CC SR 20180320 02 - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan - CopyRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 03/20/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to review and approve the Ladera Linda Park Master
Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review and approve the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan;
(2) Direct Staff to proceed with developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for
detailed construction drawings for the project; and,
(3) Direct Staff to proceed with a Traffic Study.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Traffic Study for this project would cost approximately $50,000.
No funds are budgeted for this expense in FY17-18. Therefore a budget appropriation
of $50,000 is requested. $278,524 is available in the FY17-18 budget for the Ladera
Linda Park Master Plan Construction Design Plans' Phase.
Amount Budgeted: $278,524
Additional Appropriation: $50,000 for Traffic Study
Account Number(s): 334-400-8405-8402
ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director of Recreation & Parks°
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager AWL
-�l
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. February 21, 2018, Public Workshop Summary (page A-1)
B. February 21, 2018, Workshop PowerPoint presentation (page B-1)
C. Ladera Linda Master Plan Public Input Summary Related to February 21,
2018 Community Workshops (page C-1)
D. Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Correspondence received February 21 -
March 9, 2018 (page D-1)
E. August 1, 2017 Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Staff Report (Page E-1)
F. Ladera Linda Community Building Studies (Page F-1)
G. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (pp. 1-25) (Page G-1)
H. Cross Sections & Supporting Site Plan (Page H-1)
I. Grade Elevations Study with Summary (Page 1-1)
J. Ladera Linda Park Draft Rental/Usage/Hours Policies (Page J-1)
K. Ladera Linda Park Security Analysis of Proposed Design (Page K-1)
L. Estimate of Probable Construction Costs (Page L-1)
M. Aug/Sept. 2017 Notes on Individual & Small Group Meetings (Page M-1)
1
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Ladera Linda Park has served the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes well since its
opening in 1983, following a long tenure as an elementary school. Generations of
residents and visitors have enjoyed the site both as a school and as a park and
community center. However, the pre -fabricated buildings and infrastructure of this
community jewel are currently in poor condition. A 2013 Infrastructure Report Card
prepared by SA Associates, an engineering firm hired to assess the current condition of
existing public structures in the City, noted that the Ladera Linda Community Center
received an overall infrastructure score of "F" (FAIL).
On September 1, 2015, the City Council directed Staff to issue an RFP for the Ladera
Linda Park Master Plan. Demolition of the existing buildings and the building of a new
community center at Ladera Linda were part of the scope of the Parks Master Plan
Update that was approved by City Council on October 6, 2015. Richard Fisher
Associates (RFA) was selected by the City Council on June 6, 2016, to conduct public
outreach and generate a conceptual plan for the park and building.
RFA began work on the Master Plan in early September 2016. RFA met with Staff,
conducted preliminary site and document research, held several site visits, met with a
variety of interested parties and other users of the facility, and conducted public
workshops in September 2016 and April 2017. Two conceptual designs were presented
to the public at the April 2017 workshop. While both plans were well-received, the clear
consensus was to move the basketball courts from a proposed northwest locale to near
their current location by the playground. This would allow children of different ages to
play either basketball or on the play equipment in the same general area. This change
was incorporated into the revised plan. The clear consensus among workshop
attendees and in comment cards/emails was for concept A which maintained the
existing driveway, Based on community and City Council feedback, a recommended
design (Concept A-1) was created and presented to the City Council on August 1, 2017.
Auaust 2017 Recommended Desian (Concept A-1
2
The recommended design was intended to follow the City Council's emphasis on a "less
is more" approach to park planning, which was established during the Parks Master
Plan Update process which was approved in October 2015. The interior and exterior
components closely mirror current uses on site. Large-scale recreation elements such
as a pool, gym, dog park and skate park are not included. No elements that were
opposed by the community during the Parks Master Plan process were included.
A number of public speakers at the August 1, 2017, City Council meeting, as well as
email correspondence and Council Members' discussions, raised concerns about
various aspects of Concept A-1. The most prevalent issues were crime and security
concerns. Other concerns included parking, traffic, noise levels, park usage, removal of
the Discovery Room, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) entry access.
The City Council approved an extra -services proposal with RFA on October 19, 2017, to
perform the following additional services related to the project for a total of $69,975:
• Preliminary Site Security Coverage Plan
• Study of Alternative ADA access
• Site Study Plan with Grade Elevations (Attachment 1)
• Development of Cross Sections and Supporting Site Plan (Attachment H)
• Refined plans for community center building including security enhancements
• Participate in a Public Outreach Meeting and City Council Meeting
The City Council also directed Staff to complete the following tasks:
• Study park usage and rental restrictions
• Conduct a security assessment
• Analyze traffic concerns
• Undertake additional community outreach including meetings with individual and
small groups and a community meeting
• Conduct a Phase One Environmental Assessment
• Financial Alternatives
The Recommended Concept: Revised Concept A-1 - March 2018
The recommended building and park designs are the result of extensive public
outreach, including three community workshops, meetings with interested parties,
individuals and small groups of local residents, and City Council feedback. They also
incorporate the additional analyses and studies approved by the City Council on
October 19, 2017.
9
V rceW ®a
nn
LADERA LINDA C[]N2 ILMTY PARK CONCEPT H -i
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ami:
F
Below is a list of the recommended design's main components. The existing park has
all of these same components; no additional recreational elements have been added.
• Community Center (approximately 8,900 Square Feet)
• Outdoor basketball courts (1 full -court & 1 half -court)
• Children' playground areas (Ages 2-5 and 5-12)
• Parking
• Outdoor butterfly garden
• Turf areas
• Extensive Landscaping
• Walking trails
• Paddle Tennis Courts (existing)
• Separate storage building
• Drinking fountains, benches, picnic tables and other park amenities
• Trees for shade
• Perimeter fencing
• Two parking areas (59 total parking spaces, reduced from 65)
• Walkways
• Park signs
rd
Refined Plans for Community Center Building
The following graphic shows the Community Center schematic that was previously
presented to Council on August 1, 2017.
FLOpR PWRN
FLOOR PLAN S [ U L �Y
I
Below is the current proposed building which has been reconfigured, refined and
reduced in square footage from 9,100 to 8,900 square feet.
y
NFT FLOOR
AREA
(�%LL{1PE AL4
icy'.
Based on community feedback, the building is significantly reduced in size from the
current combined 13,500 square feet of the 5 buildings at Ladera Linda Park (18,000
square feet if the current buildings had interior hallways). The proposed building
includes the following components:
• A 1,766 -square -foot multi-purpose room that can be divided in half.
• Two classrooms, one 881 square feet and the other 792 square feet
• A 1,020 -square -foot Discovery Room/Nature Room
• A drop-in office for Sheriff and Open Space personnel, and City Council
• Staff office
• Storage
• Restrooms
• Kitchen/staging area adjacent to multi-purpose room
• Lobby area and corridor space
• Exterior -accessed restrooms for general park users
The classrooms, multi-purpose room, and Discovery Room are approximately the same
size as similar components at the current Ladera Linda Park. The building size is
approximately 1,000 square feet smaller than the Hesse Park Community Building,
which is 9,880 square feet.
RFA prepared a variety of viewing angles, including a birds -eye view, view from the
entry road, and a view from the ocean -side to convey a more enhanced depiction of the
building's scope and connection to the other properties. The materials and dimensions
shown in the graphics below are merely conceptual. Precise materials would be
determined during the construction design plans phase. Additional conceptual
viewpoints and design options can be seen in Attachment F.
BIRVIYI
VIEW WA ENTRY ROAD
no
KIANSIDI VIN
VIN (DOSSING TNI BRIDGI
The studies of site cross sections and grade elevations, along with a summary of their
findings, can be found in Attachments H and I.
Securitv Assessment
The public and City Council raised concerns about park security and rising crime rates
at the August 1, 2017, City Council meeting. Based on City Council direction, Staff
undertook a security analysis of the building and park design (Attachment K). Several
members of the Lomita Sheriff's Department, including Captain Beringer, were involved
in this analysis. RFA also participated in the security analysis and prepared a
preliminary site security coverage plan.
The basis for the analysis was Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED), which has been a model for security design for decades and has been
applied to urban settings, homes, businesses, and public spaces, including park sites.
The analysis focused on four core principles:
• Natural Surveillance: Low profile fencing, landscaping, lighting, sightlines,
window placement, use of security cameras
• Natural Access Control: Clear entry points, building structure and outside feature
layout, low landscaping, and open fencing when possible for access and
sightlines
• Territorial Reinforcement: Appropriate/inappropriate usage, landscape
maintenance, defined pathways, motion sensor lights, location of park elements
in prominent location, sufficient well -lighted parking
• Maintenance: "Broken Windows" theory, high level maintenance, zero -tolerance
for graffiti and vandalism.
The analysis covered a wide range of components including lighting, fencing, access
points, parking, blind spots, sightlines, security cameras, ingress/egress, landscaping,
maintenance, staffing, and impact on adjacent properties. The analysis also compared
7
the proposed design's security effectiveness to the current building and layout. The
analysis was shared with the community at the April 26, 2017, workshop.
The proposed building design takes a comprehensive approach to safety through a
multi -faceted approach:
• Landscape design that enhances surveillance
• Appropriate lighting to eliminate blind spots
• Use of security cameras
• Use of clearly identifiable entry points.
• Alignment of building structure and outside features to naturally direct people to
established reception areas.
• Use of appropriate low landscaping and ground cover to discourage undesired
access and direct park users to appropriate access points.
• Use of appropriate, open fencing to both control access and enhance sightlines.
• Maintain landscaping and building so it sends a clear message that there is an
active staff and community presence
• Well-designed and defined pathways
• Motion sensor lights and cameras, where appropriate
• Locate park elements such as courts, picnic tables and children's play areas in
prominent locations to attract appropriate users and make inappropriate users
more visible
• Sufficient and well-designed lighted parking areas
• Increased park staffing hours
• Focus on zero -tolerance approach to maintenance/vandalism issues
• Limited parking on Forrestal Drive (red -striping) to reduce visitors walking by
neighborhoods
The following Site Security Plan, prepared by RFA, highlights views of the park that law
enforcement personnel would have from different vantage points. Vantage points are
marked with black circles. These vantage points could all be readily accessed from
vehicles. A Sheriff's Deputy driving to these five vantage points would be able to see
almost the entire park from multiple angles without ever leaving their vehicle.
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY DARK sEc FrrY covE AcE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDE:S iTiRi'aRY n,,
The proposed new design with its improved sightlines and singular building provides law
enforcement the opportunity to easily scan the facility for inappropriate nighttime
activity. The low-level landscaping and fencing also increases law enforcement ability to
scan the site and not be encumbered by blind spots. This is 180 degrees different from
the current design with its multitude of blind spots and overgrown landscaping.
Undesirable and criminal elements have dozens of hiding places that would currently
require Sheriff's personnel to exit their vehicle and walk around multiple buildings.
A safe, secure and well-maintained park will have significant positive impacts on
properties adjacent to park sites. An unattractive site is a magnet for undesirable
elements who may be attracted to local residences. While impossible to quantify the
exact impact, a properly -maintained, attractive facility will have a positive overlapping
effect on adjacent neighborhoods. Blight leads to additional blight, which unfortunately
can bleed into other nearby areas as well.
The new design—with its single structure, controlled access point, low -profile, site -
appropriate landscaping, and modern materials—would be significantly easier to
maintain at a zero -tolerance level. Based on past experience, it is doubtful that the City
would invest sufficient maintenance funding and resources into a facility as rundown as
Ladera Linda is today. Staff is recommending a high level of maintenance and
dedicated budget line item for the new facility once it is constructed.
9
Having lower -profile landscaping is clearly a trade-off for nearby residents. While it
discourages unwanted visitors and improves sightlines, it may increase views into the
park for adjacent neighbors. Given the overriding importance of park users' and
neighborhood safety, this is a balance that needs to be established and maintained.
Staff has discussed security concerns and the contents of this report extensively with
Captain Beringer of the Lomita Sheriff's Station. He fully concurs with its conclusions
that the new design effectively addresses safety concerns and, if built, would have a
positive impact on overall neighborhood safety.
From a law enforcement perspective, the current park is problematic in terms of security
and access. The condition of the buildings, the overgrown and inappropriate
landscaping, the poor sightlines, the multitude of blind spots and many other factors laid
out in this report all contribute to this determination.
The proposed design addresses these concerns. There is only one building instead of
five, eliminating the access and blind spot problems. The landscaping and lighting
scheme is much more conducive to security and sightlines. Those improvements,
combined with improved fencing, increased staffing, better parking, and interior/exterior
cameras will make both the new park and the surrounding neighborhoods more secure.
Study of Alternative ADA Access Points
The ADA requires wheelchair accessibility to a new park site from a public sidewalk.
The A-1 Conceptual Plan included an access point leading to the lower field area,
utilizing a location currently used as a maintenance access gate. This location was
selected due to the low amount of required grading and modest expense. The
estimated cost is $5,000.
