a safe playing area for youngsters. 15.The non native plants in the lower park should be removed. 16.The decaying north side wrought iron fence should be reviewed and the fence repaired or replaced as deemed necessary. 17.All tree plantings including future potential growth should be sensitive to neighborhood views. 18.The gophers in Upper and especially Lower Hesse Park need to be controlled.Gophers are present throughout the park and continue to tunnel their way into the yards and gardens of the homes on the south side of Verde Ridge Road. The Pacific View Homeowners Association thanks the city of Rancho Palos Verdes for the opportunity to comment on this proposed project.Thank you for the courtesy of meeting with us to discuss your preliminary design.Working together we can create a completed project which will provide enhanced recreational opportunities for the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes and will improve the beauty and quality of life within our neighborhood. The Pacific View Homeowners Association Les Chapin,President,les.alice@cox.net/310-377-1139.Any city of RPV Staff or Council Member who would like to view the park in the daylight hours from the Verde Ridge north side of the park you are invited to call me to be sure we are home and you are certainly welcome to come by and view the park from that perspective. ATTACHMENT -124 -----Original Message----- From:eahaig@netzero.net [mailto:eahaig@netzero.net] Sent:Sunday,November 15,2009 3:29 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park We are opposed to the proposed changes to Lower Hesse Park. The dog park would only bring increased traffic to the neighborhood.How would parking be handled?It seems the desire of dog owners,both within RPV and outside RPV,take priority over the people who live near the park and pay property taxes.Why must this be in a crowded residential neighborhood,while Upper Pt.Vincente has ample room and remains unused. Or why not place a dog park by the new Annenburg animal center.Tempering the proposed development with increased Sheriff patrols and Park Rangers, just points out how the development would adversely affect the neighborhood. Further,what type of study was done showing the demand for the recreational facilities?The softball league says they need diamonds,but has not raised any money for the supposed pressing need.Also,what is the demand for tennis courts and basketball courts.Are they being fully utilized at other locations and our local schools? I don't understand the Council's desire to build facilities that would adversely affect people in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.The trails and current natural habitat is a beautiful setting and it would be tragic if it was paved over for parking lots,basketball courts,tennis courts and dog parks. Thank you, Brian Haig Interior Design Degrees Free Info on Online Interior Design Programs from the Art Institutes http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/c?cp=04PFaWAs9hYsiI4CvqPoUAAAJ1E wOSfwRspXSCf_hm3fBlI8AAQAAAAFAAAAAJhuUj4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUROQAAAAA= ATTACHMENT -125 From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,November 13,2009 3:40 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:Carla Morreale Subject:Lower Hesse Park Development (November 17 Agenda Item #12) Mayor Clark and City Council Members, Please include these comments in your consideration of any Conceptual Design and/or approval for Lower Hesse Park development. I am concerned about one recommendation in your Staff Report,page 12-5,which proposes: "Improved Accessibility/Utility •Expanding and improving the existing parking lot to accommodate approximately 50 cars." Currently there is a small dirt parking lot accommodating 5-10 cars.Increasing this by 5x to 10x is a significant change. The parking entrance/exit at Lower Hesse Park is from Locklenna Lane around a downhill blind curve,which is very dangerous.The safety issues raised by having 40 or 50 cars enter and exit from a blind street (Locklenna Lane)is serious.The curve is convex which makes downhill traffic (often accelerating)difficult if not impossible to see any emerging traffic before it's too late. Locklenna Lane has been a safety concern of our Pacific View Homeowners Association and nearby residents for many years. The next time you drive to Hesse Park for a council meeting,take an extra two minutes.Drive down Locklenna Lane from Hawthorne Blvd,see how difficult it is to maintain a safe speed,and then see if you notice the Lower Hesse Park entrance before you actually get to it.Would you be able to stop if an adult or child or car stepped off the curb there?Or a car was partially stopped going into the parking lot? I think once you drive around Hesse Park,you'll understand my concern for the safety of our neighborhood at that blind curve. Let's rethink any significant increase in parking or traffic there. John Freeman Rancho Palos Verdes ATTACHMENT -126 From:Donald Wiedlin [mailto:dwiedlin@verizon.net] Sent:Friday,November 13,2009 2:31 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park We have been homeowners on Locklenna Lane since 1979,so we were here during the original construction of Hesse Park.We have the same two requests now that we had then regarding lower Hesse Park.Keep the activities passive (no team sports)and no trees that will block homeowners views (low growing shrubs are fine). ....Concerned Locklenna Homeowners ATTACHMENT -127 From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Monday,December 21,20093:24 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:nicolej@rpv.com;saras@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com;Carla Morreale;Carolyn Lehr Subject:Hesse Park safety issues Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council members: BEFORE you approve changing Lower Hesse Park from a passive park to an active park,you must address and solve the increased traffic and decreased safety at the adjacent streets - Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge at Hawthorne Blvd. Jon Davis,one of our Pacific View HOA board members,was just recently seriously injured at the Verde Ridge I Hawthorne Blvd.intersection.No one should be subject to a known traffic hazard,documented many times in this area.I personally have noticed an increase in traffic accessing Hawthorne Blvd from Locklenna Lane.I am assuming part of it is due to the increased use of Terranea Resort with deliveries,employees,and guests.Terranea is a beautiful resort and I am supportive of it,but as a City we must mitigate the effects of all this increased traffic. What will happen when many RPV,PVE,RHE residents travel down Hawthorne Blvd.to Trader Joes instead of going to Torrance or Redondo Beach?Will Hesse Park be safer or more dangerous?You know the answer. Our top priority must be to keep our city safe,for our residents,and our children. Solve this first,then consider lower Hesse Park expansion.Please. Please place a copy of this letter in the Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project file. John Freeman Rancho Palos Verdes ATTACHMENT -128 Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Attachments: NOEL PARK [noel@jdcorvette.com] Wednesday,May 19,20109:20 AM 'Katie Howe' 'Dorothy Weeks' FW:Hesse Park:dog park poster Follow up Red Redondo Beach Dog Park rules.pdf;ATT00004.txt Redondo Beach ATTO0004.txt (99 Dog Park rules.p...B) Enclosed is a copy of the poster which Dorothy Weeks displayed at the meeting at Hesse Park Saturday.As she said,it is simply a printout of the Redondo Beach dog park rules.I asked that this be made part of the public record,but I thought that I would send it along in this format just in case it was overlooked. This clearly illustrates a lot of the concerns of the local neighbors,and I don't believe that it requires any editorial comment at all.It clearly speaks for itself.Please share it with the MLA folks. The downside for the City must be abundantly clear as well. -----Original Message----- From:Dorothy Weeks [mailto:weeksldj@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 14,2010 5:01 PM Subject:Hesse Park:dog park poster Want you all to know I just created a poster that shows the detailed rules (and more)of the Redondo Beach Dog Park so people can see on Saturday morning what's involved in having one here at our park(s).It would be great if someone had an easel to put it up on in the Hesse Park building for the meeting tomorrow at 9AM.Please let me know if someone does and can bring it,or if I can pick it up.Or ...if there's a good place to thumbtack it up in the meeting room. The file below shows the wording of all the rules and I've made a title for the poster to go above the four pages. Thanks in advance for any help and suggestions.Hope I'm not duplicating anyone else's work. Dorothy Weeks 1 ATTACHMENT -129 Redondo Beach Dog Park Rules http://www.rbdogpark.com/ The following rules are part of Redondo Beach City ordinance #2704 and may carry penalties of $50.00 or more.They are for your safety and the safety of the dogs.Please abide by all posted rules. •Park is open from dawn till dusk.Sound travels in the early hours.Be considerate of sleeping neighbors. •Dogs outside of the dog park and not within the fenced area must be on a leash at all times.This includes in the parking lot as well as traveling to and from your car.Dogs are not allowed in any Redondo Beach city park,on or off leash. •Owners are legally required to pick-up and dispose of their dog's feces both in and out of the Dog Park. •Children under 12 must be closely supervised at all times by an adult. (It is urged that young children not be brought to the Dog Park for their own health &safety.They must be close enough to hold your hand at all timesl) •No strollers,carriages,bicycles,children's toys,food or treats allowed in the Dog Parkl •Owners are solely liable for injuries or damage caused by their dogs. •Aggressive dogs must be removed from the Park immediately and without debate. •Female dogs in heat are not permitted in the Dog Park. •All dogs must be currently licensed (with tags and collar on)and vaccinated. •No smoking,alcoholic beverages,or food allowed in the Dog Park. •No business may be conducted in the Dog Park. ATTACHMENT -130 How To Enter the Park Do not open outside gate if the inside gate is open.Be patient. •Remove your dog's leash inside the double gated holding pen.Enter the Park,close the gate and move your dog away from the entrance. •Do not leave a leash on your dog in the Park.This may put your dog at a disadvantage and may actually cause an altercation. •If your dog must be muzzled,perhaps it shouldn't be in the Dog Park. Prevent a Dog Eight Before It Happens Learn the 4P Warning Signs: •Posture:A dog's body language can communicate fear,hostility or submission.Learn to read and respond to your own dog's body language,and others. •Packing:More than 2 or 3 dogs packed together can lead to trouble. Break it up before it starts by leading your dog to a neutral area at least 30 feet away. •Possession:Whether it's you,a ball,or a treat,most dogs will protect what is theirs.Remain aware. •Provoking:If your dog is continuously annoying another dog or dogs,or provoking attention,it's time to leave the park. What You Can Do To Prevent a Eight •Pay attention to your dog and be aware of where he is at and what he is doing at all times. •Stay close enough to control or protect your dog in the face of a potential fight. •Keep a collar on your dog at all times so you have something to grab, if needed. •Leave the Park.Some days it's just a bad mix.Go for a walk or come back later.You and your dog will be better off. What You Can Do If a Eight Occurs •Never reach your hands into the middle of a dog fight.You may get bit,and often by your own dog. •Distract the dogs and divert their attention.A blast of water from a water bottle,a loud whistle,or a pocket air horn may work. •If your dog is not in the fight,make sure he does not join in. •If a fight occurs,control your dog and remove him to a neutral area. ATTACHMENT -131 •Maintain a cool head.Getting upset and yelling will only add to the frenzy. •When warranted,exchange contact information with the other dog owners.If you can't because you must attend to your dog,designate someone else to get information • What To Do If You or Your Dog Are Injured in a Dog Fight An injured dog may bite anyone near by. A dog fight can be violent and is upsetting to everyone present. •Attitude:Even the calmest,most pleasant,well-adjusted person may become upset,angry or belligerent,if they or their dog is injured in a fight.Emotional behavior is automatic;try to remain calm and as objective as possible. •Legal Responsibility:Owners are solely liable for injuries or damage caused by their dogs.This includes injury to another dog or person, no matter how it began,who said what,or whatever. •Exchange Information:All involved parties should provide pertinent information including name,address,phone numbers and vaccination records to each other. •Report the Incident:Minor scuffles occur frequently.In the case of a serious fight or injury or a dog that clearly exhibits aggressive or dangerous behavior,call animal control or the Redondo Beach police department to report the incident.Also,report the event to The Friends of the RBDP so a record can be kept.You must have information on the offending person,even if it is only a license plate number. •Your Dog Is Your Personal Property.You Are Legally Responsible For Damage or Injury Caused By Your Dog! Remain In Control and In Sight of your Dog at All Times •Pay attention!Owners must clean up after their dogs.There are plastic bags in dispensers along the fences and in the green wooden boxes in each Park.Shovels can be found on the fence.Please return them after use. •All dogs must have current licenses and vaccinations.While city regulations require only rabies immunization,it is strongly advised that your dog be vaccinated for Bordatella (kennel cough),DHLPP, and Corona. e Your dog must be on-leash at all time outside the park.This means walking to and from the Park and the parking lot. ATTACHMENT -132 •Carry your dog's leash with you in the Dog Park.A leash is a sure way of gaining control over your dog if needed,and may act as an impromptu muzzle in an emergency. •Puppies under five months of age are at risk of infection even when vaccinated.Younger dog's immune systems are not fully mature. •Your dog must have a collar with proper ID and rabies tags when in the Dog Park. Correct Owner Behavior •Do not bring food or dog treats into the Dog Park.Many owners do not feed treats.Some dogs may be allergic. •Do not leave water bowls at the Dog Park.Community water bowls not allowed to dry out are a breeding ground for many viruses and bacteria. •Do not plug the sink.If your dog will not drink from running water, bring your own bowl or cup. •It is recommended that you not bring dog toys or balls to the Dog Park.Toys may provoke possessive or aggressive conduct. •The small dog park is for small dogs (30 pounds)and puppies only.If you have an older or timid dog,you may only use small dog park if patrons agree. •Basic obedience training is a must for safety.You must be in control of your dog at all times. The Dog Park Is Not a Place For Your Child! The Dangers: •This is a dog park.Not all dogs are child-friendly!Never allow your child to approach or pet a strange dog without the owner's presence and approval. •Herding dogs may nip at children while attempting to round them up. • A running,squealing or screaming child may become a target for many dogs (because the child resembles an injured animal or prey). •Direct eye contact is confrontational to dogs.An interested child staring into a dog's face may provoke a dog unintentionally. •Never let your child have toys or food in the Dog Park.A friendly dog might knock down your child to get at a bright ball or cookie. •One adult to supervise several children or and infant and the family dog is not sufficient to ensure everyone's safety and control.Be sure you can take care of everyone you bring to the park. •All dogs have the potential to bite. ATTACHMENT -133 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:NOEL PARK [noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Monday,July 19,201012:12 PM To:Ichase@lovelljr.com;cc@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com Subject:RE:RPV Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park outreach survey Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Excellent! --,,-----,,----, From:L Chase jr [mailto:lchase@lovelljr.com] sent:Monday,July 19,2010 11:32 AM To:cc@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com Subject:RPV Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park outreach survey Dear Mayor Wolowicz,City Council members and Staff The results from the RPV Recreation and Parks "outreach survey"were released July 12,2010. It looks like RPV Recreation and Parks Department took an outreach 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.comlrpvlrecreationparks/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 25+years ago. The RPV Recreation and Parks department should conduct outreach surveys fairly to ensure the overall integrity and validity of the results,and to ensure that they present both sides of the results,not just one side. I FEEL LIKE THE MAN STANDING IN FRONT OF THE TANKS IN TIANANMEN SQUARE,CHINA, 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -134 )TEST OF 1989 !!!CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF ARE NOT LISTENING TO THE MAJORITY!! ! Lovell C.Chase,Jr. 6955 Kings Harbor Dr. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310.541.6792 Ichase@lovelljr.com 11110/2010 Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT -135 From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Tuesday,May 25,2010 8:37 AM To:'Tom Long' Cc:clehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary As I have said a number of times before,your willingness to read and answer your em ails is one of the more refreshing things about living in RPV.Thank you. Clearly,there is a higher and better use for lower Hesse Park than its current state.The hope of our HOA,from the beginning,has been that we can achieve a balance of a reasonable level of "active"uses with appropriate landscaping of the rest of the property,which we see as having the potential to be a great plus for out neighborhood.At the Council meeting where the contract with the design consultants was approved,I was very encouraged when Mr.Odom said that one of the major considerations for the project would be "neighborhood compatibility".In short,that is our goal and commitment.I have great confidence in the ability of Mia Lehrer &Associate to achieve that goal.We will make every effort we can to work through this process to that end. From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Saturday,May 22,2010 2:23 PM To:NOEL PARK Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com Subject:Re:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary I think that the position of our HOA is best summarized by the comments submitted to Recreation and Parks by former President Les Chapin after our meeting with City staff and Council members last November.In fact,he submitted another copy of it at Saturday's meeting.I am just reporting to you that Mr.Freeman's summary is a fair characterization of what went on at the meeting.I think that you need to be aware of it. I think that my brief remarks at the recent Community Leadership breakfast were a fair summary of Mr. Chapin's written comments.Council has made it very clear that it is determined to go ahead with some form of "active"uses at lower Hesse Park.Whether that is our first choice or not,I believe that our duty as a HOA is to work within whatever "process"is available to us to achieve the best possible result for our neighborhood.As I have said so many times,we are striving for a "win -win"result. On the other hand,if there is supposed to be a "widely publicized"and "transparent"process,which is then ignored because "only a few dozen local homeowners"show up,what's the point?Where are all of the "active recreation"supporters?It begs the question as to whether they have some back channel for communicating with the Council so that they don't have to waste their Saturday mornings interacting with the irritating local homeowners. From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 3:58 PM To:noel park Cc:'John Freeman';c1ehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com Subject:Re:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary 6715 EI Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 ATTACHMENT -136 (310)377-4035 home (562)201-2128 cell I attended the meeting as well,and John's summary reflects exactly what I heard.Well done John. Thank you very much. From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:24 PM To:Noel Park Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Noel,FYI,see email which I sent to City Council,etc. John Freeman From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:23 PM To:'cc@rpv.com' Cc:Carolynn Petru (carolynn@rpv.com);Tom Odom (parks@rpv.com);Michelle Sullivan (michelles@mlagreen.com) Subject:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Dear Mayor Wolowicz and council members: Last Saturday,May 15th ,was the first community meeting regarding community feedback about Grandview and Lower Hesse Park improvements.I was disappointed that a council member was not assigned to hear directly from residents at this early conceptual feedback forum.I urge you to appoint one or two council members to attend each of the subsequent meetings. FYI,this is my personal summary of the first meeting.As a resident living within one block of Lower Hesse Park and member of the Pacific View Homeowners Association,I and others are very concerned about any increased intensity of development in this area. Mia Lehrer and Associates moderated and solicited feedback and suggestions from the 30-40 residents that attended.Regarding Lower Hesse Park,see attached preliminary drawing that had been previously circulated. Note in the drawing are new Tennis Courts,a Basketball Court,Dog Park,Picnic areas,Par Course,Bathrooms,expanded Parking,etc.I'm not sure who designed that,but that's not even close to what I heard at the meeting. I don't recall any resident wanting Tennis Courts,Basketball Courts,or larger Volleyball courts. Or storage facilities or bathrooms.No one favored larger parking lots.In fact,I spoke and distributed pictures showing the safety danger of the parking lot entrance on the blind curve that currently exists on Locklenna Lane toward the Volleyball court.The volleyball court is seldom used;why do we need more development that the community doesn't want and or need? The comments I heard from residents were an emphatic emphasis on improving the quiet passive nature of the parks.suggestions for native habitat planting.landscaping and possible trail improvements. ATTACHMENT -137 Please assign one or two council members to attend the next community meeting so you can hear this for yourself. Upper Hesse Park and Lower Hesse Park were designed 20+years ago,and Lower Hesse Park was designed and designated as a passive park. Let's keep Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park that way. John Freeman Lower Hesse Park nearby resident Rancho Palos Verdes ATTACHMENT -138 From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Wednesday,May 26,20104:11 PM To:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design Traffic Issues A number of comments were made at the recent design meeting regarding traffic concerns.I am sure that you are well aware of it but,for the record,here are a number of em ails regarding same.Several Pacific View HOA members did attend,and testify at,a Traffic Safety Commission meeting,in January if memory serves.The TSC ordered a study to be made of these issues, most particularly the high risk of accidents at the intersections of Verde Ridge Road and Locklenna Lane with Hawthorne Blvd.Ms.Nicole Jules of City staff,whose email appears below, is directing that study.She mentions that the stUdy will be coordinated with the Lower Hesse Park design effort.Knowing her,I have no doubt that it will be so.Even so,I just want to make sure that all concerned are aware of this ongoing study. From:Nicole Jules [mailto:nicolej@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,December 22,20099:54 AM To:noel@jdcorvette.com;'John Freeman';bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com;vjreaI1@cox.net; ddeepark@cox.net;genej 180@aol.com;jdm4pv@yahoo.com;Ichase@lovelljr.com; 1I0conte@cox.net;gggswartz@yahoo.com Cc:'Dennis McLean';'Ray Holland';'Carolyn Lehr';'Ara M';'Katie Howe';tomo@rpv.com;'Sara Singer';campbellsoup44@verizon.net;les.alice@cox.net;jadavis@alum.mit.edu; Traffic@rpv.com;'Carolynn Petru' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design Mr.Park, It was a pleasure talking to you this morning and I completely understand the passion behind the collision involving Mr.Davis.As mentioned in our phone conversation,the traffic safety issues related to access to and around Hesse Park will be evaluated independently of the Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design project but coordinated accordingly.Safety is our number one priority and the City is committed to improving safety in and around all neighborhoods. To outline the necessary steps to achieve resolution,I've summarized the process in which the City undertakes when considering traffic calming improvements: A traffic engineering study will need to be conducted to evaluate the current condition.Staff will work with the Lomita Sheriffs Department to collect collision history which aids in the decision- making process.Staff will then prepare a staff report to the Traffic Safety Commission for discussion and deliberation and ultimately a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration.City Council will make the final decision on any improvement that will be implemented. This item will be scheduled for a Traffic Safety Commission meeting in the near future and I encourage your neighborhood to attend.This will be your community's opportunity to provide public testimony of your experiences.This testimony is critical to the decisions that will be made. Again,thank you for contacting the City regarding your traffic-safety concern and we'll keep you informed of the progress of the traffic study. City of Rancho Palos Verdes ATTACHMENT -139 From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Friday,May 21,20103:25 PM To:cc@rpv.com;'Carolyn Lehr';carolynn@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com;'Michelle Sullivan' Cc:'John Freeman' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary 6715 EI Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 (310)377-4035 home (562)201-2128 cell I attended the meeting as well,and John's summary reflects exactly what I heard.Well done John. Thank you very much. From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:24 PM To:Noel Park Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Noel,FYI,see email which I sent to City Council,etc. John Freeman From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:23 PM To:'cc@rpv.com' Cc:carolynn Petru (carolynn@rpv.com);Tom Odom (parks@rpv.com);Michelle Sullivan (michelles@mlagreen.com) Subject:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Dear Mayor Wolowicz and council members: Last Saturday,May 15th ,was the first community meeting regarding community feedback about Grandview and Lower Hesse Park improvements.I was disappointed that a council member was not assigned to hear directly from residents at this early conceptual feedback forum.I urge you to appoint one or two council members to attend each of the subsequent meetings. FYI,this is my personal summary of the first meeting.As a resident living within one block of Lower Hesse Park and member of the Pacific View Homeowners Association,I and others are very concerned about any increased intensity of development in this area. Mia Lehrer and Associates moderated and solicited feedback and suggestions from the 30-40 residents that attended.Regarding Lower Hesse Park,see attached preliminary drawing that had been previously circulated. Note in the drawing are new Tennis Courts,a Basketball Court,Dog Park,Picnic areas,Par Course,Bathrooms,expanded Parking,etc.I'm not sure who designed that,but that's not even close to what I heard at the meeting. ATTACHMENT -140 I don't recall any resident wanting Tennis Courts,Basketball Courts,or larger Volleyball courts. Or storage facilities or bathrooms.No one favored larger parking lots.In fact,I spoke and distributed pictures showing the safety danger of the parking lot entrance on the blind curve that currently exists on Locklenna Lane toward the Volleyball court.The volleyball court is seldom used;why do we need more development that the community doesn't want and or need? The comments I heard from residents were an emphatic emphasis on improving the quiet passive nature of the parks,suggestions for native habitat planting.landscaping and possible trail improvements. Please assign one or two council members to attend the next community meeting so you can hear this for yourself. Upper Hesse Park and Lower Hesse Park were designed 20+years ago,and Lower Hesse Park was designed and designated as a passive park. Let's keep Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park that way. John Freeman Lower Hesse Park nearby resident Rancho Palos Verdes ATTACHMENT -141 ATTACHMENT -142 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Sara Singer [saras@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,2009 9:12 AM To:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Sara Singer From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 5:54 PM To:'NOEL PARK' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants You are very welcome.I will send you an email when the webpage is up and running and I also plan to notify your HOA president so that he may share this information with the entire HOA.You will be able to sign up for the Iistserv from the webpage. Best regards, Sara Singer From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 3:25 PM To:'Sara Singer' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Thanks for your courtesy.Someone also mentioned the possibility of a listserve.If you can remember to let me know when this stuff gets going,I will certainly participate. From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 2:39 PM To:'NOEL PARK' Cc:'Ara M' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Noel, Thank you for submitting these comments.I will be sure to include them in the notes to the designers.We are working on a City webpage dedicated to this topic to keep the community informed on any upcoming meetings or public input opportunities related to these park designs.Please be on the lookout for this new page,and if you have any questions in the meantime,do not hesitate to contact me directly at the number below. Thank you, Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -143 Page 2 of2 ~Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 1:57 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants I think that there is mention of this in the Pacific View HOA written comments,but watching the power points at the Council meeting raised the issue in my mind again.I would have said something,but I'm only too painfully aware of how fast the 3 minutes goes by. In the area of the existing parking area off of Locklenna,there are several quite large and mature native plants,which must have been planted at the time of the existing park development.There are also several mature Sycamore trees,which are native and appropriate to this location.I note that there is already a small "picnic node"adjacent to the parking area,which is nicely shaded by these plants and trees.It would appear from the power point slide that the expanded parking lot contemplated would cause the removal of these native shrubs and trees At the lower end of the watercourse through the park,adjacent to Locklenna, there are at least 3 mature California Walnut trees, which are also appropriate for our area.It would appear from the power point slide that the bridge across the watercourse,just above Loclenna,would be in the same place currently occupied by the walnut trees. It would truly be a shame,and a great mistake in my humble opinion,to lose these mature and valuable native plants.I devoutly hope that they can stay in place and be a part of the theme of any expanded park facilities,as well as a symbol of the often demonstrated wisdom and sensitivity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the role of the native plant population in its heritage. I am confident that sensitive designers will be able to find ways to preserve these valuable plants and work the parking,trail and bridge facilities in around them,thus preserving these outstanding existing landscape assets.I am reminded of photos which we all have seen of beautiful gardens,and in some case actual homes,which have built around mature existing trees.Not only are the trees preserved,but brilliant and inspirational design is very often the result.I am confident that you all can achieve similar brilliant results in this case. 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -144 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:NOEL PARK [noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Tuesday,May 25,2010 5:08 PM To:'Katie Howe' SUbject:Proposed Lower Hesse Park Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red A few comments come to mind following the recent meting at the site. Parking is a big concern for the residents along Locklenna and the related cul-de-sacs.They are obviously worried that visitor cars may take up all of the street parking,leaving none for them or their guests.At some point in the process,someone suggested the City's neighborhood parking permit program as a possible tool for dealing with this issue.A visit to the City's website reveals that the program is currently on hold.Even so,maybe this is a good place to reinstate it.A Grandview resident pointed out that there is a lot of street parking along Montemalaga which would not unduly bother the residents,and that this might reduce or obviate the need for a parking lot.Maybe a similar idea could work at Lower Hesse by restricting the parking on the residential side of Locklenna and the cul-de-sacs and allowing public parking on the park side.This might allow us to minimize the amount of priceless park space given over to parking.It might defuse a good bit of neighborhood opposition as well. I'm sure that MLA are well ahead of me here but,if there has to be additional parking,I really hope that it will be some permeable system,and not asphalt.The existing decomposed granite parking area seems to have held up well,although admittedly the traffic on it is pretty light.The PV Land Conservancy used some sort of a permeable system at White Point Park, so maybe their experience might be instructive. Speaking of the PVPLC,they are seriously considering selling plants from their nursery as a fund raising tool.Needless to say, they are proper,PV appropriate plants,raised from seeds actually gathered on the Peninsula.I also believe that the prices would be extremely competitive.This would seem to be a partnership made in heaven. There were many comments from the public that the existing volleyball court is hardly used.As a frequent park visitor,I would agree.One of my concerns has been the impact on the views of a fence or enclosure around any tennis court or courts.While walking around the upper level of the park the other day,I was struck by the way that the volleyball court is obscured by the mature trees in that particular area.I thought that possibly a tennis court could be located there,and that the trees might usefully break up the sight of the fence/enclosure.Some people suggested removing the volleyball court altogether.If the cost of it was donated by a private citizen,as someone suggested,I can see where that might be a bit problematic.Even if it had to be moved,it would clearly have a lot less visual impact that a fenced in tennis court. Thanks for you patience and interest.I walk at the park every evening,so I have a lot of time to be concerned about its future and well being. 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -145 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:NOEL PARK [noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Wednesday,August 11,2010 8:38 AM To:cc@rpv.com;carolynn@rpv.com; 'Katie Howe' Subject:Breeze Article On Dog Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red No doubt you saw "Dog park plan back on leash"in yesterday's Breeze.I would say that all of the concerns voiced by Supervisor Knabe would apply equally to any such facility at Lower Hesse or Grandview parks. I submit that the environmental review mentioned by the Supervisor would be equally necessary at either of these two locations. I specifically reserve my rights as a citizen under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)to require that any and all environmental studies required by CEQA are performed. I have tried my best to be civil,cooperative,and forthcoming at all times during this discussion.That said,I am bound to say that I am really offended that residents of Palos Verdes Estates are somehow able to drive land use decisions in my immediate neighborhood.The City Council of Palos Verdes Estates has flatly declared that there will not be a dog park in their City.So now these people seem to think that they have some sort of God given right to come and run their dogs in my neighborhood? don't think so! 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -146 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Joe [pvjoe@yahoo.com] Sent:Monday,October 04,201010:15 AM To:CC@rpv.com Cc:citymanager@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com;K5KT@aol.com;K5KKT@aol.com SUbject:Lower Hesse Park Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Mr Mayor and Council, My wife and I attended a recent Workshop at Hesse Park to address multiple issues related to the planning for Lower Hesse Park Development (LHPD). First,we appreciate the opportunity to become involved in such a project and offer our desires and thoughts for potential inclusion of this impressive project. We both have suffered through the severe lack of Public Tennis Courts that are reasonably available to residents of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV).There certainly needs to be more Public tennis courts in our city.We strongly urge you to incorporate Tennis Courts (preferably THREE)into the new project for LHPD. There are some reasonable issues that arose during the discussions that seem to be important to mention and warrant consideration for resolution.Of course with the fortunate place where we live,there are beautiful views (especially of the water/ocean)that must be maintained.There were concerns about the Tennis Courts fences that would impair (however much)bona fide water views.I might add that fences are highly desirable to reduce the effect of the (sometimes strong)winds as well as effective noise abatement. In discussing this aspect further,there are a couple of options that might offer acceptable solutions. One would be to locate the Tennis Courts in the more 'slope'area where the terrain could be leveled properly with the required (and potentially expensive)earth movement.This would of course place the Tennis Courts (Three preferably)where there were no bona fide views that would be affected/impacted.The usual Tennis Court fences could be installed without further problems. There is second possibility that offers an upgraded 'view'of things.This would be to use Clear GLASS fences instead of the more view-blocking fences (and possibly less attractive)most common surrounding Tennis Courts. Here are two possibilities for getting some information on Clear Glass fences.Of course,there are certainly other sources. Glass Wall:http://dobleglass.comlglasswall.html Fenceless Glass Wall.Also if the posts were painted neutral or white color,that would be even better. http://dobleglass.comlframelessglasswall.html I also recall concerns and discussions about a Dog Park.We really don't have a position on the Dog Park unless it would impact the Tennis Courts (preferably three). Respectfully Joe &Marian Locascio 29703 Whitley Collins Drive RPV,CA 90275 -4949 310 541-5495 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -147 Page 1 of4 Katie Howe From:Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 17,20104:50 PM To:'Katie Howe';'Tom Odom' Cc:terit@rpv.com Subject:FW:Lower Hess Park and Grandview Parks Community Workshops Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red From:eahaig@netzero.com [mailto:eahaig@netzero.com] sent:Monday,May 17,2010 4:35 PM To:tomlong@palosverdes.com Cc:CC@rpv.com;eahaig@netzero.net Subject:Re:Lower Hess Park and Grandview Parks Community Workshops Dear Mayor Pro Tem Long, Since you did not attend the meeting,I don't think you can actually comment on the specific concerns that were expressed by those who spoke.I don't remember hearing leave it as "field of weeds."You left the management of the meeting to the design firm you hired.While City staff sat in the back.A design firm that still seems confused as to whether they are developing a conceptual plan or design level plans.The principal of the firm said they were hired to develop a conceptual plan for the parks.Perhaps you should clarify to them that your objective,as explained in the staff report,was to hire them to do the design level plans,because the City has already developed a conceptual plan. Ifthe professionals you hired are not clear as to the City's objectives,how do you think your constituents feel. Proponents of all the facilities that are being proposed have obviously been heard from,otherwise you would not be proposing them.City staff reports said that a survey was done and that City staff meet with many organizations to get their suggestions.To say that they have not been as vocal is questionable.Why would you develop something if people were not vocal in expressing the need for them.They have been heard. I question that there is a great need for the facilities being proposed.I question the outreach that was done to get input from the people that use the park regularly and will have to live with the impacts that development will bring.The conceptual plan was developed by the City council and various organizations,then presented to the homeowners associations.It appears that it was a done deal,without input from those who use the park regularly and those who will have to live with the impacts that development will bring. It is a matter of opinion as to whether a development of questionable need,in the middle of residential areas,that paves over open space,can be seen as something "positive."I don't believe that developing land,because it is undeveloped,is "positive."Your outlook that those who enjoy what we have now are expressing negativism is the same type of emotional argument you complain about in your email.I like the natural setting of the park,walking its developed,passive trails,crossing the developed bridge,reading the inspirational rocks,enjoying the plants that bloom and the return ofthe ladybugs ever year,hardly a negative experience.I don't see that wanting to preserve this as being negative. I would rather look at what you call weeds (your term),as apposed to parking lots,dog runs,cars,un-used concrete basketball courts,and un-used tennis courts.Especially when one sits at Upper Hesse Park to enjoy the view.Like it was mentioned at Saturday's meeting "pave over paradise,to put up a parking lot." 