While a required component for this development, Staff does not anticipate that it will be
heavily utilized, due to the fact that most people with disabilities visiting the site would
likely drive into the main parking lot and park in a designated handicapped parking
space. Potential use would be further reduced if Forrestal Drive were red -striped,
minimizing the likelihood of park visitors using that access point.
Several residents who live near to the proposed access point raised objections to
having that access point across from their properties. The City Council directed Staff
and the consultant to identity and analyze alternative ADA access points. Below are
three access point locations and their estimated costs. All three fulfill the legal
requirements for ADA access.
10
ADA ACCESS STUDY; EXHIBIT A , .M
Estimated Cost: $94,800
ADA ACCESS STUDY: EXHIBIT B --.so-
Estimated Cost: $42,600
ADA ACCESS STUDY: EXHIBIT C
Estimated Cost: $6,000
11
Communitv Outreach Effort
Public outreach regarding the Ladera Linda Parks Master Plan has been on-going since
2014.
Parks Master Plan Update Ladera Linda Workshops in 2014 and 2015
o Attendees generally In favor of new community center, Discovery Room,
multi -use field, walks paths.
o Opposed to pool, gym, dog park, BBQs, Ambulance Station
o Concerns: low-key neighborhood feel, traffic, crime, litter, vandalism, use
of park by outside groups
➢ Parks Master Plan Online Survey: Support for new community center, fitness
station, expanded nature center, athletic fields. Opposition to pool and gym.
Mixed on tennis and bocce balls.
➢ Parks Master Plan Recommendation to have separate Master Plan Process for
Ladera Linda -Approved October 2015
➢ Public Workshops held September 22, 2016, April 26, 2017, and February 21,
2018.
➢ City Council Meetings June 6, 2016, October 18, 2017 and September 19, 2017.
Staff met with individuals and small groups of residents living near Ladera Linda in
August and September 2017 to discuss their opinions of the Conceptual Plan.
Issues and concerns discussed at those meetings included:
➢ Concern about noise, traffic, and parking
➢ Frustration with pace of project
➢ Support for and opposition to Discovery Room
➢ General support for red -striping of Forrestal Drive and creating Preserve parking
➢ ADA access
➢ Need for more financing information
➢ Consideration of moving basketball courts to relocate noise
➢ Security and recent break-ins
➢ Square footage of building
➢ Eliminate half -basketball court
➢ Usage and constraints policy
➢ Views and concerns that would attract visitors
➢ AYSO impact
➢ Security cameras
➢ Landscaping as sound barrier
➢ Gate security
Detailed notes of these meetings can be found in Attachment M.
12
February 21 st Community Workshop
Approximately 60 people attended a February 21, 2018, Workshop at Ladera Linda
Park. Staff presented an overview of the Master Plan process including a review of
previous public workshops/outreach, and City Council's direction for additional services.
Dick Fisher with RFA, presented the Revised Concept A-1 plan and additional studies
on grade elevations, sightlines, and security coverage. Gregor Markel, with Dahlin
Group, presented 3-D images of the potential design for the community building.
Recreation Staff presented a security analysis, traffic/parking analysis, usage analysis,
a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, potential rental policies, revised park
operating hours, a financial analysis, and a review of next steps. The last hour of the
workshop was devoted to questions and comments from the community. A Workshop
Summary (Attachment A) and Workshop PowerPoint presentation (Attachment B) are
attached to this report.
Below is a list of some issues that were raised at the workshop:
• Discussion of an online survey distributed by residents
• Traffic concerns
• Financing
• Red -striping of Forrestal Drive
• Usage policy
• Discovery Room: for and against
• Park is for entire community
• Preserve "Del Cerro" concerns
• Concern about increase usage
• Landscaping vs security concerns
• Basketball court noise/location
Workshop Comment Period
A comment period was established from February 21 st to March 2nd. A summary of all
comments and emails received during that time frame can be found in Attachment C. In
order to share as many community opinions and viewpoints as openly and transparently
as possible, all emails and comment cards received from February 21St to March 9th are
attached to this report (Attachment D).
Park Usage Analysis
For many years now, the poor condition of Ladera Linda's buildings and the limited park
hours have been a significant deterrent to many potential instructors and groups
interested in renting the facilities. It is anticipated that newer, more attractive and
modern facilities would attract a higher number of classes and potential user groups.
These uses would be spread throughout the week, minimizing their overall impact. A
reduction in the number of rooms from the current eleven (11) rooms to the currently
13
proposed three (3) rooms will also serve as a constraint on the total number of possible
classes/uses.
Ladera Linda currently offers the following amenities, including:
• A community center with one multipurpose room (1,922 sq. ft.) &
Multiple classrooms (961 sq.ft. each)
• Paddle tennis courts (2)
• Basketball courts (2)
• Open Field/Play Space
• Two age -group specific playgrounds
• Exhibit Room (Discovery Room)
LL Rentals by Category
Social, Non-resident
Social, Resident
0 Willis
on
r,ty
LNon-profit
Instructional/class
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Number of Rentals
2017 ■ Z015 t 2015
LLAnnual Rentals (Aggregate)
500
v 400 386
310
340 259
im
LL
zoo
a
ioo
M
z
0
12 2015 2016 2017
14
Historic Proarammina Trends
Ladera Linda has offered a wide range of programs/classes during its over -30 year
existence as a City Park.
• Parent and child developmental classes
• Arts classes
• Dance Classes
• Sports Clinics (basketball, soccer, tennis)
• Education classes for children and adults
• Long term leases (Montessori School, Canyon Verde School)
Future Usage
As mentioned previously, usage will likely rise with the building of a newer facility. The
types of events, classes, and programs will closely mirror what has been offered in the
past: daytime classes and programs, City and non-profit meetings, limited special
events, and drop-in use of outdoor facilities. Permitted nighttime use, which is already
minimal, will be further reduced to minimize wedding receptions, parties and similar
events. Available hours for usage will be limited as well.
Rental Restrictions/Staffing Hours
Based on resident concerns about park security and usage levels, the following
changes are proposed to Ladera Linda's rental policies and staffing levels.
Rental Polices
Current
Proposed
Rental Hours
Not specified to Midnight
10am - 9pm
Classes
Not specified
8am - 9pm
Private Rentals after 5pm
No current limits
2x month*
Amplified Music (indoor only)
10am - 10pm
11 am - 8pm
9am - 8pm classes
Special Events
No limit
8/year
Outdoor Use (drop in)
Not specified
>25 requires approval
*Restriction does not apply to non -profits, City events, or HOA rentals
No nighttime special events would be permitted without City Council approval and
community notification. Staff would coordinate with AYSO schedule to minimize impact.
Staffing Hours
Ladera Linda Park staffing hours have traditionally been limited compared to other park
sites, with Staff departing at 5pm regardless of the time of year. This has limited Staff's
ability to effectively and appropriately secure the park grounds. The proposed park
hours would extend Ladera Linda hours to increase Staff presence and security.
15
The following table shows current and proposed Ladera Linda Park hours and current
hours at other City park sites.
Park Site
Hours Mon - Fri
Hours Sat - Sun
Hesse Park
gam - Dusk
10am
- Dusk
PVIC
10am - 5pm
10am
- 5pm
Ryan Park
gam - Dusk
9am —
Dusk
Ladera Linda (current)
12pm - 5pm
10am
- 5pm
Ladera Linda proposed
8am - dusk
8am —
dusk
Ladera Linda Park is currently staffed by one part-time Staff member per shift who is
overseen by a full-time Recreation Supervisor. The new building would likely increase
staffing to two part-time Staff per shift with one full-time Supervisor. This is comparable
to staffing levels at Hesse Park and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC). A mix
of Sheriff's personnel and Open Space Management Staff would only use their office for
periodic drop-in use, since the vast majority of their time will be spent performing public
safety monitoring in the Nature Preserve. Open Space Staff and the Sheriff's Preserve
deputies are already using existing office space for a drop-in office. The drop-in office
could also be used by City Council members to meet with constituents. Several
docents might stop by occasionally to lead a tour of the Discovery/Nature Center room
or work on artifacts, just as they do now.
The complete rental policy is contained in Attachment J.
Phase One Environmental Assessment
Priority 1 Environmental conducted a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment of the
Ladera Linda property in December 2017 (Attachment G). The company conducted a
site inspection, interviewed City Staff and staff from other agencies, and conducted an
extensive search of historical records and documentation. The report revealed no
evidence of "recognized environmental conditions." The report concluded that no
additional environmental investigations were necessary at this time. The report did
note, that due to the age of the buildings, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey
should be conducted prior to demolition.
Parking and Traffic Analysis
Traffic and parking concerns have been consistently raised by the public during this
process. Many of the issues involving traffic and parking are located away from the
actual park site, but they are significant community concerns that have been brought to
Staff's attention repeatedly. Most of the traffic concerns involve either the intersection
of Forrestal Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South or AYSO usage during their game
days. Concerns have also been raised about park and Forrestal Reserve visitors
parking in neighborhoods or on Forrestal Drive and walking past park -adjacent
residences.
16
The impact of a new building and park design on traffic and parking is likely minimal.
These issues have existed in this community long before this project began and would
continue to be challenges in the future, regardless if the proposed Master Plan is
approved or not. The proposed Master Plan does not add or eliminate any existing park
uses. While there will likely be an increase in attendance due to the newness and
attractiveness of the park, the increase should be modest and spread throughout the
week. Additionally, there will be constraints on the number, hours, and types or rentals
allowed which will help modulate the number of park attendees.
The proposed plan includes a number of recommended steps to address the concerns
of local residents.
Limit Parking on Portions of Forrestal Drive/Establish Forrestal Reserve Parkinq area
Forrestal Drive parking was not originally
included in this process, but due to the strong
community response, a basic layout was
included in the recommended design. While
viewpoints are mixed, many residents have
been in favor of having parking on Forrestal
Drive to accommodate people accessing the
Forrestal Reserve. Concerns were expressed
that if parking is not allowed, Forrestal
Reserve users will either take up parking
spaces intended for park visitors, or simply
park in neighborhoods adjacent to the park.
The recommended design includes 28 parking
spaces located at the end of Forrestal Drive.
A gate is proposed at the end of Forrestal
Drive to stop vehicular access into the
Forrestal Reserve. Staff would be able to
secure both the existing Forrestal Drive gate
and the proposed gate at dusk to minimize
possibility of un -permitted nighttime access.
Combined with permit parking on streets near the park entrance, this approach would
deter visitors from parking or walking in neighborhoods by directing them to either
Ladera Linda Park lots or a Forrestal Reserve lot.
This Forrestal Preserve parking element could be funded separately out of existing
Public Works funds at a cost of approximately $61,000.
AYSO/Traffic Control
This concern focuses on the large number of vehicles entering and exiting at Forrestal
Drive during AYSO games, typically on weekends. The School District owns the soccer
17
fields that are located to the north of Ladera Linda Park. One potential solution that has
been considered is the use of a traffic flagger to control ingress and egress during
AYSO game times. AYSO and the School District have not expressed interest in
funding this in the past. In the interest of addressing this ongoing situation, the cost of a
traffic flagger is approximately $100/hour. If directed, Staff can return with a detailed
estimate of this program's costs.
Traffic Study
Staff is recommending a new traffic study be conducted at this location, taking into
account multiple factors, including the new park design, Reserve access, AYSO, Trump
National Golf Club and existing traffic patterns. As stated previously, Staff does not
believe that the park design itself merits a traffic study, but the number of on-going
community issues and concerns merits consideration and further study. Public Works
Staff has estimated that this traffic study would cost approximately $50,000.
Financial Analysis
RFA's current project construction estimate is $7,657,774. This figure does not include
a 10% contingency, or $350,000 in mobilization (construction design) costs which are
included in the FY17-18 budget. $278,525 is currently available in the FY17-18 budget
for Ladera Linda Park Master Plan expenses after $69,975 was allocated for RFA's
extra services and $1,500 for the Phase 1 Environmental Study. The architect/engine-
ers used to develop the construction -ready documents would be chosen through an
RFP process. These figures are preliminary estimates and there are many variables
which impact them. A more specific budget would be developed after construction
drawings are completed and released for bid.
The following table shows a breakdown of the estimated construction costs into major
categories.
Demolition/Clearing/Removal/grading
$490,070
Building
$4,222,500
Amenities: Picnic Tables, signage,
drinking fountain, picnic shelter
$190,400
Large Park Elements: Storage
building, playground, basketball
courts
$662,050
Hardscape/drains e
$845,197
Lighting
$338,000
Fencing
$140,220
Landscaping
$648,558
Utilities/trash enclosure
$81,000
Other Expenses
$39,780
Total:
$7,657,775
See Attachment L for the complete Estimate of Probable Construction Costs.
After speaking with several construction estimators and construction engineers, Staff
believes that value engineering efforts can significantly lower the estimated cost during
the construction document and bidding phase. In addition, there are a wide range of
financing possibilities and opportunities to possibly minimize the City's financial impact.
Staff believes that a number of grant funding opportunities from a variety of sources,
including State and County grant programs, might be obtained. These could be grants
for anything from playground equipment to drought tolerant landscaping and pervious
paving. We would recommend turning over every stone to research and apply for any
grants that might apply to any aspect of this project.