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -148 Page 2 of4 If there is such a great need for a dog park,it should not be in a residential area,it should be placed away from residential areas,like Upper Point Vicente.I don't understand why there are no locations other than the two parks for a dog park on the entire Peninsula.The impact of the dog park would be too much for a residential area. No one is giving up on parks,I enjoy many of the City's parks.But,you have to show a need for the facilities,the ability to pay for them and maintain them,consider how it will impact neighborhoods and determine that there is no alternative location for the specific active recreation facilities that are being proposed. Sincerely, Brian Haig CC:Rancho Palos Verdes City Council ----------Original Message ---------- From:"Tom Long"<tomlong@palosverdes.com> To:"eahaig@netzero.com"<eahaig@netzero.com> Cc: Subject:Re:Lower Hess Park and Grandview Parks Community Workshops Date:Sat,15 May 2010 21:57:29 GMT Dear Brian,We had meetings earlier but these meetings have the purpose of getting some public input too.And there will be more.I realize that the majority of the 20 or so people at today's workshop want Grandview to remain a field of weeds.I suspect many are close neighbors of the park.Experience has taught me that this its the initial reaction of most neighbors--put it somewhere else--no change--etc.But Grandview was always intended to be a community park. This means improvements like parking spaces and restrooms,proper trails,playgrounds and other things designed to allow those other than nearby neighbors to have use of the park.We have done an assessment that compares our parks with those in other cities and we are below average.But,of course,if we don't need Grandview as a park we don't need it as city owned land at all really.We have plenty of open space that is real habitat--over 2 aquare miles--15%of the city land area.And Grandview is not really useful habitat.Ifwe cannot use it as a public park then we should quit wasting it and we should sell it and get some money.I don't want to do that at all and I know there are deed restrections requiring public use.But then it really isn't open to the public right now unless you live very close by. The HaAs in the Lower Hesse park area have been in touch with the city and provided constructive suggestions about that area.There has been a lot of information about all of this for some time now.While the city does not have the ability to mail or call every resident,I think we have done a good job providing notice.We have done way more than is required.I would encourage you to work with the designers and with city staff to provide constructive suggestions. You say you live near Lower Hesse Park.Is Hesse Park a bad place now?We get few complaints about it.Can't we provide some additional facilities and still have the park be a good neighbor?It is quite an underutilized park when you compare it to most parks.True--proponents of the parks may not have been there.That's all the more reason we need to reach out to them as well.But I will say that experience teaches me that those who are opposed to change are always the most vocal.Those who favor something positive get beaten down by the negativism of others and get frsutrated and walk away.I have been told that asking neighbors to put up with ANY improvements in parks is like asking them to "choose between being shot and being hung."I have been told that the smell from park restrooms will be "unbearable"and that the sound of children at play will "destroy our lives."These same people tell me it is impossible to "reason"with me because I dare to support having parks that look like parks in other cities.(I kid you 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -149 Page 3 of4 not,these are real communications I have received.)What does it say about our community that the sound of children at play is an intolerable nuisance and that the thought of having a real park nearby is like a death sentence?The city's parks are not bad neighbors.And many ofthe alternate locations you specify will eventually be developed as real parks as well--some of them with playing fields--something that draws even stiffer opposition.(I have been told that playing fields for girl's softball are unacceptable because they will bring "crime and beer driking"to the neighborhood.Again,I kid you not--I don't have enough imagination to make this crazy stuffup.)The city's parks are supervised and are closed (and parking lots chained)at sunset.The city is open to doing reasonable things to be a good neighbor.But simply giving up on having parks is not reasonable.Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message----- From:"eahaig@netzero.com" Sent 5/15/2010 2:30:25 PM To:CC@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hess Park and Grandview Parks Community Workshops Good afternoon, I attended the meeting this morning at Hesse Park Community Center and it was clear that the majority of people at the meeting did not want development at either park,which tells me that the City Council does not listen to the people that live in the neighborhood and has not addressed concerns.A.As for all the people that want dogs parks,basketball courts,tennis courts,bike trails,and par courses,not one of them spoke or more likely they were not even there.A. Which made the people at the meeting wonder what is the need for the facilities being proposed and what type of need assessment was done by RPV to determine that these facilities were needed in the middle of a residential area.A. Can you point to a study that shows that the current facilities at parks and schools are overused?A. At the onset of the meetingA.it wasA.asked the architectural firm that was hired if this was a done deal.A.They proceeded to respond,but finally the interim director of Recreation and Parks decided to address the question.A Honestly,City personnel should be the ones to direct these meetings,because it is quiet obvious that the City CouncilA.has failed in their duty to listen to the community that will be affected by the development,I feel you have failed toA.show that there is an overwhelming need to develop facilities,I feel you have failed to show that there is no other loca1A.space (such asA.Upper Point Vicente)A.in a non residential area that these facilities can be placed in.A. It should not be left to architects to listen to the concerns and opposition of constituents ofRPV,that is your job and the job of staff.A.It all points to a process where a select group of people,including current and former City Council members,wanted to build new facilities,without a broad survey,or use analysis of current facilities.A.It also raises concernsA.that the sudden effort to notify everyone is just to let them know that this is a done deal and that things are unlikely to change.A.I don't remember being asked what is needed at Lower Hesse Park that is close to my house,that I use every weekend.I saw no notices at the park that they were looking for suggestions aboutA.Lower Hesse Park.A.IA.did not receive a survey.A.A.A. There is no pressing need for the development being proposed,particularly the dog park.A.The dog park was labeled as a passive development at this mornings meeting,which is laughable.A.The dog park would be the most active, most used,and create the greatest amount of vehicle and foot traffic of any of the proposed facilities.A.It would also require the most maintenance,environmentalA.controlA.and rules and regulation of any facility at the park,and it is labeled passive.A. The Day Camp at Grandview was labeled passive also.A.Kids at a day camp,passive? Time to stop the design process that you have authorized,reveal the true needs that you claim are there,look for non- residential sites,and most of all listen to people whose quality of life you will be altering. A. Brian Haig 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -150 Penny Stock Gaining 5000% Sign up for Free to receive alerts about the next stock to jump 5000% PennyStockGains.com 11/912010 Page 4 of4 ATTACHMENT -151 Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Attachments: Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Wednesday,August 04,20104:53 PM 'Pauletta Bryson' cc@rpv.com;citymanager@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com RE:Lower Hesse Park Follow up Red RPVCCA_SR_2010_ 08_03_05_Palos_... Dear Mr.and Mrs.Bryson - Thank you for your email.While individual Council members may respond to your message, staff just wanted to let you know that the City Council took action at last night's meeting to support a regional dog park at the County Landfill site.A copy of the staff report is attached for your information. Sincerely, Carolynn Petru Deputy City Manager -----Original Message----- From:Pauletta Bryson [mailto:pcbryson@cox.net] Sent:Wednesday,August 04,2010 2:51 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park I strongly recommend that you keep Lower Hesse Park a passive park. Grooming is in order.Perhaps plant more native plants with small signs identifying them.Lower Hesse is definitely not place for further development,especially for a dog park. Why doesn't RPV join RHE and PVE in putting the dog park on the landfill off of Hawthorne Blvd. Pauletta &John Bryson 6827 Abbottswood Drive RPV 1 ATTACHMENT -152 Page 1 of1 Katie Howe NOEL PARK [noel@jdcorvette.com] Thursday,June 17,2010 12:25 PM 'Nicole Jules';'Katie Howe' FW:Verde Ridge &Locklenna Stop Signs-Another Comment On Traffic Hazards And Hesse Park Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red From: Sent: To: Subject: From:Roberta Wong [mailto:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] sent:Thursday,June 17,2010 11:52 AM To:Jon Davis Cc:Les Chapin;Gregg Swartz;Noel Park;Jim Real;Marilyn Jakubowski;Diana Park;Linda LoConte;cc@rpv.com Subject:Verde Ridge &Locklenna Stop Signs Jon, Thanks for taking the time to study the traffic flow at the intersection of Hawthorne &Verde Ridge and Hawthorne &Locklenna.You are right in that the boulevard stop sign at Verde Ridge is back on Hawthorne where as the one at Locklenna,the sign is on Locklenna. Locklenna has a "park strip"the entire length of the street and the Stop Sign was able to be installed on a metal pole in the park strip on Locklenna side. Verde Ridge does not have the "park strip"and the Stop Sign was mounted on a 4x4 post that was on the corner of the homeowner's property and near our PVHA entrance sign. After several accident at the Verde Ridge intersection and the Stop Sign with its 4x4 post being the casualty each time;the Stop Sign laid on the corner for a while.The last accident -the car junped the curb,knocked the Stop Sign,and damaged the "Used Brick"planter post on that property. Finally,the Stop Sign was strapped and mounted on the Street Sign post which is metal and on Hawthorne Blvd rather than on Verde Ridge.Your observation that cars do not stop at the limit line because the Stop Sign is set back on Hawthorne is valid. I think that Marilyn and also others before,have mentioned about the hedges on the medium divider planter boxes creating a traffic hazard if they are not pruned down low enough for drivers to see both left and right before making the left turn.This situation also applies to the Lockenna intersection. These two intersections are vital to the residents of Pacific View as well as other people driving in this area.The traffic problem is a great concern and there has to be an answer or solution and taken seriously in conjunction with the Lower Hesse Park Development.What good is an "Improved Hesse Park"if traffic is a problem, accidents happening causing injuries &property damages.More so,with a "dog park"that will bring more traffic from all around.I say:No Dog Park ...improve and enhance the trails. George Hotmail has tools for the New Busy.Search,chat and e-mail from your inbox.Learn more. 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -153 Cc: From: Sent: To: Page 1 of2 Katie Howe Nicole Jules [nicolej@rpv.com] Tuesday,December 22,2009 9:54 AM noel@jdcorvette.com;'John Freeman';bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com;vjreaI1@cox.net;ddeepark@cox.net; genej180@aol.com;jdm4pv@yahoo.com;IChase@lovelljr.com;1I0conte@cox.net;gggswartz@yahoo.com 'Dennis McLean';'Ray Holland';'Carolyn Lehr';'Ara M';'Katie Howe';tomo@rpv.com;'Sara Singer'; campbellsoup44@verizon.net;les.alice@cox.net;jadavis@alum.mit.edu;Traffic@rpv.com;'Carolynn Petru' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Mr.Park, It was a pleasure talking to you this morning and I completely understand the passion behind the collision involving Mr.Davis. As mentioned in our phone conversation,the traffic safety issues related to access to and around Hesse Park will be evaluated independently of the Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design project but coordinated accordingly.Safety is our number one priority and the City is committed to improving safety in and around all neighborhoods. To outline the necessary steps to achieve resolution,I've summarized the process in which the City undertakes when considering traffic calming improvements: A traffic engineering study will need to be conducted to evaluate the current condition.Staff will work with the Lomita Sheriff's Department to collect collision history which aids in the decision-making process.Staff will then prepare a staff report to the Traffic Safety Commission for discussion and deliberation and ultimately a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration.City Council will make the final decision on any improvement that will be implemented. This item will be scheduled for a Traffic Safety Commission meeting in the near future and I encourage your neighborhood to attend.This will be your community's opportunity to provide public testimony of your experiences.This testimony is critical to the decisions that will be made. Again,thank you for contacting the City regarding your traffic-safety concern and we'll keep you informed of the progress of the traffic study. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules,P.E. Senior Engineer Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes,eli 90275 310.544.5275 310.544.5292 fax From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Tuesday,December 22,20099:14 AM To:tomo@rpv.com;'Katie Howe' Cc:'Dennis McLean';'Ray Holland';'Carolyn Lehr';'Nicole Jules';'Ara M' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design Please see the email below.We need to be sure that someone responds to Mr.Park and Mr.Wong. Thank you, Sara Singer From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Monday,December 21,2009 9:07 PM To:'Roberta Wong';aram@rpv.com;'Sara Singer';nicolej@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com Cc:'Les Chapin';'Diana Park';'Gregg Swartz';'Jim Real';'Jon Davis';'Linda LoConte';'Marilyn Jakubowski';jrfree@cox.net 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -154 Page 2 of2 Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design Noel Park 6715 EI Rodeo Road RPV90275 (310)377-4035 home (562)201-2128 cell By now I am sure that you have all seen the enclosed email from George Wong.In a moment I will forward to you his more recent email,which will only serve to demonstrate to you how sadly prescient he was in these comments.The intersections of Verde Ridge Road and Locklenna Lane with Hawthorne Blvd.are indeed very dangerous,and anything which will add to the traffic there should be VERY carefully evaluated.Particularly problematic are left turn movements from the two streets on to Hawthorne.This issue will only be exacerbated by the addition of more such movements by drivers unfamiliar with the intersections and the hazards which they pose. From:Roberta Wong [mailto:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] sent:Monday,December 14,20099:54 PM To:aram@rpv.com;saras@rpv.com Cc:Les Chapin;Diana Park;Gregg Swartz;Jim Real;Jon Davis;Linda LoConte;Marilyn Jakubowski;Noel Park;jrfree@cox.net Subject:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design To Whom It May Concern, As we do our daily "WALK"around the block and head on down Locklenna Lane,I am thinking about the contents of the email sent by John Freeman on 11-13-09 regarding parking,traffic,and safety issues of the Lower Hesse Park plans.John Freeman's home is on Faircove and his concern is the downhill "blind curve"on Locklenna Lane. I want to support his views and comments in his email.There is indeed a "blind curve"and we have seen an accident here,where the driver lost control of his car coming downhill,unable to negotiate the curve,and crashed into the house on the corner of Locklenna &Faircove.Luckily,there were no serious injuries,the car jumped the curb,onto the driveway and into the garage,damaging the garage door and cars inside.My house is at Locklenna &Baycrest and I can imagine what the increased traffic and cars can bring with this blind curve issue. And this accident is away from the main street of Hawthorne!There have been several accidents at the corners of Hawthorne &Locklenna and Hawthorne &Verde Ridge.Our Pacific View Homeowners Association's entrance signs have been damaged twice at the Locklenna intersection and once at the Verde Ridge intersection.We need to address the issue of traffic and safety for our residents and neighbors in your plans going forward. Regards,.....George Wong Hotmail:Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.Sign up now. 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -155 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 10,2010 7:51 AM To:'abcalof@verizon.net' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Thank you for your comments regarding Grandview Park.I wanted to make sure you knew of our Iistserve.Participants who join the City's Iistserve for this specific project are emailed the latest updates so they may stay informed as the project progresses.To join,please click the following link -the Iistserve you would look for is Lower Hesse/Grandview Park,and it is under the Recreation heading: http://pvalert.com/ I also wanted to let you know of the following three community workshops,where City staff and the City's landscape architect designer will solicit community input and share design concepts and ideas: Community Workshop #1 Saturday,May 15,2010 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Fred Hesse Jr.Community Park,MUltipurpose Room Community Workshop #2 Saturday,July 17,2010 9 a.m.-11 :30 a.m.Lower Hesse Park 12:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.Grandview Park Community Workshop #3 Saturday,Sept.25,2010 9 a.m.-11 :30 a.m. Fred Hesse Jr.Community Park,Multipurpose Room Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:abcalof@verizon.net [mailto:abcalof@verizon.net] sent:Saturday,May 08,2010 7:48 AM To:cc@RPV.com;catieh@RPV.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park I am Arlene Calof and I live on Baycrest Drive.(off of Locklenna) Obviously the people who want the dog park don't live across from where it would be.I can visualize cars parked in front of my house on Sundays when my chidren and Grandchildren come to visit.All that the people from other areas and RPV will have to do is park on Baycrest or Locklenna and make a path and walk up that hill with their dog to the dog park (closer and easier than parking in the lot).Who is going to pick up the dog dirt they leave on Baycrest and Locklenna and on my tires on their way to the park?Where will my family park when they come to visit me every Sunday? 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -156 Page 2 of2 How about finding a location that is an advantage to the city to where there are no homes ie:near the Interpretive Center and the new construction going up there?It will be an advantage to have a dog park near all of the community activities related to dogs,cats,Interpretive Center etc to bring more people in there rather across from all of our homes. I would prefer keeping the park what it was originally meant to be and to use the money the City has to take much better care of what is already there. RPV ALREADY HAS A DOG PARK ON WESTERN AND WESTMONTl 111 Arlene Calof 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -157 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 17,20108:28 AM To:'Katie Howe';'Tom Odom' Cc:terit@rpv.com Subject:FW:Lower Hesse and Grandview Park proposals Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red From:M Nitz [mailto:mmnitz@yahoo.com] Sent:Monday,May 17,2010 8:21 AM To:CC@rpv.com;tom.long@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com;Douglas.Stern@rpv.com;Brian.Campbell@rpv.com; Anthony .Misetich@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse and Grandview Park proposals RPV City Council: I attended the Community Workshop at Hesse Park on Saturday,May 15,and have the following comments: I was made aware of this Workshop and of the plans to "develop"these parks only by a very small article in the Daily Breeze.I have to think that these plans for "development"are being made without proper notification ofRPV residents,in particular,those living near the parks. I was surprised find that $50,000 has been spent for plan proposals of "developments"which are not needed or wanted by the majority of residents who attended this Workshop. At the Workshop,several persons asked ifthese development plans are in fact a "done deal".We were not able to get a straight answer from Mia Lehrer,the planning representitive,on this subject.Hopefully,that is not the case. Regarding the proposal for Lower Hesse Park: I visit this park,its playground,and its lower nature walk,on a regular basis with my wife,our children,and our 5 grandchildren.The park currently represents a very nice combination of play equipment and exposure to nature.In my opinion,it is best kept as it is. The Hesse Park proposal is for,among other things,a dog park.This is not a good idea.I would never bring my grandchildren into the park if it were anywhere near a dog park.Unleashed dogs and small children do not mix. It would be only a matter of time until a small child is attacked by an unleashed dog or involved in a fight between two unleashed dogs.Also,I doubt that the nearby residents would be in favor of a dog park. Regarding the proposal for Grandview Park: The park currently is one of the few remaining undeveloped areas in RPV.In general,it is best kept as it is. There is no need for a parking area,as shown in the proposal.Many cars can be legally parked on Montemalaga for access to the park. There is a proposal for a cycle area and a dog park.This is not a good idea.Unleashed dogs love to chase (and sometimes injure)cyclists.Also,I would never bring children to an area where there are unleashed dogs.I doubt that 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -158 Page 2 of2 the nearby residents would be in favor of a dog park. Although I am an avid cyclist,I know that a "cycle area"will attract mountain bikers,downhill racers,and stunt riders;and not only RPV residents.The area could become a popular meeting ground for off-road cycle groups,with the resulting noise, litter,boom box music,etc.The cyclists would likely ride on the hiking trails as well as in the cycle area.A residential neighbothood is not suitable for a "cycle area". If the City really needs to spend money on something,we could make a few more hiking trails and compact the soil on the trails (a simple tractor job)in Grandview Park.Otherwise,I suggest that it be left as it is. Please respond and let me know if RPV is seriously considering these proposals.I hope that is not the case. Respectfully, Michael Nitz 26129 Birchfield Ave. RPV90275 310-373-2696 mmnitz@yahoo.com 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -159 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:xenia zampolli [xeniazampolli@mac.com] Sent:Thursday,May 20,20109:32 AM To:parks@rpv.com SUbject:Fwd:NO DEVELOPEMENT!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Begin forwarded message: From:xenia zampolli <xeniaz@sbcglobal.net> Date:May 20,20109:21 :57 AM PDT To:CC@rpv.com,tom.long@rpv.com,stevew@rpv.com,douglas.stern@rpv.com, brian .campbell@rpv.com,anthony.misetich@rpv.com Subject:NO DEVELOPEMENT!!! I am a resident of RPV and I don't see how the city can approve development without approval from local people who will be affected tremendously by the development of our backyards!I very much enjoy the natural unspoiled parks we have in RPV (Grandview and Lower Hesse in particular).I DO NOT WANT BULLDOZERS CHANGING THE TOPOGRAPHY,POURING CONCRETE,MAKING PARKING LOTS AND KILLING THE EXISTING NATIVE PLANTS AND HABITAT!I also do not want the view of artificial putting grounds,stairs and bathrooms from my deck! I want my voice heard and documented that I protest to any development in the already existing public park we have in Grandview and lower Hesse park. My name is Xenia Zampolli I live at 26177 Barkstone Drive RPV,CA 90275 Thank you! 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -160 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 03,2010 8:45 AM To:'hdb.2@netzero.com' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Thank you for your comments regarding Hesse Park.I wanted to make sure you knew of our Iistserve.Participants who join the City'slistserve for this specific project are emailedthe latest updates so they may stay informed as the project progresses.To join,please click the following link -the Iistserve you would look for is Lower Hesse/Grandview Park,and it is under the Recreation heading: http://pvalert.com/ I also wanted to let you know of the following three community workshops,where City staff and the City's landscape architect designer will solicit community input and share design concepts and ideas: Community Workshop #1 Saturday,May 15,2010 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Fred Hesse Jr.Community Park,Multipurpose Room Community Workshop #2 Saturday,July 17,2010 9 a.m.-11 :30 a.m.Lower Hesse Park 12:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.Grandview Park Community Workshop #3 Saturday,Sept.25,2010 9 a.m.-11 :30 a.m. Fred Hesse Jr.Community Park,Multipurpose Room Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:hdb.2@netzero.com [mailto:hdb.2@netzero.com] sent:Tuesday,April 20,2010 9:48 AM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park I urge you not to develop lower Hesse Park,the natural setting and trails are very enjoyable. I don't understand this Council's desire to develop land and increase congestion in the neighborhood. I have lived next to the park for almost ten years and I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen the volleyball court has been used.Now you want to add tennis courts,where is the great demand for tennis courts. 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -161 ."Page 2 of2 Then the dog park,you accept the signatures of people that don't even live in RPV to detennine that there should be a dog park in a residential area.All this while the land by the City Hall continues to be empty.That really makes sense, your concern for dogs over the people you represent is amazaing. Then you talk about Upper Hesse Park needing another baseball diamond.I don't think I have ever seen a little league game or softballl game played there.So where is exactly is the demand for another one. Get over this need to develop,leave Hesse Park as is. Thank you, Get Free Email with Video Mail &Video Chat! 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -162 Page 1 of3 Katie Howe From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] sent:Monday,November 01,201012:17 PM To:eahaig@netzero.net Cc:clehr@rpv.com;carolynn@rpv.com Subject:Re:RPV City Council Agenda Item-November 4,2010 Meeting-Neighborhood Parking Permits Dear Brian: How you choose to characterize things is your choice.But let me add some points for you to consider: (1)Although the council has approved the concept of developing the parks the final decisions as to what to put in each park and what not to place there has not yet been made.This specifically includes dog parks and other proposed improvements. (2)The most common question we get when we propose improvements to the park is to ask what we have in mind. Hence conceptual designs were prepared.The idea of developing conceptual designs was discussed in a public meeting and so we had input on that idea.You did not criticize that idea then as I recall.Had we gone out seeking community input with a message of "well we have no idea what we may want to do but what do you think generally about improving city parks?"I suspect we would have been told "we can't tell what we think if you can't tell us what you have in mind.It's a bit of a chick and egg dilemma. (3)The neighborhoods being asked to consider parking permits are those that request it.Ifthe majority of your neighborhood don't want the permit program I am not likely to support it.While improvements to Lower Hesse may well increase its usage I suspect the improvements will be designed to provide adequate parking. I continue to believe that city parks should be available to all of the city's residents,not just immediate neighbors of the park.I am just one vote of course,but my vote will be cast taking into account all of the residents of the city and not just those who live close to the parks and are more vocal and often oppose any meaningful improvements in the hope ofreducing use of the parks.On the other hand I do want the city to continue to be a good neighbor to all of its residents and I want to make sure that any development is done in a way that continues the city's good record of having few complaints about its parks.I am hoping all of those addressing the issue will help me and the other councilmembers to strike the right balance to allow public parkland to be used as public parkland (even if it may not be strictly a "necessity"to do so--no park is ever a necessity)while at the same time making the city a good neighbor. Tom Long -----Original Message----- From:"eahaig@netzero.net"<eahaig@netzero.net> 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -163 Page 2 of3 Sent 11/1/2010 8:49:09 AM To:terit@rpv.com Cc:carlam@rpv.com,c1ehr@rpv.com,cc@rpv.com,eahaig@netzero.com Subject:RE:RPV City Council Agenda Item-November 4,2010 Meeting-Neighborhood Parking Permits Good morning, I read the staff report regarding the Neighborhood Parking Permit program and it listed Lower Hesse Park as one of the areas that the program may be implemented in.This is because ofthe proposed development at Lower Hesse Park. Let me get this straight..... The City proposes developing Lower Hesse Park. Has community meetings to get people's input on the conceptual plans that were developed before there were any community meetings to see what the residents want in the park, The people who live near the parks question the need for the facilities and the location of a dog park in a residential neighbor, The City conducts a survey of 866 people of what they would like to see in the park.This was done after the City had already decided what should go in the park,this is a familiar theme with this proposed development.The majority of respondents want facilities that are already in Lower Hesse Park.None of the facilities being proposed by the City even get a majority of yes votes. The City presses on with its plans to develop Lower Hesse Park. Now,because a dog park can only be placed in a residential neighborhood and there is no other location on the Peninsula,there is the possibility that people may have to pay to park on their street. Is this correct?Please tell me it is not. More buildings on our coastline because money is being offered,park development of questionable need or desire, potential parking permits.I get a sense of dread when I get emails notifying me of RPV City Council Agendas. I am beginning to question whether the City Council is truly representing those who live in RPV and how development affects neighborhoods. Thank you, Brian Haig ----------Original Message ---------- From:"Teri Takaoka"<terit@rpv.com> To:<eahaig@netzero.com> Cc:"'Carla Morreale'"<carlam@rpv.com>,"'Carolyn Lehr'"<c1ehr@rpv.com> Subject:RE:RPV City Council Agenda Item-November 4,2010 Meeting-Neighborhood Parking Permits Date:Mon,1 Nov 201007:47:43 -0700 Hello- Please resend your message to be included as late correspondence.This was all we were able to view: 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -164 From:eahaig@netzero.com [mailto:eahaig@netzero.com] sent:Friday,October 29,2010 11:23 AM To:CC@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com Subject:RPV City Council Agenda Item-November 4,2010 Meeting-Neighborhood Parking Permits Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obamas Refi Program SeeRefinanceRates.com Thank you. Teri Takaoka Deputy City Clerk Refinance Now 3.4%FIXED $160,000 Mortgage:$547/mo.No Hidden Fees.No SSN Req.Get 4 Quotes! Mortgage.LendGo.com 11/9/2010 Page 3 of3 ATTACHMENT -165 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 17,20102:21 PM To:'Tom Odom' Cc:'Katie Howe';'Sara Singer' Subject:FW:Lower Hess Park and Grandview Parks Community Workshops Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red From:eahaig@netzero.com [mailto:eahaig@netzero.com] sent:Saturday,May 15,2010 2:30 PM To:CC@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hess Park and Grandview Parks Community Workshops Good afternoon, I attended the meeting this morning at Hesse Park Community Center and it was clear that the majority of people at the meeting did not want development at either park,which tells me that the City Council does not listen to the people that live in the neighborhood and has not addressed concerns.As for all the people that want dogs parks,basketball courts,tennis courts,bike trails,and par courses,not one of them spoke or more likely they were not even there. Which made the people at the meeting wonder what is the need for the facilities being proposed and what type of need assessment was done by RPV to determine that these facilities were needed in the middle of a residential area. Can you point to a study that shows that the current facilities at parks and schools are overused? At the onset of the meeting it was asked the architectural firm that was hired if this was a done deal.They proceeded to respond,but finally the interim director of Recreation and Parks decided to address the question.Honestly,City personnel should be the ones to direct these meetings,because it is quiet obvious that the City Council has failed in their duty to listen to the community that will be affected by the development,I feel you have failed to show that there is an overwhelming need to develop facilities,I feel you have failed to show that there is no other local space (such as Upper Point Vicente)in a non residential area that these facilities can be placed in.It should not be left to architects to listen to the concerns and opposition of constituents ofRPV,that is your job and the job of staff.It all points to a process where a select group of people,including current and former City Council members,wanted to build new facilities,without a broad survey,or use analysis of current facilities.It also raises concerns that the sudden effort to notify everyone is just to let them know that this is a done deal and that things are unlikely to change.I don't remember being asked what is needed at Lower Hesse Park that is close to my house,that I use every weekend.I saw no notices at the park that they were looking for suggestions about Lower Hesse Park.I did not receive a survey. There is no pressing need for the development being proposed,particularly the dog park.The dog park was labeled as a passive development at this mornings meeting,which is laughable.The dog park would be the most active,most used,and create the greatest amount of vehicle and foot traffic of any of the proposed facilities.It would also require the most maintenance,environmental control and rules and regulation of any facility at the park,and it is labeled passive. The Day Camp at Grandview was labeled passive also.Kids at a day camp,passive? Time to stop the design process that you have authorized,reveal the true needs that you claim are there,look for non- 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -166 residential sites,and most of all listen to people whose quality of life you will be altering. Brian Haig Penny Stock Gaining 5000% Sign up for Free to receive alerts about the next stock to jump 5000% PennyStockGains.com 11/9/2010 Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT -167 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe Nicole Jules [nicolej@rpv.com] Tuesday,December 22,200910:18 AM 'John Freeman' 'Katie Howe';'Sara Singer';tomo@rpv.com;'Ara M';'Carolyn Lehr';cc@rpv.com;'Ray Holland'; Traffic@rpv.com;'Carolynn Petru' Subject:RE:Hesse Park safety issues Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red From: Sent: To: Cc: Greetings Mr.Freeman, The Public Works Department is in receipt of your email and specific concerns regarding traffic safety around Hesse Park, particularly on Hawthorne Blvd near Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge Road.The traffic safety issues you raise will be evaluated independent of the Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design project but will be coordinated accordingly. To outline the necessary steps to achieve resolution,I've summarized the process in which the City undertakes when considering traffic calming improvements: A traffic engineering study will need to be conducted to evaluate the current condition.Staff will work with the Lomita Sheriff's Department to collect collision history which aids in the decision-making process.Staff will then prepare a staff report to the Traffic Safety Commission for discussion and deliberation and ultimately a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration.City Council will make the final decision on any improvement that will be implemented. I will keep you informed of the findings and thank you again for contacting the City regarding your traffic safety concerns. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules,P.E. Senior Engineer Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310.544.5275 310.544.5292 fax From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] sent:Monday,December 21,20093:24 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:nicolej@rpv.com;saras@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com;aram@rpv.com;Carla Morreale;carolyn Lehr Subject:Hesse Park safety issues Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council members: BEFORE you approve changing Lower Hesse Park from a passive park to an active park,you must address and solve the increased traffic and decreased safety at the adjacent streets -Locklenna Lane and Verde Ridge at Hawthorne Blvd. Jon Davis,one of our Pacific View HOA board members,was just recently seriously injured at the Verde Ridge I Hawthorne Blvd.intersection.No one should be subject to a known traffic hazard,documented many times in this area.I personally have noticed an increase in traffic accessing Hawthorne Blvd from Locklenna Lane.I am assuming part of it is due to the increased use of Terranea Resort with deliveries,employees,and guests.Terranea is a beautiful resort and I am supportive of it,but as a City we must mitigate the effects of all this increased traffic. What will happen when many RPV,PVE,RHE residents travel down Hawthorne Blvd.to Trader Joes instead of going to Torrance or Redondo Beach?Will Hesse Park be safer or more dangerous?You know the answer. 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -168 Our top priority must be to keep our city safe,for our residents,and our children. Solve this first,then consider lower Hesse Park expansion.Please. Please place a copy of this letter in the Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project file. John Freeman Rancho Palos Verdes 11/10/2010 Page 2 of2 ATTACHMENT -169 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 24,2010 11:26AM To:'John Freeman' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Thank you,Mr.Freeman,for submitting your suggestions and input.We encourage you to remain engaged in the conceptual plan process by monitoring the City's website for updates,joining the project listserve using the link below,and attending future community workshops.We look forward to continuing the process of gathering community input and presenting ideas to the community at the July 17 workshop.Please contact me if I can provide additional information. http://rpvalert.com/ Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] sent:Friday,May 21,20102:23 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:carolynn Petru;Tom Odom;Michelle Sullivan Subject:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Dear Mayor Wolowicz and council members: Last Saturday,May 15th ,was the first community meeting regarding community feedback about Grandview and Lower Hesse Park improvements.I was disappointed that a council member was not assigned to hear directly from residents at this early conceptual feedback forum.I urge you to appoint one or two council members to attend each of the subsequent meetings. FYI,this is my personal summary of the first meeting.As a resident living within one block of Lower Hesse Park and member of the Pacific View Homeowners Association,I and others are very concerned about any increased intensity of development in this area. Mia Lehrer and Associates moderated and solicited feedback and suggestions from the 30-40 residents that attended.Regarding Lower Hesse Park,see attached preliminary drawing that had been previously circulated. Note in the drawing are new Tennis Courts,a Basketball Court,Dog Park,Picnic areas,Par Course,Bathrooms, expanded Parking,etc.I'm not sure who designed that,but that's not even close to what I heard at the meeting. I don't recall any resident wanting Tennis Courts,Basketball Courts,or larger Volleyball courts.Or storage facilities or bathrooms.No one favored larger parking lots.In fact,I spoke and distributed pictures showing the safety danger of the parking lot entrance on the blind curve that currently exists on Locklenna Lane toward the Volleyball court.The volleyball court is seldom used;why do we need more development that the community doesn't want and or need? 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -170 Page 2 of2 The comments I heard from residents were an emphatic emphasis on improving the quiet passive nature of the parks.suggestions for native habitat planting.landscaping and possible trail improvements. Please assign one or two council members to attend the next community meeting so you can hear this for yourself. Upper Hesse Park and Lower Hesse Park were designed 20+years ago,and Lower Hesse Park was designed and designated as a passive park. Let's keep Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park that way. John Freeman Lower Hesse Park nearby resident Rancho Palos Verdes 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -171 -,. ATTACHMENT -172 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:John Freeman Drfree@cox.net] Sent:Saturday,JUly 17,2010 12:07 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:Tom Odom;parks@rpv.com;Michelle Sullivan;Carolyn Lehr Subject:RPV Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park outreach survey Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Dear Mayor Wolowicz,City Council members and Staff The results from the RPV Recreation and Parks "outreach survey"were released July 12,2010. It looks like RPV Recreation and Parks Department took an outreach 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 25+years ago. The RPV Recreation and Parks department should conduct outreach surveys fairly to ensure the overall integrity and validity of the results,and to ensure that they present both sides of the results,not just one side. John Freeman Rancho Palos Verdes,CA July 19,2010 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -173 From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,20099:07 PM To:'Roberta Wong';aram@rpv.com;'Sara Singer';nicolej@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com Cc:'Les Chapin';'Diana Park';'Gregg Swartz';'Jim Real';'Jon Davis';'Linda LoConte';'Marilyn Jakubowski';jrfree@cox.net Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design Noel Park 6715 EI Rodeo Road RPV90275 (310)377-4035 home (562)201-2128 cell By now I am sure that you have all seen the enclosed email from George Wong.In a moment I will forward to you his more recent email,which will only serve to demonstrate to you how sadly prescient he was in these comments.The intersections of Verde Ridge Road and Locklenna Lane with Hawthorne Blvd.are indeed very dangerous,and anything which will add to the traffic there should be VERY carefully evaluated.Particularly problematic are left turn movements from the two streets on to Hawthorne.This issue will only be exacerbated by the addition of more such movements by drivers unfamiliar with the intersections and the hazards which they pose. From:Roberta Wong [mailto:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] Sent:Monday,December 14,20099:54 PM To:aram@rpv.com;saras@rpv.com Cc:Les Chapin;Diana Park;Gregg Swartz;Jim Real;Jon Davis;Linda LoConte;Marilyn Jakubowski;Noel Park;jrfree@cox.net Subject:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design To Whom It May Concern, As we do our daily "WALK"around the block and head on down Locklenna Lane,I am thinking about the contents of the email sent by John Freeman on 11-13-09 regarding parking,traffic,and safety issues of the Lower Hesse Park plans.John Freeman's home is on Faircove and his concern is the downhill "blind curve"on Locklenna Lane. I want to support his views and comments in his email.There is indeed a "blind curve"and we have seen an accident here,where the driver lost control of his car coming downhill,unable to negotiate the curve,and crashed into the house on the corner of Locklenna &Faircove.Luckily,there were no serious injuries,the car jumped the curb,onto the driveway and into the garage,damaging the garage door and cars inside.My house is at Locklenna &Baycrest and I can imagine what the increased traffic and cars can bring with this blind curve issue. And this accident is away from the main street of Hawthorne!There have been several accidents at the corners of Hawthorne &Locklenna and Hawthorne &Verde Ridge.Our Pacific View Homeowners Association's entrance signs have been damaged twice at the Locklenna intersection and once at the Verde Ridge intersection.We need to address the issue of traffic and safety for our residents and neighbors in your plans going forward. ATTACHMENT -174 Regards,.....George Wong Hotmail:Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.Sign up now. ATTACHMENT -175 From:Nicole Jules [mailto:nicolej@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,2009 10:24 AM To:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com Cc:'Sara Singer';tomo@rpv.com;'Ara M' Subject:Traffic Safety on Locklenna Greetings Mr.Wong, The Public Works Department is in receipt of your email and specific concerns regarding traffic safety on Locklenna Drive.The traffic safety issue will evaluated independently of the Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design project but will be coordinated accordingly. A traffic and engineering study will need to be conducted to evaluate the current conditions.Staff will prepare a recommendation to the City's Traffic Safety Commission for discussion and deliberation and ultimately a recommendation will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. I will keep you informed of the findings and thank you again for contacting the City regarding your traffic safety concerns. City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules,P.E. senior Engineer Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthome Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310.544.5275 310.544.5292 fax From:Roberta Wong [mailto:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] Sent:Monday,December 14,20099:54 PM To:aram@rpv.com;saras@rpv.com Cc:Les Chapin;Diana Park;Gregg Swartz;Jim Real;Jon Davis;Linda LoConte;Marilyn Jakubowski;Noel Park;jrfree@cox.net Subject:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design To Whom It May Concern, As we do our daily "WALK"around the block and head on down Locklenna Lane,I am thinking about the contents of the email sent by John Freeman on 11-13-09 regarding parking,traffic,and safety issues of the Lower Hesse Park plans.John Freeman's home is on Faircove and his concern is the downhill "blind curve"on Locklenna Lane. I want to support his views and comments in his email.There is indeed a "blind curve"and we have seen an accident here,where the driver lost control of his car coming downhill,unable to negotiate the curve,and crashed into the house on the corner of Locklenna &Faircove.Luckily,there were no serious injuries,the car jumped the curb,onto the driveway and into the garage,damaging the garage door and cars inside.My house is at Locklenna &Baycrest and I can imagine what the increased traffic and cars can bring with this blind curve issue. And this accident is away from the main street of Hawthorne!There have been several accidents at the corners of Hawthorne &Locklenna and Hawthorne &Verde ATTACHMENT -176 Ridge.Our Pacific View Homeowners Association's entrance signs have been damaged twice at the Locklenna intersection and once at the Verde Ridge intersection.We need to address the issue of traffic and safety for our residents and neighbors in your plans going forward. Regards,.....George Wong ATTACHMENT -177 From:hdb.2@netzero.com [mailto:hdb.2@netzero.com] Sent:Tuesday,April 20,2010 9:48 AM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park I urge you not to develop lower Hesse Park,the natural setting and trails are very enjoyable. I don't understand this Council's desire to develop land and increase congestion in the neighborhood. I have lived next to the park for almost ten years and I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen the volleyball court has been used.Now you want to add tennis courts,where is the great demand for tennis courts. Then the dog park,you accept the signatures of people that don't even live in RPV to determine that there should be a dog park in a residential area.All this while the land by the City Hall continues to be empty.That really makes sense,your concern for dogs over the people you represent is amazaing. Then you talk about Upper Hesse Park needing another baseball diamond.I don't think I have ever seen a little league game or softba111 game played there.So where is exactly is the demand for another one. Get over this need to develop,leave Hesse Park as is. Thank you, ATTACHMENT -178 -----Original Message----- From:Steve Wolowicz [mailto:stevew@rpv.com] Sent:Monday I April 19 1 2010 7:47 AM To:'N Nastanski' Cc:'Tom Odom';'Carolyn Lehr' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Changes Mr.Nastanski l Thank you for your email message.The purpose for presentations to the public is for all members of the city to learn of such proposals and for us to hear of concerns.While I cannot foresee the final design your comments do register. Regards I Steve W. Steve Wolowicz Mayor Rancho Palos Verdes Phone 310-378-9911 email --stevew@rpv.com -----Original Message----- From:N Nastanski [mailto:nastano@yahoo.com] Sent:Sunday I April 18 1 2010 2:41 PM To:cc@rpv.com;katieh@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Changes April 18 1 2010 Subject: Sirs: Proposed Changes to Lower Hesse Park The city of Rancho Palos Verdes was founded to provide local control and prevent high density developments.The changes proposed to Lower Hesse park attempt to put too many amenities into a confined hilly area.These proposed changes create long term financial problems for maintenance and may create legal liabilities. The unattended proposed restroom facility has its own obvious problems. The proposed dog park at Hesse park will create an attractive nuisance and could result in potential legal liabilities to the city (dog bites and traffic hazard liabilities). A significant number of people from outside RPV I who are not familiar with the traffic speed on Hawthorne Boulevard I will be drawn to the dog park and will be making a left turn at Locklenna and Hawthorne boulevard.Traffic accidents are sure to happen at this intersection.Currently the berm (at the top of the Hesse park)obscures cars (which are traveling south along the curve on Hawthorne boulevard)from being seen by people waiting to make a turn from Locklenna Lane.Many of the cars going north on Hawthorne Blvd are exceeding the speed limit at this location. I recently visited dog parks in Palm Desert l Redondo Beach and Laguna Beach and had the following observations: ATTACHMENT -179 -Fenced in dirt area.Very little grass. -Very bad urine smell.Difficult/impossible to pick up urine. -All dog parks were large size. -Palm Desert dog park location is on the edge of a estimated 400 acre park near city maintenance vehicles and park trash collection area. -Redondo Beach dog park is located under high voltage wire adjacent to a large hard ball baseball field. -Laguna Beach dog park is a stand alone dog park. -None of the dog parks are located in an active park area or near housing. -Some dogs were off leash as they proceeded from the parking lot to the Redondo Beach dog park. -Estimated 20 users per hour on weekdays.Weekend use estimated at 2 to 3 times this amount. The advocates for a dog park in RPV seem to be from Palos Verdes Estates,a city that does not have any public parks.The sign on the entrance to the park indicates "Fred Hesse Community Park"not "Fred Hesse Regional Park". I request that the dog park and restroom not be included in the proposed changes to lower Hesse Park. If the city representatives decide a dog park is desirable in RPV,I would suggest that different location be considered.A possible location would be adjacent to where the city vehicles are stored on the northeastern side of RPV City Hall site. Sincerely, Norbert Nastanski Iss 29513 Baycrest Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310.541.7615 e-mail nastano@yahoo.com concurrence:Geraldine Nastanski Iss ATTACHMENT -180 From:Steve Wolowicz [mailto:stevew@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,April 19,2010 7:49 AM To:'Roberta Wong' Cc:'Tom Odom';'carolyn Lehr' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Ms.Wong, Thank you for your email message.The purpose for presentations to the public is for all members of the city to learn of such proposals and for us to hear of concerns.While I cannot foresee the final design your comments do register. Regards, Steve W. Steve Wolowicz Mayor Rancho Palos Verdes Phone 310-378-9911 email --stevew@rpv.com From:Roberta Wong [mailto:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] Sent:Saturday,April 17,2010 2:23 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:Jon Davis;Les Chapin;Gregg Swartz;Noel Park;Jim Real;Marilyn Jakubowski;Diana Park;Linda LoConte Subject:Lower Hesse Park To Whom It May Concern, My name is George Wong.I live at 29503 Baycrest Drive,directly across from lower Hesse Park.I am the original homeowner for over 42 years. I have seen the incorporation of RPV into a City. I have seen the development of upper Hesse Park. I have seen development of homes all around the park and nearby area. I have seen new schools opened and closed. I am for improvements and developments. Lower Hesse Park should be enhanced as it is with its walking trails,etc. I want a "PEOPLE PARK"and not a "DOG PARK". Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy.Get more from your inbox.See how. ATTACHMENT -181 FW:Dog Park Katie Howe From:Bruce Megowan [bmegowan@cox.net] Sent:Friday,November 27,20091 :30 PM To:clehr@rpv.com;clark@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com Subject:RE:Dog Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Page 1 of3 The South Bay Daily Breeze today had a prominent article on Page 3 about our efforts to get a dog park on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.See the article at http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci 13876315.We appreciate the efforts ofthe City of Rancho Palos Verdes in establishing a dog park on the Peninsula and our supporters are strongly in favor of the proposed dog parks at Grandview Park and Lower Hesse Park. Thank you for your efforts , Bruce Megowan 310-541-2980/cell 310-259-7125 From:Bruce Megowan [mailto:bmegowan@cox.net] sent:Thursday,September 10,2009 10:41 AM To:'c1ehr@rpv.com';'c1ark@rpv.com';'cc@rpv.com';'parks@rpv.com' Cc:'Melanie Streitfeld';'donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com' Subject:RE:Dog Park Dear Ms.Lehr, Melanie Streitfeld has forwarded me a copy of your email below regarding a dog park on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.My wife Maureen and I have been leading a petition drive to have the County of Los Angeles use a portion of the previous Palos Verdes Landfill in Rolling Hills Estates as a dog park.There is a tremendous unmet need for an off-leash dog park on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.The nearest dog park is at least a 20 minute drive away in Redondo Beach off of 190th Street,or at a temporary dog park in San Pedro which is scheduled to close in the next few years as it is on Port of Los Angeles land. I have attached a summary of the petition signatures I have received over the last several months in support of a dog park at the Palos Verdes landfill site.,and also have attached pdf files of the petitions themselves.I have collected 814 signatures on these petitions which I believe shows the overwhelming support for this proposal. Although this site has received a lot of publicity from those concerned about it's safety,Joan Davidson who has been a leader in the movement to ensure the safety of this site,has indicated to me support for a dog park on this site.This is a great land use as it will not disturb the ground cap on this site or lead to possible release of toxins.Your email below says that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes may still be considering dedicating some land within your city for use as a dog park.That would be wonderful as working with the County to use a portion of their land at the former Palos Verdes Landfill may be problematic due to their concerns for the safety of the site. I believe that funding for a dog park could be obtained whether through government grants or through a private fund raising effort.I would hope that the Annenberg Foundation might consider a contribution as this use would be enjoyed by far more animal lovers than the millions of dollars that they plan to spend on their project promoting education about animal life on the Peninsula at Point Vicente. I would appreciate any political support your city could provide by working with the other City Managers of the other cities on the Palos Verdes Peninsula to promote the construction of a dog park somewhere on the Palos Verdes Peninsula,whether it be on the County land of the former Palos Verdes Landfill or elsewhere on the Peninsula.I know that Mr.Clark had previously expressed support for the idea of a dog park on the Peninsula as he said the same thing to my husband Bruce when he spoke to the RPV City Council on this issue several months past.We appreciate his support. II would appreciate an update on the efforts you refer to in your email below to establish a dog park on the Peninsula as my husband and I would like to coordinate our efforts with yours. 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -182 FW:Dog Park Thank you, Bruce and Maureen Megowan 310-541-2980/310-259-7125 cell From:Melanie Streitfeld [mailto:Streitfeld@cox.net] sent:Wednesday,September 09,20094:00 PM To:Maureen Megowan Subject:FW:Dog Park ------Forwarded Message From:Carolyn Lehr <c1ehr@rpv.com> Date:Wed,9 Sep 2009 14:34:14 -0700 To:Melanie STREITFELD <streitfeld@cox.net> Cc:<c1ark@rpv.com> Subject:RE:Dog Park Dear Ms.Streitfeld, Page 2 of3 The City is actively considering potential dog park sites in the area.The landfill you mentioned is in Rolling Hills Estates and therefore not in our immediate control. I will tell you that this afternoon,several folks are taking a field visit to a potential site owned by the City.We are exploring the possibility of private grant funding sponsorship.Keep your fingers crossed for us. By the way,Mayor Larry Clark is a particular champion of this cause and is himself actively engaged in the effort! Thank you, COfAI"d0Jvv LeJw City Manager DCity of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Blvd. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 clehr@rpv.com <mailto:clehr@rpv.com>~(310)544-5202 This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:Melanie Streitfeld [mailto:Streitfeld@cox.net] sent:Tuesday,September 08,20099:01 PM To:citymanager@rpv.com Subject:Dog Park I was told that you are reviewing public input for the PV Landfill.We desperately need a dog park in Palos Verdes.The closest dog park is about a 30 minute drive to the one in north Redondo Beach.The landfill is perfect because a dog park would 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -183 FW:Dog Park Page 3 of3 c.• remain open space and it's super cheap to build and maintain.It would only take up a small portion of the landfill as well.I hope you will consider that option.It's embarrassing to say I live in Palos Verdes and that we don't have a dog park with all the open space up here. Melanie Streitfeld Rancho Palos Verdes ------End of Forwarded Message 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -184 26 09 12:15p Tom Light .."..·'10 ,---------- 3108317247 p2 "--:.::.\' ...~"..~:~ '..';' We~the undersigned,would like to ex;Pres&our support for the,construction 0(pn off-leash dog park on the-fbrmer site ofthe Palos Verdes ~ll~betweeo.Hawthome and Crenshaw Blv~;" just n.orth ofPatos Verdes Dr.North.,oron another suitable site on the Palos Verdes Peninsula.:,,'>,-.'.,.. ATTACHMENT -185 -- PETITION TO BUILD A DOG PARK ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA We,the undersigned,would like to express our support for the construction of an off-leash dog park on the former site ofthe Palos Verdes Landfill located between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd., just north ofPalos Verdes Dr.North..,or on another suitable site on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. //)1A;J~) NAME ADDRESS EMAIL ADDRESS ~ ATTACHMENT -186 PETITION TO BUILD A DOG PARK ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA We,the undersigned,would like to express our support for the construction of an off-leash dog park on the former site ofthe Palos Verdes Lalldfilliocated between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd., just north of Palos Verdes Dr.North.,or on another suitable site on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. EMAIL ADDRESS iSi ATTACHMENT -187 PETITION TO BUILD A DOG PARK ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA We,the undersigne~.Avould like to express our support for the construction of an off-leash dog park on the fonner site ofthe Palos Verdes Landfill located between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd., just north of Palos Verdes Dr.North.,or on another suitable site on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. ATTACHMENT -188 -------------- /)t4t17:tE /5~,-rc's-r I .2 51 '=~~ l';"/I~,.J (..•t'~1,6i.~~''JlF,p. PETITION TO BuaD A DOG PARK ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA We.the undersigned.would like to express our support for the construction of an off~leash dog park on the former site ofthe Palos Verdes Landfill located between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd.• just north of Palos Verdes Dr.North.•or on another suitable site on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. /;4$i:-#iJr~.?cl:;i~;,(1~/,./7';' EMAIL ADDRES;z;::r--~ r •-~••(;i orn :f:~ ~DI8YI ~ ) \il·COlVATTACHMENT -189 ----.,.--- Do You Want a Dog Park in P.V.? If you do then you should sign this.We are doing a project a t cornerstone and our topic is that there are no dog parks in P.V-.We called City Hall and talked to them about having dog park.They said that if we get 100 signatures from residents in P.V,then they will get one step closer to building a dog park.We considered it being near the Pv landfill over near Rolling Hills and Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevard.So,can you please sign this? 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ATTACHMENT -190 PETITION TO BUILD A DOG PARK ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA We,the undersigne~would like to express our support for the construction of an off-leash dog park on the former site of the Palos Verdes Landfill located between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd., just north of Palos Verdes Dr.North.,or on another suitable site on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. NAME ADDRESS EMAIL ADDRESS 1.Melanie Streitfeld 5330 Middlecrest Rd.RPV 90275 2.Kimber1ey Foley ~imberleyfoley@cox.net . 3.Ji11 Corcoran 3 S;I.."r'C'1 f.tAy r",f,1;,.,tt Ijill£Qrc:oran@me,.,S;,Qn! 4.Christine Smith 3307 Narino Dr.RPV 5.Scott Smith 3307 Narino Dr.RPV ~ 6-7.James and nanette Zupon~18 Gaucho Dr.~RHE. 8.Dan Wilken 1544 Via Zurita~PVE .-II-.••• ~.Llsa Hladek 4646 Rollando Drive~RHE ..~__If......- ~~.sandy Coffey 28925 Moro Bay Drive~RPV~CA~ 11.Teressa Schneider 1112 Via Nogales,PVE 12.Phil Schneider 1112 Via Nogales,PVE 373-4971 13.Donna Bazan}27915 Ridgebrook Ct.}Rancho Palos Verdes}CA 90275 14.Dana Chelf 59 Crest Road East,RH .t- i5.Lisa Thompsen 28035 Golden Meadow Drive;RPV;; i6.Troy Thompsen 28035 Golden Meadow Drive;RPV 17.Mia Vane+~k 71~7 Crest Rd.,RPV,CA 99275 j .~ IS.Jeff Goldstein 3800 Via Palomino -PVE- 1,- 19.Paula Boothe 4775 Sugarhill Drive,RHE : >1;..I; 20.Agata Maltz,14 Southfield Drive,Rolling Hills, t 21.Dianne Ullmann 14 Poppy Trail, 22.Nancy Scott 19 Aurora Dr RHE : 23.Nick Yacobucci 5750 whitecliff Dr.RPV -. 24.Jeff Vanetek 7127 Crest Rd.~RPV~CA--.- ATTACHMENT -191 ......--.....-...-,.. 25.Marlene Beranek 5806 Ocean Terrace Drive RPV .'...-.-..)v or -----,om.---.._--..- 26.Barbara Farmer 26431 Birchfield Avenue,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 r_•_ 27.Alexis Parkes 4751 Ferncreek Drive~RHE - lexran@cox.net 28.Greg Royston 6338Sattes Drive,RPV,3- 29.Julie Draper 5064 Delacroix Road,RPV -.- 30.[Marta Merola]Marta Mascaro Merola 2 Moonmist Dr,RPV,~ -- 31 ..Frank Merola,2 Moonmist Dr,RPV,\ 32.Terry McGovern,5008 Elkridge Dr.R.P.V ,:- 33.Georgina McGovern,5008 Elkridge Dr.R.P.V , .. 34.Brooke Wilken,1544 via zurita,pve,ca.90274,:..:--_11 35.Robert Hladek,4646 Rollando Drive,RHE,I 36-37.rashida and raghu mendu,26710 Fond du Lac,RPV,90275 38-39.Stephanie and Steve Forsey-Smerek,1729 Via Boronada,PVE,90274 310-465-0676,.-. 39.Sondra Williamson,28364 S.Western Ave.#508,RPV,Ca 90275, 40.Cinay Seo,5 Amber Sky Dr.RPV,90275,~ 3'Jm---41.Barb Dancy,7442 Via Lorado,RPV 90275,{'-,c 42.Suzanne Dyer,20 Eastfiled Ddr.,RH,90274,. 43.Melinda Jones,4113 Rousseau Lane,pvp,90274, ------ 44.Susie Oh,3 Country Lane,RHE,__.._. 45.Terri Mitani,5431 Meadowdale Lane,RPV,902759.i 46.JiII Crump 27028 Whitestone Rd,RPV 90275,. 47.Merin Dahlerbruch,5217 Elkmont Dr.,RPV,90275,: t 48.Tracy Austin,2036 W.General Street,RPV.90275, .9,austinbrown@earthlink.net 49.Jana Anderson,533 Via Almar,PVE,90274, 3 ._._08 50.Terry Jenness,27065 Shorewood Rd,RPV -.---- 51.Valerie Real,6866 Verde Ridge,PRY,---)O~_ 52.Julie Reynolds,4643 Brown Deer Ln,RHE,90274, 53.Wendy Rosato,4868 eldridge Dr.,RPV 90275~ 54.Helen Hitzel,3900 Via Solano,PVE,ATTACHMENT -192 55.Stefani Goldenberg,10 Misty Acres,RHE,~ .,.... I, 56.Kelly Goldstein,3800 Via Palomino J PVE :.,..,..'.*,.•,."I 57-58.Michelle and Jeff Nolan,4105 Via largavistaa,PVE.~. ',#JII&• ,".-59.Amy D'Ambra,4 Eucalyptus Lane,RH,~~., -----....&:...::&• A T T A C H M E N T - 1 9 3 Do You Want a Dog Park in P.V.? If you do then you should sign this.We are doing a project a t cornerstone and our topic is that there are no dog parks in P.V.We called City HalJ and talked to them about having dog park.1hey said that if we get 100 signatures from residents in P.V,then they will get one step closer to building a dog park.So,can you please sign this? Name 1.~~\rI~\eX ,2.S~Je.tJ ~~C{~(:t 3.A cRt ;ct~,)~()~. 4.\TOtrlut Avtd,erSoY\ 5.CGt\-\\\(\~c.C.\~\\C\;\j, 6.60 b Jo V\~.5 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Address E~lL.-\?.s.C"'§ ~\/\iA Mt()(A\()1>\(~ ,,(lr...\\jj~,'A·~(p\)~ :S'teo J)c{.n?Jccl!;''''7 flU E 5-33 VI·01~r-PVt~ ttAb 'l.,z.::,6+-,lCH'~Cl\'T'E" tfll:!>RofA.~sea"f ATTACHMENT -194 ,~ '\ Do You Want a Dog Park in P.V.? e.~\\/(1 c..f:1 Respe~~· Addrest/Phonelemail rL~Aec:::L.v~ If you do then you should sign this.We are doing a project a t cornerstone and our topic is that there are no dog parks in P.V.We called City Hall and talked to them about having dog park.They said that if we get 100 signatures from residents in P.V,then they will get one step closer to building a dog park.We considered it being near the Pv Landfill over near Rolling Hills and Crenshaw and Hawthorne Boulevard.So,can you please sign this? Name 1.Vo..nc'k>..no...~ei·(,... 2.!ZAJk!J 5k~ 3..ptA:lAl't:fr ~_..... 4.J:/f Ol~VVU'ller-- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.ATTACHMENT -195 Do You Want a Dog Park in P.V.? ATTACHMENT -196 Do You Want a Dog Park in P.V.? ATTACHMENT -197 -_.. ....- /JI!f!!:,;fV-,."""",....1rQ"---i::.--(,,_....... 3/.0 .r¥/~92fC:> ,.,.e;t~ry-I z,.-J "() We,the undersigned,would like to express out support for the construction of an off-lea.~l1 dog park on the fonner site of the Palos Verdes Land!1l11oeated between Hawt:horne and Crenshaw:Blvd.,: just north of Palos Verdes Dr.Nortb,,or on anotber suitable site orl.the Palos Verdes Peninsula.!,K/-~~~AME APJ)-BESS £MAILhJ)D~..---1="_ v~-~\\0 ATTACHMENT -198 .fJVs41£O',4'$?'Z-1'"}...Jv°-ro 8~Joc E' r?1~60i.'l :?/.0 .ryI 2-tj 8 - PETITION TO BUILD A DOG PARK ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA We,the undersigned,would like to express our support for the construction of an off-leash dog park 011 the fonner site ofthe Palos Verdes Landfill located between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd., just north of Palos Verdes Dr.North.,or on another suitable site on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. /#1p.?~/fI'J'-r EMAIL ADDRESS '§;c':/ 1'1, -------~------------------------:-----""'==-- ATTACHMENT -199 (~'/i:?'j G!M c~/?!JE<f;P lfAAJ r-V/Z9'?O 41<''S-¥/2-9 ~(? PETITION TO BUILD A DOG PARK ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA We,the undersigned,would like to express our support for the construction of an off-leash dog park on the former site ofthe Palos Verdes Landfill located between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd., just north of Palos Verdes Dr.North.,or on another suitable site on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. --------------------------------- ------------------1 -----------------------.....;~j;--------- ATTACHMENT -200 f,e:f1/4dV 7''0 ~:::f4V q t"YItff-GC>tA/rtfl-N :>/c S",/"':2..<1-Ro ~~/t::>,:J7//2.J t:.0 fETI!IQr!TO BUILD ADOG lARK ON 11DI rAWS VERDES PENINSIJLA. We,the undersigned.would like to express our support for 1he construction of an off...leash dog park on the fotmer site of the .Palos Verdes J...andfillloca.ted between.Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd., just north of Palos Verdes Dr.North.~or on another suitable site on the'Palos Verdes Peninsula'J/"""'~ ~;:;::::: D AIL ATTACHMENT -201 PETITION TO BUILD A DOG PARK ON THE PALOS VERDES PENINSULA We,the undersigned,would like to -express our support for the construction of an off-leash dog park on the former site ofthe Palos Verdes Landfill located between Hawthorne and Crenshaw Blvd., just north ofPalos Verdes Dr.North.,or on another suitable site on the Palos Verdes peni~J~-"::0 NAME ADDRESS EMAIL ADDRESS ATTACHMENT -202 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 17,20102:20 PM To:'Tom Odom' Cc:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:Hesse Park Workshop Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] sent:saturday,May 15,2010 3:00 PM To:c1ehr@rpv.com;carolynn@rpv.com Subject:Fw:Hesse Park Workshop Can you send 200 of the leaflets and 200 of the questionnaieres to Ellen November at the address below.I will pay the copying costs.Please iclude a note asking her to tell us if she needs more. -----Original Message----- From:"Ellen November" Sent 5/15/2010 2:40:40 PM To:"Tom Long" Subject:Re:Hesse Park Workshop Thank you Tom.My home address is 6711 Monero Dr.,RPV,CA 90275 I'll pass them out to all those on our Skatepark PV committee who can spread the word as well. If you leave a box at your house,I'll drive by and pick them up on Monday.Just let me know. I was amazed at how vast the park is at 18 acres.Right now,sadly,it's serving very few. My best, Ellen On Sat,May 15,2010 at 2:34 PM,Tom Long <tomlong@palosverdes.com>wrote: Dear Ellen,Well am I glad to hear from you on this issue.And I agree with every word you say.I,for one,and not going to be intimidated by a bunch of crabby elderly people who think the parks are their personal backyards.I have fliers and information sheets on two further workshops and I would love to have you and others hand them out to parents and others who want our parks to be something meaningful.Can you tell me where I can mail some to you and others or can you call me and/or come by and get some?Tom Long (310-544-2978 or 213-612-7871)and 4830 Browndeer Lane Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message----- From:"Ellen November" Sent 5/15/2010 2:23:20 PM To:"Susan Seamans","Julie Turner","Paul Galleberg","Charles Crouse","Tom Long","Anthony Misetich", "Brian Campbell","Katherine Gould","Ro Anda" Subject:Hesse Park Workshop SATURDAY MAY 15,2010 All: I attended the Workshop at Hesse Park to discuss usage of parks. I did not realize that is was a three-hour workshop which included visiting both Hesse and Grandview parks. 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -203 Page 2 of2 Due to other appts.I showed up at 11 am and the group of 20 people were walking around the lower Hesse park with Michelle.The most vocal people wanted little if anything done to change the park.They want the park to stay a natural plant habitat with some working drinking fountains and erosion control.They were concerned about parking, noise,etc.They did not know who in RPV would use basketball courts or the like. The park is 18 acres.If you stand in the middle ofthe property,you cannot see adjacent homes as there are mature trees surrounding the area.The leader of the workshop,a city employee,did not know the population of the city.One person offered,40,000,another 60,000 and another,100,000.I think that being a city employee,one would know the population of the city.Do any of you know the current population ofRPV? A senior citizen pointed out that there were not parents of young kids present,therefore,they don't care.I don't agree. How many parents of young kids have three hours to spare on a Saturday morning to walk around and chat about two parks.Concurrently there was AYSO sign-ups going on at Hesse Park.I don't have kids and yet it was tough for me to find an hour for this workshop.I only learned of the workshop from someone else.I'm not sure how they found out about it.I've lived in RPV for 26 years. In my opinion,the only way to get any kind of accurate gauge of what the community wants is to mail a poll to every household in RPV with a questionnaire and an area for remarks.The demographics of RPV needs to be assessed. How many people live there,how many in each age group live there,etc. There was a very negative vibe among the 20 people there and overall,it was older citizens who wanted no change. Possibly little signs that identified what the native plants are.The three hour workshop idea is not effective,in my humble opinion. Someone mentioned that the RPV City Hall property with its acreage and distance from residences is an ideal place to have recreational outlets.As you know,there is already a tennis court area there. As you all know,it is my intention to have a skate board park built on the Hill,so that there is a safe and welcoming place where the 3,000 kids who skateboard can practice their sport without receiving a $90 tickets.Today,on the Hill, I can play basketball,volleyball,swim,participate in theater,hike,ride my bike,play softball,etc.but there is no place on the hill where I can skateboard without being fined.Skateboarding is the third most popular sport among teens in the US today.People move to PV for the school district and yet,we are extremely limited in what we provide the kids for recreation. My hope is that the city will understand the population make-up of the city and plan accordingly. What other forums of feedback are you having in your planning efforts? Thanks Ellen Novemeber Ellen November mobile:310-384-6912 Ellen November mobile:310-384-6912 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -204 From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Saturday,February 27,2010 6:08 PM To:jmwerner@cox.net Cc:aram@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com;clehr@rpv.com Subject:Re:RPV Update By Councilmembers Long and campbell Dear Jonathan,The play area proposed for the Grandview park improvements is probably close to what you are thinking oof.In any event I am sending your comments on to staff. Tom Long Mayor Pro Tern,Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message----- From:"Jonathan Werner" Sent 2/27/20105:46:40 PM To:tomlong@palosverdes.com Subject:Re:RPV Update By Councilmembers Long and Campbell When you guys get to the issue of improvements to the parks in the city,can you consider building or converting an existing park (or portion thereof)into a fenced-in "tot lot"like they have in Manhattan Beach?We've got a lot of young families (like mine)moving back to RPV,and I think this would be a real benefit to the community. Thanks! On Sat,Feb 27,2010 at 9:52 AM,<tomlong@palosverdes.com>wrote: From:tomlong@palosverdes.com Subject:RPV Update By Councilmembers Long and Campbell Message: Dear RPV Residents, The two of us are submitting this joint newsletter to our respective e-mail lists to discuss the council's work during the first few months since the November 2009 election and seating of our new members. The most notable item was the council's adoption of its tactical goals for the next year. Several new goals were added.At Councilmember Misetich's suggestion we added a goal to revitalize the commercial zones along the Western Ave corridor within the city. At Mayor Pro Tem Long's suggestion we added a goal to consider adopting a city charter.We also added subgoals of improving city parks and building a new city hall, subject to planning for these improvements and identifying funding for them ..All of the goals were adopted unanimously except the goal of considering a new city charter.The ATTACHMENT -205 council's goals can be reviewed on Mayor Pro Tem Long's webpage at http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/pdfs/20 10 02-16- Adopted 2010 Tactical Plan.pdf Improving the city's parks will allow for more active recreation facilities and better access to the city's parks for all residents.Building a new city hall will replace the current 1950s army barracks that may fail in an earthquake and does not provide an adequate or safe facility for city staff to conduct their work for the residents or for residents who find themselves at city hall for various reasons.A city charter operates as the city's constitution.General law cities,like RPV,essentially have a charter written by the state legislature.Writing our own charter may provide us with some advantages. Revitalizing our commercial zones could involve using tax incentives to attract businesses the public wants while increasing city revenues and sharing some of those revenue increases to incentivize businesses to locate in the city. The new year has brought a new city ordinance on oversize vehicle parking.See http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/pdfs/oversized-parking.pdf for more information.We will also soon have a new waste hauler,EDCO (except for a small area that has Universal.).You have received mailers on this and should return your cart selections via the enclosed pre paid card to thern soon.Several Community meetings/workshops have been planned to help you learn more about EDCO's services, rates,discounts,and cart sizes.Listed below are meetings scheduled for the months of February and March 2010: 1)Saturday,February 27th,Miraleste Intermediate School (by TAB Bldg.),from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. 