Unencumbered Quimby funds, in the amount of $1,500,000, are also available and are
restricted for use on Parks and Recreation facilities.
Financing/Funding Alternatives Section
Below are three typical municipal methods for funding a project of this scope.
➢ General Fund/CIP Fund Financing:
➢ State Infrastructure Loan
➢ Private Public Partnership (P3)
1. General Fund/CIP Fund funding would require the City to pay for the entire cost of
the project with General funds and CIP funds. This approach requires a significant
lump sum payment and the City would bear all of the risk and financial liability. The
primary advantage would be no interest payment.
2. A California Infrastructure Loan: California has an infrastructure fund program
(Infrastructure State Revolving Fund (ISRF) that provides financing to public
agencies and non-profit corporations for a wide variety of projects, including park
developments. Funding can range from $50,000 to $25,000,000 with loan terms
lasting a maximum of 30 years. Interest rates are below market and non-matching
funds are required. The City would bear considerable risk in this scenario as these
loans require collateral, typically in the form of existing City infrastructure.
3. Private -Public Partnership (P3): P3s are projects that are financed and developed
by private development companies. The private company owns and maintains the
building for a specific period of time during which time the building is leased back to
the public agency for a lease period of 25-30 years. At the end of the lease period,
ownership of the project is turned over to the public agency, and the City would own
the asset outright for the rest of its useable life, typically another 20-30 years. A P3
is a viable option for a project even of this small size. Advantages of a P3 can mean
a quicker construction and development schedule; a lower project cost (possibly by
as much as 20%); and much lower upfront costs to the public agency. Possibly the
most significant advantage of a P3 structure to the City is that all of the construction
19
risk is transferred from the City to the developer. The City is no longer'on the hook'
to construct a building from the ground up and assume all the liability and risk that
goes with that. Rather, under a P3 structure, the City now only has an obligation to
lease a building for a set term upon acceptance of the building. The entire risk of
construction is borne by the Developer. Kosmont Transactions Services met with
City Staff about P-3 financing and providing several hypothetical financing scenarios.
These are estimates only and are subject to changes.
P-3 Alternative
Total Principal &
Interest
Est. Avg. Annual
Payment
30 Year $2MM down
$10,535,442
$351,814
Phasing Anal
Phasing is sometimes considered in park projects. Staff has looked at phasing as an
option but it doesn't appear to benefit this project and thus, Staff does not recommend
phasing. The two natural phases of this project are (1) the Community Center building
and (2) the exterior landscaping and park components. To build a building and have it
surrounded by an undeveloped or non -landscaped park doesn't seem to give the
community what it wants. Alternatively, to demolish the current dilapidated buildings
and complete the exterior landscaping and park while leaving the Community Center to
a later date also doesn't seem to give the community what it desires. Moreover, under
this last scenario, constructing the Community Center after the exterior park
improvements ends up turning much of the site into a construction zone and exterior
improvements would need to be repaired or redone after the construction of the
Community Center is complete. Doing the necessary grading and site prep to reshape
the whole park into a unified, organic whole would be problematic in a phased
construction approach.
As such, phasing doesn't appear to be a viable option for this project. In addition, as
construction costs continue to rise (The Turner Building Cost Index increased by 4.96%
from the 2nd quarter of 2016 to the 2nd quarter of 2017), phasing this project would also
likely translate to the City paying for increased construction costs down the road.
Subsequent to City Council approval of the Master Plan or at the City Council's
direction, Staff can bring back a more detailed budget for Ladera Linda, along with
alternative and recommended financing approaches.
Forrestal Reserve Parking Funding
An additional $61,000 for Forrestal Road parking improvements is listed as a separate
item in Attachment N. This potential element is located outside of the park boundaries,
but it is included for City Council consideration because of the potential impact on the
adjacent park property. This project could be constructed using existing funds in the
Public Works Department budget.
20
Next Steps
Pending City Council approval of the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Staff would
develop an RFP process for City Council review to identify and select a consultant to
create construction -ready documents for this important community project. RFA
estimates that the total project process, including the creation and approval of
construction documents, pre -construction, demolition and construction would take at
least 18-24 months. A concurrent traffic study is also recommended.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council's consideration:
1. Choose not to approve the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan.
2. Choose not to approve the Traffic Study Plan.
3. Provide direction to Staff regarding particular aspects of the Plan.
21
City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Workshop
Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Time: 6:OOpm - 8:30pm
Location: Ladera Linda Park - 32201 Forrestal Dr., Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
City Staff: Recreation: Cory Linder, Dan Trautner, Matt Waters, Mona Dill, Mary Hirsch &
Leslie Williams
Consultant: Richard Fisher Associates: Dick Fisher, Taylor Smith
Dahlin Group: Gregor Markel
Topic: Presenting revised Concept A-1 design of Ladera Linda Park
Summary: City staff began with an overview of events leading up to this point, including
initial direction received from City Council and RFA's data gathering process,
previous Public Workshops, and City Council direction for extra services.
Additional services include: development of cross sections & supporting site plan;
alternative ADA access options; study plan with grade elevations; preliminary site
security coverage; Phase 1 site assessment; traffic/parking impacts; usage; and,
additional public outreach. Dick Fisher presented the revised Concept A-1 and all
additional studies. Gregor Markel presented 3-D images of the potential design
for the community building. City staff closed out the presentation portion of the
meeting by discussing the security analysis, traffic/parking analysis, usage, the
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, potential rental policies, revised park
operating hours, a financing analysis and the next steps in the process. The
meeting was then opened up for questions and comments from the community.
City staff will be accepting Comment Cards through March 2, 2018.
HOA Survey Discussion
A survey was distributed to Ladera Linda HOA residents regarding the project. The survey
consisted of 10 questions and had 50% of LL residents respond and several Seaview residents
as well. The results of the survey and related concerns were summarized as follows:
• Preferred size of park building - decrease to 7,000 sf. by eliminating (1) classroom and
underutilized Discovery Room - they only use it for 15 minutes as an orientation to a
hike into the Preserve.
• Relocate basketball courts due to noise away from residents
• Eliminate parking on Forrestal (addressed by City staff in presentation)
• Park security - install ALPR cameras
• Limit park activities that create noise
• Park operation hours (addressed by City staff in presentation)
• Control Forrestal traffic during planned activities (AYSO and events)
• Preserve landscaping of the grounds especially near Forrestal (privacy for surrounding
residents) and old-growth trees
• Construction costs - save money by reducing size of building
• ADA Access - want it where the present entrance is
• Left turn accelerating lane at Forrestal Dr. onto Palos Verdes Dr.
Do not want a new Ladera Linda Park that will become destination attraction advertised on social
media that will draw large crowds and traffic congestion (such as what happened at Del Cerro
Park). Should be deigned to satisfy the needs of the local residents. Very concerned about
crime, noise, parking, traffic congestion and do not new facility to be a trail head center for the
Preserve.
Richard Fisher Associates Page A-1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Workshop
Community Comments / Questions / Concerns:
• The statement that "the community supported Concept A" is not true. It was the best of
the options presented but there were still many issues with the proposed design.
• The concept laid out a walking path but people won't stay on the path and will go over
to the fence and look into backyards. Do not want shrubs taken down.
- Response: Path is on average 27 feet away from the fence. The area between
the path & the fence will be barrier shrub plantings that discourage pedestrians
from wandering off the path.
• AYSO users throw their trash into the backyards of the Seaview residents.
• Traffic Issues: 1) there have been nothing but problems since AYSO started using the
fields; and, 2) at peak traffic times, it is impossible to turn left from Forrestal Dr. onto
Palos Verdes Dr.
- Clarification from other resident: the AYSO and traffic issues are separate from
the park design.
• Parking Issue - red striping may push parking further on Forrestal and onto Pirate Dr.
• P3 Financing Clarification - why would a private party do that? Private parties can
engage in these activities for a lower cost and build savings into amortization cost and
spread out over 30 years.
- Response: City will meet with financial advisors before City Council to get their
perspective on how viable this is and if it is a good fit.
• Mediterranea HOA - appreciates that Ladera Linda residents are adjacent to the park
and have unique concerns but this is a regional resource for all of the neighborhoods in
the area. Hope that this will be a resource to bring the community together and not
divide us. As a parent of a young child, he asks that the older residents look back at the
time when this was an active site (first as a school and then as a community center)
before it became derelict and the surrounding communities are looking for a nice park,
not the current norm. When we look at consensus, we need to look back at the whole
process from beginning to now. Early in the process, it is being said that there was not
support for many of the other elements and that is not true. There were many people
who wanted a gymnasium or a pool and there was a lot of opposition. Through this
process a general consensus was reached. Those that have young children and
wanted more recognized that others did not and said "okay we are willing to
compromise". Please look back at the whole process and don't keep chipping away
and chipping away. We will never have 100% consensus but don't forget about the
concessions that have already been made. Please look to the newer residents and
residents with kids and recognize that we have a right to have a nice, newer facility that
we can utilize and have access to. We need to work together and have a compromise.
• Very frustrating that there has never been a place for the parents to sit when their
children use the playgrounds. Would like a bench and decent access to the restrooms.
- Response: Have designed (2) play areas for 2-5 year olds and 5-12 year olds
that are side-by-side with a separated area for swings. All around the play area
are picnic tables and benches for people who are supervising young children.
There is an outdoor access to the restrooms in the community center.
• Do not want to become a destination park for all of South Bay or the county via social
media.
- Response: City will not be posting on social media but cannot control what others
post.
• Counters at Del Cerro Park trails showed approximately 2,700 users per week with only
3-5% as local residents. Don't want the same here.
• Why are there 28 parking spaces on Forrestal in the concept plan? Are there 28 people
who come use the park per day or are you building in additional parking spaces that will
attract more trail users?
Richard Fisher Associates Page A-2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Workshop
Response: Spending a minimal amount of money on fine grading and asphalt,
there is room for 28 parking spaces. This was added into the concept at the
request of the City Council who wants to address residents' concerns about
parking on Forrestal. It does not mean 28 spaces have to be built.
She would like to see a minimal amount of spaces (maybe 5 spaces) done to
start. Do not want to make it too inviting for it to become a gateway park to the
Preserve.
- The survey showed that a majority of residents were satisfied with the 28 spaces.
• Can parking on Pirate Dr. be restricted or by permit only? Maybe do both red striping
and restricted hours?
- Response: City staff understand that residents do not want outsiders walking
around in the neighborhoods due to recent burglaries. It will come down to
residents' attitudes and how they want to address this. If we provide enough
parking on Forrestal hopefully it would address this issue.
• Operating hours - why are the proposed hours longer than other high -use parks?
- Response: We are addressing the security issues and concerns expressed to
City staff by residents. We want to show more staff presence.
• Would like to commend staff on presentation. Does not want to see it keep reduce,
reduce, reduce. Want to see it become useful once again to the area. Need to take a
global look at this and not the minimal amount to the park. We need to address the
needs of the whole community.
• Nothing but problems since AYSO started using fields (burglaries, parking, etc).
• Why are you spending all this money on the park but not address the left turn issue
from Forrestal Dr.?
• Don't just look at the usage over the past 3 years but over the past 40 years. There
used to be dinner dances, weddings, Halloween parties and Christmas parties - it was
used. Now it is a ghost town and it's because were not using it. The park is worn out
and needs to be brought to modern standards.
• Will there be a stairway from park site to parking on Forrestal Dr? If you're going to
have a community building that is being used you will need to have the overflow
parking.
- Response: Not at this time but can be added at the direction of City Council.
• Noticed that there is not a kitchen in the building layout.
- Response: There is a staging/kitchenette area near multipurpose room.
• 1 like the plan a lot. We are losing sight of "community". It is not just a Ladera Linda
park. Like the Discovery Room so don't eliminate it. Downsize if needed.
• What is the size of the Multipurpose Room compared to the existing portable the
meeting is being held in?
- Response: Very comparable in size. The overall building is very similar in size to
what is being used currently but is a much smaller overall footprint.
• Will there be enough revenue generated each year to cover the operational costs?
- Response: We don't know exactly how much revenue will be generated but it
won't be enough. With restrictions in play and lack of commercial kitchen it will
not be a financial driver. It hasn't been in the past and won't be in the future. We
have no anticipation that it will bring in enough money to cover anywhere near
the operating expenses.
- So more taxes to pay for this yearly cost?
- Response: It's similar to a lot of our park sites. It's something that the City takes
seriously to provide quality parks and recreation to our residents. Certainly is
subsidized.
• To those that say the community used to do a lot more together, today's day and age
isn't like that anymore. It's more social media and internet driven and we are not going
to get the same type of people. Everyone wants to stay in their house and be on the
internet.
Richard Fisher Associates Page A-3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Workshop
1 like the usage policy (especially amplified music policy) and operation hours. Is the
Sheriffs Department empowered to enforce Park Department policy? Can it be codified
into municipal code?
- Response: It may need to be codified, unless you are talking about disturbing the
peace. Noise related laws are already laws that are in effect — nothing new needs
to be created. City does have a noise ordinance as well. If City staff cannot get
compliance, policy states they will notify the Sheriff's Department.