2)Saturday,March 13th,Hesse Park,Multi-Purpose Room,from 11 a.m.to 1 p.m. 3)Wednesday,March 31st Hesse Park,Multi-Purpose Room,from 7 p.m.to 8:30 p.m. Additionally,please check the new EDCO website,www.rpvrecycles.com.specifically designed for RPV customers.You may also contact EDCO's customer service at (310) 540-2977. The city has completed the purchase of land to be contributed to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve.The last area acquired was the Upper Filiorum property.A ribbon cutting was held earlier this month.You can read the Mayor Pro Tern's comments at the ribbon cutting at http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong/pdfs/2010 02-13 PVNaturePreserve.pdf Our council meetings are the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7 PM and are broadcast live on Channel 35.You can sign up to receive agendas of the council meetings and e-mails on issues of interest to you on the city website at http://www.palosverdes.com/RPV/listserver/index.cfin And you can send your comments to the entire city council at once bye-mailing to cc@rpv.com We invite your comments. Mayor Pro Tern Tom Long ATTACHMENT -206 Councilmember Brian Campbell ATTACHMENT -207 From:Criswell,Leslie [mailto:Leslie.Criswell@tuckerellis.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 08,2010 3:31 PM To:Tom Long Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;Criswell,Leslie Subject:RE:Grandview Park -Proposed development Thanks for the quick response. I do think the next "meeting"is on 7-17-10,but I really would urge you to post signs re that, around the neighborhood,and keep to you set,so folks don't gather in the wrong place and wait w/o knowing when or if someone will appear. Who will be at this next "meeting"from the City?What is the purpose of the next "meeting"? Thx. Leslie E.Criswell TUCKER ELLIS &:WEST liP 515 South Flower Street Forty Second Floor Los Angeles,CA 90071 Direct:(213)430,3381 Facsimile:(213)430,3409 From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 08,2010 3:17 PM To:Criswell,Leslie Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com Subject:Re:Grandview Park -Proposed development Dear Leslie,There will be 2 more workshops and months more for public comment,so there should be time to address your concerns.Grandview is not among a small amount of open space habitat preserve.The city has 2 square miles of such land,about 15%of its land area.What Grandview really is is one of our few parks--particularly on that side of the city.I hope you will focus on comments to make it a good and sueful park all residents ofthe city can use.It really is not much of a nature preserve and has not been made part of the preserve or the NCCP.Tom Long -----Original Message----- From:"Criswell,Leslie" Sent 6/8/2010 2:17:36 PM To:tom.long@rpv.com,stevew@rpv.com,Douglas.Stem@rpv.com, Brian.Campbell@rpv.com,Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com Cc:"Criswell,Leslie" Subject:Grandview Park -Proposed development Ruth and Wallace Criswell and I would like to lodge our thoughts re the proposed development of what must surely be one of the very few open space/natural habitat parklands left in RPV. ATTACHMENT -208 We would urge that the scope of this project,including whether it should go forward at all,be kept open for public comment for a sufficient amount of time so that all interested parties can have the opportunity to air their concerns.In pulling info off of your web site recently,it is clear that there has already been much activity,and an award of at least one contract,but apparently w/out adequate input from the residents who live adjacent to this proposed park. Case in point:there was supposed to be a "meeting"a week or so ago at the park,at a set time. There were several neighbors milling around at the end of Grayslake,not even certain that this was the spot for the "meeting",w/o any appearance by anyone from the City.Unlike a recreation centre or other permanent structure where a meeting can be held at a set location,this one seems to have been arranged w/o any set spot to congregate,and those who set the "meeting' were so late that there were a number of our neighbors who finally had to leave -my 91 year old mother being one of them.If you are going to set meetings,they should all be set for a specific location and you need to be on time -or send someone to indicate how long the delay will be. The plans that have been drawn up so far indicate that the "day camp"(whatever that was)is now eliminated.Pis confirm that however. The remaining plan seems to still contain too many activities for that relatively small piece of property.The dog park is not really large enough to do anything but exercise a very small dog, and unless there is a park service person assigned to come by daily and make sure the dog "deposits"are cleaned up,the amount of droppings likely to be left in the only dog park for miles is likely to create a health hazard and a public nuisance,attract clouds of flies and send bad smells to all of the adjacent homes.There really isn't adequate room for a dog park here - especially as it would be the only one on the hill,thereby certain to attract too many dogs. The presence of dogs also puts the City at risk should anyone be bitten,or (the inevitable)dog fights result in severe injury to someone's purebred dog. Dogs will also chase off any of the area's resident wildlife who are not already long gone because of the development.These animals who now live quite comfortably on that hill,and who are able to be observed by hikers and others,will end up in the neighbors'yards/garages/homes,or be killed on the adjacent Montemalaga,which carries cars often traveling at 60 mph and above. We assume there will be no nighttime lighting,as that would surely disrupt the adjacent homes, and attract after hours use. BBQ pits should not be included -again the very real probability of trash,flies and rodents will adversely affect the neighbors. Your plan appears to indicate a path of some sort from the side of the park up to Grayslake,but in order to ensure that there will not be an inordinate amount of traffic in that neighborhood,we urge you to post "no parking/stopping"signs all along the streets approaching the path,and give the residents parking passes,so the neighborhood is not overrun w/cars. We would also urge you to post signs in the adjacent neighborhood well in advance of and and all hearings and meetings concerning this proposed park,so that all of the residents (not only those who happen to be computer sawy)can be made aware of relevant events,and so that all can be heard on these issues. Thank you. Leslie E.Criswell ATTACHMENT -209 TUCKER ELLIS &:WEST LLP 515 South Flower Street Forty Second Floor Los Angeles,CA 90071 Direct:(213)430~3381 Facsimile:(213)430~3409 ATTACHMENT -210 -----Original Message----- From:Carolynn Petru [mailto:carolynn@rpv.comJ Sent:Wednesday,August 04,2010 4:53 PM To:'Pauletta Bryson' Cc:cc@rpv.com;citymanager@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Dear Mr.and Mrs.Bryson - Thank you for your email.While individual Council members may respond to your message,staff just wanted to let you know that the City Council took action at last night's meeting to support a regional dog park at the County Landfill site.A copy of the staff report is attached for your information. Sincerely, Carolynn Petru Deputy City Manager -----Original Message----- From:Pauletta Bryson [mailto:pcbryson@cox.netJ Sent:Wednesday,August 04,2010 2:51 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park I strongly recommend that you keep Lower Hesse Park a passive park. Grooming is in order.Perhaps plant more native plants with small signs identifying them.Lower Hesse is definitely not place for further development,especially for a dog park. Why doesn't RPV join RHE and PVE in putting the dog park on the landfill off of Hawthorne Blvd. Pauletta &John Bryson 6827 Abbottswood Drive RPV ATTACHMENT -211 From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Friday,August 20,20103:12 PM To:'Jeff Corbett';'Tom Long' Cc:Ichase@lovelljr.com;'LeslieChapin';corbettc@wellsfargo.com;'Brian Campbell'; tomo@rpv.com;carolyn.lehr@att.blackberry.net Subject:RE:Lower Hess Park Interesting that the City Manager has said on more than one occasion that the dog park advocates have a petition with more than 800 signatures supporting same,which is one of the main reasons,if not THE main reason,stated for the fact that it keeps surfacing.The message I have gotten is that the dreaded petition with the 800 signatures has,up to now,trumped the reasoned discussions of the local neighbors,LOL. Did anyone notice the pie chart on the editorial page of yesterday's Breeze depicting the results of their poll on the issue of dog parks?One has to wonder who would be more likely to respond to such a poll,the passionate advocates,or the public at large?54%oppose,46%support. From:Jeff Corbett [mailto:jcorbett@wbc-inc.com] Sent:Friday,August 20,2010 2:43 PM To:'Tom Long' Cc:Ichase@lovelljr.com;'LeslieChapin';corbettc@wellsfargo.com;noel@jdcorvette.com;'Brian Campbell';tomo@rpv.com;carolyn .Iehr@att.blackberry.net Subject:RE:Lower Hess Park Tom, My apologies for not responding sooner to your earlier note but I have been traveling for business. I truly appreciate your giving so much attention to this discussion and my previous correspondence.Certainly,as a local politician you would have much more experience with this sort of thing than I do.With all due respect,however,I think we will continue to deal with this issue from all sides.That would include a petition.FYI -there are no alarmist statements being made.We just do not want the dog park in our neighborhood and are attempting to protect our property values.At the end of the day,our system is a democratic one in which numbers (represented by petitions,people attending workshops or council meetings)do count with decision makers ultimately answering to voters.Since Rancho Palos Verdes is an affluent area,I think it safe to assume that you represent a well educated,articulate and successful base of voters.I would hope that their opinions are appreciated and welcomed.It is these types of issues that can turn apathetic voters into a motivated electorate. Can we count on you being at the September 25 th community workshop?I think your constituency would appreciate you being there. Jeff ATTACHMENT -212 JEFFREY I-I.CORBETI President &CEO Corb7 International 468 North Camden Drive,Suite 200 Beverly Hills,Ca.90210 310-601-3115 (Office) 310-415-3545 (Mobile) CORB?INTERNATIONAL 7 Levels ofStrategic Development WWW.CORB7.COM Dear Jeff,A reasoned discussion of concerns like that below is more helpful than a petition.Petitions usually involve (as they do in the initiative process)an alarmist statement presenting one side of the issue designed to get people upset and to get them to sign something and/or to show up and complain about fears--often based on incorrect information.A small number of people making reasoned arguments is more persuasive to this decision maker than petitions.After all,if our decisions were to me made just by counting then one could abolish the council altogether and just have voting on the web like the tv shows have to hand out prizes.Tom Long From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Tuesday,August 17,2010 4:35 PM To:Jeff Corbett Subject:Re:Lower Hess Park Tom, We will also have a petition against the dog park with hundreds of signatures from RPV residents to share with you. Best regards, Jeff JEFFREY H.CORBETI President &CEO Corb7 International 468 North Camden Drive,Suite 200 Beverly Hills,Ca.90210 310-601-3115 (Office) 310-415-3545 (Mobile) CORB7 INTERNATIONAL 7 Levels ofStrategic Development WWW.CORB7.COM ATTACHMENT -213 From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Wednesday,October 06,2010 10:47 AM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Nicole Jules';parks@rpv.com;traffic@rpv.com Subject:Hesse Park Athletic Field Improvements Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council members: Thank you for your consideration and action on the Upper Hesse Park and Ryan Park agenda item last night. Jim Moore,Lovell Chase,and I spoke last night;we are members of the Pacific View HOA which represents 345 homes immediately surrounding Hesse Park.Our HOA has been proactively involved in representing our homeowners'concerns.Among the highest priorities over the years have been the speed,safety,and traffic issues resulting from the steep downhill streets of Verde Ridge and Locklenna on both sides of Hesse Park.We are constantly looking for ways to mitigate these dangers.As Mr.Chase mentioned,one of our HOA board members was seriously injured last year when he was walking near Verde Ridge Rd. We are preparing for your hearing next month of the Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park improvements.Along with the design improvements and suggestions,we have also submitted ideas on ways to mitigate the traffic/parking/safety issues as well.We anticipate and hope there will be a more formal analysis and report from Ms.Nicole Jules (RPV Senior Engineer)and/or the Traffic Safety Commission in the next staff report. I firmly believe we can't solve one problem (improved park design)without addressing the other problem (safety). We are looking forward to working together with you to solve them both. John Freeman Pacific View Homeowners Association ATTACHMENT -214 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Carla Morreale [carlam@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 01,2010 11 :56 AM To:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Attachments:modified-Iower-hesse-park.pdf From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Friday,May 21,2010 3:25 PM To:cc@rpv.com;'Carolyn Lehr';carolynn@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com;'Michelle Sullivan' Cc:'John Freeman' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary 6715 EI Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 (310)377-4035 home (562)201-2128 cell I attended the meeting as well,and John's summary reflects exactly what I heard.Well done John.Thank you very much. From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:24 PM To:Noel Park Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Noel,FYI,see email which I sent to City Council,etc. John Freeman From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:23 PM To:'cc@rpv.com' Cc:Carolynn Petru (carolynn@rpv.com);Tom Odom (parks@rpv.com);Michelle Sullivan (michelles@mlagreen.com) Subject:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Dear Mayor Wolowicz and council members: Last Saturday,May 15th ,was the first community meeting regarding community feedback about Grandview and Lower Hesse Park improvements.I was disappointed that a council member was not assigned to hear directly from residents at this early conceptual feedback forum.I urge you to appoint one or two council members to attend each of the subsequent meetings. FYI,this is my personal summary of the first meeting.As a resident living within one block of Lower Hesse Park and member of the Pacific View Homeowners Association,I and others are very concerned about any increased intensity of development in this area. Mia Lehrer and Associates moderated and solicited feedback and suggestions from the 30-40 residents that 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -215 Page 2 of2 attended.Regarding Lower Hesse Park,see attached preliminary drawing that had been previously circulated. Note in the drawing are new Tennis Courts,a Basketball Court,Dog Park,Picnic areas,Par Course,Bathrooms, expanded Parking,etc.I'm not sure who designed that,but that's not even close to what I heard at the meeting. I don't recall any resident wanting Tennis Courts,Basketball Courts,or larger Volleyball courts.Or storage facilities or bathrooms.No one favored larger parking lots.In fact,I spoke and distributed pictures showing the safety danger of the parking lot entrance on the blind curve that currently exists on Locklenna Lane toward the Volleyball court.The volleyball court is seldom used;why do we need more development that the community doesn't want and or need? The comments I heard from residents were an emphatic emphasis on improving the quiet passive nature of the parks,suggestions for native habitat planting,landscaping and possible trail improvements. Please assign one or two council members to attend the next community meeting so you can hear this for yourself. Upper Hesse Park and Lower Hesse Park were designed 20+years ago,and Lower Hesse Park was designed and designated as a passive park. let's keep lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park that way_ John Freeman Lower Hesse Park nearby resident Rancho Palos Verdes 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -216 ATTACHMENT -217 From:Ginger Clark [mailto:ginger.garnett@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,May 13,2010 9:01 AM To:Tom Long Cc:bernie slotnick;c1ehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com;kendyda@verizon.net;Sara Singer;ROBERT BUSH;tew138@verizon.net;Candy Fletcher;Susie Mizuno;RAFAEL GUTIERREZ;Miki Otskua; Lee Norwood;Lawrence Ha;Larry Connelly;Ken Beck;Karin Caro;John Letcher;Jess Yuste; Helen Connelly;Gina Carino;David Aikens;Dan Burns;Claudia Kirchner;Bob Bush;Barbara Swift;Barbara Freia;Alice Beirne;Jean Kojima Subject:Re:Grandview Park Dear Mr.Long, Your original note was a reply to Bernie Slotnick,but since I'm on the 'cc'list,I trust that the rest of us can reply to some of your points without being out of line: 1."The neighbors of Hesse Park understand that Hesse (like Grandview) is a community park that needs to be accessible to all city residents and are working with the city staff to formulate ways of making the park available to all but also addressing neighborhood conerns.I would encourage you and your neighbors to do the same." On the contrary,we had a nice discussion with "The neighbors of Hesse Park"when this all began and they pretty much said that because the city had already messed with half the land,they didn't think they could fight the city messing with the other half.Far from "working with the city staff,etc.,etc."they are operating from pure despair at keeping the city from screwing up more of the land. 2.This park is the closest city park to my home and yet now it is largely unusable to me because there is no place I can sit when I get tired (I don't know about you but depending on my knees and ankle sitting on the ground instead of a bench is not a good idea)and no place I can go to the bathroom now that my kidneys and bladder are weaker than they used to be. We've heard you say this before and I have to say that this is incredibly presumptuous of you.That anyone should take into account your knees and your bladder,as though you were the king of Palos Verdes;well,I'm embarrassed for you.I am older than dirt,have an ankle that doesn't work well,iffy knees,and a bladder that works like most older women's bladders.I would be mortified to ask people to live lesser lives in order to accommodate my frailties.Why in heaven's name would you ask people to adjust to your weaknesses?By the way,the British have this really cool folding seat they carry out on walks.I'll give you mine if you'll leave that land alone. Grandview has always been designated a community park for all city residents,not the personal park of those who live very close by. ATTACHMENT -218 I can't imagine where you got the idea that Grandview Park was only used by the people who live nearby.That's simply not true.As a small example the Sierra Club walks through the hill quite often.If getting people to use the park is truly a concern to you, why don't you give us one of those really neat city signs identifying this lovely hill as Grandview Park? Weare below average in terms of park opportunities as opposed to open space.We need more parks and properly developed ones that people from throughout the city can use. Now,why is 'managed land'better than just plain dirt?I spent my early childhood playing on unmanaged land.On that land,I was the Lone Ranger,or Tarzan or cowboys and Indians or I just sat and stared at the weeds and thought about life.Managed land, with dog parks and landscaped areas and screamingly-fast mountain bikes,isn't conducive to either imagination or thinking.You,who I understand have no children, may not remember your own childhood but then maybe if you dig back into your past you might recall the imagining times and the quiet thinking times that helped you grow and become an adult.Those times weren't managed times. As for the financial concerns,now is the time to do improvements since we will likely get better prices. Ah,the spend now or it'll be too expensive argument.As though that's a justification for spending in the first place.Can't think of anything to say about that because it's silly--sort oflike let's buy Persian carpets now,dear,because they'll get more expensive if we wait. But do we want them?Well,no,but later they'll be more expensive,dear. We also do our part (however small)to restart the economy.I,for one, don't think the cure to the current economic situation is cutting jobs and spending when we don't need to. I can't imagine what jobs you'd be cutting by not building this park unless it's the artificial jobs you created to get the park built.As for cutting spending,it might be smart for the city council to join the rest of us and be a little careful with our money instead of spending it on unwanted projects like your concrete parks. Unlike all other governmental entities the revenue the city relies on is largely not sales tax or income tax and hence is not down.Indeed the city's revenues are continuing to go up (albeit more slowly than otherwise).And we have a balanced operating budget without even taking into account hotel tax (TOT)revenues from the new resort at Terranea which are running at about $1.8 million per year.Just as we will find the revenue to ATTACHMENT -219 pay for the improvements I think we will also find the revenue for maintenance. Now that's interesting.Does that mean we didn't need to tax ourselves for the sewer system?And how about the continual maintenance of the road through the slide area which last I heard costs the city $200,000 a year (and is probably more now)?This is very interesting.If you're feeling flush,I think this is a piece of information that we citizens should take a good look at.Thank you so much for letting us know!By the waY,"improvements"is an evaluative term.What you're planning for Grandview Park won't improve it at all. As it currently exists "Grandview Park"is a field of weeds.(It really isn't useful habitat and it isn't near any city open space and it isn't part of the Preserve or the NCCP and the Land Conservancy doesn't think it should be and neither do I.) A field of weeds!Isn't that wonderful!An untouched,unmanaged piece of dirt,useful to the spiders and moles and skunks and possums and coyotes and who knows what else. That's precisely what the city ofRPV was created to preserve.Weren't you around when the city was born?Did you forget the battle cry?No Bulldozers!Leave the land alone!I don't think they meant no bulldozers except city bulldozers. It is a waste of a public asset to have it as nothing more than the glorified backyards of nearby neighbors. There you go with the jealousy bit again.We welcome all visitors--the kind of people who love open space and want to come and just connect with the land.We're not at war with our neighbors.We'd love to share our lovely hill.They are welcomed.It's you folks who haven't made us a sign saying 'Grandview Park'to help us share.It's about time we made one ourselves. If we refuse to use the land properly then perhaps we should sell it to someone who will use it properly.I am not really advocating that and there are deed restrictions on the land requiring it be kept for public use. Of course you're not advocating it.But you're trying to use that to threaten us.You did that at the neighborhood meeting,too.You said that maybe it would be sold to private owners and they'll build on it.You tried to frighten us.And of course your reasoning is that it's better if you (the city)builds on it,then ifthey (the developers)do. That's wrong.It's better if no one builds on it. But again,it was intended to make it a park.It really isn't one now. Of course it's a park.It's just not managed to suit your knees and your bladder. ATTACHMENT -220 Indeed it isn't its intended "public"use now--it is just the backyard of some immediate neighbors. Jealousy jealousy jealousy.This is emotional stuff,not reasonable stuff.And it's not true. Children need a good place to play and the rest of us need more good real park space too.we are neglecting public land--wasting it--we can and should do better.Tom Long Yes,Mr Long,children need a good place to play.But if they need to be entertained,they can use the nearby grade school facilities,the nearby high school facilities,the par course down the hill from us in PVE,and the various playing fields all over the city.But on this side ofthe hill,they don't have any good place to play that gives them the chance to run free with the dog,poke at spiders,see wildlife,use their imaginations and eat dirt.I supposed they could hop the fences and play in the canyons but Grandview park seems safer. This piece of land is the last,final piece of raw land in RPV on this side of the hill.It's the last,final place for our kids and grandkids to walk and sit,to contemplate and imagine,and to roll and play in the dirt of history. Your plan,if you're able to bulldoze it past the citizens of RPV,will destroy the last of our heritage of unmanaged land,and destroy a beautiful piece of well-loved dirt. No Bulldozers,Mr Long!Save Grandview Park! Ginger G Clark Dear Mr.Slotnick,Thank you for sharing your views.I encourage you to follow the process and stay involved.There is no plan for a motor bike park being considered.A mountain bike area is being considered.A dog park is also being considered.I would like to think we can find ways to make that workable.The neighbors of Hesse Park understand that Hesse (like Grandview)is a community park that needs to be accessible to all city residents and are working with the city staff to formulate ways of making the park available to all but also addressing neighborhood conerns.I would encourage you and your neighbors to do the same.This park is the closest city park to my home and yet now it is largely unusable to me because there is no place I can sit when I get tired (I don't know about you but depending on my knees and ankle sitting on the ground instead of a bench is not a good idea)and no place I can go to the bathroom now that my kidneys and bladder are weaker than they used to be.Grandview has always been designated a community park for all city residents,not the personal park of those who live very close ATTACHMENT -221 by.Thus I think improvements like parking and restrooms are needed but I want it to be done in a way that is mindful of the neighbors.Weare below average in terms of park opportunities as opposed to open space.We need more parks and properly developed ones that people from throughout the city can use.As for the financial concerns,now is the time to do improvements since we will likely get better prices.We also do our part (however small)to restart the economy.I,for one,don't think the cure to the current economic situation is cutting jobs and spending when we don't need to.I would like to think that memories of Hoovervilles would help persuade people that cutting employment and spending does not help end a recession.(Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.)Unlike all other governmental entities the revenue the city relies on is largely not sales tax or income tax and hence is not down.Indeed the city's revenues are continuing to go up (albeit more slowly than otherwise).And we have a balanced operating budget without even taking into account hotel tax (TOT)revenues from the new resort at Terranea which are running at about $1.8 million per year.Just as we will find the revenue to pay for the improvements I think we will also find the revenue for maintenance.As it currently exists "Grandview Park"is a field of weeds.(It really isn't useful habitat and it isn't near any city open space and it isn't part of the Preserve or the NCCP and the Land Conservancy doesn't think it should be and neither do I.)It is a waste of a public asset to have it as nothing more than the glorified backyards of nearby neighbors.If we refuse to use the land properly then perhaps we should sell it to someone who will use it properly.I am not really advocating that and there are deed restrictions on the land requiring it be kept for public use.But again,it was intended to make it a park.It really isn't one now.Indeed it isn't its intended "public"use now--it is just the backyard of some immediate neighbors.Children need a good place to play and the rest of us need more good real park space too.we are neglecting public land--wasting it--we can and should do better.Tom Long -----Original Message----- From:"Bernie Slotnick" Sent 5/11/2010 7:49:59 AM To:"Tom Long" Cc:"Ginger Clark","Sara Singer","ROBERT BUSH",tew138@verizon.net,"Candy Fletcher","Bernie Slotnick","Susie Mizuno","RAPAEL GUTIERREZ","Miki Otskua","Lee Norwood","Lawrence Ha","Larry Connelly","Ken Beck","Karin Caro","John Letcher","Jess Yuste","Helen Connelly","Gina Carino","David Aikens","Dan Bums","Claudia Kirchner","Bob Bush" ,"Barbara Swift","Barbara Freia","Alice Beirne","Jean Kojima" Subject:Grandview Park Mr.Long My house backs on Grandview Park.I do not agree with plans to put a Dog area,a motor bike area and a parking lot. The Dog area will be used mostly by people outside of Rancho Palos Verdes,The current park is used by our local people. With the current financial environment this effort is even of more concerning. ATTACHMENT -222 I understand that the City Council is planning on grants to pay for this effort but what is going to funding the maintenance of the finished Park? Rancho Palos Verdes is laying teachers off,does Rancho Palos Verdes have the money to cover the maintaining of the Park? I will attend the meetings this week,can this be addressed at the meeting. Bernie Slotnick 310-375-9340 bernierpv@cox.net ATTACHMENT -223 From:Madeleine Melones [mailto:madeleine@homecoding.com] Sent:Wednesday,June 02,2010 2:47 PM To:c1ehr@rpv.com;tomlong@palosverdes.com Cc:cc@rpv.com;Jim Knight Subject:Nature Centers versus Nature:Avatar never really wins Tom Long, Then give the people a choice,do the people want to raise money and return the asphalt to earth or build a commercial building with rental income for the city on our coast.Perhaps because the people may want the asphalt removed more than the grant money?-oh the tragedy!With the love of this community we may want to and would raise the funding to get the asphalt removed and the lots remediate back to nature,every lizard and child of the future would have an eye full of beauty not some old human construction (regardless of your name dropping designer)and scary room full of stainless steel toilets. Why does every park have to have a nature center,and why does each some sort of association like 'Sea Lab"?There are several in our community already,enough.Why does the 'NATURE" lesson need repeat just a few minutes drive from the next location?With our lovely weather why can't the nature lesson be given in nature and not in a cement and framed structure that will decay and need maintenance?If I may garner a guess to the reason,I feel the answer is clear as the message in AVATAR...it is because there is money in it.It is easy to drop the "Education" word and improve your chances to get a grant.There will be money for Constructions,Money made for Sea Lab,and probably money made for renting it out for Weddings and birthday parties and there is nothing in it for nature. Does every park have to appeal to the one target resident?Why can you not have a park for people of this community who like no placards,no curbs,no cement,for people that are flne with drop potties just like our federal campgrounds?There are plenty of people visiting this site now not just locals residents.My potty is not that close to the beach it is a long hike away.I am one who likes no cement that is all.Why can't RPV not have one park for people like me?I do not really care who the big name designer is.It is building on what was open space,that is what it is. We have several nature centers already that could and do support learning.Why not expand them.With 2 square miles of Disney-fled public access so close to the NCCP it will bring ten fold traffic to the NCCP,the view of what you consider civilized "nature"will destroy more of the preserve than my heart can pour into this keyboard.My concerns are real because I have seen what giving access to a difficult place can do to a remote area,nature "will"be the loser. Mr.Long you are correct,that is still not good enough,and nothing is as good as open nature! Wright or Wrong,it is a structure not nature. Madeleine McJones Portuguese Bend Dear Madeleine,Thank you for sharing your concerns.I think we will be able to address them if and when we get a grant.Restrooms also allow people other than immediate neighbors to use the park.Fair and reasonable access to the parks is something we should provide to all city residents.Please remember the city has 2 square miles of open space in the NCCP preserve.The proposed building (for which we may get a grant and if we do it will then need to go through the entitlement process)is not in the NCCP,it is in a city park.It would replace a portion ofthe parking lot.We don't have the funds to rebuild that ATTACHMENT -224 lot without a grant so your proposal that we do so,while interesting is not really that helpful.What does it say about RPV that we are OK with very large degraded asphalt parking lot for cars but are not OK with any sort of educational building wherever it may be (witness the struggle Marymount had)?Even if the building is in Lloyd Wright style, that's still not good enough.Tom Long -----Original Message----- From:"Madeleine McJones" Sent 6/1/2010 7:50:41 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:"Jim Knight" Subject:Proposed Abalone Cove Structures City Representatives, Please consider remediation of the property asphalt back to nature and restore open space instead of another nature center and ranger station,more buildings and landscaping is not preserving or educating anyone just destroying our rural community,and send incredible impact to the local animals.Making curbs and bath rooms and buildings over every piece of open space in Rancho Palos Verdes is not your charter.The rate of loss of our open space and building of homes and structures has been incredible here and you show no sign in stopping.Since I moved here,we have lost Trumps open land,we have lost Terrenea open land,we have paved and built homes under Hawthorne Golden Cove,now most single open lots have a new home or are about to build.We will look just like Laguna Beach very soon and we will have lost all the very things that you wanted to educate people about. Let the children go into nature,do not put them in a building to see nature and learn about nature, that is not how children discover nature.Nature needs room and ground not curbs and building over it.You are slowly making this coast fully built and manicured this is not a good vision;you are going away from nature.Structures will age then look poor,where as nature always looks fine.The building materials of today availability age even quicker.Each structure leads to another and more support,trash and impact.The more access you provide the more impact the tide pools will have to endure,there is proof of this based on other beaches and improvements. Bathrooms lead to more crime,murders,and homeless are more comfortable.Abalone cove needs improvements but in that it needs not more structures,but less.A building is not open space it takes open space away.Feel free to remove the asphalt but do not add more human impact. You are taking nature and making it Disneyland.Now granted Disneyland is nice,but it is not nature,why does everything need to be landscaped by man to make man happy,this is not all about man this is supposed to be about nature.We have more than enough nature centers in and around this community;we have a lovely Cabrillo Beach Marine Museum,send sea lab and docents there where they are needed,it is about 9 minutes from this location.There is a nature center at many other local parks showing plant and local animals.This sort of access will change the whole very core of this facility into a pUblic wasteland of Torrance beach not a more protected nature preserve.The more access and the easier you make it for will cause more damage the tide pools regardless of your cameras and sea lab.The more humans and access the more waste and pollution will occur.Bathrooms and parking make for crime and vandalism. The fox will leave the eagles will not longer go to the beach,and yes I have seen these on Abalone Beach.I will no longer see these animals because we need to educate the children every 3 miles about nature.Sadly for nature the proposed access will bring so many humans into their land they will all just die away.Who speaks for them? ATTACHMENT -225 The rural and run down aspect of the current established building are actually very pretty,the get painted by our local artist and are coveted by their rustic appearance.At least the pavement did not stick up and catch ones eye as a structure will.I am very sad to hear of this cities propose upgrade to nature as if you now better,clearly nature is better with out us.I have of and on heard of these plans to make this rural beach into a public play house for many years and then it did not happen,I have always hoped it would not happen but I can tell by the responses so far that this time it is well along in your build over the Nature RPV plans,I am very sad to see the loss of our little beach and its rustic properties,it will be sad to see it go to the public park manicured design it is not the same. Palos Verdes used to try and stop the loss of open space now you seek to make it a full golf course entertainment zone establishment from end to end so now R.P.V =Rancho Pavement Very. Is this a "Nature Preserve"or a "Public Park"?Please clean your eye glasses try to see what is really pretty and what is a mess from the hand of man. Madeleine McJones Rancho Palos Verdes /Portuguese Bend ATTACHMENT -226 Page I of3 NOEL PARK From:Tom Long [tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Tuesday,May 25,2010 9:55 AM To:noel park;'Tom Long' Cc:clehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com Subject:Re:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Noel,I very much appreciate your thoughts below.I agree there is a higher and better use for Lower Hesse and that we should work to find a use that is compatible.Tom -----Original Message----- From:"NOEL PARK" Sent 5/25/2010 8:36:33 AM To:'''Tom Long'" Cc:clehr@rpv.com,tomo@rpv.com Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary As I have said a number of times before,your willingness to read and answer your emails is one of the more refreshing things about living in RPV.Thank you. Clearly,there is a higher and better use for lower Hesse Park than its current state.The hope of our HOA,from the beginning,has been that we can achieve a balance of a reasonable level of "active"uses with appropriate landscaping of the rest of the property,which we see as having the potential to be a great plus for out neighborhood.At the Council meeting where the contract with the design consultants was approved,I was very encouraged when Mr.Odom said that one of the major considerations for the project would be "neighborhood compatibility".In short,that is our goal and commitment.I have great confidence in the ability of Mia Lehrer &Associate to achieve that goal.We will make every effort we can to work through this process to that end. From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Saturday,May 22,20102:23 PM To:NOEL PARK Cc:c1ehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com Subject:Re:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary I think that the position of our HOA is best summarized by the comments submitted to Recreation and Parks by former President Les Chapin after our meeting with City staff and Council members last November.In fact,he submitted another copy of it at Saturday's meeting.I am just reporting to you that Mr.Freeman's summary is a fair characterization of what went on at the meeting.I think that you need to be aware of it. I think that my brief remar-ks at the recent Community Leadership breakfast were a fair summary of Mr. Chapin's written comments.Council has made it very clear that it is determined to go ahead with some form of "active"uses at lower Hesse Park.Whether that is our first choice or not,I believe that our duty as a HOA is to work within whatever "process"is available to us to achieve the best possible result for our neighborhood.As I have said so many times,we are striving for a "win -win"result. On the other hand,if there is supposed to be a "widely publicized"and "transparent"process,which is then ignored because "only a few dozen local homeowners"show up,what's the point?Where are all of the "active recreation"supporters?It begs the question as to whether they have some back channel for communicating with the Council so that they don't have to waste their Saturday mornings interacting with the irritating local homeowners. 