• Comments from previous City employee & current President of Docents — does not
understand objection to Discovery Room. Docents are dedicated to education and the
City has been a big important player in providing funding and support of this
educational aspect of our program. We value the environment, we value the plantings,
we value the ocean and the wildlife. Not everything can be quantified by money.
Something has to be done to say this is a fabulous opportunity for our children. It's a
Discovery room because it is a whole educational experience about our environment,
our community and the land we are on.
• We don't want this to be an information center for the trailhead. Can't we just put all of
the items on a cart and utilize the classrooms? The Discovery Room is full and has a
lot of duplication.
Comments from a Ladera Linda docent - Kids universally love the Discovery Room
after their hike and the incredible diversity. Wonderful butterfly collection over 80 years
old, peacocks, birds, bear skins — this is a regional resource, not just a Ladera Linda
resource. All of us on the peninsula should be very proud of this collection and protect
at all costs. The collections are in glass cases and to move them from one room to
another would destroy the collection. The idea is to make a permanent display to
preserve these priceless artifacts that have taken years and years to assemble and can
never be duplicated.
• Survey showed trends on what are major concerns: 1) exit for Forrestal onto PV Dr. — it
is very dangerous; 2) kids cannot go out to play at Forrestal & Pirate because of the
danger from the speeds as people come down Forrestal
Need a traffic study at Forrestal & PV Dr. Is there conduit already there for a signal?
- Response: There was a Traffic Study done a couple years ago. Not sure what
the conclusion was. It's a definitely a serious issue and an issue for the Traffic
Engineer.
• While this the traffic issue is a legitimate and serious issue, but please do not use them
as a reason to block the park.
Don't want to block the park. Just want to keep it for community use and not expanding
the use. Would love to have the community center for dances, community events, cub
scouts and girl scouts but that is not what it is going to be. When you advertise on
social media as a new facility, which you will, it will be very popular. Usage restrictions
allow for 57 uses per year (one per week). When you build this beautiful new facility,
chop down the trees for ocean views, people will come. Residents are concerned that
once it's done we won't be able to stop this. We feel like all the input that we have had
and the private meetings are not being considered.
- Response 1) City does not intend to advertise on social media but it cannot
control social media. We will not send out master blasts. This is a community
park and always will be. 2) As for uses, the 25 is the number of people to trigger
a permit not 25 separate uses. 3) We are not trying to have this be some
incredible park. Drawings and building are very nice. This is a very standard park
— go to Torrance, San Pedro, Long Beach and you'll find all sorts of parks like
this. This is not a Taj Mahal — 8,900 sf is a very modest footprint. Elements of
basketball courts, paddle tennis, playground are extremely common elements.
We are blessed with great views — that is true. All of our parks have great views.
That is just the reality of Palos Verdes. Will some people come for the wrong
reasons — sure. We will deal with that with increased security, better site lines for
the Sherriff. Most people will come for the right reasons. To have a walk on the
Richard Fisher Associates Page A_4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Workshop
trail, enjoy the views, go to the butterfly garden. That is certainly the intent and
what we told Dick Fisher from the very beginning when Micky Rodich was there.
From the very beginning we wanted a low-key, well maintained, well managed
community park with a small footprint.
• 1 have to testify tomorrow in court against the woman who broke into my house. My
neighbor on Sea Raven who had a similar thing happen has put her house on the
market. That is the very thing we are trying to prevent - neighbors feeling unsafe in the
neighborhood.
- Response: The City can definitely understand and that is a horrible thing to go
through. The Sheriff will speak at the City Council meeting and agree that a well-
designed park will increase security and safety and have a positive effect.
• A well-designed park will bring in hoards of people.
- Community Member Response: That's the preserve not the park.
• More homeless people walking on the slide area. You don't think this isn't going to be a
magnet for them?
• It is such quick access to the 110 freeway.
- Response: This park, as the years go by, will become a derelict eyesore. Having
a new park will increase security.
1) Cutting down the shrubs and creating ocean views will be a draw. If this is going to
be a community park, let's put in the playgrounds and the community center but keep
the shrubs. The community does not want to open up the view to everybody because
that is going to be the draw. Now you have put a walking path all the way around the
park and given plenty of parking and magnificent views of the sunset. People will
congregate for the views. People will advertise the trails on social media. My concern is
removing all of the shrubs on the south side without having the community support.
2) As for shrubs on Forrestal and cutting them down for sightline and safety, even if
shrubs do not provide a sound barrier, they do provide a visual barrier from her house
to the park. They give me some privacy in my backyard and my bedroom. To remove
the shrubs just to make the sheriffs' job easier leaves her perplexed. This is a
community park and she is a member of the community and the park should not be
designed for the sheriff. No one can see all the way into the park from Forrestal so by
removing the shrubs, users can see into our yards and vice versa. For the safety of the
park, the sheriff will have to drive into the park anyway so I don't understand taking the
shrubs out for that purpose. Can't you make the park safe by putting a fence around
the park and locking the gate at night?
- Response: 1) The initial designs had the building facing away from the views.
Residents at the last Public Workshop asked to increase the views from the
building and Richard Fisher Associates was told to modify the concept
accordingly. 2) We don't want a bad element of any community to feel
comfortable to come into this park to do unlawful things and threaten the safety
of the people surrounding the park. You want it open and visible to detour those
activities. As for a gate, that can be brought to the City Council. RPV does not
have any park facility at this time that is fully lockable. Also, having staff here
later in the day should help. Currently staff leave and AYSO is still using the
upper fields. Our security is currently volunteer and the gates are locked or not
depending on who has volunteered for the day. The new design will not solve all
the issues and make all them go away. We're not going to say that nobody will
be here at night but we are trying to mitigate the issues through design, through
staffing and increased patrols.
• How will the building be serviced? Trash? Deliveries?
- Response: We did not get to that level of detail in presentation. Dumpster
location and path of travel of trash disposal truck. Truck will not have to back up
which is a safety issue. Dumpsters are convenient to the building but not in the
line of sight. Deliveries could be pulled up right to the sidewalk area.
Richard Fisher Associates Page A-5
City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Workshop
What is the cutout or inset in design in the roof?
- Response: That is where the building mechanicals are housed. People will not
have a direct line of sight from the street which is a security issue.
Regarding the proposal to paint the curb red on Forrestal, can we do it tomorrow?
- Response: Maybe not that rapidly but it can be addressed, like staff hours, by
increasing the budget. It can be considered well before the construction phase.
Noise of the basketball courts - they need to move to the back of the park.
- Response: One of the designs in last April's community meeting had the design
at the other end of the park. Parents concern is that they have children of varying
ages with some using playground equipment and the older children wanting to
play basketball. By keeping them together, parents are able to supervise their
children. Also went from (2) full size courts to (1) full and (1) half size, hoping to
reduce the noise level. As for noise study, City Council said that since there is a
court there already, they would not spend money on that issue.
- Is the noise only during the day? (Crowd answers yes). Then what is the
problem? I have to listen to AYSO during the day but none of the noise is there at
nights.
- Can a half court be included near the play equipment and the full court moved by
the paddle tennis courts?
Building design - amazed at how much glass is there. 1) it makes a nice target for
vandals. 2) hard to get LEED certified.
- Response: As for glass, Hess Park has security shutters that have been very
effective. They were installed in the 1980's and there have been zero instances
of damage to windows. For LEED certification, the new glass on the market
today do not pose an issue. Things can be done in the design. By creating an
overhang, glass does not become a conductor for the direct sunlight but you are
still able to capture the sunlight allowing for reduction of energy consumption.
Regarding the building, from the previous concept to now there are only a few less
inside and outside corners on the exterior walls. Those are expensive to design and
expensive to build. To save money, we should make walls on the building flat. They
don't provide a service. Need to reorganize rooms to make straight walls.
- Response: The building is a fairly simple set of rectangles. In order to decrease
the building size but still meet ADA and building code requirements for items like
the restrooms, the insets are needed. To take them out would increase the size
of the building. Could we study it further? Absolutely.
Basketball courts - there are young men that use the court that use language that is
not nice.
- Response: An increase of City staff at the park that can monitor undesirable
behavior may help with this as well.
Prepared By:
Richard Fisher Associates
Date Prepared: 3/7/18
Richard Fisher Associates
Page A-6
4
0
ho
N
10
,���" Mnld 8001
o�
Q
Ovm 6��
i � T
B
droij
f
K LL
O
o u cs T�19i
• LL l"
WKO
; 6J
••
•
41
N
c
0
v
0
L
O
a
L
L
0
L
roI
L
J
O
U
Q
L
�••�
0
L
O
Q
cn
E
0
L-
a. a.
L
om
O
s
U)
O
�J
0
Q
a)
U
Q
a)
U)
a)
�U
0-
a)
0
ca
D
m
N
E
U)
N
En
Q
a)
a
E
0
W
U)
Q
LL
U)
O
U)
0
06
U)
a
E
O
U
L-
4-
4- 0
O
C
O_ ^^�
0 4-0 I..L
L
.� C
o U c�
O
� OCL
O C: CZ Ca .
+-a U • 4� Co U) -0 Cll
Q U o �
(U 4-0
U O QL
cn Cll • � Cll � • —
cn 4) 4-0 O 4)
cn .C:
J L' Cts � • X L' Cll
0
U
m
m
cu
0
c6
co
J
N
N
V
O
L
CL
N
L
cu
m
c
O
in
Q
0)_
'
N
O
cn
0'
.
_O
Q
L
cu
j
(n
-0
�
cn
U
f
L
. U
N
O
0
(6
(u
j
00
U
0
31
4J
U
''''
^V`f6
W
L
iL'r
N
_0O
O
N
E
O
O
N
O
N
O
0.-
—
CU
�
O
Q
Q
U
Ua
cu
Z3
O
N
.Q
Q
U)
Q
a
�
D
:D0
Q
cn
tm
Q
ON
a)CO
ON
o
_
G1
NN
ti
C)
07
C�
O
Qom/
N
_
p
LL
O
Q
i
i
L
N
Q
N
V
N
L
N
4
�:E
N
i
N
—
c6
a�
0
�
c�n�
E<�
0��
Uo��
0
U)Q
O
Q
U)
._
0
a
U
_
.
r
1
Q
CI
4�
0
Q
E
O
�X
N
.C:
�
O
O
O
O
�
O
O
L-
O
Co
.�
.cm
O
_�
see
0
O
O
O
-j
Z
U
LAC
n
rr-i�
vJ
cm
O
QL
Q
���
VJ
06
c
O
U
N
U) U)
O U
U �
c�
4— Q
o �
�Q
E >
0=
_O
N N
�E
L-
�
�
co n
CU
a -
E
cn
cn
L.L
v—J
cn
O
>
M
O
>
U
O
O
LZ
U
.�
0
�c
O
O
�-
ca
ct�
�E
L-
�
�
co n
CU
a -
co
O .O
C
c
D Q
a
m
Ma
.a
J
Q
L
s
U
ca a
voi � O L
O
� � N
400 a cn > o L
N 0-0
.� ) Q 0
N tff N O
_0 E;CL O O �, O >� U
L
�-� Q O O 0) i N O i Q
O o� u- ocuE oma, �� v o
C13 t0 O N O 0- E O ��
co i/% >> U U U (� L L
E
Q N C o -cu n w 0 c��
_ O -0
0 C:
;; z()W0C/)0< >cnQZ> O
RIBBON
BID y
a
Q 71 71
NRI: I:IW. RIlI.\TAIV',}5'f.l
vnv sTnlur+sF
AI,N[T u..nw
pN�MT PR YCCLI\.ri.Mrt,
-�,✓'-"Pil^/ •. / , TIl1 xNP . t`n'tP„ r,t �?'
r
.m 'r
A`
e- k"k,
y' 7 VSri lAf PATIw :P, y—AL
r
`kms f \�
i 5 T —
F 1 N.KI T
htt iV PI
W N ..AM , NI Y IAV<ti
T 11l
wni rcJa.�l \o,
xLTv. or
r 1�
--
i— ,mrnNNl ,I. Nn.nxrr
/ NDYI MICYf -
/!/ rxr 1 'Ti x
-
iY16.rlY- RMA T 1 RrV1:R\T
�— INAII lll%5
y IPNUT\ YDY 11 (
rVMI\ItflM1A l rl Yl,i,
�— MING LY:1.1\-KAftil
�— rY1N(I`N.I�W
(lYP N (x(T. TI
51J�,4k-•'1_iriiiY?R
1 lR SZ F. URyyI\,,'Y.
,
4A
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK CONCEPT A -I
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FF•BRUARY2013
SEAVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD
SECTION LINE BB
EXISTING SLOPE
FENCE —
L J�E•I•I JNi AVG. 2T•
tat
SEAVIEW EXISTING SLOPE PARK TURF
HELM PL NEIGHBORHOOD AREA
WALKWAY
PLANING AREA
SECTION LINE CC
PLAY AREA PARK LAWN
WALKWAY
FORRESTAL DRIVE
COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING } } }, • SLOPE AND
PARK STREET PARKING
WALKWAY DRIVEWAY
WALKWAY SLOPE PLANTING AREA - WALKWAY
WALKWAY
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS AA - CC
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018
FORRESTAL RESERVE
B-11
,PA G FULL BAWRTTBALL+ HALF BASKETBALL
PLANTING AREA I I FODRES ALNADERA LINDA
OT
HOOD
PLANTING- WALKWAY. PLANTING
WALKWAY-- ,. PLANTING
AREA AREA
PLANTING AREA
AREA WALKWAY
292 FT NEWRESIDENCE
SECTION LINE AA
(358 FT ROMOCURRENTASKETBALL BASKETBALL COURTOTO RESIDENCE)
SEAVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD
SECTION LINE BB
EXISTING SLOPE
FENCE —
L J�E•I•I JNi AVG. 2T•
tat
SEAVIEW EXISTING SLOPE PARK TURF
HELM PL NEIGHBORHOOD AREA
WALKWAY
PLANING AREA
SECTION LINE CC
PLAY AREA PARK LAWN
WALKWAY
FORRESTAL DRIVE
COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING } } }, • SLOPE AND
PARK STREET PARKING
WALKWAY DRIVEWAY
WALKWAY SLOPE PLANTING AREA - WALKWAY
WALKWAY
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS AA - CC
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018
FORRESTAL RESERVE
B-11
HELM PL •-_._..__....__24'SE7BACK,
TO FENCE PICNIC SHELTER
SECTION LINE DD
L�A U ERA LINDA
WALKWAY
NEIGHBORHOOD I
PARK
LAWN AREA AREA DRIVE
WALKWAY WALKWAY— PLANTINGAREA
..
• PARK LAWN AREA P.LANTING ...
FORRESTAL
LADERALINDA4�
LADERA
AREA
DRIVE
NEIGHBORHOOD
WALKWAY
WALKWAY
PLANTINGAREA
SECTION LINE EE
SECTION LINE FF
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS DD - FF
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ITBRUARY 2018
.12
B-12
iPLANTINGi I
L�A U ERA LINDA
FORREsTA L
NEIGHBORHOOD I
PARK
LAWN AREA AREA DRIVE
WALKWAY WALKWAY— PLANTINGAREA
SECTION LINE FF
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS DD - FF
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES ITBRUARY 2018
.12
B-12
/
vrE� v'S's�
EXISTING SLOPE
DAUNTLESS
DRIVEEXISTING WALKWAY
SECTION LINE GG
a
/ q
PLAZA AND PLAYGROUND AREA FULL BASKETBALL COURT
PLANTINGAREA SLOPE
y SCHOOL i COMMUNITY CENTER i
FIELD SLOPE r UPPER PARKING LOT BUILDING
PLANTING AREA WALKWAY '
WALKWAY SLOPE DRY STREAM BED-
WALKWAY
SLOPE FORRESTA
DRIVE
PARK DRIVEWAY
WALKWAY
WALKWAY
UTILITIES
FORRESTAL
RESERVE
WALKWAY
� WALKWAY- PLANTING AREA FORRESTAL DRIVE
SECTION LINE HH WALKWAY= PLANTING AREA
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS GG - HH
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018
<�aOGIA"(Pi�.a
B-13
I
I�
� 3
0.S✓
'Y Ali(
V1
I�
•
LOWER PARKING LOT • PLANTING
FULL BASKETBALL
PLANTING
I G
AREA
COURT
AREA
PLANTING AREA
TURNAROUND
SLOPE
WALKWAY
- TURNAROUND
WALKWAY
WALKWAY
� WALKWAY- PLANTING AREA FORRESTAL DRIVE
SECTION LINE HH WALKWAY= PLANTING AREA
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS GG - HH
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018
<�aOGIA"(Pi�.a
B-13
PON
-i-j onmommompo I a
o
4r i
0
N
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK RELATIVE GRADE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018
B-17
j.rr.
ILI
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECURITY COVERAGE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018 �.
HBdd 111NOWW0)
V4N11 tl8lad1
KWU W-1
MD.- ik .
a
DECOMPOSED GRANITE WALKWAY
CONCRETE
-T10
p DISCOVERY STG CLASSROOM 1 CL4SSROONI2 -
Wlpl 1020 SF 120 SF 792 SF B31 SF
IT
WORK 05 SF
270 SF OFFICE
GALLERY 170 SF '
OFF STAFF
432 SF
1086Y 1�
I u
STG ENTRY
COURT
M STAGI NO �_ ]
261 SF MULTbPURPOSE 1
MJ 837 SF
STG _
2d0 SF
V
\
g DRYSTREAM
--
STG d I
—0—
1 2955E ��j MULTI-PURPOSE2
929 SF I
NET FLOOR
AREA
(EXCLUDE ALL
WALLS) , I BOULDERS AND
SVoo S0 FT EA7,NG
PARK -
EiaooKNa�o�
r,
4 ---
y� �e �
ism
Z 1.
��
t
m
d
=I
pl,
icy=i:
BMW---.
I ix �.-
Iowa -
AD#
min -am
A
X SAW
_O,
�ti'tittl�i�
: 74
mss`• i".
Trespa Pura NFC®
CREATE FACADES
,
WITHOUT
CONCERNS
PRECISION GUT,
HAND -FINISHED
ARTISAN
ARGHITEGTURAL
PANELS so
MUNITY
LDING"
............
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK CONCEPT A-1
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FERRUARY 2018
B-31
—
O =
= 3
T
_
4-0
O y—
E N
O
V
4-1 O
C
_
.E
o
Q
._
r`n
r
S`:
►-•r
N
=
w
L
•>
L
Ana
/7
•
IM
w
V
E
.O
T
H
AMOR
.0CL
p
O
N
t�
-5-a
i
1
w
=
J
tv
E
y
N
U
ch
DL
o
L
L'
•�
LU
i0000
—
O =
= 3
T
_
4-0
O y—
E N
O
V
4-1 O
C
_
.E
o
Q
._
r`n
r
S`:
►-•r
a.
L
4)
4ma
U)
m
5
L
m
CL
Q
>1
L
mwL
`w
O
t�
Lcr
4
.�
0
Q
O
U
O
'-
cn
y=
0
o
CM
co
�
L
LO
O—
_
CO
—>
.�
W-
v�
O
�-
O
Q
Xca.�D-
E
W
o
J
0
to
.-
V
CL
L
a.
E
Q
0
L
4�
co
E
O
J
.
W,
r.
cn
Z
U
Ch
O
Q
cn
M
O
L
E
m
r.
cn
Ja
.0
Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Security/Traffic Analysis
Forrestal Drive Preserve Parking and Red -striping
Red stripe most of Forrestal Drive up to
gate
Will limit visitors walking past residents
Creates 28 space parking lot well past
residences for Forrestal parking
Second gate on Forrestal to limit
access
Will reduce unwanted parking in
neighborhoods
Parking signage at entrance directing
to either Preserve or Park parking
Forrestal Reserve Parking
28 Spaces
n 4
A
h�
se+w�7
—
CL
m
J
i
Y
d
V
3
O
V
�-
�
O
O
N
ca
�
�
=
v
v
NCL_
^^
V''!
m
'a
a�
a�
V
Q
L
N
._
co
O
Q
C
O
V
E
z
O
O-
ch
h
.�
0
4_
Q
E
E
O
0
CD
LJ
0
E
E
V
a�
Y
d
3
a�
�-
�
O
O
to
ca
�
a
4
W
=
v
NCL_
^^
V''!
m
'a
a�
a�
N
L
O
a
�
._
>LL
L
N
._
co
Q
},
Z
O
C
O
F-
cn
z
a
B-37
Q.
t�
L
m
CL
L
tQ
J
'0
71I
Loll
R*;
N
a�
co
O
0
L
0
a_
W
E
`.O
T
U)
E
00
4-
0
O
4-0W
■99
Loa
rl
U
70 C
�
O O_
E 0O
Vi N4-0
U O
70 >
Q � 0O
cn a+ . — U O
._ !
Ca
� c
im E _ C: m
RS C: U O O
a O •� },
RS >O
-�E C: C) •�
w o
J o ) � o Z
L >, U U) U
4 -
LM
. .
L o O
a •L, c o O
u) E
!� `0? O
m
O
0-
m m
C:
N
o
_0 _0 _0
_N O _N ° N
U Q U U OD Q o a) o a) Lo
O p C6 O x Q p (6 to `+ M to
Z 00 Z N 0 O 00 0 n
L Z Q Z
Ccn U N C U
QQ Q vi Q (n Q o Q
U o
U CL U CL Q U m U U m U CL
c
o -C
0)
o c
0 n
a)
o 0
N c�
C o U i
cn L Q
U) C O C N c°n
U) �, N m
_ O m E c: _O ui E cn
cn m, > Q o N —
N U Lr --O (_a N 00
cn LO U E �_ U
N m N O� o Q ° C
� U Of* Q� Q I cn 1 0 0
Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Operating Hours
s
m
J
ca
a
a)
CL_0
Q 'F c
D
cU-
O U) a)
U C:
O
Q LL
U a)
p Q) V a) U c
N
a' (D
a)
T (a o a) >
o
CU C L :�
> Q � a
= ". i.L Co O co cn CL
o >},U �N� cn a)
-0 cm
`u Lp -0 wm
a o c_n c� x O m
E 2 Q O � — (� a) +r
_ O (a
U L.L c O 0 O U m E
W U 0 a) � O (6 w 0) J
o ���� �(n -jFMLw 0
0 11 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0
70
a)
L
0)
L
N
4
lot
c
L
O
—
c6
L
a)
U
.=
V
J
'—
ca
�
L
C:
(�
a
O
�
N
0-
70
a)
0)
N
c
L
O
—
c6
L
a)
U
D
�
O
C:
(�
O
O
�
N
N
>1
Q
(Li
O
N
T
O
m
>
clf)
O
_0
>
T
N
E
l�
O
O
N
O
L
O
p
0-
L
^
AO
-0
—
O
co
E
U
E
(o
O
m
>
cn
O
m
E
CU
U
0
•V
m
E
O
L
0
Q
Q
L
Q
E
0
T
=3
Lr-
l�
T
0)
w
>
-se
4-0
L
Ocn
0)
O
O
Q
0
M
�
0
V
O
L
0.
a.
W
i
a
to
J
zi
AW
4m+
x
Z
0
CNU
L
c�
75
L
O
4-
0
E
N
00
a
0-
_0
4 -
CN
N
U
C
O
I
m
Q
_
U
L
O
00
0
U
cn
_
=
O
--
m
=
O
O
o
0U)
o
U
.�
Q
�
Q
�
Q
L
O
�
U
m
O
O
N
E
O
m
OO
Q
U
C:
E
O
E
.�
U
-�
O
O
CL
�=
�
a)-0
w
-a
�
�
0
4-4
a)
E
c-
w
E
N
0
E
o
o
�
E
w
o
0
CNU
L
c�
75
L
O
4-
0
E
N
00
a
t• -i
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
The following are Community Comments / Questions / Concerns that were received either
via the email or the Comment Card that was distributed at the Public Workshop held on
February 21, 2018:
Comment Cards
1. Do not open the view or remove the Forrestal bushes.
Create a public "Discovery Area" of a small size (re: Deane Dana Nature Center). I
continue to believe the size is too large.
2. Noise abatement needs to be addressed. Water reverberates sound.
Open the park at 9am and close at Dusk, like all of the other parks on the hill.
3. The proposal for this new park plan is really good. It seems to address major issues
to compromise between "users". I think the proposed number of rooms is good to
bring groups (scouts, preschoolers, education & dance groups) back to a
"neighborhood" center. The Discovery Room should remain a fixture — it is unique to
the area. It is a great place to show children and adults artifacts relating to the
cultural, geological and natural aspects of this beautiful area.
4. Very good night. We want this plan.
5. It would help if the speakers could raise their voice and not speak in low monotones.
They should also get instruction on how to use a microphone. They don't think to
speak into the microphone but use it around their chest area. Also, they forgot to use
it and then mumble on. It would be a help if we could hear when they are talking
directly to the other side of the room. They look at the screen and talk to the
audience on that side of the room.
6. How much red marked off parking on Forrestal?
Playground size
More creative outdoor space / use / tables
Trail usage / signs / trash bag pickup
Storage long term renters
Email regarding the Ladera Linda HOA Survey & Results
Additional Comments Received via Emails
7. My neighbor & friend Mr. Mickey Rodich has some wonderful ideas for the Ladera
Linda improvements that I and my neighbors in Seaview totally agree with.
I hope you will really take a few minutes & reconsider his ideas into the final plans
especially reducing the size of the building to 7000 sq. feet. I have been playing
paddle tennis for over 30 years & have seen the school buses show up & the children
taking 5 minutes to walk thru the Discovery room because they are more interested in
taking the hike. Like Mickey, I see very little use of the Discovery Room.
We do not want our Ladera Linda to turn into a destination attraction on the Social
media.
It is not too late to make the small changes that Mr. Rodich suggests.