512512010 ATTACHMENT -227 Page 2 01'3 From:Tom Long (mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Friday,May 21,20103:58 PM To:noel park Cc:'John Freeman';c1ehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com SUbject:Re:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary 6715 EI Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 (310)377-4035 home (562)201-2128 cell I attended the meeting as well,and John's summary reflects exactly what I heard.Well done John.TI1ank you very much. From:John Freeman (mailto:jrfree@cox.netJ Sent:Friday,May 21/2010 2:24 PM To:Noel Park Subject:fW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Noel,FYI,see email which I sent to City Council,etc. John Freeman From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:23 PM To:'cc@rpv.com' Cc:Carolynn Petru (carolynn@rpv.com);Tom Odom (parks@rpv.com);Michelle Sullivan (michelles@mlagreen.com) Subject:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Dear Mayor Wolowicz and council members: Last Saturday,May 15th ,was the first community meeting regarding community feedback about Grandview and Lower Hesse Park improvements.I was disappointed that a council member was not assigned to hear directly from residents at this early conceptual feedback forum.I urge you to appoint one or two council members to attend each of the subsequent meetings. FYI,this is my personal summary of the first meeting.As a resident living within one block of Lower Hesse Park and member of the Pacific View Homeowners Association,I and others are very concerned about any increased intensity of development in this area. Mia Lehrer and Associates moderated and solicited feedback and suggestions from the 30~40 residents that attended.Regarding Lower Hesse Park,see attached preliminary drawing that had been previously circulated. Note in the drawing are new Tennis Courts,a Basketball Court,Dog Park,Picnic areas,Par Course, Bathrooms,expanded Parking,etc.I'm not sure who designed that,but that's not even close to what I heard at the meeting. I don't recall any resident wanting Tennis Courts,Basketball Courts,or larger Volleyball courts.Or storage facilities or bathrooms.No one favored larger parking lots.In fact,I spoke and distributed pictures showing the safety danger of the parking lot entrance on the blind curve that currently exists on Locklenna Lane toward the Volleyball court.The volleyball court is seldom used;why do we need more development that the community doesn't want and or need? The comments I heard from residents were an emphatic emphasis on improving the quiet passive 5/25/2010 ATTACHMENT -228 Pagc30f3 nature of the parks,suggestions for native habitat planting,landscaping and possible trail improvements. Please assign one or two council members to attend the next community meeting so you can hear this for yourself. Upper Hesse Park and Lower Hesse Park were designed 20+years ago,and Lower Hesse Park was designed and designated as a passive park. Let's keep Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park that way_ John Freeman Lower Hesse Park nearby resident Rancho Palos Verdes 5/25/2010 ATTACHMENT -229 Page I 01'3 NOEL PARK From:Tom Long [tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Saturday,May 22,20102:23 PM To:NOEL PARK Cc:clehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com Subject:Re:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Dear Noel,Nobody has any back channel to me.All are free to use the same communication and I read all the e-mails.To me it is not just an issue of counting heads.To me it is an issue of what is the right use of a public asset.I am convinced that park land should be a park.In this case a community park.Right now the city owns a large amount of park land (not our open space preserve)that is not used as a park in my sense of the meaning of a park.I have heard of a recent suggestion that we have to keep all of Lower Hesse undeveloped so helicopters can land there in an emergency.I have to say I hope that future suggestions are more constructive than that one. Anyone who thinks that helicopters will come to rescue us in a major emergency has very high expectations that are likely to be disappointed.But I guess if we really thought the need was great we could put in helicopter pads and perhaps even a runway for some short takeoff planes like Harriers.I prefer Hesse Park be a community park rather than a heliport.Tom Long -----Original Message----- From:"NOEL PARK" Sent 5/22/2010 9:26:51 AM To:'''Tom Long'" Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary I think that the position of our HOA is best summarized by the comments submitted to Recreation and Parks by former President Les Chapin after our meeting with City staff and Council members last November.In fact,he submitted another copy of it at Saturday's meeting.I am just reporting to you that Mr.Freeman's summary is a fair characterization of what went on at the meeting.I think that you need to be aware of it. I think that my brief remarks at the recent Community Leadership breakfast were a fair summary of Mr. Chapin's written comments.Council has made it very clear that it is determined to go ahead with some form of "active"uses at lower Hesse Park.Whether that is our first choice or not,I believe that our duty as a HOA is to work within whatever "process"is available to us to achieve the best possible result for our neighborhood.As I have said so many times,we are striving for a "win -win"result. On the other hand,if there is supposed to be a "widely publicized"and "transparent"process,which is then ignored because "only a few dozen local homeowners"show up,what's the point?Where are all of the "active recreation"supporters?It begs the question as to whether they have some back channel for communicating with the Council so that they don't have to waste their Saturday mornings interacting with the irritating local homeowners. From:Tom Long [mailto:tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Friday,May 21,20103:58 PM To:noel park Cc:'John Freeman';c1ehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com Subject:Re:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary 6715 EI Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 (310)377-4035 home (562)201-2128 cell 512512010 ATTACHMENT -230 Page 2 01"3 I attended the meeting as well,and John's summary reflects exactly what I heard.Well done John.Thank you very much. From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox,netJ Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2.:24 PM To:Noel Park Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Noel,FYI,see email which I sent to City Council,etc. John Freeman From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.netJ Sent:Friday,May 21,2.010 2:23 PM To:'cc@rpv.com' Cc:Carolynn Petru (carolynn@rpv,com);Tom Odom (parks@rpv,com);Michelle Sullivan (michelles@mlagreen.com) Subject:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Dear Mayor Wolowicz and council members: Last Saturday,May 15th ,was the first community meeting regarding community feedback about Grandview and Lower Hesse Park improvements.I was disappointed that a council member was not assigned to hear directly from residents at this early conceptual feedback forum.I urge you to appoint one or two council members to attend each of the subsequent meetings. FYI,this is my personal summary of the first meeting.As a resident living within one block of Lower Hesse Park and member of the Pacific View Homeowners Association,I and others are very concerned about any increased intensity of development in this area. Mia Lehrer and Associates moderated and solicited feedback and suggestions from the 30-40 residents that attended.Regarding Lower Hesse Park,see attached preliminary draWing that had been previously circulated. Note in the drawing are new Tennis Courts,a Basketball Court,Dog Park,Picnic areas,Par Course, Bathrooms,expanded Parking,etc.I'm not sure who designed that,but that's not even close to what I heard at the meeting. I don't recall any resident wanting Tennis Courts,Basketball Courts,or larger Volleyball courts.Or storage facilities or bathrooms.No one favored larger parking lots.In fact,I spoke and distributed pictures showing the safety danger of the parking lot entrance on the blind curve that currently exists on Locklenna Lane toward the Volleyball court.The volleyball court is seldom used;why do we need more development that the community doesn't want and or need? The comments I heard from residents were an emphatic emphasis on improving the quiet passive nature of the parks.suggestions for native habitat planting,landscaping and possible trail improvements. Please assign one or two council members to attend the next community meeting so you can hear this for yourself. Upper Hesse Park and Lower Hesse Park were designed 20+years ago,and Lower Hesse Park was designed and designated as a passive park. 5/25/2010 ATTACHMENT -231 Let's keep Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park that way. John Freeman Lower Hesse Park nearby resident Rancho Palos Verdes 5/2512010 Page 3 of3 ATTACHMENT -232 Page lof2 NOEL PARK From:Tom Long [tomlong@palosverdes.com] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 3:58 PM To:noel park Cc:'John Freeman';clehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com Subject:Re:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Thank you.I also hope to hear from people who don't live nearby the park.I also remain hopeful that your HOAs will cooperate with improvements that allow all city residents to use the park. These parks were not intended to be strictly neighborhood parks.And active uses have been considered for them in the past.Some improvements are needed.I am disappointed that people continue to oppose all improvements.I don't think such a position is considerate of residents from other neighborhoods.We are below average in park opportunities (as opposed to open space where we are above average).The city's parks are good neighbors and get few complaints. They close at sunset and the parking lots are closed.I for one feel we should all work together to try to make these parks good community parks that can be used by everyone,even those of us who need parking spaces and restrooms because we do not live very nearby.After all we are residents of the city and the parks are ours too.And I think the views of the community as a whole and the council's leadership responsibilities are as important to the decision as the views of a few dozen neighbors of the park--as important as those views are.Tom Long -----Original Message----- From:"NOEL PARK" Sent 5/21/2010 3:24:37 PM To:cc@rpv.com,"'Carolyn Lehr'",carolynn@rpv.com,parks@rpv.com,IIIMichelle Sullivan'" Cc:'''John Freeman'" Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary 6715 EI Rodeo Road Rancho Palos Verdes 90275 (310)377-4035 home (562)201-2128 cell I attended the meeting as well,and John's summary reflects exactly what I heard.Well done John. Thank you very much. From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:24 PM To:Noel Park Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary Noel,FYI,see email which I sent to City Council,etc. John Freeman From:John Freeman [mailto:jrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,May 21,2010 2:23 PM To:'cc@rpv.com' Cc:Carolynn Petru (carolynn@rpv.com);Tom Odom (parks@rpv.com);Michelle Sullivan (michelles@mlagreen.com) Subject:Lower Hesse Park/Grandview Park meeting summary 5/25/2010 ATTACHMENT -233 Page 2of2 Dear Mayor Wolowicz and council members: Last Saturday,May 15th ,was the first community meeting regarding community feedback about Grandview and Lower Hesse Park improvements.I was disappointed that a council member was not assigned to hear directly from residents at this early conceptual feedback forum.I urge you to appoint one or two council members to attend each of the subsequent meetings. FYI,this is my personal summary of the first meeting.As a resident living within one block of Lower Hesse Park and member of the Pacific View Homeowners Association,I and others are very concerned about any increased intensity of development in this area. Mia Lehrer and Associates moderated and solicited feedback and suggestions from the 30-40 residents that attended.Regarding Lower Hesse Park,see attached preliminary drawing that had been previously circulated. Note in the drawing are new Tennis Courts,a Basketball Court,Dog Park,Picnic areas,Par Course, Bathrooms,expanded Parking,etc.I'm not sure who designed that,but that's not even close to what I heard at the meeting. I don't recall any resident wanting Tennis Courts,Basketball Courts,or larger Volleyball courts.Or storage facilities or bathrooms.No one favored larger parking lots.In fact,I spoke and distributed pictures showing the safety danger of the parking lot entrance on the blind curve that currently exists on Locklenna Lane toward the Volleyball court.The volleyball court is seldom used;why do we need more development that the community doesn't want and or need? The comments I heard from residents were an emphatic emphasis on improving the quiet passive nature of the parks.suggestions for native habitat planting.landscaping and possible trail improvements. Please assign one or two council members to attend the next community meeting so you can hear this for yourself. Upper Hesse Park and Lower Hesse Park were designed 20+years ago,and Lower Hesse Park was designed and designated as a passive park. Let's keep Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park that way. John Freeman Lower Hesse Park nearby resident Rancho Palos Verdes 5/25/2010 ATTACHMENT -234 Page 1 of3 Katie Howe From:Sara Singer [saras@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,2009 9:15 AM To:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Sara Singer From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Thursday,December 03,2009 10:51 AM To:'NOEL PARK' Cc:'carolyn Lehr';'Carolynn Petru';'Ray Holland';'tomo@rpv.com';'Ara M' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Noel, Thank you again for your comments.Your input is very valuable to the City given your history and knowledge regarding this area.While your offer to volunteer and personally help to fund these beautification efforts are very generous,due to liability reasons the City must use approved and licensed contractors to complete the repairs to the irrigation systems.However,please know that your comments have been heard and we will be providing them to the consultants we hire to assist with the conceptual design plans. Thank you, Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Tuesday,December 01,20092:21 PM To:'Sara Singer' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants As I walk around the park another landscaping issues comes to mind.There was some mention at our meeting about landscaping on the slope leading down from the more level area of the park to Locklenna.There are actually a good number of native plants on the slope which someone has planted at some point in the development of the park. There are some really useful large,mature,black sages.Most people might assume that they are dead,as they are largely dormant as a result of the very poor rains the last 2 years.If they could get a bit of supplemental water,I am confident that they would green up and look a lot better. There are a large number of much smaller ceanothus,which were evidently planted much later.If they got some supplemental water,they would grow to cover a lot of the slope within 2 to 3 years.We have several in our front yard which have grown from 1 gallon plants to cover an area probably 10 feet in diameter in 2 ~years.The other problem with the ceanothus is that they are 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -235 Page 2 of3 so small,as a result of not getting enough water to grow,that they get seriously damaged every spring when the crew comes through with weedeaters to knock down the weeds on the slope.They disappear into the tall weeds,and the workers can't see them until the damage is done. If these plants could be made to green up to their potential,it would create a much more attractive sight for the neighbors across the street,and for the park users,come to that. There is an unused,and probably derelict,sprinkler line which runs along the top of the slope.It has conventional sprinkler heads.I assume that watering stopped because of vandalism and/or other damage,and/or because sprinkling the whole slope wastes a lot of water and produces a profusion of weeds.My thought is that maybe the sprinkler heads could be replaced with fittings to adapt to drip lines.It doesn't take much water to maintain the native plants in a greener,much more attractive,state through the summer and fall.We hand water our plants about twice a month,and they look pretty good through the dry season, IMHO. I would really like to rescue these plants.I would be willing to help to install the drip lines and to repair the existing system,if someone could show me where it connects to the main water supply,and how to turn it off and on.I would pay for the drip equipment,which isn't really very expensive,and do the work as a volunteer,if the City has a way to allow that to happen.From the City's point of view,I would think that something like this would be a good PR move with the neighbors along Locklenna,and might help to ease the way for whatever park development ends up being done. From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Tuesday,December 01,2009 8:58 AM To:'NOEL PARK' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Hi Noel, I just wanted to let you know that the webpage for the Lower Hesse/Grandview Park Development is now available at http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/recreationparks/Lower-Hesse-Park-Grandview/.There is a link on the page where you can sign up for the Iistserv as well.Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv ~Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 3:25 PM To:'Sara Singer' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Thanks for your courtesy.Someone also mentioned the possibility of a Iistserve.If you can remember to let me know when this stuff gets going,I will certainly participate. From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 2:39 PM To:'NOEL PARK' Cc:'Ara M' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -236 Page 3 of3 Noel, Thank you for submitting these comments.I will be sure to include them in the notes to the designers.We are working on a City webpage dedicated to this topic to keep the community informed on any upcoming meetings or public input opportunities related to these park designs.Please be on the lookout for this new page,and if you have any questions in the meantime,do not hesitate to contact me directly at the number below. Thank you, Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv iI'J Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of tile individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received tllis email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 1:57 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants I think that there is mention of this in the Pacific View HOA written comments,but watching the power points at the Council meeting raised the issue in my mind again.I would have said something,but I'm only too painfully aware of how fast the 3 minutes goes by. In the area of the existing parking area off of Locklenna,there are several quite large and mature native plants,which must have been planted at the time of the existing park development.There are also several mature Sycamore trees,which are native and appropriate to this location.I note that there is already a small "picnic node"adjacent to the parking area,which is nicely shaded by these plants and trees.It would appear from the power point slide that the expanded parking lot contemplated would cause the removal of these native shrubs and trees At the lower end of the watercourse through the park,adjacent to Locklenna,there are at least 3 mature California Walnut trees, which are also appropriate for our area.It would appear from the power point slide that the bridge across the watercourse,just above Loclenna,would be in the same place currently occupied by the walnut trees. It would truly be a shame,and a great mistake in my humble opinion,to lose these mature and valuable native plants.I devoutly hope that they can stay in place and be a part of the theme of any expanded park facilities,as well as a symbol of the often demonstrated wisdom and sensitivity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the role of the native plant population in its heritage. I am confident that sensitive designers will be able to find ways to preserve these valuable plants and work the parking,trail and bridge facilities in around them,thus preserving these outstanding existing landscape assets.I am reminded of photos which we all have seen of beautiful gardens,and in some case actual homes,which have built around mature existing trees.Not only are the trees preserved,but brilliant and inspirational design is very often the result.I am confident that you all can achieve similar brilliant results in this case. 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -237 Page 1 of3 Katie Howe From:Sara Singer [saras@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,2009 9:15 AM To:'Katie Howe' SUbject:FW:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Sara Singer From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Thursday,December 03,20097:12 AM To:'James Moore' Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Carolynn Petru';'Ray Holland';'Ara M';'tomo@rpv.com' Subject:RE:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Jim, Thank you for sharing your comments regarding Lower Hesse Park.The City greatly appreciates your input.Please let me know if you have any other questions as we move forward in this process. Thank you, Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:James Moore [mailto:jdm4pv@yahoo.com] sent:Wednesday,December 02,2009 10:32 PM To:saras@rpv.com Cc:'Diana Park';'Marilyn Jakubowski';'George Wong';'Jon Davis';'Jim Real';'John Freeman';NOEL PARK Subject:Re:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Sara, Thank you for passing on the link to the parks status.Also,I wanted to support Noel's comments,concerns and recommendations to leave all trees,shrubs and healthy plants that are in Lower Hesse Trails.It has been a major struggle to keep and maintain them and encourage their growth.Native plants do pretty well,but with help they can add beauty to an area that has too many weeds,fennel,rocks and brown grass.Please keep what is healthy and spend some effort to replace the weeds,fennel,rocks etc which will add to the vitality of whatever comes in the guise of improvement.The homeowners comments that said leave it as is,really means keep the trails,plants,trees and add more ofthe same.No one meant to keep the rocks and fennel. Jim 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -238 Page 2 of3 ---On Tue,12/1/09,NOEL PARK <noel@jdcorvette.com>wrote: From:NOEL PARK <noel@jdcorvette.com> Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants To:"'Diana Park'"<ddeepark@cox.net>,"'Marilyn Jakubowski'"<genejI80@aol.com>,"'George Wong'" <bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com>,"'Jim Moore'"<jdm4pv@yahoo.com>,"'Jon Davis'"<jadavis@alum.mit.edu>,"'Jim Real'"<vjreal1@cox.net>,"'John Freeman'"<jrfree@cox.net> Date:Tuesday,December 1,2009,11:17 AM From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Tuesday,December 01,20098:58 AM To:'NOEL PARK' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Hi Noel, I just wanted to let you know that the webpage for the Lower Hesse/Grandview Park Development is now available at http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/recreationparks/Lower-Hesse-Park-Grandview/.There is a link on the page where you can sign up for the Iistserv as well.Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.comlrpv Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 3:25 PM To:'Sara Singer' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Thanks for your courtesy.Someone also mentioned the possibility of a Iistserve.If you can remember to let me know when this stuff gets going,I will certainly participate. From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 2:39 PM To:'NOEL PARK' Cc:'Ara M' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Noel, Thank you for submitting these comments.I will be sure to include them in the notes to the designers.We are working on a City webpage dedicated to this topic to keep the community informed on any upcoming meetings or public input opportunities related to these park designs.Please be on the lookout for this new page,and if you have any questions in the meantime,do not hesitate to contact me directly at the number below. 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -239 Page 3 of3 Thank you, Sara SingeroCityofRancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv ~Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. ----_._,._._..__.__.__..__.____--__._--_.__._.•_._---_.._.____.____.._---------_.---_.__----------_.~.~-~.~~- From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 1:57 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants I think that there is mention of this in the Pacific View HOA written comments,but watching the power points at the Council meeting raised the issue in my mind again.I would have said something,but I'm only too painfully aware of how fast the 3 minutes goes by. In the area of the existing parking area off of Locklenna,there are several quite large and mature native plants,which must have been planted at the time of the existing park development.There are also several mature Sycamore trees,which are native and appropriate to this location.I note that there is already a small "picnic node"adjacent to the parking area,which is nicely shaded by these plants and trees.It would appear from the power point slide that the expanded parking lot contemplated would cause the removal of these native shrubs and trees At the lower end of the watercourse through the park,adjacent to Locklenna,there are at least 3 mature California Walnut trees, which are also appropriate for our area.It would appear from the power point slide that the bridge across the watercourse,just above Loclenna,would be in the same place currently occupied by the walnut trees. It would truly be a shame,and a great mistake in my humble opinion,to lose these mature and valuable native plants.I devoutly hope that they can stay in place and be a part of the theme of any expanded park facilities,as well as a symbol of the often demonstrated wisdom and sensitivity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the role of the native plant popUlation in its heritage. I am confident that sensitive designers will be able to find ways to preserve these valuable plants and work the parking,trail and bridge facilities in around them,thus preserving these outstanding existing landscape assets.I am reminded of photos which we all have seen of beautiful gardens,and in some case actual homes,which have built around mature existing trees.Not only are the trees preserved,but brilliant and inspirational design is very often the result.I am confident that you all can achieve similar brilliant results in this case. 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -240 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Sara Singer [saras@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,20099:14 AM To:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Sara Singer -~-'---'-"------'-'--"'-'-"--'-----'-------' From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Tuesday,December 01,20098:58 AM To:'NOEL PARK' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Hi Noel, I just wanted to let you know that the webpage for the Lower Hesse/Grandview Park Development is now available at http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/recreationparks/Lower-Hesse-Park-Grandview/.There is a link on the page where you can sign up for the Iistserv as well.Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv J1 Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e·mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 3:25 PM To:'Sara Singer' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Thanks for your courtesy.Someone also mentioned the possibility of a Iistserve.If you can remember to let me know when this stuff gets going,I will certainly participate. From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 2:39 PM To:'NOEL PARK' Cc:'Ara M' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants Noel, Thank you for submitting these comments.I will be sure to include them in the notes to the designers.We are working on a 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -241 Page 2 of2 City webpage dedicated to this topic to keep the community informed on any upcoming meetings or pUblic input opportunities related to these park designs.Please be on the lookout for this new page,and if you have any questions in the meantime,do not hesitate to contact me directly at the number below. Thank you, Sara SingeroCityofRancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv Ji Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] sent:Thursday,November 19,2009 1:57 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Existing Plants I think that there is mention of this in the Pacific View HOA written comments,but watching the power points at the Council meeting raised the issue in my mind again.I would have said something,but I'm only too painfully aware of how fast the 3 minutes goes by. In the area of the existing parking area off of Locklenna,there are several quite large and mature native plants,which must have been planted at the time of the existing park development.There are also several mature Sycamore trees,which are native and appropriate to this location.I note that there is already a small "picnic node"adjacent to the parking area,which is nicely shaded by these plants and trees.It would appear from the power point slide that the expanded parking lot contemplated would cause the removal of these native shrubs and trees At the lower end of the watercourse through the park,adjacent to Locklenna, there are at least 3 mature California Walnut trees, which are also appropriate for our area.It would appear from the power point slide that the bridge across the watercourse,just above Loclenna,would be in the same place currently occupied by the walnut trees. It would truly be a shame,and a great mistake in my humble opinion,to lose these mature and valuable native plants.I devoutly hope that they can stay in place and be a part of the theme of any expanded park facilities,as well as a symbol of the often demonstrated wisdom and sensitivity of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to the role of the native plant population in its heritage. I am confident that sensitive designers will be able to find ways to preserve these valuable plants and work the parking,trail and bridge facilities in around them,thus preserving these outstanding existing landscape assets.I am reminded of photos which we all have seen of beautiful gardens,and in some case actual homes,which have built around mature existing trees.Not only are the trees preserved,but brilliant and inspirational design is very often the result.I am confident that you all can achieve similar brilliant results in this case. 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -242 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Sara Singer [saras@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,20099:11 AM To:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:Grandview Park Presentation Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Sara Singer From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] Sent:Wednesday,November 18,2009 1:03 PM To:'peteadd@aol.com' Cc:'Ara M';'carolyn Lehr' Subject:RE:Grandview Park Presentation Dear Peter, Thank you for your comments.We always appreciate receiving feedback from residents,especially a few words of encouragement.Please visit the City's website in the future to stay up to date on the project and feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Best regards, Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv ~Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:peteadd@aol.com [mailto:peteadd@aol.com] Sent:Wednesday,November 18,2009 9:50 AM To:aram@rpv.com;saras@rpv.com Subject:Grandview Park Presentation Sara &Ara My step son was one of the scouts present at last night's meeting. When I saw that the Grandview park project was one of the agenda items I made him stay through the presentation as I own a house on Ironwood about 2 blocks from the park. It looks like you have done a lot of work so far and I think you are on the right track.My initial concerns about traffic access, parking,trash,and safety were all addressed.I look forward to seeing what comes out of the detailed design phase. Just wanted to let you know I think you are doing a good job. Peter Chang 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -243 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Sara Singer [saras@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,2009 9:09 AM To:'Katie Howe' SUbject:FW:Lower Hesse Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Sara Singer ----_._----_...._-_...-•..__...-_.-._-...._- From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] sent:Monday,November 16,2009 10:42 AM To:'Donald Wiedlin' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Dear Mr.Wiedlin, Thank you for submitting your comments.I will be sure that these are included with our report to the City Council.Should you have any further questions,please feel free to contact me at the number below. Sincerely, Sara Singer D City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv ~Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:Donald Wiedlin [mailto:dwiedlin@verizon.net] sent:Friday,November 13,2009 2:31 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park We have been homeowners on Locklenna Lane since 1979,so we were here during the original construction of Hesse Park.We have the same two requests now that we had then regarding lower Hesse Park.Keep the activities passive (no team sports)and no trees that will block homeowners views (low growing shrubs are fine). ....Concerned Locklenna Homeowners 11/10/2010 ATTACHMENT -244 ;;-. Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Sara Singer [saras@rpv.com] Monday,December 21,20099:08 AM 'Katie Howe' FW:Lower Hesse Park Follow up Red Sara Singer -----Original Message----- From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,November 16,2009 10:30 AM To:'eahaig@netzero.net' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Mr.Haig, Thank you for submitting your comments.I will be sure that these are included with our report to the City Council.Should you have any further questions,please feel free to contact me at the number below. Sincerely, Sara Singer City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv P Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination, distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.-----Original Message----- From:eahaig@netzero.net [mailto:eahaig@netzero.net] Sent:Sunday,November 15,2009 3:29 PM To:saras@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park We are opposed to the proposed changes to Lower Hesse Park. The dog park would only bring increased traffic to the neighborhood.How would parking be handled?It seems the desire of dog owners,both within RPV and outside RPV,take priority over the people who live near the park and pay property taxes.Why must this be in a crowded residential neighborhood,while Upper Pt.Vincente has ample room and remains unused. Or why not place a dog park by the new Annenburg animal center.Tempering the proposed development with increased Sheriff patrols and Park Rangers,just points out how the development would adversely affect the neighborhood. Further,what type of study was done showing the demand for the recreational facilities? The softball league says they need diamonds,but has not raised any money for the supposed pressing need.Also,what is the demand for tennis courts and basketball courts.Are they being fully utilized at other locations and our local schools? I don't understand the Council's desire to build facilities that would adversely affect people in the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.The trails and current natural habitat is a 1 ATTACHMENT -245 beautiful setting and it would be tragic if it was paved over for parking lots,basketball courts,tennis courts and dog parks. Thank you, Brian Haig Interior Design Degrees Free Info on Online Interior Design Programs from the Art Institutes http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/c?cp=04PFaWAs9hYsiI4CvqPoUAAAJ1E wOSfwRspXSCf_hm3fB1I8AAQAAAAFAAAAAJhuUj4AAAM1AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUROQAAAAA= 2 ATTACHMENT -246 From:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com To:vjreall@cox.net;noel@jdcorvette.com;ddeepark@cox.net;genej180@aol.com; jdm4pv@yahoo.com;Ichase@lovelljr.com;1I0conte@cox.net; gggswartz@yahoo.com;campbellsoup44@verizon.net;les.alice@cox.net CC:jadavis@alum.mit.edu Subject:RE:Jon Davis Date:Sun,20 Dec 2009 11:56:30 -0800 Hello All, Heather Davis called Saturday evening and left a message on my recorder on the condition of Jon.The message read:Jon has had 2 surgeries.He is stable.He has had 8 pints of blood.It will be a long recuperating period and will take a long time. Heather,thank you for calling me.Tell me if Jon will be transferred to Torrance Memorial so that we can pay our visit there. Let's continue our thoughts and prayers for Jon Davis during this ordeal. There has been too many accidents at the intersections of Hawthorne &Verde Ridge and Hawthorne &Locklenna.This traffic and safety issue must be addressed to with great importance and promptly to protect the Pacific View homeowners,residents, and neighbors!Traffic is too fast on Hawthorne and our people are having a hard time turning left onto Hawthorne.So what good is an improved and active Hesse Park if the hazard of getting and leaving here is jeopardized?The traffic &safety issue should have top priority.Perhaps a "marked crosswalk"with flashing "caution lights"at the Park Entrance on Hawthorne might slow down the traffic?Who do we contact and present this issue to?PVHA should do something. Regards,....George Hotmail:Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.Get it now. Your E-mail and More On-the-Go.Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.Sign up now. Your E-mail and More On-the-Go.Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.Sign up now. ATTACHMENT -247 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Bernie Slotnick [bernierpv@cox.net] Sent:Tuesday,June 01,20105:09 PM To:Katie Howe Subject:Re:I would like to get a question answered. Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Katie Thank you for the prompt response. Bernie ********************** -----Original Message ----- From:Katie Howe To:'Bernie Slotnick' Sent:Tuesday,June 01,20101 :17 PM Subject:RE:I would like to get a question answered. Good Afternoon Mr.Slotnick, Thank you for your inquiry.Mia Lehrer &Associates will submit a maintenance plan detailing cost and procedures.At the point that the City Council has selected a preferred design concept,a set of construction plans will be developed and advertised for competitive bid. The Council has not yet determined the source of funds for building and maintaining the park sites,but may use the General Fund,grants, or other revenue sources. Thank you for participating in the Community Workshops.I hope this answers your questions.Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions or comments. Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:Bernie Slotnick [mailto:bernierpv@cox.net] sent:Sunday,May 30,2010 1:35 PM To:Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject:I would like to get a question answered. City Council members: This is a question on the design on of Grandview Park. In the $40,000.00 design project,has the city asked for a projected cost,to build and maintain the Park when the design project is completed? Will we have funds to build the designed Parks? I look forward to an answer to this question.I will ask it again at the July workshop on the 17th, Bernie Slotnick 310-375-9340 bemierpv@cox.net 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -248 Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Christopher Laodwicz [cladowicz@gmail.com] Tuesday,May 18,2010 5:08 PM parks@rpv.com Idea! Follow up Red Dear Rancho Palos Verdes city council Parks department, I think that to be a part of the future is to change now.The wonderful sport of Frisbee Disc Golf is a family friendly,and exciting activity.It is a sport that has been around for over 30 years and is seeing phenomenal growth yearly.I think to install a 9 hole course on one of our beautiful parks would lead to more public participation in our parks.The best things to me as a Disc Golf player is that it is a great way to be outside,get exercise,and once installed requires little to no maintenance.I recently took my mother for the first time to the nearest Disc Golf course,in the middle of industrialized Carson,and while she had a great time,it is frustrating living half an hour away from a location where I can play my favorite sport.I have always played this sport for free,and most people whom I tell are amazed that anything with the word "golf" in it is free.However due to its small initial costs of 9 Tee markers and 9 chain holes,it is possible to keep it free for all.To better understand this fantastic game here is a link to a Disc Golf Associations web sight http://www.discgolfassoc.com/education/index.html.Please consider adding this amazing sport to a park near me and you!If you want to contact me my telephone number is (310)918-9439 or just email me back. Thanks for your time, Christopher Ladowicz 1 ATTACHMENT -249 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:LeslieChapin [Ies.alice@cox.net] Sent:Wednesday,July 07,201011 :08 AM To:Katie Howe Subject:Re:Hesse Park Trails Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Katie, Thank you for your very quick and positive response.We are not envisioning a hard helicopter landing site;only a flat grassy area which could be used by LA county rescue and medical evacuation helicopters and certainly only in emergency situations. Pacific View is looking forward to attending the Hesse Park Trails design review community workshop on July 17th. Thank you again, Les -----Original Message ----- From:Katie Howe To:'LeslieChapin' Sent:Wednesday,July 07,20108:50 AM Subject:RE:Hesse Park Trails Development Good Morning Mr.Chapin, Thank you for this information.Staff will pass it on to the design consultant. Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:LeslieChapin [mailto:les.alice@cox.net] sent:Tuesday,July 06,2010 7:01 AM To:parks@rpv.com;epc@rpv.com Cc:Gail Lorenzen;citymanager@rpv.com;cc@rpv.com Subject:Hesse Park Trails Development My name is Les Chapin and I am the Emergency Preparedness (EP)Area Coordinator for Pacific View which includes the 345 homes that surround Hesse Park.The 345 homes are supported by fourteen EP blocks each of which have an EP block captain and assistants.Pacific View initiated their EP Program in October of 2003 and our final EP individual block meeting for our fourteenth block was held in June of 2006.Each of our 345 homes has been requested to complete a HOUSEHOLD DISASTER PREPAREDNESS SURVEY (Form EP-3 7/07)which allowed the completion of our fifty five item resource matrix for each of our fourteen blocks.In addition an overview sixteen item resource matrix has been generated for all of Pacific View.These matrices have been completed in accordance with the city of RPV's EP program as defined by and conducted by Gail Lorenzen,the city's Neighborhood Watch and EP coordinator. The HOUSEHOLD DISASTER PREPAREDNESS SURVEY form was modified at Pacific View's request in 2007 to add the identification of "Evacuation Vehicles",(Large enough to evacuate prone patients).Our matrices reveal that there are six such vehicles in Pacific View which include SUVs (with rear seats removed),stake bed trucks and pick up trucks.When the predicted large scale earthquake strikes it is assumed that some of our residents will be injured and will require emergency medical helicopter evacuations.Pacific View reviewed potential landing sites for helicopter landings with LA county fire.We were informed that our one four way intersection at EI Rodeo and Kings Harbor and our multitude of cul-de-sacs are not large enough to support helicopter landings,despite the fact that there are no overhead power lines in Pacific View.We were told 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -250 Page 2 of2 that Upper Hesse Park is the only available landing site to support our potentially needed evacuations. It is recommended that consideration be given to a potential emergency landing site in Hesse Park Trails (Lower Hesse Park). It could be that due to roadway damages that our evacuation vehicles could transport our injured to Hesse Park Trails but could not reach Upper Hesse Park.Hesse Park Trails is currently being conceptually redesigned by RPV's Recreation and Parks Department.The City of RPV held a preliminary conceptual design review with board members of the Pacific View Homeowners Association (PVHA)on November 5th,2009.As a result of that meeting the PVHA presented to the city of RPV an eighteen item list of concerns relative to the conceptual redesign of Hesse Park Trails.This eighteen item listing did not include the request that a helicopter medical evacuation site be considered in the redesign of Hesse Park Trails.This request for consideration was not identified to Mia Lehrer and Associates in the May 15th,2009 Community Workshop held in the multipurpose room at Hesse Park.This additional requirement needs to be provided to them if deemed appropriate by the city of RPV.The next Community Workshop is scheduled for July 17th,2010. Pacific View is not aware of the city's overall plans for emergency medical helicopter evacuations.Our many neighbors north of us in Vista Grande,which is many times larger than Pacific View,could also be in need of helicopter medical evacuations.This request is being presented specifically to the Department of Parks and the Emergency Preparedness Committee for their review and recommendations and then to forward this new requirement to Mia Lehrer and Associates as they deem appropriate. Les Chapin 6710 Verde Ridge Road Rancho Palos Verdes,Ca 90275 310-377-1139 Pacific View Emergency Preparedness Area Coordinator Pacific View Homeowners Association Board Member les.alice@cox.net 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -251 Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Teri Takaoka [terit@rpv.com] Wednesday,August 04,20102:53 PM 'Tom Odom';'Katie Howe' FW:Lower Hesse Park Follow up Red -----Original Message----- From:Pauletta Bryson [mailto:pcbryson@cox.netl Sent:Wednesday,August 04,2010 2:51 PM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park I strongly recommend that you keep Lower Hesse Park a passive park. Grooming is in order.Perhaps plant more native plants with small signs identifying them.Lower Hesse is definitely not place for further development,especially for a dog park. Why doesn't RPV join RHE and PVE in putting the dog park on the landfill off of Hawthorne Blvd. Pauletta &John Bryson 6827 Abbottswood Drive RPV 1 ATTACHMENT -252 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Ken Dyda [kendyda@verizon.net] Sent:Monday,JUly 12,20109:58 AM To:parks@rpv.com Subject:Hesse and Grandview Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Recreation and Parks Thank you for the copy of the surveys.It seems abundantly clear that the most people don't want an over developed park.Del Cerro is an exampleof a passive park. Both surveys seem to indicate a strong desire for Walking Trails,Public Restrooms,Picnic Area w/Benches and Grassy Play area.Thsi approach would be most acceptablde to the surrounding neighborhood and in keeping with the concept of passive parks.I wonder how many people that said they want more would really come to the park and make the expenditure worthwhile?There is something to say for less is more. Ken Dyda 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -253 Page 1 of3 Katie Howe From:Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 17,20106:10 PM To:'mmnitz@yahoo.com' SUbject:FW:Lower Hesse and Grandview Park proposals Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Thank you,Mr.Nitz for submitting your input on this process. Some avenues to find information on the conceptual plan process for Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks include joining the project's listserve and attending future community workshops.Participants who join the City's listserve are emailed the latest updates so they may stay informed as the project progresses.To join,please click the following link -the Iistserve you would look for is Lower Hesse/Grandview Park,and it is under the Recreation heading. http://pvalert.com/ Listed below are the dates of all of the Community Workshops hosted by the design architect and City staff.At these workshops community input on park amenities will be solicited,and conceptual designs will be shared and discussed.You can also print a flyer from the City's website: http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/recreationparks/Lower-Hesse-Park-Grandview/Community-workshops.pdf Go."rntJnit~'1lorltshoF'81 6ettJrda),Me)15,2818 9 a."'.121'."" Fred Ilesse dr.Ge"''''tJl'lit)ParlE,MtJlti!'tJr!'ese Ree", Community Workshop #2 Saturday,July 17,2010 9 a.m.-11 :30 a.m.Lower Hesse Park 12:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.Grandview Park Community Workshop #3 Saturday,Sept.25,2010 9 a.m.-11 :30 a.m. Fred Hesse Jr.Community Park,Multipurpose Room Please know that,as communicated by Michelle Sullivan (of Mia Lehrer &Associates)and Mr.Odom (Interim Recreation and Parks Director)at the May 15 workshop,that no plans are a "done deal"for these two sites,and that the purpose of this first community workshop was to gather community input on the two park sites.We look forward to continuing the process of gathering community input and presenting ideas to the community at the July 17 workshop. Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:M Nitz [mailto:mmnitz@yahoo.com] sent:Monday,May 17,2010 8:21 AM To:CC@rpv.com;tom.long@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com;Douglas.Stern@rpv.com;Brian.campbell@rpv.com; Anthony.Misetich@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse and Grandview Park proposals 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -254 Page 2 of3 RPV City Council: I attended the Community Workshop at Hesse Park on Saturday,May 15,and have the following comments: I was made aware of this Workshop and ofthe plans to "develop"these parks only by a very small article in the Daily Breeze.I have to think that these plans for "development"are being made without proper notification ofRPV residents,in particular,those living near the parks. I was surprised find that $50,000 has been spent for plan proposals of "developments"which are not needed or wanted by the majority of residents who attended this Workshop. At the Workshop,several persons asked if these development plans are in fact a "done deal".We were not able to get a straight answer from Mia Lehrer,the planning representitive,on this subject.Hopefully,that is not the case. Regarding the proposal for Lower Hesse Park: I visit this park,its playground,and its lower nature walk,on a regular basis with my wife,our children,and our 5 grandchildren.The park currently represents a very nice combination of play equipment and exposure to nature.In my opinion,it is best kept as it is. The Hesse Park proposal is for,among other things,a dog park.This is not a good idea.I would never bring my grandchildren into the park if it were anywhere near a dog park.Unleashed dogs and small children do not mix. It would be only a matter of time until a small child is attacked by an unleashed dog or involved in a fight between two unleashed dogs.Also,I doubt that the nearby residents would be in favor of a dog park. Regarding the proposal for Grandview Park: The park currently is one of the few remaining undeveloped areas in RPV.In general,it is best kept as it is. There is no need for a parking area,as shown in the proposal.Many cars can be legally parked on Montemalaga for access to the park. There is a proposal for a cycle area and a dog park.This is not a good idea.Unleashed dogs love to chase (and sometimes injure)cyclists.Also,I would never bring children to an area where there are unleashed dogs.I doubt that the nearby residents would be in favor of a dog park. Although I am an avid cyclist,I know that a "cycle area"will attract mountain bikers,downhill racers,and stunt riders;and not only RPV residents.The area could become a popular meeting ground for off-road cycle groups,with the resulting noise,litter,boom box music,etc.The cyclists would likely ride on the hiking trails as well as in the cycle area.A residential neighbothood is not suitable for a "cycle area". If the City really needs to spend money on something,we could make a few more hiking trails and compact the soil on the trails (a simple tractor job)in Grandview Park.Otherwise,I suggest that it be left as it is. Please respond and let me know if RPV is seriously considering these proposals.I hope that is not the case. Respectfully, Michael Nitz 26129 Birchfield Ave. RPV90275 310-373-2696 mmnitz@yahoo.com 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -255 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 17,20106:10 PM To:'eahaig@netzero.com' Subject:FW:Lower Hess Park and Grandview Parks Community Workshops Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Thank you,Mr.Haig for submitting your input on this process.We encourage you to remain engaged in the conceptual plan process by monitoring the City's website for updates,joining the project Iistserve,and attending future community workshops. Please know that,as communicated by Michelle Sullivan (of Mia Lehrer &Associates)and Mr.Odom (Interim Recreation and Parks Director)at the May 15 workshop,that no plans are a "done deal"for these two sites,and that the purpose of this first community workshop was to gather community input on the two park sites.We look forward to continuing the process of gathering community input and presenting ideas to the community at the July 17 workshop. Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:eahaig@netzero.com [mailto:eahaig@netzero.com] sent:Saturday,May 15,2010 2:30 PM To:CC@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hess Park and Grandview Parks Community Workshops Good afternoon, I attended the meeting this morning at Hesse Park Community Center and it was clear that the majority of people at the meeting did not want development at either park,which tells me that the City Council does not listen to the people that live in the neighborhood and has not addressed concerns.As for all the people that want dogs parks,basketball courts,tennis courts,bike trails,and par courses,not one of them spoke or more likely they were not even there. Which made the people at the meeting wonder what is the need for the facilities being proposed and what type of need assessment was done by RPV to determine that these facilities were needed in the middle of a residential area. Can you point to a study that shows that the current facilities at parks and schools are overused? At the onset of the meeting it was asked the architectural firm that was hired if this was a done deal.They proceeded to respond,but finally the interim director of Recreation and Parks decided to address the question.Honestly,City personnel should be the ones to direct these meetings,because it is quiet obvious that the City Council has failed in their duty to listen to the community that will be affected by the development,I feel you have failed to show that there is an overwhelming need to develop facilities,I feel you have failed to show that there is no other local space (such as Upper Point Vicente)in a non residential area that these facilities can be placed in.It should not be left to architects to listen to the concerns and opposition of constituents ofRPV,that is your job and the job of staff.It all points to a process where a select group of people,including current and former City Council members,wanted to build new facilities,without a broad survey,or use analysis of current facilities.It also raises concerns that the sudden effort to notify everyone is just to let them know that this is a done deal and that things are unlikely to change.I don't remember being asked what is needed at Lower Hesse Park that is close to my house,that I use every weekend.I saw no notices at the park that they were looking for suggestions about Lower Hesse Park.I did not 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -256 Page 2 of2 receive a survey. There is no pressing need for the development being proposed,particularly the dog park.The dog park was labeled as a passive development at this mornings meeting,which is laughable.The dog park would be the most active,most used,and create the greatest amount of vehicle and foot traffic of any ofthe proposed facilities.It would also require the most maintenance,environmental control and rules and regulation of any facility at the park,and it is labeled passive. The Day Camp at Grandview was labeled passive also.Kids at a day camp,passive? Time to stop the design process that you have authorized,reveal the true needs that you claim are there,look for non- residential sites,and most of all listen to people whose quality of life you will be altering. Brian Haig Penny Stock Gaining 5000% Sign up for Free to receive alerts about the next stock to jump 5000% PennyStockGains.com 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -257 Message Katie Howe From:Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 24,201010:55 AM To:'David Liu' SUbject:RE:No More Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Page 1 of 1 Thank you,Mr.Liu,for submitting your concern.We encourage you to remain engaged in the conceptual plan process by monitoring the City's website for updates,joining the project Iistserve using the link below,and attending future community workshops.We look forward to continuing the process of gathering community input and presenting ideas to the community at the July 17 workshop.Please contact me if I can provide additional information. http://rpvalert.com/ Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:David Liu [mailto:liull1@cox.net] sent:Monday,May 17,2010 4:22 PM To:tom.long@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com;douglas.stern@rpv.com;brian.campbell@rpv.com;anthony.misetich@rpv.com Cc:parks@rpv.com Subject:No More Development Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, Please listen to the people:there should be NO MORE OPEN LAND DEVELOPMENT!!Stop the projects for Hesse Park & Grandview Park !! Please use the budget for other useful projects. Thank you. David &Joan Liu 6615 EI Rodeo Road,RPV,CA 90275 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -258 Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Monday,May 24,2010 11:10 AM 'Christopher Laodwicz' RE:Idea! Follow up Red Thank you,Mr.Laodwicz,for submitting your suggestion.We encourage you to remain engaged in the conceptual plan process by monitoring the City's website for updates, joining the project listserve using the link below,and attending future community workshops.We look forward to continuing the process of gathering community input and presenting ideas to the community at the July 17 workshop.Please contact me if I can provide additional information. http://rpvalert.com/ Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 -----Original Message----- From:Christopher Laodwicz [mailto:cladowicz@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,May 18,2010 5:08 PM To:parks@rpv.com Subject:Idea! Dear Rancho Palos Verdes city council Parks department, I think that to be a part of the future is to change now.The wonderful sport of Frisbee Disc Golf is a family friendly,and exciting activity.It is a sport that has been around for over 30 years and is seeing phenomenal growth yearly.I think to install a 9 hole course on one of our beautiful parks would lead to more public participation in our parks.The best things to me as a Disc Golf player is that it is a great way to be outside,get exercise,and once installed requires little to no maintenance.I recently took my mother for the first time to the nearest Disc Golf course,in the middle of industrialized Carson,and while she had a great time,it is frustrating living half an hour away from a location where I can play my favorite sport.I have always played this sport for free,and most people whom I tell are amazed that anything with the word "golf" in it is free.However due to its small initial costs of 9 Tee markers and 9 chain holes,it is possible to keep it free for all.To better understand this fantastic game here is a link to a Disc Golf Associations web sight http://www.discgolfassoc.com/education/index.html.Please consider adding this amazing sport to a park near me and you!If you want to contact me my telephone number is (310)918-9439 or just email me back. Thanks for your time, Christopher Ladowicz 1 ATTACHMENT -259 From:Katie Howe [mailto:katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Tuesday,June 01,2010 1:18 PM To:'Bernie Slotnick' Subject:RE:I would like to get a question answered. Good Afternoon Mr.Slotnick, Thank you for your inquiry.Mia Lehrer &Associates will submit a maintenance plan detailing cost and procedures.At the point that the City Council has selected a preferred design concept, a set of construction plans will be developed and advertised for competitive bid. The Council has not yet determined the source of funds for building and maintaining the park sites,but may use the General Fund,grants,or other revenue sources. Thank you for participating in the Community Workshops.I hope this answers your questions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have additional questions or comments. Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 From:Bernie Slotnick [mailto:bernierpv@cox.net] Sent:Sunday,May 30,2010 1:35 PM To:Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject:I would like to get a question answered. City Council members: This is a question on the design on of Grandview Park. In the $40,000.00 design project,has the city asked for a projected cost,to build and maintain the Park when the design project is completed? Will we have funds to build the designed Parks? I look forward to an answer to this question.I will ask it again at the July workshop on the 17th, Bernie Slotnick 310-375-9340 bernierpv@cox.net ATTACHMENT -260 From:Katie Howe [mailto:katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,June 03,20108:17 AM To:'isiomyomy@verizon.net' Subject:FW:Suggestion from Mayor Tom Long and your response Good Morning Mr.Imai, Thank you for you inquiries.I apologize for the delayed response.The City is currently in the conceptual design phase of developing proposed improvements to Grandview and Lower Hesse parks.As part of this preliminary stage of the projects,Mia Lehrer &Associates (the City's design consultant)will provide maintenance plans for proposed improvements,including costs.Both the City's request for proposals,and statements made at our first community workshop on May 15, express the need and desire for drought tolerant plants,and environmentally friendly practices. This is intended to be incorporated into the conceptual designs produced. Staff appreciates your inquiries,and would like to encourage you to attend our next community workshop on July 17 at Hesse Park.Please find links below which will take you to the workshop flier,the project webpage -which has a great history on the project,and to the City's Iistserve webpage where you can join the project Iistserve.If you choose to join the Iistserve,you'll be em ailed the latest news on the park improvement process. http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/recreationparks/Lower-Hesse-Park-Grandview/Community- workshops.pdf http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/recreationparks/Lower-Hesse-Park-Grandviewl http://rpvalert.com/ I hope this answered your questions,and please feel free to call or contact the Recreation and Parks Dept.if we can provide additional information. Thank You, Katie Howe Administrative Analyst Recreation and Parks Department City of Rancho Palos Verdes 310-544-5267 -----Original Message----- From:"Osamu Imai" Sent 5/20/20105:37:16 PM To:"Brian Campbell","Thomas Long","Anthony Misetich","Douglas Stern","Stefan Wolowicz" Subject:Added maintenance costs for Grandview Park Can you provide a clear accounting of how much the RPV operational budget will increase by converting our natural park into a manicured park?Consider: (1)Last week,a crew was here to plow the tall,dry grass down and to hand cut the weeds in areas the bulldozer could not reach.The entire job took less than a day but it ATTACHMENT -261 4.;-. effectively reduces the fire risk for the entire year and is greatly appreciated by both RPV and PVE residents.Note:that is one day out of the whole year with a very small crew. (2)Once you convert the field into a manicured park,I assume you will be obligated to provide a crew for daily maintenance of the property. Are we talking about a budget increase of a few paltry dollars here or are we putting a significant tax burden on all RPV citizens? Imai From:Osamu Imai [mailto:isiomyomy@verizon.net] Sent:Wednesday,June 02,2010 10:16 PM To:parks@rpv.com Cc:Brian campbell;Thomas Long;Anthony Misetich;Douglas Stern;Stefan Wolowicz Subject:Suggestion from Mayor Tom Long and your response At the suggestion of Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long,to wit (in his last e-mail to me):"....why not ask staff where the data is at right now?You can ask them too you know.",I forwarded a question to you on 26 May re maintenance costs for Grandview Park.What Mayor Long neglected to tell me was I probably won't receive a response from you. Nevertheless,I'm going to take my chances and bring up another subject.Namely,have you made a cell phone survey of the Grandview site?Do you realize there are dead zones on the site.Cell phones are completely useless in those areas or at best very,very intermittent.Now,consider an admittedly over-the-top,hypothetical situation: A toddler is bitten by a rattlesnake in a cell phone dead area.Her grandmother whips out her cell phone to make a 911 call and gets ---nothing.She doesn't know where the park attendant is.Other human help is nowhere to be found.You get the picture. How do you plan to cope with such eventualities? (1)Ask the servers to install repeaters such that every square foot of the park is cell- phone usable?,or (2)Install a string of emergency land line phones (a la the freeway emergency phones)throughout the park?,or (3)Build an enormous contingency fund to handle any lawsuits that may be filed by park users who suffered because they could not reach timely 911 help? Good luck. Imai ATTACHMENT -262 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Wednesday,July 28,201012:11 PM To:'Bernie Slotnick' Subject:RE:My input on the plans for Grandview Park design Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Thank you for your input.This will be included with other public input and attached to our staff report to Council. From:Bernie Slotnick [mailto:bernierpv@cox.net] sent:Wednesday,July 28,2010 11:08 AM To:Katie Howe Cc:Bernie Slotnick Subject:My input on the plans for Grandview Park design Katie Thank you for taking the time to listen to my input. With the Sate of California closing parks because the do not have the money to maintain them,why is Rancho Palos Verdes planning a park?Will the city be able to maintain the park when it is build? The initial design for the park includes all the items the city council wanted.The council requested input from the community as to what they want and didn't want.Many people responded to the request but so far there have been no changes to the original plan.At the meetings I have attended people do not want a park for dogs and dirt bikes and I have not heard anyone say they do want these things.The city council seem to be disreguarding the input they are asking for.The big sign on Montemalaga Dr.says we want input.You have our input.No dirt bikes or dog park,regular bike paths,a nice quiet park with walkways, playground,picnic area,native plants,grassy play area this is what we want. If the request for quote is the rule of law,don't waste time and ask the public for input. The public does have ideas and we look forward to see how many of ideas will be considered. The city asked for ideas at the Faire and that input was summarized for the July 17th Workshop. These ideas should be considered and implemented on a priority basis I was pleased to hear about the hiring of Emilo Blanco.please put him to work on the park now. The buffer between the houses and the park paths should be at least 30 feet,like at Hess Park. The designers should considered the street parking rather that a parking lot in the Park. Mr.Deepak Chopra said that if there is development near his property,he will be free to grow tall trees to block out noise and people peering into his yard.The trees probabl will be just in front of the veiwing area over look his tennis courts and pool. The Dog Park on Hawthorne Blvd,should be a good replacement for the Dog Park planed for Grandview Park. The security needs to be in place and fenced. Consider solar powered lighting for the park. 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -263 Page 2 of2 The stair exercise will be a drawing for many people at all hours.I lived across the street from Sand Dune Park in Manhattan Beach.The park was used at all hours,it was a drug drop for many years. The entrance and exit to Montemalaga Dr.from the lot into the street is dangerous,the speed limit is 35 mph on Montemalaga Dr.The speed needs to be reduced if the lot idea is followed. Bob Bush provided with a list of suggestions that need to be considered in your plans. 1)Parking.A 40-space lot is too large and would have a critical impact on my neighbors north of Montemalaga Drive.If parking can't be accommodated on Montemalaga Drive,then a small lot should be built based on eliminating the dog park and mountain biking uses which are unacceptable to all residents of the community.Also,many houses south of Montemalga also look down on the proposed parking lot sites.A grass-substance surface should be required to minimize the look of a parking lot when cars aren't present.The parking lot should be on the east side as outlined in one of your options. 2)Buildings.The restrooms and any other structures should be designed to blend into the hillside so as not to obstruct any view.Playground equipment,if installed,also should be placed outside of view corridors-certainly not on top of the park hill as it appears on one of the proposals.Also,playground equipment is available nearby at Silver Spur School. 3)Landscaping and grading.As much native species planting as possible.Minimal grading. 4)Dog Park.Absolutely must be eliminated.A suitable site for a dog park is off of Hawthorne Boulevard on the closed Palos Verdes Landfill,which has received the endorsements of the Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates City Councils.While I am a dog lover and signed a petition for dog parks,they must be placed in appropriate locations and are high maintenance.There also are issues regarding noise,safety and potential of disease to the animals. 5)Mountain Biking.Absolutely must be eliminated.There is a major bike path on Montemalaga Drive in both directions, which is heavily used.Our neighborhood is doing more than its share for bike riders.The noise,danger of injury and destruction to habitat speak for themselves when it comes to mountain biking on this beautiful,one-of-a-kind property. 6)Traffic.Consider a stop sign on Montemalaga Drive.It will be extremely difficult to turn left from the steep,up-hill drive out of the proposed parking lot without stop signs.This also would calm the traffic speeds on Montemalaga. 7)No exterior lighting. 8)No trees that could obstruct views. 9)Careful design of the buffer proposed on the north side so as not to block views from the park and to allow easy viewing from the park of the Los Angeles Basin and Coastline,especially during special occasions,such as 4th of July fireworks. 10)Entrances.There should be review of whether to have pedestrian entrances off of Ironwood and Via Cresta.The latter is in Palos Verdes Estates and probably would require an easement across private property (an existing vacant lot).The park is next to the Ironwood and Via Cresta homes,and they might wish to have access rather than driving around the hill to the Montemalaga parking lot. 11)There was a discussion of there being an existing walking trail south of Montemalaga Drive.No such trail exists. General observation:Montemalaga Drive continues to receive extensive pressure,which is making the street undesirable and lowering property values.In addition to the development of Grandview Park,we also are going to be asked to accept increased traffic from night-lighted events at the 5,000-seat Peninsula High Football Stadium.We already have speeding traffic from Palos Verdes Estates and traffic from a church and Silver Spur Elementary and Peninsula High Schools.Public utilities have shown total irresponsibility in creating a Christmas tree of a telephone phone in front of my house.I am forced to have a big tree to block my city-lights view rather than look at the telephone poles and lines.I would hope Montemalaga could be placed at the top of the priority list for underground utilities and traffic calming (the same street,with a different name,continues through Palos Verdes Estates with calm traffic and with underground utilities). Please call if I can answer any questions. 310-375-9340 Bernie Slotnick 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -264 Katie Howe From:Katie Howe [katieh@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,July 26,201011 :55 AM To:'cc@rpv.com' Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Tom Odom' Subject:FW:Development of Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks Attachments:Parks Letter.doc Please find the attached letter regarding Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks.PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY TO ALL." From:sharon yarber [mailto:momofyago@gmail.com] sent:Monday,July 26,2010 10:49 AM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:tomo@rpv.com Subject:Development of Lower Hesse and Grandview Parks Attached please find my letter to the Mayor and City Council.Please disseminate to the Council. Thank you. Sharon Yarber 11/9/2010 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT -265 SHARON YARBER 6012 Sandbrook Drive Rancho Palos Verdes California 90275 Telephone(s)-Home 310/378-9412 Cell 2131712-8066 Via email:cc@rpv.gov July 25,2010 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Rancho Palos Verdes Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 Re :Development of Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park Dear Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council: I spoke last Tuesday at the Council meeting,but the time limit of three minutes precluded me from completing my comments,so I will take this opportunity to set them forth in this letter. First,I recognize fully the difficult task,and responsibility,the Council faces in trying to do what is best for the overall community.Indeed,you will not be able to make everyone happy,so the task is challenging. Initially,I would like to see the Council obtain more input from the community,and recommend that either a written survey be sent out to all residents or a professional polling service be engaged to perform a survey that meets such standards as are necessary to assure the statistical validity of the results,within a minimal margin of error range.I do not believe that the unscientifically performed outreach conducted thus far rises to the level of a survey that can be relied upon as the basis for any decision making in connection with these significant proposed projects.Clearly,the people from whom you will receive the most comments at any council meetings will be the residents who are most affected by the projects,and I assume those responses will largely be negative. While I believe it is important to give deference to the views of the most adversely affected residents,undue deference would result in a skewed perspective.Indeed,it is unreasonable for any person to purchase a home adjacent to undeveloped,or under developed,land and have an expectation that such land will forever remain in that state. Thus,the views of the community at large need to be obtained. In connection with a surveyor poll,the following information should be included so that the responses will truly reflect the opinions of the community: Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council ATTACHMENT -266 July 25,2010 Page 2 1.What development,if any,would be desirable,including the option of "none", 2.The anticipated costs associated with each of the proposed developments,with a minimum and maximum range.Such costs should include not only those associated with initial construction,but also those needed for maintenance of same for at least the next 30-40 years,and the sources of such funding should also be disclosed, 3.An inquiry as to whether the costs should be incurred or whether there are other uses for the benefit of the City to which those funds should be expended, 4.If the development encompassing the uses that the respondent would like to see completed are,in fact,put into place,how many in that household would actually make use of such facilities and the anticipated frequency of such uses, 5.Whether the desired uses might better be located on some of the other parks within the City's park system,or other City owned land,and 6.What park(s)is closest to the respondent's home and whether slhe would have any objection to the placement of these uses,in whole or in part,on such nearest park(s). We all know that NIMBYism is alive and well in this community,and it is easy for a lot of people to support a controversial project,so long as it will not affect them. The goals of the Council to foster active use of all of the parks is commendable,but I do not get the sense that a global view is being taken.It seems that the effort is to achieve all of the increased uses by utilizing only the two parks in question,Lower Hesse and Grandview.Instead of attempting to jam everything we may want onto these two sites, we need to see what other sites might be better for some or all of them. With respect to the costs of these project,I would like to see detailed information about the source of funding.Will the funds be from grants,from earmarked/restricted funds or the general fund?If from the general fund,can we really afford to incur these costs at a time when the greatest of fiscal restraint is in order?We have sewers that require repair, and infrastructure that has ongoing expenses.I do not want to see funds used now and then later be told that the City is in fiscal difficulty necessitating the incurrence of additional voted indebtedness.Indeed,is there existing voted indebtedness that can be paid off or reduced with these funds,instead of spending them on any of the parks, perhaps such debt reduction is a better use of the funds. We were told at the most recent outreach meeting that the Council intends to use the transient occupancy tax ("TOT")generated by Terranea to meet the ongoing maintenance requirements of the Hesse and Granview parks,once developed.The last I heard, Terranea was in dire financial straits itself (in foreclosure on one or both of its mortgages).The resort has only been open for one year,and has been met with a lot of Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council July 25,2010 ATTACHMENT -267 Page 3 criticism from the local community relating to the quality of the food and services delivered.There has not been a sufficiently established track record of TOT income to start basing future,very long term needs in reliance thereon. As I stated in my comments,I am strongly supportive of a dog park on the Peninsula,but I think a regional approach needs to be taken in conjunction with the cities ofRHE and PVE whose residents will also be able to enjoy such a park.After speaking with Mr.Gin at Supervisor Knabe's office,it seems manifestly clear that,because of the severe environmental issues affecting the landfill,the