8. 1 was unable to attend the last workshop, but did attend the ones prior. I am very
surprised to see the park even smaller in size than previously aligned by most at the
Richard Fisher Associates Page
�-1
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
last workshop. While the "less is more" concept prevails over this design, it should
not mean less usable. The removal of the discovery room is one such example of
removing usable amenities and I recommend that this be included to encourage the
community to have a convenient place to gather. The relocation of the ADA ramp
seems to have a significant cost compared to the benefit. A reasonable location was
proposed on the prior map which can align with the "less is more" concept.
This is an opportunity to have a safe place for current and future generations and
unfortunately the lack of acceptable community parks in this area continue to deter
new families and residents from moving in. It's also disappointing to see that after
moving here a year and a half ago, the nicest park to bring my nieces and nephew is
in San Pedro. I don't have kids so was not too concerned before moving here, but
those with families are very aware and is often part of their home location decision.
9. 1 am still concerned about noise and lack of privacy; as I mentioned to you at the 2/21
meeting, the basketball courts do generate noise, not so much from the activity, but
because many of the young men playing are loud and foul-mouthed. Surely the
courts could be located elsewhere on the property, away from both our neighborhood
and Seaview. Also, I would prefer that the picnic table(s) be located farther from
Forrestal, because of noise & trash issues. I have observed instances when visitors
have moved the old tables, or brought their own, and put them near Forrestal for their
convenience, with resulting noise and trash affecting our neighborhood.
I am in favor of keeping the Discovery Room; 4 generations of our family have
enjoyed visiting it over the years.
Parking is another issue generating noise and trash; I support no parking on either
side of Forrestal, from the gate south to the end of the park boundary. I oppose
adding additional parking above the Forrestal gate; it makes more sense to
incorporate those spaces into the park footprint.
Parking and traffic issues will only be exacerbated when a new and improved facility
is opened at Ladera Linda, and I think those issues should be addressed by the city
before going ahead with building a new facility.
Also, regarding privacy, if the area on the west side of Forrestal is cleared of
vegetation and law enforcement can have a clear line of sight, it would work both
ways- visitors to the park would have a clear line of sight to my home and yard; not
so secure for me! Concerning that issue, I had sent you an email message last week
about trying to interpret the renderings of the facility as it would look from my
property's vantage point, and inviting you &/or the architect to my home to
demonstrate or explain what I would be seeing when it's built. I hope you received
that message, as I haven't received a reply yet.
On another note, please advise me what transpired with the Forrestal gate lock
change; fyi, the following day, 2/20, the lock was secured again.
10. Thank you for the outreach meeting concerning the planned updates for Ladera
Linda park. A lot of good information was presented.
First I want to say that I am all in favor of upgrading the facility. I think the renderings
for the new building look beautiful. As a community volunteer I have used the park
over the years, reserving small rooms for monthly Cub Scout Den meetings and
occasional Girl Scout meetings. For several years I reserved the large room for the
full Cub Scout Pack from Mira Catalina Elementary school to hold their annual Pine
Derby races. And with the Girl Scouts, we used the facility to receive large Council
Richard Fisher Associates Paget_2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
orders for cookies, which had to be regrouped into orders for each Troop in the area.
I appreciate the park's availability for these community activities, and I hope it will
continue to be available to help in these same capacities.
I am concerned that the main room is getting smaller. In fact I am concerned that it
may be too small to host the local dance and fitness classes that our neighborhood
as enjoyed here for years. While I don't want a Taj Mahal, I don't want to build
something that is too small for our needs. I hope that you have communicated with
the people who teach the various dance and fitness classes to ensure that the
reduced room size is adequate for the classes that they provide. And there needs to
be storage for gymnastic mats, dance bars, etc. A couple hundred square feet can
make a difference.
I was also surprised to learn that there would be no kitchen included in the plans.
This seems very short sighted. A kitchen area is an absolute must for any community
center. You need refrigeration and plumbing, you must have a kitchen sink. While
cooking appliances may not be wanted at this time, it is poor planning not to include
the space and electric or gas lines to allow a range or oven to be added later in time
if the needs and desires of the community warrants it. This could be as simple as a
cabinet area that is wired so a cooking appliance could be installed later. Plan now
for a possible minor kitchen upgrade later IF the community wants it.
Unlike some of my neighbors I have no objection to a "Discovery Room" which is
designed to help house and maintain part of the city's historical and cultural artifacts,
and can be used for student involvement.
I could not see the play equipment areas on the area renderings. I think having good
play equipment for children is a crucial need that must be met. These play areas
should have good access to the restrooms, and also easy stroller access from the
parking lot. From the drawings I have absolutely NO IDEA if these basic
accommodations are met or not. A good play area is essential to a family park.
One area where it was clear that the Park department was NOT listening to the
neighbors, was in regard to the location of the basketball courts. The neighbors near
the park have asked that these be moved up closer to the paddle tennis courts to
prevent excess noise in their homes. The Parks department was completely
disrespectful and dismissive of their concerns.
We heard that the designer feels they were instructed to put the BB courts next to the
children's play area, period, regardless of any other input or concern. Apparently the
idea is that some parents would like their older kids to be able to practice ball on the
courts while the younger ones are in the play area. One neighbor stated that the men
who use the court are often loud and use vulgar profanities, and she doesn't want to
hear in backyard anymore. So why do the park planners think it is a great idea to
have loud profane and cursing men play BB next to the little children? Who will want
to let their kids play there if loud men are shouting profanities right next to them?
It was suggested to put the full play BB court/s up next to the paddle tennis court to
pull the loud games up that way, but a small practice half court could be left next to
the children's play area to meet the other concern. The residents in the room seemed
to like the idea, But the concept was summarily shot down, and we were emphatically
TOLD that ALL COURTS WILL BE PUT NEXT TO CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND -
END OF STORY. Wow. What is the purpose of the meeting if you absolutely
REFUSE to accept any input whatsoever? This was very disappointing. The
message was load and clear - This meeting was a one way street only for the city to
show us their concept, and if the residents don't like it they can pound sand.
Richard Fisher Associates Page t-3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
Most important the residents have made it abundantly clear that they do Not want this
park to become an attraction that will bring in increasing numbers of out of area
visitors. The Park planners insisted that the usage would remain about the same, but
how in the world can they back up that assertion? And if you really don't believe that
usage is going to increase, then why are you more than doubling the amount of
parking spaces? Clearly you are not creating parking spaces to meet CURRENT
need. You are creating parking to meet an anticipated greater increased usage. Don't
say one thing and do another. Be HONEST Please.
The addition of 28 parking spaces for the Preserve, while not technically part of the
Park, will be an instant draw for additional out of the area visitors to come use this
facility as the new trail head of choice to access the Preserve. Current counts of cars
parked along the road to access the preserve is typically 8-12, so why do we need 28
spaces?
Matt asked what was the survey response to the parking issue; the truth is that there
was NO QUESTION on the survey regarding the parking. I asked if one could be
added, but I was told by the writer of the survey that "HE" personally thought 28
spaces was good, so he wasn't going to add that question to the survey, but if people
had concerns about parking, they could write them up in the general comment
section. After this, I personally refused to answer the survey because I don't like
rigged games.
I suggest that the city pave and prepare the strip for 28 parking spaces, BUT initially
mark and designate only 12-16 spaces since that appears to be plenty to meet the
current usage. Mark the rest of that parking area, reserved maybe for oversized
vehicles or maintenance vehicle parking. If/when the need arises then more parking
spaces could be easily and inexpensively marked and added later. This tactic would
prevent the instant creation of a giant open parking lot to attract lots of new users,
while retaining flexibility to grow with increased demand. I also stress that this parking
must be combined with the red striping of Forrestal, so we move the hikers into the
new lot area, not just create more parking in addition to existing street parking. Finally
we need to be sure that this lot will be available for hikers especially during the
weekends and will not become an AYSO parking lot, pushing the hikers back into our
neighborhood. How can we ensure that these spaces will be used for the Preserve
and not taken over by AYSO?
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. I hope that you take them into
consideration.
11. 1 was unable to attend the Workshop on Feb. 21, 2018, but I was able to discuss the
Workshop with some neighbors that attended the meeting and I also was able to
review your online presentation. Even though I was not able to hear your verbal
presentation, I think I got a good idea of what transpired.
During the City Council meeting on Nov. 18, 2016, that you referred to in your
presentation, the City Council instructed your department to adhere to the City
Council's "Less is More" guidance approach along with incorporating the immediate
residents idea's and concerns in the design of the new Park. That Agenda Report
also stated "The recommendations on what to include (and what not to include) were
strongly influenced by resident feedback received via survey, emails and
Workshops". That statement was true only for the initial Workshops, held prior to this
meeting with the discussions centered on swimming pools, gymnasiums, skate board
park and a dog park, which were rejected by the City Council and they then provided
you with new guidance to listen to the desires of the residents.. At that point, after
many resident comments, Staff recommended a 9,000 sq ft building. During the first
Richard Fisher Associates Page t-4
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
Workshop meeting it was the architect that suggested that there was a possibility of
adding up to 40 parking places on Forrestal, but we were told that that was not in the
scope of this project. However later, for some reason, 28 parking places and an
upper gate became part of this project.
Prior to the City Council meeting on August 1.2017, you held additional private
meetings with residents and users to further define what amenities to include in the
new Park building. I attended one of these meetings and reaffirmed the concerns
expressed by our residents during their meetings such as: total cost, security
cameras, do not make another Del Cerro Park fiasco, 7,000 sq ft building to meet
community needs, relocation of noise generating basketball and children's play area,
relocate ADA access, provide traffic control and left turn accelerating lane at
Forrestal and PVDS, and retain existing landscape as much as possible. At this City
Council meeting you made another presentation on the Ladera Linda Park planned
design concept. Again the City Council told you to work with the residents to
determine the amenities for the new Park building. One of the biggest issues was the
size of the building. The nearby residences preferred a 7,000 sq ft building, based on
the average usage of 4 to 5 per week along with a much lower parking place
requirement. We at Ladera Linda HOA recently conducted a survey to reach a
consensus as to the preferred features for the new Park and the over 80 responses
were overwhelmingly in agreement on the amenities as detailed in my
correspondence to you prior to this last meeting.
Reviewing what transpired during the meeting made one thing perfectly clear: The
plan that you originally proposed 2 years ago has not changed at all. You have not
listened to our residents for our input. Your minds were already made up from the
beginning. Your answer to our suggestion to provide traffic control and a left turn
accelerating lane at Forrestal and PVDS was that it is not in the scope of this project,
however it is a very critical part of this project and should be considered as part of it.
This new park will create traffic problems at PVDS.
After reviewing the artist renderings I see that the "Less is More" mantra imposed by
the City Council does not apply to this project:
1) On your Floor Plan (page 20), you still show 5 meeting/classrooms. The usage
does not justify 5 meeting/classrooms. We only need 3 meeting/classrooms. Alsc
we do not need a Discovery Room. The usage does not justify a Discovery
Room. It can operate just like it does at PVIC.
2) The multipurpose room is chopped off at a sharp angle and has a 261 sq ft
staging area, in the middle of the gallery and not connected to outside access.
There is no minimal kitchen area shown in your plans either.
3) One would think that the Storage areas shown (240 and 295 sq ft) would be
connected to each large room instead of being on the opposite side of
the gallery. Maybe you are planning to use them as future offices?
4) On pages 24 and 25 you show a dry river bed with a bridge. We are not
duplicating a downtown Music Center. I see this feature as being a liability and
not an asset. With all of the architectural (high) concrete steps, river rock,
depressions and a bridge, I see a large liability factor for injuries. Seniors and
small children will have difficulty navigating this area. The daily gardening
maintenance costs will be very high. Whats wrong with a grass lawn and gentle
slopes? This area could even someday become our skate park. Eliminating all of
these unnecessary features could more than pay for relocating the ADA access
to be next to the entry driveway.
5) The Lobby desk should be located so that Staff has unobstructed views of the
galleries and likewise the outside perimeter should not be full of nooks and
crannies for security reasons.
Richard Fisher Associates PageC_5
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
6) The entry court is way too large. You are talking about the Sheriff having line of
site access, but this leaves blind spots.
I am against P3 financing for this project. The 18% to 20% interest rates are a
detriment. The total cost for financing will be far more than double the initial cost of
the project. The same question arose when the San Ramon Canyon project was to
be financed. What's wrong with traditional debt financing or If the City has the funds,
as there is in this case, then there is no need for any kind of financing?
I think there is still time to make this project acceptable to us residents. But again, up
till now, nothing was changed as a result of resident input. After all of the meetings
and Workshops, your initial proposal still stands; nothing has changed to include
resident input. Again, no one has paid attention to the residents.
12. 1 just want you to know that I thought the presentation of the proposed plans for the
Ladera Linda Community Center were very well presented. Y'all have worked very
hard to try and fit in everything wanted and not wanted and I think this plan is a good
one. Not too big but large enough to accommodate small groups and events.
As you well know, you cannot please everyone. My take on last night is that the
Ladera Linda residents cannot separate the problems with the hikers/bikers and
AYSO from the community center which has NEVER been a big draw. And the
people who do use it are generally residents. I am truly getting tired of the NIMBY
attitude that I see more and more in RPV. If you want to keep the riffraff out, make
this a gated community like Rolling Hills. You say it's for the public but which public?
Only the residents that live within so many feet of it?
It seemed to me that the biggest objection, over and over, was the traffic and parking.
And I would venture a guess that 99% of the traffic issues have nothing to do with the
community center. And when are all the so-called "traffic/parking" issues? I would
probably be safe in assuming on the weekends when there are AYSO games and
people hiking - very few of which probably don't even bother with the center (other
than to use the bathroom). The traffic situation at the intersection of PVDrive South
and Forrestal is another issue entirely and shouldn't even be in this discussion. Yes,
there is an problem at that intersection. The fix is easy - put in a traffic light with
sensors that would favor PVDrive South. BUT! I would bet the folks living on those
corners would howl about that! They don't want the noise of cars stopping and
starting or exhaust. OK - put a timer on the light so it's only active from 7 am to 10 am
and from 4 pm to 6 pm (or whenever there is rush hour traffic).
The Ladera Linda Community Center is the only community center on this side of
The Hill. And for people to object to non -RPV families using it is mean and petty and
selfish. You cannot tell me that the people that enjoy Hesse Park only live in RPV.
Forrestal Nature Reserve is very special. The trails are not that difficult and the vista
views are beyond belief. The residents do not want to share these. I'm sorry, that's
not right. And the City cannot be blamed for the so-called "social media" exposure.
On to the Community Center itself -- Herb's comments re the Discovery Room are
specious at most. For one thing, I think the Discovery Room is a well -kept secret.
Last night I had two residents tell me that they didn't even know it existed until they
were at Ladera Linda for the Parks event. They and their children were blown away
by the photos and history it represents. Ladera Linda has been rather neglected by
the City. No full time staff (which you say will be corrected) and about the only thing
the City has supported has been the school and organization hikes that are provided
by the docents. The Discovery Room was created to not only preserve items related
Richard Fisher Associates PageC_G
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
to RPV and the area but to share them with the children. Perhaps with a full time staff
member on-site, the room can be opened full-time to the public and maybe even a
docent assigned on a daily basis to answer questions, etc.
I hope you have personally gone to check out the Discovery Room and to actually
see what it has to offer. It's very special and a lot of effort was put into it to make it as
wonderful, informative and educational as it is.
I know this is rather long but I do hope you will keep the community center as it is
now planned. I would venture to assume that all the same objections will be
presented over and over again by the same people every time you have a community
outreach meeting.
Wish I could be at the CC meeting. I still strongly feel that the residents' concerns
really have nothing to do with the Community Center per se. It's the current influx
hikers and bikers that are the issue (and that is not going to change) and they will not
be using the community center. And their concerns about making it a "view" park are
unfounded. It's not like driving down PV Drive South and seeing the sunset and
stopping to take it in. AND! Even if people did come to the park just to see the sunset,
after the sun is gone, it's dark. Now what? Is the City going to have barbecue pits?
Are they afraid that they will stay and do wild and crazy things? Sigh!
Oh well. I'm just one little voice. And the "Less is More" approach (which leads to the
NIMBY attitude) sounds good but it is only benefiting the residents in the immediate
vicinity.
13. PLEASE KEEP the Discovery room and PLEASE do not let the Ladera Linda
residents get by with their suggestion for hallway displays and discovery carts in
place of a discovery room. The displays are too fragile to be in portable carts. Adults
as well as children need this information. You have a wonderful nature room now that
cannot be duplicated. The room gives an overall of what is in Palos Verdes. It took
years to get all the items together. It is a great place to teach about what is at Palos
Verdes. A lot of time and effort was spent putting that room together and many of the
items cannot be replaced or duplicated. To some people nature is NOT important and
to others it is ALL important. PLEASE fight for it and know you will NEVER get
another room with everything together like that room. The butterfly collection is 80
years old and was collected when I was a child and with the help of a neighbor who
was a science teacher myself and my mother, they were ID's and got mounted. The
butterfly garden is very special and Leslie Williamson is wonderful. Don't throw her
away either.
Where would you get another bear skin? It was bought Many years ago and it is in
the room because there were bears all over this area. Children and adults are really
surprised at that. You read about bears going in swimming pools in Pasadena
nearer the mountains. There were bears all over our area before they were all killed.
There is a collection of all the abalone shell varieties that are in S. Calif and things in
our tidal pools and how sea shells grow. It takes years for a shell to get big enough to
see. The shells were left over from our store when I retired, and are hard to find and
some cannot be sold as they are on the endangered species list. The display tells
about the peacocks, peahens and peachicks and eggs and how they got to Palos
Verdes. There is a display on the native plants. Hands on rocks and minerals.
Humming birds, raptors, endangered species birds, ground squirrels, fox, raccoons,
owls, skunks, possums, None of the schools or the parks have this information. You
have something special Please do not let it get away.
Richard Fisher Associates Page�_7
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
The reptiles, insects, spiders of our area are on display. We need to teach which
are safe and that ALL are our friends and how to act around them and why we
shouldn't kill them. To have wonderful pictures of birds taken by Steve Wolfe and to
find the real bird nest matching the bird is special. Steve has moved out of the area.
The artifacts of the indigenous people found in the area are special. Palos Verdes
had many different Indio communities and the people went by the name of the
community where they lived. Abalone Cove and Point Vicente were called
Haraasnga. San Nicolas Island was also called Haraasnga and people lived in both
places and boated between them. Haraasnga meant things that stand up. (Rocks by
Terranea) similar looking rocks at San Nicolas Island. The community at White Point
was called Tovemungna, the place of the rabbit. They boated to Catalina Island
which was called Pimunga. Soapstone was mined in Catalina and traded for items
the Pimu needed there. The store room that PVIC is using at Ladera Linda has
priceless things from the Indio communities. One well known community was at
Malaga cove area was Chowingna. Suangna (Place of the reeds now known as
Machado Park is where they got their tules and there is wonderful history. They could
boat from the marsh all the way to the ocean.
The Historical Society has a wonderful collection of artifacts that were at Malaga
Cove school. There should be a room set aside for that exceptional collection.
Where there were fresh water springs there were communities. Many of those same
springs are still running today. Increase the size of the building to include the history
of the early people who lived here before the European explorers. That would be
wonderful!!!
In the discovery room there is a small collection of real artifacts from the area and
displays telling what the native people used for food and about their trade. We
actually need another room just for displays on this area before the Europeans
arrived and before they changed everything. People lived here for 7-10,000 years
and had all they needed to survive. They had an extensive trade route and took care
of their needs. This hasn't been taught in the schools and we could do it with
displays at Ladera Linda. We also have displays of local fossils and rocks and
minerals. It would be very difficult to get all the items in the discovery room together
again. Please treasure it. Please don't be so short sighted that you destroy what you
already have and which is not available anywhere else in the area. Please treasure
it. I would be very happy to give the council a tour of the discovery room and share
with you the treasures of our area.
14. 1 would like to thank you and Cory for the hard work you have been putting into the
Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. This has not been an easy process, as there are
many concerns and opinions from the community. I also want to thank you for
presenting an update at the February 21st workshop and for fielding some of the
questions and concerns from the residents.
After attending the workshop last week, I could not help but feel that some significant
concerns raised by residents are not being fully addressed, discussed, and resolved.
I could be wrong, but I believe everyone is in agreement that if this new facility is
constructed as proposed, and sweeping views cleared for visitors, that usage of the
park will increase over current usage. Of course, how much it will increase is the
subject of much debate. Parks staff and some residents feel usage will increase only
slightly above current levels. Others fear that large crowds will come to the facility to
enjoy the new basketball courts, walking trails, expansive views, paddle tennis
courts, kids play equipment, and of course the welcoming and inviting community
center with its modern coastal style architecture, copious glass walls, and Discovery
Room.
Richard Fisher Associates Page_ Q
City of Rancho Palos Verdes - Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
Whether the usage increase is at one of these extremes, or somewhere in between,
is anyone's guess right now, but I have not heard a single person (resident or staff
member) deny there will be some increase. Any increase in usage should be cause
for concern and pause.
Currently, there are issues with existing visitor and traffic level. These include, but
are not limited to:
Parking spillover onto adjacent residential streets, especially on weekends,
which is impacting residents who live closest to the park. Proximity of the
area to the reserves exacerbates this issue.
Increased traffic over the years on Forrestal, Trump National Drive, and
PVDS. Making a left turn from Forrestal onto PVDS can be very dangerous,
especially during rush hours, weekends, during soccer season, etc.
Existing organized groups (adult men's soccer) taking over the field area on
Sunday mornings, despite City assurances this would be stopped.
Security issues and criminal activity in and around the community center.
I would like to submit that you consider dividing this project into two phases. Phase 1
would involve solving some of the current issues of traffic, parking, usage, and
security. After Phase 1 is complete, some analysis could be done and then a Phase
2 discussed. This second phase would focus more on new facilities and surrounding
landscaping.
This would seem to be a much more prudent approach to this site.
For phase 1, here are some suggestions:
1) Go ahead a red stripe the curbs on Forrestal as proposed in the latest "pian"
presented by Parks staff.
2) Proceed with adding a second gate above the current gate across Forrestal, and
adding parking spaces equal to those lost by red striping.
3) Work with residents on Pirate, Sea Raven, and Phantom to develop restricted
parking in front of their homes. How this would be implemented should be
closely coordinated with the actual residents that would be immediately impacted
(i.e. those living on those streets).
4) Work with all user groups having locks on the gates, and the security company,
to develop a rock solid plan on consistent locking of the gates, then implement
the plan and monitor closely (this has been an ongoing and recurring problem for
several years now).
5) Improve security at the existing facility by adding cameras and by having sheriffs
do more drive thru patrols
6) When larger groups are using the area (i.e. AYSO, city sponsored events, etc.)
and the upper gates are open to accommodate more vehicles, develop a plan for
traffic control during those times and implement it.
7) Enforce current rules regarding large, organized groups taking over facilities
(especially those who are doing so on a regular basis).
8) Consider relocation of the Pirate trailhead to be further away from residences,
and closer to parking spaces identified in item #2 above. Groups of hikers often
congregate right at the trailhead and make significant noise that can be heard by
residents. While moving the trailhead further up Forrestal will not completely
eliminate this issue, it should be a big help.
9) Develop a solution for the left turn from Forrestal onto PVDS. This will likely be
the most difficult item to solve, as there are many factors entering into this and
Richard Fisher Associates Page C-9
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
many, many varied opinions on how to solve the issue. However, it is my
contention that the city cannot keep "punting" any action on this. Does someone
need to be killed while making the left turn out of Forrestal or Trump National to
get the city to take action? I certainly hope not.
Items 1 thru 8 above could be implemented relatively quickly and with relatively small
cost, and data collected. If any are not working and need refinement, that could
again be done with minimal relative cost.
Item 9 is admittedly much more involved, but that is not a good reason to ignore it.
This issue has been discussed for many years now with no action taken to date.
Once these items have been implemented (i.e. Phase 1 completed), the City would
then be in a much better position of determine the best plans for the community
center itself (Phase 2).
It is worth noting that, in the meeting last week, staff presented some comparisons of
the Ladera Linda facility to Hesse Park, Ryan Park, and the PVIC. However, there is
at least one major difference between Ladera Linda and these other three. Hesse
Park, Ryan Park, and PVIC are all located on a major 4 lane street, with easy access
and traffic patterns. Ladera Linda, on the other hand, is located in a residential area.
The closest "main road" is PVDS, although keep in mind that PVDS is only a two lane
street from the board of San Pedro all the way to Abalone Cove with no stop signs or
traffic signals in that stretch. The physical location and access to/from Ladera Linda
makes it a significantly more challenging location.
While I know some of the items I address in this letter are beyond the scope for the
Parks and Recreation Department, they are not beyond the scope of the City
Council. I believe the City Council should be recognizing the serious existing
concerns and having various city departments working together to solve the phase 1
issues I have identified before a second phase buildout of a new community center.
Thank you for your consideration.
15. On August 1st 2017 the Parks and Recreation staff presented to the City Council the
planned conceptual design for the renovation and upgrading of the Ladera Linda
Park. At that time concerned residents from the local community expressed their
concerns. As a result staff was directed to go back to resolve these outstanding
issues before proceeding.
The objective of the February 21st workshop was to present to the community the
results of studies to mitigate the concerns of the residents before going to the City
Council for approval of the proposed development. Unfortunately what was
presented did not resolve the resident's issues.
The major concern of the local residents is the fear that Ladera Linda would become
another Del Cerro disaster. The community is already suffering from the affects from
AYSO, large unscheduled and non-regulated trailhead parking and traffic issues.
The community feels that depending on how the park is developed could exasperate
the problem.
Ladera Linda is unique in that there is only one entrance to the park, trailhead and
the residential area with limited parking.
The community is also concerned with the rising crime rate in the area and as the
popularity of the new park and trailhead becomes known, through mulita media, the
Richard Fisher Associates Pa
gO 10
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
problem will become worse. Even under the present circumstance the residents are
considering obtaining an outside security service.