likelihood of a dog park there being approved by the County is virtually non-existent.Thus we need to look at all options available. At the input meeting of July 17th the speaker in the Uses category indicated that research discloses that the optimum size of a dog park is between 0.5 acres and 2 acres and that there should (emphasis added)be two parks -one for small dogs and one for large dogs. Anyone who has ever been to a dog park knows that first,you MUST have two parks, and that those dimensions are not realistic.When I inquired about the source of that information no one could or would reveal it to me.I inquired of the City of Redondo Beach about the size of its dog park located on 190th and learned that the small dog park is 0.65 acres,and the large park is 2.3 acres,for a total of2.95 acres.Having been to the large dog park on numerous occasions with my 3 large dogs,I can assure the Council that these park sizes are appropriate and necessary,otherwise the opportunity for dog fights (and hence liability for the City)increases exponentially.PLEASE,if we put in a dog park allow sufficient space for them or abandon the whole idea.Mr.Odom was kind enough to provide me with a copy of the Memorandum dated November 17,2009 from Ron Rosenfeld to the Council,and the Exhibits attached thereto indicate the proposed dimensions of the dogs parks at Grandview and Lower Hess are 48,000 square feet and 34,000 square feet,respectively;equivalent to just a tad more than one acre for Grandview and %acre for Lower Hesse,obviously grossly inadequate sizes. It is my understanding that several of the strongest proponents of a dog park are from PVE,yet I understand that the City of PVE maintains it does not have any City land or City parkland available for use as a dog park.I disagree.There are two large median strips on Paseo Lunado that could be fenced for a dog park,there are two parks on the comers ofPV Drive North,Via Corta and Via Almar,and there is a small park area on the comer of Via Fernandez and Granvia Altamira which is a de facto dog park now,with many local residents letting their dogs offleash there.There is also a very large parcel adjacent to the baseball field off of Via Fernandez,but I do not know whether it is owned by the City or not.If it is,it would be an appropriate location for a dog park.Admittedly, Mayor Wolowicz and Members of the City Council July 25,2010 Page 4 ATTACHMENT -268 the vociferous objections that the residents adjacent to these properties will make means there is no realistic chance that the City ofPVE would ever approve ofthese sites as dog parks.So let's turn to RPV. I think it is safe to say that the dog park should be located where the least number of residences are in close proximity thereto.The site needs to be located where the increased noise and traffic will have the least adverse impact on homeowners.There is City owned property adjacent to City Hall.I believe that there is property in Portuguese Bend that has been the subject for some period of time of a potential equestrian center.Perhaps one of these locations would be available.I intend to view all of the existing parks to see if perhaps Forrestal,Eastview,Del Cerro or others might be more suitable than Lower Hesse,which is on a very densely populated and steep street,or on Grandview. It would certainly be great to have more tennis courts (especially lighted ones that could be more intensely utilized if night playing were available,but I think lighted tennis courts have a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting approved by this community),but where they should be located is the question,and again all available City property,whether parkland or not,should be considered.Let's face it,once they are in there is no way they will ever be removed,so extreme caution needs to be used in selecting a place for erection of such permanent structures. Grandview Park I concur with Councilman Long that Grandview is essentially a field of weeds and is not a very attractive site (in my view it's an eyesore),but it does provide a nice hiking and viewing area,and it provides a place for peaceful contemplation and exploration. Grandview is currently designated on the City's Zoning Map as Open Space -Passive, and passive it should remain.A family hike looking for insects,snakes and exploring vegetation,is a worthwhile "active"family activity,and this site provides those opportunities. I would like to see a few trees planted to provide shade,and perhaps a few park benches from which to enjoy the magnificent view;however,any development over and above that is not appropriate for this site.Indeed,if such minimal "improvement"would then necessitate compliance with ADA,then I think nothing whatsoever should be done.ADA compliance will cost considerable sums of money that I do not think we can afford and which would change the character of the park immensely (you would need to do all the grading and construction of an access driveway and parking lot that the proposed projects would require).As the Memorandum dated June 29,2004 from the City Manager to the Council concerning potential sites for a girl's softball field recites,Grandview Park's "domed topography ...would require a large amount ofearthwork (emphasis added). ...there are no existing facilities or infrastructure ...,everything would have to be constructed,including an access driveway and retaining walls,an off-street parking lot, ATTACHMENT -269 restroom/snack shack,equipment storage building and all utility connections,which in combination with the required grading,make this the most expensive site to develop (emphasis added)for girl's softball ." The proposed development includes,among other things,an access driveway,parking lot for 40-50 cars,storage facilities and restrooms.The topography of the site has not changed since 2004,and the costs associated with the tremendous amount of fill or grading that will be required makes it imprudent to develop this site for other than an ongoing passive hiking/viewing park.The terrain does not lend itself to a cycling loop (although teens looking for a location for extreme riding would no doubt love it),and there are ample trails now,both in the Portuguese Reserve and elsewhere,that provide the cycling community with all the trails it needs.Clearly,the Council needs to consider other locations within the City limits for all of the active uses shown on the proposed plans for this park. Finally,there is no doubt in my mind that Mr.Chopra will take any and all steps necessary to protect his privacy.He apparently has stated to both the woman who spoke after me and to your staff that he will plant very tall trees (thus impairing the existing views from the park)and will pursue litigation if necessary.Mr.Chopra is a very wealthy man and if this park development moves forward he will clearly have the motivation,and we know he has the financial wherewithal,to litigate the matter.The defense costs associated with what would no doubt be protracted litigation will unnecessarily deplete City's funds that could be better spent elsewhere.Indeed,in any further outreach the Council makes to the community,this threatened litigation,which is a material fact, should be disclosed. Lower Hesse Park Lower Hesse is located in a densely populated area and is on a very steep street.The increased traffic that will result from a new entrance and parking lot near the bottom of the street,especially if there is a dog park at this site,will make life quite unbearable for the residents and no doubt cause increased safety concerns. In my view,Lower Hesse should be improved,if at all,with some picnic areas and shade trees,some open grassy areas on which to playpick up games,and a couple of single use, unisex restrooms.hnproving the trails and adding additional ones would not adversely affect the park,but adding uses that will dramatically increase the number of users and thus necessitate adding a lot of parking spaces should be avoided.I personally do not think tennis courts should be located at Lower Hesse,as they would totally alter the natural beauty of the park,and deprive the local residents of a lovely venue for hiking Mayor Wolowicz and Member of the City Council July 25,2010 PageS ATTACHMENT -270 and enjoying nature;however,if tennis courts are located on the site they should be in the interior where the chain link fencing and windbreak material will not be seen from the surrounding streets. The cacophony arising from dogs barking,both those within the park and those in the homes and yards of the adjacent property owners,will turn this neighborhood into a nightmare.As much as I would love to see a dog park somewhere,a dog park at Lower Hesse is NOT the place. In conclusion,I ask the City Council to obtain much more resident input,look at all available City property,both park and non-park,in deciding which uses would be best situated where,exercise fiscal restraint,and proceed with CAUTION.I am not even sure who is pushing the Council to do anything at this time,so if the desire is coming from the Council and not the residents,then the entire matter should be tabled until such time as the residents want further development done in their community and their tax dollars spent. Respectfully submitted, SHARON YARBER ATTACHMENT -271 From: Sent: To: Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe George Lambros [georgelambros100@hotmail.com] Thursday,May 20,201012:06 PM tom.long@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com;douglas.stern@rpv.com;brian.campbell@rpv.com; anthony .misetich@rpv.com;parks@rpv.com SUbject:NO MORE DEVELOPMENT in Grandveiw Park and Lower Hesse Park Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Dear Tom,Stefan,Doug,Brian and Tony, I DO NOT want the Grandview Park and Lower Hesse Park areas developed.LEAVE the open spaces alone.I live on lower grayslake and spent my childhood playing in the open field at grandview.Why do you feel the need to change it from an open field to a concrete park.Leave it alone.I will oppose this till it is defeated.I never get involved in any community protests but for this one I am committed along with every other resident on the Hill. Pissed Off Resident, George Lambros 310-375-5974 Hotmail has tools for the New Busy.Search,chat and e-mail from your inbox.Learn more. 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -272 Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dorothy Weeks [weeksldj@cox.net] Sunday,August 01,20103:12 PM cc@rpv.com;katieh@rpv.com Lower Hesse Park!Landfill Dog Park Issues Follow up Red From:Larry and Dorothy Weeks Subject:Lower Hesse Park Changes/Landfill Dog Park To:cc@rpv.com,katieh@rpv.com Date:August 1,2010 We strongly recommend that the RPV City Council join the cities of Palos Verdes Estates and Rolling Hills Estates in urging the County of Los Angeles to establish a dog park at the Landfill Area off Hawthorne Blvd. We do not think that Hesse Park is suitable for a dog park of any size.The rules of the Redondo Beach Dog Park (http://www.rbdogpark.com/park rules.php )well illustrate the kinds of concerns a dog park would introduce. When all these rules are printed out in a normal size font,they run to four pages and contain many serious warnings.In addition to these warnings (dog fights,children's safety,etc.),there are the issues of noise,property values,and traffic that would be detrimental to homes adjacent to the park. We strongly urge the City Council to take action to advise the County Supervisors that a dog park be established at the Landfill Site and also remove any proposal for a dog park at Hesse Park,Lower or Upper. Yours truly, Larry and Dorothy Weeks 6701 Kings Harbor Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310-541-4520 1 ATTACHMENT -273 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Donald Wiedlin [dwiedlin@verizon.net] Sent:Tuesday,July 06,2010 12:05 PM To:Parks@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park Improvement Project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Hi, I watched your presentation on Channel 33 and have at least one big concern.I live on Locklenna Lane,but have been out of town during the 1st workshop and may not make the 2nd either.Therefore,the email.In your presentation,you mentioned about having picnic tables,which is fine.However,following that comment,you mentioned shade trees including large oak trees.In every city within Palos Verdes,we must be mindful of the views that we have.I hope you can keep this in mind as you plan &develop lower Hesse Park.Thanks. Don 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -274 From: Sent: To: Message Katie Howe David Liu [liu111@cox.net] Monday,May 17,20104:22 PM tom .Iong@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com;douglas.stern@rpv.com;brian.campbell@rpv.com; anthony.misetich@rpv.com Cc:parks@rpv.com SUbject:No More Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, Page 1 of 1 Please listen to the people:there should be NO MORE OPEN LAND DEVELOPMENT !!Stop the projects for Hesse Park & Grandview Park!! Please use the budget for other useful projects. Thank you. David &Joan Liu 6615 EI Rodeo Road,RPV,CA 90275 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -275 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Dean Soteropulos [dsoterop@iastate.edu] Sent:Monday,July 26,20108:17 PM To:parks@rpv.com Subject:Important Grandview/Hess Park Improvement Idea Attachments:DeanSoteropulosParkProposal.docx Please Allow Katy Howe to Read: Attached is my proposal,I would like to come in and talk to someone personally about it at some point this week if you are free. Thank You for your time Dean Soteropulos Iowa State University Art and Design Business Management 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -276 Hello My name is Dean Soteropulos and I am currently a sophomore at Iowa State University pursuing a degree in Art and Design.I am currently at home for the summer living with my parents in Palos Verdes.Recently I noticed that you are looking for ideas as how to improve Grandview and Hess Park.Being a student in the Midwest I have been immersed into an entirely different culture,from the humidity to the snow.Most of which I do not miss!But the one reason I am EXTREMELY excited to go back to school in August is because of a game called Disc Golf.Disc Golf is an enormously popular game throughout the Midwest and is rapidly gaining popularity throughout the nation.The first course was built in La Canada California and today Disc Golf is played at more than 3000 courses in the United States and over 3000 international courses.In fact,due to it's popularity,Disc Golf is now governed by the PDGA (Professional Disc Golf Association)!! What is disc golf?You may be asking yourself.It's origins are from the early Frisbee's,however today discs are made especially for the disc golf sport and can emulate the game of golf but on a new and fun scale.The object is similar to golf in that the player tees off with a disc and attempts to get the disc into the "hole"which is an above ground metal basket.Today players can play with only one disc or can have a bag of discs for every shot similar to the game of golf. In short and summing it up in a California kids words:Disc golf is a game very similar to golf,but played with Frisbee-like discs ....and its FREE!!! See wiki page for more detailed information on the sport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc golf Why would a disc golf course be perfect in Grandview park? -Grandview park is currently an underutilized prime piece of parkland property in a neighborhood setting. -Disc golf course has an extremely low start up cost (about $6000 total for basic course) -No need to add grass or other landscaping,Disc Golf has virtually no maintenance only an occasional emptying of trash cans!(unless you would like to improve park even further with grass,it would not hurt the disc golfers experience) -Ample amounts of street parking already exist. -A disc golf course does not carry the sole purpose of playing disc golf,many courses double as parks already possessing walking trails similar to Pollywog Park in Manhattan Beach.The average length of a disc golf hole can be ATTACHMENT -277 anywhere from 100-300 feet.Which would allow room for a 9 hole course to fit easily. -Disc golf is inexpensive and simple to play.One only needs a disc or two to get started which can cost as little as $10. -Disc golf is physically accessible for all ages and athletic ranges and therefore attracts a diverse range of players -The closest disc golf course in our vicinity now is located in either Wilmington or Manhattan Beach,both at least a 30 minute drive. MOST IMPORTANTLY: Disc Golf provides an activity for all the school age children in the area,keeping them healthy and active during their off school hours! ATTACHMENT -278 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:hdb.2@netzero.com [mailto:hdb.2@netzero.com] sent:Tuesday,April 20,2010 9:48 AM To:cc@rpv.com Subject:Lower Hesse Park I urge you not to develop lower Hesse Park,the natural setting and trails are very enjoyable. I don't understand this Council's desire to develop land and increase congestion in the neighborhood. I have lived next to the park for almost ten years and I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen the volleyball court has been used.Now you want to add tennis courts,where is the great demand for tennis courts. Then the dog park,you accept the signatures of people that don't even live in RPV to determine that there should be a dog park in a residential area.All this while the land by the City Hall continues to be empty.That really makes sense, your concern for dogs over the people you represent is amazaing. Then you talk about Upper Hesse Park needing another baseball diamond.I don't think I have ever seen a little league game or softballl game played there.So where is exactly is the demand for another one. Get over this need to develop,leave Hesse Park as is. Thank you, Get Free Email with Video Mail &Video Chat! 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -279 From:Dorothea Weeks [mailto:weeksdh@cox.net] Sent:Thursday,October 21,20103:55 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:parks@rpv.com Subject:Proposed Changes to Lower Hesse Park Sirs: We are very disappointed in the City and Staff for entertaining and promoting the idea of dog parks in the Lower Hesse Park Catalina Plan.(It should be noted that the two dog parks shown on the plan should be shown in a tan or brown color like dirt itself,just like the baseball infield at Upper Hesse Park is shown.Grass doesn't grow easily where dogs are running around and relieving themselves.Just because those plots ofland are called "dog parks,"doesn't mean the land area is green.) We do not believe Hesse Park is a suitable place to establish a dog park. Before considering establishing any dog park at Hesse Park,the Council and staff should become aware of the long list of rules to be found for the Redondo Beach Dog Park, which was built on a trash site in 1992,not a park site,and is a distance from homes.We took a look at the rules shown online for that dog park and were surprised to learn we had to click and click on numerous arrows to read the entire list.At no time online could we see them all laid out as a complete list to be viewed fully.So we have copied and pasted them into one list below for your examination.Considering the warnings entailed,we don't think a dog park would mix with family fun at Hesse Park,especially with children around.Also,it would be a serious liability for the city,as well as something that would discourage other uses of the area by those who want to enjoy nature as it comes to us in one of the West Coast's finest natural scenic sites. Please read these rules below carefully and completely,and think about how they would need to be established and enforced,as well as the effect dog parks would have on Hesse Park and the neighborhood.We hope you will decide not to establish dog parks at Hesse Park.Instead,we hope you will wait for the Landfill Area to be available for a dog park to be established there to satisfy the needs of several cities. Is the city of Rancho Palos Verdes ready to take on the management of these suggested dog parks?Do park personnel plan on supervising them and enforcing rules?Or is your plan to cede part of Hesse Park to a support group that would operate the dog parks, rather than keep the land for the other traditional park uses that have been discussed in planning meetings? Larry and Dorothy Weeks (Lawrence H.Weeks and Dorothea H.Weeks) 6701 Kings Harbor Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310-541-4520 weekslh@cox.net,weeksdh@cox.net ATTACHMENT -280 Redondo Beach Dog Park Rules http://www.rbdogpark.com/park rules.php The following rules are part of Redondo Beach City ordinance #2704 and may carry penalties of$50.00 or more.They are for your safety and the safety ofthe dogs.Please abide by all posted rules. •Park is open from dawn till dusk.Sound travels in the early hours.Be considerate of sleeping neighbors. •Dogs outside of the dog park and not within the fenced area must be on a leash at all times.This includes in the parking lot as well as traveling to and from your car.Dogs are not allowed in any Redondo Beach city park,on or offleash. •Owners are legally required to pick-up and dispose oftheir dog's feces both in and out of the Dog Park. •Children under 12 must be closely supervised at all times by an adult.(It is urged that young children not be brought to the Dog Park for their own health &safety.They must be close enough to hold your hand at all times!) •No strollers,carriages,bicycles,children's toys,food or treats allowed in the Dog Park! •Owners are solely liable for injuries or damage caused by their dogs. •Aggressive dogs must be removed from the Park immediately and without debate. •Female dogs in heat are not permitted in the Dog Park. •All dogs must be currently licensed (with tags and collar on)and vaccinated. •No smoking,alcoholic beverages,or food allowed in the Dog Park. •No business may be conducted in the Dog Park. How To Enter the Park •Do not open outside gate if the inside gate is open.Be patient. •Remove your dog's leash inside the double gated holding pen.Enter the Park,close the gate and move your dog away from the entrance. •Do not leave a leash on your dog in the Park.This may put your dog at a disadvantage and may actually cause an altercation. •If your dog must be muzzled,perhaps it shouldn't be in the Dog Park. Prevent a Dog Fight Before It Happens Learn the 4P Warning Signs: •Posture:A dog's body language can communicate fear,hostility or submission.Learn to read and respond to your own dog's body language,and others. •Packing:More than 2 or 3 dogs packed together can lead to trouble.Break it up before it starts by leading your dog to a neutral area at least 30 feet away. •Possession:Whether it's you,a ball,or a treat,most dogs will protect what is theirs. Remain aware. •Provoking:If your dog is continuously annoying another dog or dogs,or provoking attention,it's time to leave the park. ATTACHMENT -281 What You Can Do To Prevent a Fight •Pay attention to your dog and be aware of where he is at and what he is doing at all times. •Stay close enough to control or protect your dog in the face of a potential fight. •Keep a collar on your dog at all times so you have something to grab,ifneeded. •Leave the Park.Some days it's just a bad mix.Go for a walk or come back later.You and your dog will be better off What You Can Do Ifa Fight Occurs •Never reach your hands into the middle of a dog fight.You may get bit,and often by your own dog. •Distract the dogs and divert their attention.A blast of water from a water bottle,a loud whistle,or a pocket air hom may work. •Ifyour dog is not in the fight,make sure he does not join in. •Ifa fight occurs,control your dog and remove him to a neutral area. •Maintain a cool head.Getting upset and yelling will only add to the frenzy. •When warranted,exchange contact information with the other dog owners.If you can't because you must attend to your dog,designate someone else to get information. What To Do If You or Your Dog Are Injured in a Dog Fight •An injured dog may bite anyone near by. • A dog fight can be violent and is upsetting to everyone present. •Attitude:Even the calmest,most pleasant,well-adjusted person may become upset,angry or belligerent,if they or their dog is injured in a fight.Emotional behavior is automatic;try to remain calm and as objective as possible. •Legal Responsibility:Owners are solely liable for injuries or damage caused by their dogs. This includes injury to another dog or person, no matter how it began,who said what,or whatever. •Exchange Information:All involved parties should provide pertinent information including name,address,phone numbers and vaccination records to each other. •Report the Incident:Minor scuffles occur frequently.In the case of a serious fight or injury or a dog that clearly exhibits aggressive or dangerous behavior,call animal control or the Redondo Beach police department to report the incident.Also,report the event to The Friends of the RBDP so a record can be kept.You must have information on the offending person,even if it is only a license plate number. •Your Dog Is Your Personal Property.You Are Legally Responsible For Damage or Injury Caused By Your Dog! Remain In Control and In Sight of Your Dog at All Times •Pay attention!Owners must clean up after their dogs.There are plastic bags in dispensers along the fences and in the green wooden boxes in each Park.Shovels can be found on the fence.Please return them after use. •All dogs must have current licenses and vaccinations.While city regulations require only rabies immunization,it is strongly advised that your dog be vaccinated for Bordatella (kennel cough),DHLPP,and Corona. •Your dog must be on-leash at all time outside the park.This means walking to and from the Park and the parking lot. •Carry your dog's leash with you in the Dog Park.A leash is a sure way of gaining control over your dog if needed,and may act as an impromptu muzzle in an emergency. ATTACHMENT -282 •Puppies under five months of age are at risk of infection even when vaccinated.Younger dog's immune systems are not fully mature. •Your dog must have a collar with proper ID and rabies tags when in the Dog Park. Correct Owner Behavior •Do not bring food or dog treats into the Dog Park.Many owners do not feed treats.Some dogs may be allergic. •Do not leave water bowls at the Dog Park.Community water bowls not allowed to dry out are a breeding ground for many viruses and bacteria. •Do not plug the sink.If your dog will not drink from running water,bring your own bowl or cup. •It is recommended that you not bring dog toys or balls to the Dog Park.Toys may provoke possessive or aggressive conduct. •The small dog park is for small dogs (30 pounds)and puppies only.If you have an older or timid dog,you may only use small dog park if patrons agree. •Basic obedience training is a must for safety.You must be in control of your dog at all times. The Dog Park Is Not a Place For Your Child! The Dangers: •This is a dog park.Not all dogs are child-friendly!Never allow your child to approach or pet a strange dog without the owner's presence and approval. •Herding dogs may nip at children while attempting to round them up. • A running,squealing or screaming child may become a target for many dogs (because the child resembles an injured animal or prey). •Direct eye contact is confrontational to dogs.An interested child staring into a dog's face may provoke a dog unintentionally. •Never let your child have toys or food in the Dog Park.A friendly dog might knock down your child to get at a bright ball or cookie. •One adult to supervise several children or and infant and the family dog is not sufficient to ensure everyone's safety and control.Be sure you can take care of everyone you bring to the park. •All dogs have the potential to bite. ATTACHMENT -283 From: Sent: To: Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe Bobbie Wong [bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] Friday,October 29,2010 11 :22 AM Sara Singer;Katie Howe;Carolyn Lehr;Joel Rojas;Nicole Jules;cc@rpv.com;Ara Mihranian;Jon Davis; Les Chapin;Gregg Swartz;Noel Park;Jim Real;Marilyn Jakubowski;Linda LoConte;Bert Nastanski;Don Wiedlin;Eric Randall;Esther Hudson-Szczesny;Gerry &Chuck Howey;Jim Moore;Joe Chid ley;John Freeman;Lovell Chase;Ruth &Tom Nakagawa;jcorbett@corb7.com Subject:LOWER HESSE PARK PLANS Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Lower Hesse Park is no place to have a dog park.And not only that...but two dog parks!!!A Large dog park and a Small dog park.Now,who's going to monitor the dog size to see whether it belongs to the Big or Small one?This is ridiculous!Let's get real ...Let's be logicaL.Let's be sensible ...Let's create and develop a park for PEOPLE.Not dogs ..........I'm for the Pacific Plan for the people. What about the traffic study?What about parking?What about safety and security?What about maintenace?I'm still for the Pacific Plan for people. George Wong,RPV homeowner &resident over 43 years. 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -284 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Bernie Slotnick [bernierpv@cox.net] Sent:Wednesday,July 28,20102:56 PM To:Katie Howe;Stefan Wolowic;Bernie Slotnick Subject:My input on the plans for Grandview Park design Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red ----Original Message ----- From:Katie Howe To:'Bernie Slotnick' Sent:Wednesday,July 28,201012:11 PM Subject:RE:My input on the plans for Grandview Park design Thank you for your input.This will be included with other public input and attached to our staff report to Council. From:Bernie Slotnick [mailto:bernierpv@cox.net] sent:Wednesday,July 28,2010 11:08 AM To:Katie Howe Cc:Bernie Slotnick Subject:My input on the plans for Grandview Park design Katie Thank you for taking the time to listen to my input. With the Sate of California closing parks because the do not have the money to maintain them,why is Rancho Palos Verdes planning a park?Will the city be able to maintain the park when it is build? The initial design for the park includes all the items the city council wanted.The council requested input from the community as to what they want and didn't want.Many people responded to the request but so far there have been no changes to the original plan.At the meetings I have attended people do not want a park for dogs and dirt bikes and I have not heard anyone say they do want these things.The city council seem to be disreguarding the input they are asking for.The big sign on Montemalaga Dr.says we want input.You have our input.No dirt bikes or dog park,regular bike paths,a nice quiet park with walkways, playground,picnic area,native plants,grassy play area this is what we want. If the request for quote is the rule of law,don't waste time and ask the public for input. The public does have ideas and we look forward to see how many of ideas will be considered. The city asked for ideas at the Faire and that input was summarized for the July 17th Workshop. These ideas should be considered and implemented on a priority basis I was pleased to hear about the hiring of Emilo Blanco,please put him to work on the park now. The buffer between the houses and the park paths should be at least 30 feet,like at Hess Park. The designers should considered the street parking rather that a parking lot in the Park. Mr.Deepak Chopra said that if there is development near his property,he will be free to grow tall trees to block out noise and people peering into his yard.The trees probabl will be just in front of the veiwing area over look his tennis courts and pool. 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -285 Page 2 of2 The Dog Park on Hawthorne Blvd,should be a good replacement for the Dog Park planed for Grandview Park. The security needs to be in place and fenced. Consider solar powered lighting for the park. The stair exercise will be a drawing for many people at all hours.I lived across the street from Sand Dune Park in Manhattan Beach.The park was used at all hours,it was a drug drop for many years. The entrance and exit to Montemalaga Dr.from the lot into the street is dangerous,the speed limit is 35 mph on Montemalaga Dr.The speed needs to be reduced if the lot idea is followed. Bob Bush provided with a list of suggestions that need to be considered in your plans. 1)Parking.A 40-space lot is too large and would have a critical impact on my neighbors north of Montemalaga Drive.If parking can't be accommodated on Montemalaga Drive,then a small lot should be built based on eliminating the dog park and mountain biking uses which are unacceptable to all residents of the community.Also,many houses south of Montemalga also look down on the proposed parking lot sites.A grass-substance surface should be required to minimize the look of a parking lot when cars aren't present.The parking lot should be on the east side as outlined in one of your options. 2)Buildings.The restrooms and any other structures should be designed to blend into the hillside so as not to obstruct any view.Playground equipment,if installed,also should be placed outside of view corridors-certainly not on top of the park hill as it appears on one of the proposals.Also,playground equipment is available nearby at Silver Spur School. 3)Landscaping and grading.As much native species planting as possible.Minimal grading. 4)Dog Park.Absolutely must be eliminated.A suitable site for a dog park is off of Hawthorne Boulevard on the closed Palos Verdes Landfill,which has received the endorsements of the Rolling Hills Estates and Palos Verdes Estates City Councils.While I am a dog lover and signed a petition for dog parks,they must be placed in appropriate locations and are high maintenance.There also are issues regarding noise,safety and potential of disease to the animals. 5)Mountain Biking.Absolutely must be eliminated.There is a major bike path on Montemalaga Drive in both directions, which is heavily used.Our neighborhood is doing more than its share for bike riders.The noise,danger of injury and destruction to habitat speak for themselves when it comes to mountain biking on this beautiful,one-of-a-kind property. 6)Traffic.Consider a stop sign on Montemalaga Drive.It will be extremely difficult to turn left from the steep,up-hill drive out of the proposed parking lot without stop signs.This also would calm the traffic speeds on Montemalaga. 7)No exterior lighting. 8)No trees that could obstruct views. 9)Careful design of the buffer proposed on the north side so as not to block views from the park and to allow easy viewing from the park of the Los Angeles Basin and Coastline,especially during special occasions,such as 4th of July fireworks. 10)Entrances.There should be review of whether to have pedestrian entrances off of Ironwood and Via Cresta.The latter is in Palos Verdes Estates and probably would require an easement across private property (an existing vacant lot).The park is next to the Ironwood and Via Cresta homes,and they might wish to have access rather than driving around the hill to the Montemalaga parking lot. 11)There was a discussion of there being an existing walking trail south of Montemalaga Drive.No such trail exists. General observation:Montemalaga Drive continues to receive extensive pressure,which is making the street undesirable and lowering property values.In addition to the development of Grandview Park,we also are going to be asked to accept increased traffic from night-lighted events at the 5,000-seat Peninsula High Football Stadium.We already have speeding traffic from Palos Verdes Estates and traffic from a church and Silver Spur Elementary and Peninsula High Schools.Public utilities have shown total irresponsibility in creating a Christmas tree of a telephone phone in front of my house.I am forced to have a big tree to block my city-lights view rather than look at the telephone poles and lines.I would hope Montemalaga could be placed at the top of the priority list for underground utilities and traffic calming (the same street,with a different name,continues through Palos Verdes Estates with calm traffic and with underground utilities). Please call if I can answer any questions. 310-375-9340 Bernie Slotnick 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -286 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:Jeff Corbett Ucorbett@wbc-inc.com] Sent:Monday,August 02,201010:18 AM To:katieh@rpv.com Cc:Cindy Corbett;'Les Chapin';Ichase@lovelljr.com Subject:Lower Hess Park Project Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Katie, As you may recall,we briefly met at the Pacific View Home Owners BBQ.I have a quick question.At the July 17, 2010 Community Workshop there was a strong response from homeowners pertaining to not wanting a dog park included in the proposed Lower Hess Park Improvement Project.As such my question is -will there be a proposal on the board during the September 25th Community Workshop which does not include a dog park? I appreciate your attention to this correspondence. Jeff Corbett JEFFREY H.CORBETT President &CEO Corb7 International 468 North Camden Drive,Suite 200 Beverly Hills,Ca.90210 310-601-3115 (Office) 310-415-3545 (Mobile) CORB7 INTERNATIONAL 7 Levels ofStrategic Development WWW.CORB7.COM 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -287 Page 1 of1 Katie Howe From:John Freeman Urfree@cox.net] Sent:Wednesday,October 06,201010:47 AM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:'Carolyn Lehr';'Nicole Jules';parks@rpv.com;traffic@rpv.com Subject:Hesse Park Athletic Field Improvements Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council members: Thank you for your consideration and action on the Upper Hesse Park and Ryan Park agenda item last night. Jim Moore,Lovell Chase,and I spoke last night;we are members of the Pacific View HOA which represents 345 homes immediately surrounding Hesse Park.Our HOA has been proactively involved in representing our homeowners'concerns.Among the highest priorities over the years have been the speed,safety,and traffic issues resulting from the steep downhill streets of Verde Ridge and Locklenna on both sides of Hesse Park.We are constantly looking for ways to mitigate these dangers.As Mr.Chase mentioned,one of our HOA board members was seriously injured last year when he was walking near Verde Ridge Rd. We are preparing for your hearing next month of the Lower Hesse Park and Grandview Park improvements.Along with the design improvements and suggestions,we have also submitted ideas on ways to mitigate the traffic/parking/safety issues as well.We anticipate and hope there will be a more formal analysis and report from Ms.Nicole Jules (RPV Senior Engineer)and/or the Traffic Safety Commission in the next staff report. I firmly believe we can't solve one problem (improved park design)without addressing the other problem (safety). We are looking forward to working together with you to solve them both. John Freeman Pacific View Homeowners Association 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -288 Page 1 of 1 Katie Howe From:John Freeman fjrfree@cox.net] Sent:Friday,November 05,20103:38 PM To:cc@rpv.com Cc:parks@rpv.com;Katie Howe Subject:Hesse Park:Chain Link Fence views or Ocean views? Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red Attachments:Chain Link fences.pdf;Clear Glass Fencing.pdf Re:Comments for November 16,2010 City Council agenda (Lower Hesse Park) Dear Mayor Wolowicz and City Council members, First let me say that I am for more community involvement and more use of both Lower and Upper Hesse Park.I am amazed at the various cultural,ethnic,sports,and other groups utilizing Upper Hesse Park.Often it is full on the weekends with family friendly informal use of the recreational field.During the week I see walkers,dog-walkers,a men's soccer group,kid's soccer,lacrosse,etc. The challenge in lower Hesse Park is how much space serves how many people. A tennis court is 36 feet by 78 feet.Double that for two tennis courts.That 5,616 square feet of space dedicated to serve 4 tennis players at a time (8 for doubles).Additionally a 12 to 20 chain link fence is required to surround the tennis court. Instead,how many people or groups could be served by a 5,000+square foot area of family-friendly space?For picnics,informal sports and recreation,etc.? Council members say "We must serve the needs of more people in our parks."I agree.Well,then compare 4 for tennis vs.50 or 75 for multiple group and active activities.Go to Upper Hesse Park on the weekends.Count the small and large groups using the park.It's more than 4 people.Now let's direct that strategy for lower Hesse Park. However,if you must put two tennis courts in Lower Hesse Park,then I suggest you abandon chain link fences and instead use some type of "clear glass fencing"that does not block views from people enjoying the park orthe residents living nearby.Look at the pictures I took (ChainLinkfences.pdf attached)of the tennis courts at Peninsula High School and RPV City Hall.Can you see the ocean or do you see the chain link fence? Instead please consider Clear Glass Fencing (see ClearGlassFencing.pdf attached),or something similar.Of course it's more expensive.But did we purchase homes and move here to look at chain link fences or to look at ocean views? Be imaginative!Thank you. John Freeman Pacific View Homeowners Association Rancho Palos Verdes 11/9/2010 ATTACHMENT -289 No Tennis Courts in Lower Hesse Park These pictures are views ofthe west .most tenms court at Peninsula High School on Silver Spur Rd. Can you see the beautiful ocean view through the 15-20 foot high chain link fence enclosure?NO! ATTACHMENT -290 View looking north east towards the city. Note this is just one tennis court.Now imagine 3 of these at Lower Hesse Park.NOI One asphalt and steel tennis court serves 2 people (4 for doubles). Or we can serve 50+RPV residents and various community groups in the same area with an environmentally and family friendly setting for play and picnic and other leisure sports. Now imagine 3 ofthese tennis courts I NOI ATTACHMENT -291 Finally,a worse view-blockage example is the tennis court at RPV City Hall. Can you see the ocean through the slats in the chain link fence? ATTACHMENT -292 Clear Glass fencing alternatives Frameless Glass Walls: http:Uwww.dobleglass.com/framelessglasswall.html ATTACHMENT -293 http:Uwww. · h fames h on link fences.Glass walls w,t r f meless,but better than ca.,ith background. Not as desirable as ra lor for better blendmg whidbeaneutralcoFramessou / I sswall.htmldobleglass.com ga ATTACHMENT -294 From:Ginger Clark [mailto:ginger.garnett@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,May 13,2010 11:09 AM To:Tom Long Cc:bernie slotnick;clehr@rpv.com;tomo@rpv.com;kendyda@verizon.net;Sara Singer;ROBERT BUSH;tew138@verizon.net;Candy Fletcher;Susie Mizuno;RAFAEL GUTIERREZ;Miki Otskua; Lee Norwood;Lawrence Ha;Larry Connelly;Ken Beck;Karin caro;John Letcher;Jess Yuste; Helen Connelly;Gina carino;David Aikens;Dan Burns;Claudia Kirchner;Bob Bush;Barbara Swift;Barbara Freia;Alice Beirne;Jean Kojima Subject:Re:Grandview Park Dear Mr.Long, Dear Ginger,Of course you are free to share your views.I am sorry that we don't agree. Yes,I am too. I don't think a park that has no parking and no restrooms is useful to most of the city.The neighborhoods near some of our city parks do complain and some seem to share your views.The don't want parking,restrooms,playgrounds equipment,benches or anything else that will let others use the park. You think people don't use the park without those facilities because you don't?I use it, the Sierra Club uses it,the people who want contemplative time use it,the kids who want to fly their kites or ride their bikes use it.The foxes and coyotes use it.Lots of people and critters use it.Just not you. You portray my desire to have the parks as "jealousy."Jealousy of what?Your desire to keep the parks as your own private fiefdom?I guess so. I didn't portray your desire to have the parks as Jealousy.'I portrayed your 'fiefdom' argument as setting up an artificial jealousy between neighbors near the park and the rest of the people on the hill--as though we're hoarding it.That's silly.They're our neighbors, too.As I said before,build us a Grandview Park sign so we can invite them. It would be more fair I think to label you as selfish. It is the responsibility of the city and its councilembers to act in the best interests of the city as a whole.While I think many of the concerns of neighbors can be well addressed,I don't see anyway to fully accomodate you without being very unfair to others.Perhaps you should reflect on that. Of course I'm selfish.I selfishly like the kind of people who think and contemplate--the quiet people who years ago moved to PV because they weren't happy with concrete and the kind of parks those concrete-generators created.I do think that you've misunderstood ATTACHMENT -295 the desires ofthe people who voted you in.I think it's time to hear from the rest ofthe hill since the people who are most impacted by your actions are the people you most consider to be ignorable. I am not the only person who wants restrooms,benches and useable trails in parks I am sure. .....and dog parks and mountain bike areas and so on and so on.No,probably not.And I am not the only person who does not want those things. Take a little time to learn a bit more about the proposed improvements and perhaps you will understand them a bit better. I have,indeed.And I do,indeed. And as for the ad hominem attacks on me--feel free to continue them.It comes with the territory.After all I am just a childless old white man so I must be evil,right? I am really terribly sorry that you felt that was an ad hominem attack.Please accept my apology.I didn't mean that as an attack at all.Perfectly reasonable people choose not to have children.I mentioned that because if you had children you could more easily observe what helps them grow.(And your skin color is your business,not mine.Some of my best friends are white people,most are old and some are men). Just ask Paula Petrotta ofMedeterranea who is unhappy that we would allow a college to build a library.You sound a lot like her.And neither of you do much to make a good case for yourself if your objective is to get my vote.But do as you please.Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem,Rancho Palos Verdes And of course since her life will be most affected by your decision,she should have no say at all in the decision.Very odd to my way of thinking. My objective was not to get your vote.You are philosophically very foreign to me (and I think to many on the hill who voted for you without understanding that)so I don't think there's a way to discuss this rationally with you. Thank you for your reply, Ginger G Clark On May 13,2010,at 4:47 PM,Tom Long wrote: ATTACHMENT -296 Dear Ginger,Of course you are free to share your views.I am sorry that we don't agree.I don't think a park that has no parking and no restrooms is useful to most ofthe city.The neighborhoods near some of our city parks do complain and some seem to share your views.The don't want parking,restrooms,playgrounds equipment,benches or anything else that will let others use the park.You portray my desire to have the parks as "jealousy."Jealousy of what?Your desire to keep the parks as your own private fiefdom? I guess so.It would be more fair I think to label you as selfish.It is the responsibility of the city and its councilembers to act in the best interests of the city as a whole.While I think many of the concerns of neighbors can be well addressed,I don't see anyway to fully accomodate you without being very unfair to others.Perhaps you should reflect on that.I am not the only person who wants restrooms,benches and useable trails in parks I am sure.Take a little time to learn a bit more about the proposed improvements and perhaps you will understand them a bit better.And as for the ad hominem attacks on me-- feel free to continue them.It comes with the territory.After all I am just a childless old white man so I must be evil,right?Just ask Paula Petrotta of Medeterranea who is unhappy that we would allow a college to build a library.You sound a lot like her.And neither of you do much to make a good case for yourself if your objective is to get my vote.But do as you please.Tom Long Mayor Pro Tem,Rancho Palos Verdes -----Original Message----- From:"Ginger Clark" Sent 5/13/2010 9:01:24 AM To:"Tom Long" Cc:"bernie slotnick",c1ehr@rpv.com,tomo@rpv.com,kendyda@verizon.net,"Sara Singer""ROBERT BUSH"tew138@verizonnet "Candy Fletcher""Susie Mizuno",,..,,, "RAFAEL GUTIERREZ","Miki Otskua","Lee Norwood","Lawrence Ha","Larry Connelly","Ken Beck","Karin Caro","John Letcher","Jess Yuste","Helen Connelly","Gina Carino","David Aikens","Dan Burns","Claudia Kirchner","Bob Bush","Barbara Swift","Barbara Freia","Alice Beirne","Jean Kojima" Subject:Re:Grandview Park Dear Mr.Long, Your original note was a reply to Bernie Slotnick,but since I'm on the 'cc'list,I trust that the rest of us can reply to some of your points without being out ofline: 1."The neighbors of Hesse Park understand that Hesse (like Grandview) is a community park that needs to be accessible to all city residents and are working with the city staff to formulate ways of making the park available to all but also addressing neighborhood conerns.I would encourage you and your neighbors to do the same." On the contrary,we had a nice discussion with "The neighbors of Hesse Park"when this all began and they pretty much said that because the city had already messed with half the land,they didn't think they could fight the city messing with the other half Far from ATTACHMENT -297 "working with the city staff,etc.,etc."they are operating from pure despair at keeping the city from screwing up more of the land. 2.This park is the closest city park to my home and yet now it is largely unusable to me because there is no place I can sit when I get tired (I don't know about you but depending on my knees and ankle sitting on the ground instead of a bench is not a good idea)and no place I can go to the bathroom now that my kidneys and bladder are weaker than they used to be. We've heard you say this before and I have to say that this is incredibly presumptuous of you.That anyone should take into account your knees and your bladder,as though you were the king of Palos Verdes;well,I'm embarrassed for you.I am older than dirt,have an ankle that doesn't work well,iffy knees,and a bladder that works like most older women's bladders.I would be mortified to ask people to live lesser lives in order to accommodate my frailties.Why in heaven's name would you ask people to adjust to your weaknesses?By the way,the British have this really cool folding seat they carry out on walks.I'll give you mine if you'll leave that land alone. Grandview has always been designated a community park for all city residents,not the personal park of those who live very close by. I can't imagine where you got the idea that Grandview Park was only used by the people who live nearby.That's simply not true.As a small example the Sierra Club walks through the hill quite often.If getting people to use the park is truly a concern to you, why don't you give us one of those really neat city signs identifying this lovely hill as Grandview Park? Weare below average in terms of park opportunities as opposed to open space.We need more parks and properly developed ones that people from throughout the city can use. Now,why is 'managed land'better than just plain dirt?I spent my early childhood playing on unmanaged land.On that land,I was the Lone Ranger,or Tarzan or cowboys and Indians or I just sat and stared at the weeds and thought about life.Managed land, with dog parks and landscaped areas and screamingly-fast mountain bikes,isn't conducive to either imagination or thinking.You,who I understand have no children, may not remember your own childhood but then maybe if you dig back into your past you might recall the imagining times and the quiet thinking times that helped you grow and become an adult.Those times weren't managed times. As for the financial concerns,now is the time to do improvements since we will likely get better prices. ATTACHMENT -298 Ah,the spend now or it'll be too expensive argument.As though that's a justification for spending in the first place.Can't think of anything to say about that because it's silly--sort oflike let's buy Persian carpets now,dear,because they'll get more expensive if we wait. But do we want them?Well,no,but later they'll be more expensive,dear. We also do our part (however small)to restart the economy.I,for one, don't think the cure to the current economic situation is cutting jobs and spending when we don't need to. I can't imagine what jobs you'd be cutting by not building this park unless it's the artificial jobs you created to get the park built.As for cutting spending,it might be smart for the city council to join the rest of us and be a little careful with our money instead of spending it on unwanted projects like your concrete parks. Unlike all other governmental entities the revenue the city relies on is largely not sales tax or income tax and hence is not down.Indeed the city's revenues are continuing to go up (albeit more slowly than otherwise).And we have a balanced operating budget without even taking into account hotel tax (TOT)revenues from the new resort at Terranea which are running at about $1.8 million per year.Just as we will find the revenue to pay for the improvements I think we will also find the revenue for maintenance. Now that's interesting.Does that mean we didn't need to tax ourselves for the sewer system?And how about the continual maintenance of the road through the slide area which last I heard costs the city $200,000 a year (and is probably more now)?This is very interesting.If you're feeling flush,I think this is a piece of information that we citizens should take a good look at.Thank you so much for letting us know!By the waY,"improvements"is an evaluative term.What you're planning for Grandview Park won't improve it at all. As it currently exists "Grandview Park"is a field of weeds.(It really isn't useful habitat and it isn't near any city open space and it isn't part of the Preserve or the NCCP and the Land Conservancy doesn't think it should be and neither do I.) A field of weeds!Isn't that wonderful!An untouched,unmanaged piece of dirt,useful to the spiders and moles and skunks and possums and coyotes and who knows what else. That's precisely what the city ofRPV was created to preserve.Weren't you around when the city was born?Did you forget the battle cry?No Bulldozers!Leave the land alone!I don't think they meant no bulldozers except city bulldozers. It is a waste of a public asset to have it as nothing more than the glorified backyards of nearby neighbors. ATTACHMENT -299 There you go with the jealousy bit again.We welcome all visitors--the kind of people who love open space and want to come and just connect with the land.We're not at war with our neighbors.We'd love to share our lovely hill.They are welcomed.It's you folks who haven't made us a sign saying 'Grandview Park'to help us share.It's about time we made one ourselves. If we refuse to use the land properly then perhaps we should sell it to someone who will use it properly.I am not really advocating that and there are deed restrictions on the land requiring it be kept for public use. Of course you're not advocating it.But you're trying to use that to threaten us.You did that at the neighborhood meeting,too.You said that maybe it would be sold to private owners and they'll build on it.You tried to frighten us.And of course your reasoning is that it's better if you (the city)builds on it,then ifthey (the developers)do. That's wrong.It's better if no one builds on it. But again,it was intended to make it a park.It really isn't one now. Of course it's a park.It's just not managed to suit your knees and your bladder. Indeed it isn't its intended "public"use now--it is just the backyard of some immediate neighbors. Jealousy jealousy jealousy.This is emotional stuff,not reasonable stuff.And it's not true. Children need a good place to play and the rest of us need more good real park space too.we are neglecting public land--wasting it--we can and should do better.Tom Long Yes,Mr Long,children need a good place to play.But if they need to be entertained,they can use the nearby grade school facilities,the nearby high school facilities,the par course down the hill from us in PVE,and the various playing fields all over the city.But on this side ofthe hill,they don't have any good place to play that gives them the chance to run free with the dog,poke at spiders,see wildlife,use their imaginations and eat dirt.I supposed they could hop the fences and play in the canyons but Grandview park seems safer. This piece of land is the last,final piece ofraw land in RPV on this side of the hill.It's the last,final place for our kids and grandkids to walk and sit,to contemplate and imagine,and to roll and play in the dirt of history. ATTACHMENT -300 Your plan,if you're able to bulldoze it past the citizens ofRPV,will destroy the last of our heritage of unmanaged land,and destroy a beautiful piece of well-loved dirt. No Bulldozers,Mr Long!Save Grandview Park! Ginger G Clark Dear Mr.Slotnick,Thank you for sharing your views.I encourage you to follow the process and stay involved.There is no plan for a motor bike park being considered.A mountain bike area is being considered.A dog park is also being considered.I would like to think we can find ways to make that workable.The neighbors of Hesse Park understand that Hesse (like Grandview)is a community park that needs to be accessible to all city residents and are working with the city staff to formulate ways ofmaking the park available to all but also addressing neighborhood conems.I would encourage you and your neighbors to do the same.This park is the closest city park to my home and yet now it is largely unusable to me because there is no place I can sit when I get tired (I don't know about you but depending on my knees and ankle sitting on the ground instead of a bench is not a good idea)and no place I can go to the bathroom now that my kidneys and bladder are weaker than they used to be.Grandview has always been designated a community park for all city residents,not the personal park of those who live very close by.Thus I think improvements like parking and restrooms are needed but I want it to be done in a way that is mindful of the neighbors.Weare below average in terms of park opportunities as opposed to open space.We need more parks and properly developed ones that people from throughout the city can use.As for the financial concerns,now is the time to do improvements since we will likely get better prices.We also do our part (however small)to restart the economy.I,for one,don't think the cure to the current economic situation is cutting jobs and spending when we don't need to.I would like to think that memories of Hoovervilles would help persuade people that cutting employment and spending does not help end a recession.(Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.)Unlike all other governmental entities the revenue the city relies on is largely not sales tax or income tax and hence is not down.Indeed the city's revenues are continuing to go up (albeit more slowly than otherwise).And we have a balanced operating budget without even taking into account hotel tax (TOT)revenues from the new resort at Terranea which are running at about $1.8 million per year.Just as we will find the revenue to pay for the improvements I think we will also find the revenue for maintenance.As it currently exists "Grandview Park"is a field of weeds.(It really isn't useful habitat and it isn't near any city open space and it isn't part ofthe Preserve or the NCCP and the Land Conservancy doesn't think it should be and neither do 1.)It is a waste of a public asset to have it as nothing more than the glorified backyards of nearby neighbors.Ifwe refuse to use the land properly then perhaps we should sell it to someone who will use it properly.I am not really advocating that and there are deed restrictions on the land requiring it be kept for public use.But again,it was intended to make it a park.It really isn't one now.Indeed it isn't its intended "public"use now--it is just the backyard of some immediate neighbors.Children need a good place to play and the rest ofus need ATTACHMENT -301 more good real park space too.we are neglecting public land--wasting it--we can and should do better.Tom Long -----Original Message----- From:"Bernie Slotnick" Sent 5/11/2010 7:49:59 AM To:"Tom Long" Cc:"Ginger Clark","Sara Singer","ROBERT BUSH",tew138@verizon.net,"Candy Fletcher","Bernie Slotnick","Susie Mizuno","RAPAEL GUTIERREZ","Miki Otskua","Lee Norwood","Lawrence Ha","Larry Connelly","Ken Beck","Karin Caro","John Letcher","Jess Yuste","Helen Connelly","Gina Carino","David Aikens","Dan Bums","Claudia Kirchner","Bob Bush","Barbara Swift","Barbara Freia","Alice Beirne","Jean Kojima" Subject:Grandview Park Mr.Long My house backs on Grandview Park.I do not agree with plans to put a Dog area,a motor bike area and a parking lot. The Dog area will be used mostly by people outside of Rancho Palos Verdes,The current park is used by our local people. With the current financial environment this effort is even of more concerning. I understand that the City Council is planning on grants to pay for this effort but what is going to funding the maintenance of the finished Park? Rancho Palos Verdes is laying teachers off,does Rancho Palos Verdes have the money to cover the maintaining of the Park? I will attend the meetings this week,can this be addressed at the meeting. Bernie Slotnick 310-375-9340 bernierpv@cox.net ATTACHMENT -302 Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: FYI Nicole Jules [nicolej@rpv.com] Tuesday,December 22,20099:58 AM tomo@rpv.com;'Sara Singer';'Ara M';'Katie Howe' 'Ray Holland';'Carolynn Petru';'Carolyn Lehr' FW:Latest on Jon Follow up Red City of Rancho Palos Verdes Nicole Jules,P.E. Senior Engineer Department of Public Works 30940 Hawthorne Blvd Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310.544.5275 310.544.5292 fax -----Original Message----- From:NOEL PARK [mailto:noel@jdcorvette.com] Sent:Monday,December 21,2009 9:52 PM To:nicolej@rpv.com Subject:FW:Latest on Jon FYI.Just so that you know why people are so upset.Thanks again for your courtesy in reaching out to me. Happiest of Holidays to all. -----Original Message----- From:Jim Real [mailto:vjreall@cox.net] Sent:Monday,December 21,2009 8:37 AM To:Jim Real Cc:Noel Parkj Diana Park;Marilyn Jakubowskij George Wongj Jim Moore;Lovell Chasej Linda LoConte;Gregg Swartz;Pat Campbell;Jon Davis;Leslie Chapin Subject:Latest on Jon I don't know if any of you have received the latest on Jon from Heather,but I thought I'd pass this along. Please continue to hold the Davis family up in your prayers. --Jim >Yesterday we learned that Jon will probably be in the ICU for a week >to 10 days before they can move him to step down care.He is in what >I call a medically induced coma so they can keep him incubated and >have a ventilator breath for him.After his stay at the trauma >hospital (Harbor UCLA)he will be moved to another local hospital and >then rehab. > >He has survived a very bad automobile accident -but thanks to his >side air bag is alive today. > >He has had 2 surgeries and 8 pints of blood and they are not ruling >out another surgery down the line but that is hopefully unlikely. >After the first surgery they left his belly open but closed it after >the second.We are very glad that so far they have not had to remove >any organs. > >He has a broken pelvis (left side)and 5 broken ribs (left side). >They have tubes everywhere and lots of IV bags -for fluids and 1 ATTACHMENT -303 >several medicines.Saturday night he started having atrial >fibrillation but the cardiac team is working hard to stabilize that. >Right now he has 3 teams working on him -medical,surgical and >cardiac. > >My daughter Laura says he is getting very good care.The hospital is >very 3rd worldly -we are scanned and go through metal detectors each >time we go in.When we reach the floor we are again checked by >security and often have long waits to get in. > >It will be a long wait and may be months before Jon is back walking >fully.We have had to postpone plans for another cruise but that is >nothing compared to getting him well and walking again. > >My children have been my support and I thank all of your who have e- >mailed me.Our schedule is topsy-turvy so we aren't home at any >regular times so e-mail is best. > >My thoughts are with you all.Have a very Merry Christmas and may >2010 be a great year. > >Heather Shilling Davis On Dec 19,2009,at 7:36 AM,Jim Real wrote: >Just wanted you to know,Jon was in a serious car accident yesterday >at the corner of Verde Ridge and Hawthorne. >Heather said he's had one round of surgery already and is now in the >O.R.again.All we know is he that he has a broken pelvis and 5 broken >ribs. >Please pray for Jon and his family at this difficult time. >We'll update everyone as we hear more news. >--Jim 2 ATTACHMENT -304 Katie Howe From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: April 18,2010 N Nastanski [nastano@yahoo.com] Sunday,April 18,2010 2:41 PM cc@rpv.com;katieh@rpv.com Lower Hesse Park Changes Follow up Red Subject: Sirs: Proposed Changes to Lower Hesse Park The city of Rancho Palos Verdes was founded to provide local control and prevent high density developments.The changes proposed to Lower Hesse park attempt to put too many amenities into a confined hilly area.These proposed changes create long term financial problems for maintenance and may create legal liabilities. The unattended proposed restroom facility has its own obvious problems. The proposed dog park at Hesse park will create an attractive nuisance and could result in potential legal liabilities to the city (dog bites and traffic hazard liabilities). A significant number of people from outside RPV,who are not familiar with the traffic speed on Hawthorne Boulevard,will be drawn to the dog park and will be making a left turn at Locklenna and Hawthorne boulevard.Traffic accidents are sure to happen at this intersection.Currently the berm (at the top of the Hesse park)obscures cars (which are traveling south along the curve on Hawthorne boulevard)from being seen by people waiting to make a turn from Locklenna Lane.Many of the cars going north on Hawthorne Blvd are exceeding the speed limit at this location. I recently visited dog parks in Palm Desert,Redondo Beach and Laguna Beach and had the following observations: -Fenced in dirt area.Very little grass. Very bad urine smell.Difficult/impossible to pick up urine. -All dog parks were large size. -Palm Desert dog park location is on the edge of a estimated 400 acre park near city maintenance vehicles and park trash collection area. -Redondo Beach dog park is located under high voltage wire adjacent to a large hard ball baseball field. -Laguna Beach dog park is a stand alone dog park. -None of the dog parks are located in an active park area or near housing. -Some dogs were off leash as they proceeded from the parking lot to the Redondo Beach dog park. -Estimated 20 users per hour on weekdays.Weekend use estimated at 2 to 3 times this amount. The advocates for a dog park in RPV seem to be from Palos Verdes Estates,a city that does not have any public parks.The sign on the entrance to the park indicates "Fred Hesse Community Park"not "Fred Hesse Regional Park". I request that the dog park and restroom not be included in the proposed changes to lower Hesse Park. If the city representatives decide a dog park is desirable in RPV,I would suggest that different location be considered.A possible location would be adjacent to where the city vehicles are stored on the northeastern side of RPV City Hall site. Sincerely, 1 ATTACHMENT -305 Norbert Nastanski Iss 29513 Baycrest Drive Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275 310.541.7615 e-mail nastano@yahoo.com concurrence:Geraldine Nastanski Iss 2 ATTACHMENT -306 From:James Moore [mailto:jdm4pv@yahoo.com] Sent:Monday,November 01,2010 2:56 PM To:RPV City Council Cc:John Freeman;Pat campbell;Les Chapin;Lovell Chase;Jon Davis;Linda LoConte;Jim Real; George Wong;Gregg Swartz;Joe Chid ley;Jon Davis;Marilyn Jakubowski;Noel Park Subject:Hesse Park History Council Members, Especially for the new members,I have prepared and attached a one page summary of Hesse Park.The second page is four points,from the history experience,that I believe apply to the Lower Hesse Park proposed modifications. I know that any changes to the Mia Plans,however minor,would require your combined decision to make them be accomplished.These changes would be the third plan that is in the contract,if you believe that any changes are desirable. Respectfully,Jim Moore ATTACHMENT -307 October 2010 From:Jim Moore HESSE PARK HISTORY When the School District made the decision that a Junior High School was not required,the city had the opportunity to purchase the land for park development.Work began in 1978 to develop a park.Public input provided four goals:1)No on street parking,2)A buffer zone between residents and active areas,3)A completely planned park,4)No night lights.The original plans for Hesse Community Park in 1981 was from Reynolds Environmental Group for the entire 28 acres.The plan did not meet the first two objectives.The upper area,included one baseball diamond,106 parking spaces,the Building and two childrens play areas just below the building. (When it was built the open field included two baseball diamonds,a par course and no lower area.)The lower area had four tennis courts without lights,four shuffle board courts,two open play areas with lawn and shade trees,restroom and maintenance building,trails,and "native" plant study area.(The staff has these plans and I have a copy).The cost ofthe building was the reason for not completing the entire park.The lower area was leased to a farmer to raise alfalfa. Since completed,Hesse Park has been very well used,mostly for family picnics and celebrations.The ball diamonds were not to regulation and no official games have been played. Practice exercises and many pick-up soccer games are regular activities as staffhas reported. In 1994 Pacific View Homeowners (PVHA)of 345 homes were encouraged by City Council to prepare a plan to develop a passive park to convert the 16 acres of the lower area into a useful facility.The 1981 plan was considered,but the City did not have funding for that plan and guided PVHA to a low maintenance passive park.Thomas Lockett,F ASLA,owner of Land Images provided the professional guidance and a pro-bono conceptual plan after several months of public input.In October1995 we began working with the Recreation and Park committee for common goals.An initial proposal was prepared and presented to Paul Bussey,City Manager by Shelby Jordan and Jim Moore.A Town Hall meeting,January 1996 at Hesse Park,sponsored by PVHA had 84 attendees from many sections of the city to discuss and obtain input for the parks features.At the April 1996 meeting the council heard the results of this two year effort and directed that we work with Ron Rosenfeld,Director Recreation and Parks to develop features and costs.A sub-committee ofrecreation and Parks was formed including Jordan,Moore and Lockett to prioritize features,costs and possible construction phasing.On December 1996 the full Committee made the final selection of details for the Lower Hesse Park Trails presentation to the Council.The Council requested information about several options and budget limits over ten meetings leading to the approval of an Architectural Services contract on February 1997. November 1997 The Council directed further development and September 1998 approved the construction contract. The basic park was $496,000 plus contingencies,but play areas,picnic facilities and a native garden throughout the trails increased the costs to over $1,200,000.The September 1998 construction contract of $496,000 became Lower Hesse Trails.An additional $20,000 was obtained just before construction for the inclusion of the sand lot volley ball,so that high school students would have a desired activity,now seldom used.Many other features were considered necessary to maintain the trails,such as borders,rock rings around trees,signage etc.but these were prevented by the budget. ATTACHMENT -308 THE TAKE AWAY FROM HISTORY 1.Professional recommendations should be the guide to planning,especially when implementation is delayed by budget constraints.When money is available,they should be completed. 2.The 2003 Survey,that is now available,supports the earlier public input for picnic areas with shade trees and grass as the MOST IMPORTANT park feature by the citizens ofRPV.Having parking close to the picnic facilities and tennis courts is important to augment usage. 3.Tennis courts were lowest in the survey.It is not valid to say that the survey supports and that the public desires more tennis courts.Tennis courts were positioned in the 1981 plans where the parking lot is currently located.That would be a better location in the new plan,especially when the sand lot volley ball court is being removed and that area could be part of the expanded parking. 4.Basketball was mentioned in the survey,but was below a statistical significance.Organized sports require coaches,referees,time keepers etc.and are not suited for isolated locations.A basket,back board and partial court gets more use than a full court,for practice and one on one play. ATTACHMENT -309 Page 1 of2 Katie Howe From:Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com] Sent:Monday,May 10,20109:42 AM To:'Tom Odom' Cc:'Katie Howe' Subject:FW:PVHOA Hesse Park Workshops Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Red From:LeslieChapin [mailto:les.alice@cox.net] Sent:Saturday,May 08,2010 12:07 PM To:Roberta Wong;Noel Park;Diana Park;Jon Davis;Gregg Swartz;Jim Real;Jim Moore;Linda LoConte;Lovell Chase;Marilyn Jakubowski;Pat Campbell Cc:Gail Lorenzen;Beverly Athey;Lorraine Webber;Steve Wells;Matt Maloney;Yi Hwa Kim;Peter Yin;Ruby Maher;Diane Zeoli;Eric &Dianne Randall;George Chin;Dick Cantine;Chiemi Tabata;Mike Zvanut;Linda LoConte;Rob &Elena Meroth; Mark Simon;Karen Freeman;Gary French;epc@rpv.com Subject:Re:PVHOA Hesse Park Workshops Hello Noel. Hesse Park,since inception,has always been identified as Upper Hesse Park and Hesse Park Trails.The "Lower Hesse Park" identifier has started to creep in instead of "Hesse Park Trails"and it is recommended that we always refer to the lower segment of the park as Hesse Park Trails.The trails aspect of the park provides great walking activities for our neighbors and is the area that is the most actively and consistently used.It is this feature of the park that should be focused on to assure this area of the park remains relatively inactive as opposed to an active park. I plan to attend and speak at the Hesse Park May 15th,9AM Community Workshop #1 meeting.My topic will be Pacific View Emergency Preparedness (EP)as it relates to the park.I think most of you know that we have reviewed emergency evacuation considerations with the LA county fire department relative to emergency medical helicopter evacuations from Pacific View.We have been told that none of our cul-de-sacs nor our one four way intersection at EI Rodeo and Kings Harbor are large enough to support emergency medical helicopter landings even with no overhead power wires within all of Pacific View.The designated Pacific View medical evacuation helicopter landing site is currently upper Hesse Park in the playing field area. The Resource Survey form that each of our households has been asked to complete contains identification of a resource of a "transportation vehicle large enough to support prone patients".There are only about four such vehicles that have been identified within Pacific View,those being large SUV's,pick ups or flat bed trucks.I'm fairly certain that there are not a lot of medical stretchers in Pacific View and we will probably be transporting our prone medically injured on closet doors and whatever plywood sheets we are able to find.I am going to request that consideration be given to make provisions for a medical evacuation landing site within Hesse Park Trails.The helicopters are able to land at the upper park and we want to be sure they can also land at the lower trails site.There are currently no overhead obstructions at either of these areas.If we have to transport medically injured potentially from the bottom of Kings Harbor and/or Verde Ridge we want to limit the traveled distance as best we can.We will not know the condition of our streets and it could be that we can drive our evacuation vehicles and somehow get to the Trails area but not be able to get to the upper park area.If a potential landing site is identified early during the design phase of the trails it seems like a reasonable request for a Hesse Park Trails identified Emergency Preparedness helicopter landing site. I am copying our EP block captains so they are up to speed on all of our Pacific View Emergency Preparedness activities.I still plan to hold a Pacific View EP block captains meeting,probably in June.All of our block captains need to meet and know each other and we want to be sure that each block has completed and updated their resource survey matrices.Lessons learned recently in Haiti,Chile and China cause us to recognize that we need to be prepared.When the earthquake happens it is too late!!All of our 345 homes have been supplied copies of the Earthquake Country Alliance "Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country"which identify aspects of Emergency Earthquake Preparedness.The Alliance provided us the copies and they have been distributed to each of our 345 homes.I have recently received a "RPV Prepared"letter from the city of RPV increasing the amount of water that you should have stored.LA county has always officially recommended two gallons of water per person per day for three days.Apparently FEMA is now recommending one gallon of water per person for fourteen days according to the recently received "Prepared"letter.Be sure you review your emergency water supply to be sure it is adequate for your 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -310 Page 2 of2 household! At least a half a dozen of our ham radio operators have been checking in with the Peninsula Volunteer Alert Net (PVAN)on Monday nights.I think another meeting of our ham radio operators,which I will also schedule,is in order to be sure we can communicate within Pacific View using our ham radios. Thank you all for being concerned and for your support of Pacific View.I'll be glad to distribute flyers as may be required. Les Chapin,KG6UFX,T024,PVAN 015 Pacific View Emergency Preparedness Area Coordinator 6710 Verde Ridge Road 310-377-1139 -----Original Message ----- From:Roberta Wong To:Noel Park;Diana Park;Les Chapin;Jon Davis;Gregg Swartz ;Jim Real;Jim Moore;Linda LoConte;Lovell Chase; Marilyn Jakubowski;Pat Campbell Sent:Friday,May 07,20105:16 PM Subject:RE:PVHOA Hesse Park Workshops Hi Noel, Great Job!Think it would be a good idea to have those flyers in the mailboxes along Locklenna and nearby residences.Unfortunately,I will not be able to attend the 5/15 community workshop as I will be out of town. Another neighbor who spoke at the Hesse Park meeting last month will also be out of town.Maybe Don Wiedlin or John Freeman would speak if asked or notified .......George The New Busy is not the too busy.Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.Get busy. 11110/2010 ATTACHMENT -311 From:Sara Singer [mailto:saras@rpv.com] Sent:Thursday,December 17,2009 3:44 PM To:'Roberta Wong' Cc:'Ara M';'Tom Odom' Subject:RE:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design Dear Mr.Wong, Thank you for your comments.City staff appreciates your input and will ensure that these issues are considered as we move forward in the planning phase.Please contact Tom Odom (tomo@rpv.com)if you have any additional questions or comments. Thank you, Sara Singer II!l City of Rancho Palos Verdes Senior Administrative Analyst (310)544-5204 saras@rpv.com http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv &Ii Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,which may be privileged,confidential and/or protected from disclosure.The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named.Unauthorized dissemination,distribution,or copying is strictly prohibited.If you received this email in error,or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately.Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. From:Roberta Wong [mailto:bobbiegeorge@hotmail.com] Sent:Monday,December 14,2009 9:54 PM To:aram@rpv.com;saras@rpv.com Cc:Les Chapin;Diana Park;Gregg Swartz;Jim Real;Jon Davis;Linda LoConte;Marilyn Jakubowski;Noel Park;jrfree@cox.net Subject:Lower Hesse Park Conceptual Design To Whom It May Concern, As we do our daily "WALK"around the block and head on down Locklenna Lane,I am thinking about the contents of the email sent by John Freeman on 11-13-09 regarding parking,traffic,and safety issues of the Lower Hesse Park plans.John Freeman's home is on Faircove and his concern is the downhill "blind curve"on Locklenna Lane. I want to support his views and comments in his email.There is indeed a "blind curve"and we have seen an accident here,where the driver lost control of his car coming downhill,unable to negotiate the curve,and crashed into the house on the corner of Locklenna &Faircove.Luckily,there were no serious injuries,the car jumped the curb,onto the driveway and into the garage,damaging the garage door ATTACHMENT -312 '';. and cars inside.My house is at Locklenna &Baycrest and I can imagine what the increased traffic and cars can bring with this blind curve issue. And this accident is away from the main street of Hawthorne!There have been several accidents at the corners of Hawthorne &Locklenna and Hawthorne &Verde Ridge.Our Pacific View Homeowners Association's entrance signs have been damaged twice at the Locklenna intersection and once at the Verde Ridge intersection.We need to address the issue of traffic and safety for our residents and neighbors in your plans going forward. Regards,.....George Wong Hotmail:Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.Sign up now. ATTACHMENT -313