Here again the Ladera Linda community is unique in that it is located near the high
crime community of San Pedro in the city of Los Angeles with the potential of crime
spilling over into the community.
As a result the residents asked that the city staff address the following issues:
1) Building Size to meet community needs only
2) Relocate the children's area and basketball courts to reduce noise to the
residents along Forrestal
3) Eliminate parking along Forrestal and relocate the ADA ramp on Forrestal
4) Increase park and residential security by adding ALPRS cameras on Forrestal
5) Limit park hours and use
6) Provide Traffic control during events and a left turn acceleration lane at the
intersection of Forrestal and PV Drive South
7) Maintain the park landscape as much as possible to provide view protection of
the residents along Forrestal and the Seaview residential homes
What was presented at the workshop was the same layout that was rejected by the
community at the August 1st 2017 City Council meeting. Staff's position is that the
traffic and parking issues are driven by the reserve and AYSO and not the park. The
residents' position is that the redevelop park could become an attractive nuisance if
not developed properly adding to the problem. Staff agreed to restrict the parking
along Forrestal but that relocating the ADA ramp would be too costly. Staff
suggested that maybe the City should pay for AYSO traffic control.
They totally rejected reducing the size of the building, increasing the size of the
Discovery Room and adding a patio. The Discovery Room is seldom used nor
manned and when used it supports the Los Serenos Outreach Program for Title I
children from outside the community. In fact at the workshop one of the docents
stated that there was no other place to store valuable artifacts. At $400 per sq. ft., or
$408,000, this becomes a very expensive storage facility. The elimination of the
small classroom will also save an additional $317,000. This savings should be more
than enough to offset the cost of relocating the ADA ramp. Further, the docents have
never been able to staff the Discovery Room, since it was established, and if retained
the docents should be required to provide a docent on site during operating hours.
To put salt in the wound, the one thing the community wanted was a large
conference room to hold association meetings and events. What staff proposed was
a slightly smaller room than presently exists and a shape that make it inefficient to
use. It seemed that the staff was more interested in the esthetics of the building than
providing a functional layout.
When the issue of security came up there was no discussion of adding ALPRS
cameras but to cut the hedges down along Forrestal so the Sheriff can drive along
Forrestal and look into the park. This raised a privacy issue with the residents that
live along Forrestal. Right now the present hedge height prevents park visitors from
looking into their backyards and bedroom windows.
On the other side of the park staff proposes to replace the present hedges with
hedges that will allow visitors an ocean view. This presents a problem with the
Seaview residents as it would allow visitors to look down into their backyards. Staff
indicated that the new hedges would be wide enough to prevent that. If this is the
plan it needs to be stipulated in any landscaping agreement. Unfortunately, ocean
views attract visitors.
Richard Fisher Associates Paaie a 1 11
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
Parks staff readily admits in their proposal for the park there will be "some increase in
usage" of the new facilities. Obviously the residents are all worried it could be
significantly higher than they anticipate unless the facility is scaled back and opening
up panoramic views are eliminated.
Adding to this the City's ill-conceived plan of adding traffic calming bicycle lanes
along PV Drive South could very well make Ladera Linda Park a trailhead for bicycle
clubs.
The bottom line is our desire NOT to have the new Ladera Linda Park become a
destination attraction that will be advertised on Social Media and draw large crowds
from outside our City with the related traffic congestion such as the Del Cerro Park
disaster. This Park should be designed to satisfy the needs of our local residents. It
also seems prudent to resolve the current traffic and parking issues before updating
the park.
The residents are very concerned about crime, noise, parking, traffic congestion and
they do not want the new facility to become a trail -head information center for the
reserve or bicycle clubs. Our Survey of residents showed that the vast majority
favor a low profile Park.
16. From what I saw at the meeting the issues that the residents were concerned about
were not adequately addressed. I understand your position AYSO and left turn lanes
are not driven by the park per say but the fear is that the new facility will attract more
visitors to both the park and the trails and you cannot look at the park as an isolated
project. We do not want another Del Cerro. We have very little control because of
multi -media. Somehow we need to come to grips with the issue.
[The below text is a response from M. Waters]:
Thanks for your email. /agree with you that traffic concerns at the intersection of
Forrestal and PV Drive South are a major concern with residents and that was one of
the major talking points at the workshop. This has been a long-standing community
concern for many years, well before any talk of a Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. 1
believe we did our best to address resident concerns as honestly and straight-
forwardly as possible at the Workshop. 1 think the addition of traffic control personnel
during AYSO games will have a positive effect on one of the biggest traffic concerns.
The combination of red -striping Forrestal, locating Preserve away from residences
/and considering permit -only parking on some streets is very responsive to another
major resident concern. The usage/rental/park hour policies also address concerns
raised at the previous workshop and Council meeting. Finally, the security analysis
of the site directly addresses resident concerns about crime and safety.
While you and 1 both know that no plan is going to please everyone, or perhaps not
even please anyone 100%, we have done our best to work with local residents and
make significant refinements during this process to keep the park's low-key
community feel.
As to the Discovery Room, l believe having a volunteer presence would be a great
enhancement. The new building would allow Recreation staff to keep an eye on the
room from their reception desk, which is not possible the way the current buildings
are aligned.
Again, thanks for being part of the process.
Richard Fisher Associates Paaea 2 1 2
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
17. One thing you need to do if you leave the Discovery Room in is insist that a condition
for having the room, the Docents have someone there. One problem with the site is
the docents have never been able to get a volunteer. Now all it is a storage room for
artifacts and is only open for the docent tours of the reserve.
18. 1 just briefly reviewed the master plan for Ladera Linda, and at first glance, I think it's
a wonderful concept. I have not been involved in any of the meetings or workshops,
so I am not familiar with any complaints. But I would say that I think all the neighbors'
concerns should be mitigated before going ahead. Having said that, I feel it would be
a wonderful asset to the city, as this property has been underused for years.
I also think that the Discovery Room should be maintained. It is a great asset to the
children's tours and other guests. The proposed building is large, therefore there is
plenty of room to house the Discovery Room. Should it be another PVIC? Of course
not. But it is a nice annex.
19. This is written as a private citizen.
Though we were unable to attend your Feb 21 Master Plan presentation I did go
through your Power Point and have the following comments and questions:
1) It is obvious you have put a great deal of thought, analysis and plan expertise
into your Feb 21, 2018 presentation. As you recognize, until Council firms up any
construction bid to include what they want and, therefore, will approve, the
number is fluid. And, as those of us who have spent any time in planning, costing
and scheduling know, whatever you have planned - will then change and
continue to change throughout construction.
2) You note a guess at Ladera Linda costing $7 million. Question: does that include
interest over 30 years repayment?
Usually your constructions costs can be doubled to find the real 'consumer' cost
of a project. As with your mortgage, amount financed plus interest will be actual
cost. RPV citizens will pay that number for Ladera Linda. That's $14 million, not
$7 million. It's a 'cost to consumer' calculation. We do 'consumer cost' with staff
salaries by showing RPV citizens their city's actual budgeted staff pay includes
benefits the staff member never sees but for which we pay.
3) Question: Can RPV voters assume they will have a say in approving any incurred
debt and total debt repayments for our Council approved amount, lets say $14
million including construction + interest, be it P3 or any other debt form?
We were founded as a 'low tax' city and are facing nearly a hundred million dollar
debt figure to accomplish our Council's Ladera Linda, City Hall and Landslide
projects. That's a heavy RPV citizen tax burden on top of things like RPV's
unfunded pensions liability. Many hope our Council will give their citizens a say in
whether their city should assume these debts, even if only shown in their RPV
budget, that is, financed using a technique not requiring citizen vote. Again, we
are a low tax city.
And again, in accord with our RPV Rules and Procedures, written as a private citizen.
20. Thanks so much for the clarification [see text below]. So "TURF" on the design
schematics stands for natural grass? I think that would be a great point of
clarification in the future images. Thanks for keeping it natural.
Richard Fisher Associates Paa/-43 1 3
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
I thought the park as well as the building design was very pleasing to the eyes and
am so happy we will now have gorgeous ocean views instead of unsightly overgrown
trees and bushes blocking our stellar sightlines. That is if I understood the images
correctly?
[The below text is a clarification from M. Waters, as referenced above]:
1 received your voicemail about the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. Thank you for
attending last night's meeting and sorry you had to leave early. 1 thought we had a
great turnout and many insightful comments and questions from the community. 1
hope you found the presentation helpful.
As to the timeline, it is far from set. We will be taking an updated plan to the City
Council on March 20th for Master Plan adoption. Our best timeline estimate, if
Council approves the Master Plan and we move forward into a preconstruction
design phase, is 18-24 months if the process runs smoothly.
Regarding your turf question, I am happy to let you know that the plan calls for
natural turf in the lower park area. In fact, all of the areas marked "turf" in the design
are "natural turf' grass areas. We'll make a note of that in future presentations and in
our Staff report to Council, so there is no further misunderstanding on that point.
Again, thank you for being part of the process and please feel free to contact me with
any further questions or concerns.
21. It will be a very attractive and welcome change to the area. We like:
• The current proposed size and schematic floor plan and elevations of the new
Community Center building;
• Having a Discovery Room included in the Community Center;
• The location of the ADA ramp in Exhibit "C;"
• The open views from the park of the ocean and the site plan with lower
landscaping providing a much safer environment for users;
• The one full court, and half court for the younger children and their location
adjacent to the play and turf areas near the entrance;
• The location of the 90 degree parking spaces between the two security fences
and gates.
22. Here is the information that I shared with you re: Radon found in the Peninsula and
schools.
Not sure if Ladera Linda, a former school, was tested.
All PVP homes were sent letters by the Dept. of Health years ago to test their homes.
am not sure how many did, but the schools show up as high in many instances.
Radon in PV
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous minerals/radon/Document
s/PV Final Report 05292012.pdf
Palos Verdes Unified measurements
http://www.wpb-
radon.com/Radon research papers/2003%20Nashville,%20TN/2003 01 Classroo
m%20Radon %20Measure ments%20in%20the%20Palos%20Verdes%20Pen insula
%20Unified%20School%20District, %20Palos%20Ve. pdf
Richard Fisher Associates PT4 14
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
23. Hi, I am [name removed], a 46 year resident of Ladera Linda and a past
Homeowner's president multiple times.
First, you are on the right track. I like what I see.
The present activities at Ladera Linda Park should not be used as an indication of
future activity.
The park is extremely run down and has long lost its appeal. It is a ghost town.
It is only a reminder of a past time when there were sports activities, square dancing,
children's birthday parties, Christmas dances, Halloween fun houses, neighborhood
block parties, neighborhood dinner dances, and etcetera. It can be that again.
The clubhouse square foot is about right. There should be a kitchen with appropriate
facilities.
The other night we had about 50 people in the multipurpose room and it was full. The
new multipurpose room should be larger.
Don't eliminate the discovery room.
We need to eliminate the Forrestal street parking. Provide as many parking spaces
as possible near the trail access. That parking must be used as overflow parking
when we have a park activity such as the Easter egg hunt. That means we need a
stairway from the overflow parking down to the park. If we red curb Forrestal, we
need this stairway.
Again, thank you for your efforts. Good job.
24. On behalf of the Mediterrania HOA, I want to thank City Staff and the Consultant for
an excellent presentation. It seemed the clear consensus at the meeting was in
support of moving forward with the current design, which strikes a reasonable
balance between the needs and desires of the residents of the immediately
surrounding neighborhoods. We will never have a perfect plan that will make
everyone happy, as expressed by some at the meeting, but this about as close as we
will get. It seems that every change proposed at the meeting raised a counter -issue
of about equal importance (such as moving the basketball courts or adding a buffer
wall). While no one is thrilled, this is usually the sign of a good consensus. -
President MHOA
Here are my personal comments on specifics issues raised during the meeting:
1) Proposed Square Footage — I am opposed to any reduction in the square footage
and feel it actually should be a little larger — more like 12,000 sq.ft with a 3rd
classroom. The total area already has been reduced to % or less than the
current total (including covered walkways). We are nearing a point where it will
be too small to justify the cost. We should have a Community Center that fosters
community interaction and serves the needs of the community for the next 30
years; not just today. A 9,000 square foot building is no Taj Mahal or PVIC.
2) Discovery Room — I strongly support the Discovery Room. This is a very special
collection and making a separate trip to see it in a nice location is worth the
investment. I am against moving and consolidating the collection with PVIC,
which already is a large facility with a very different feel. I understand that the
value and fragile nature of many of the unique specimens means it is not viable
to house the specimens in a mobile unit or in temporary displays. The Discovery
Room also brings together Docents who have so much to offer and younger
members of the community who have much to learn. We are truly blessed to
have these volunteers. I have spoken to numerous parents of children at Mira
Richard Fisher Associates Pa5
�15
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
Cat who feel the same way but it is difficult for them to attend these meetings in
the evening.
3) ADA ramp — I understand the concern of LL residents but would hope the
proposal to red stripe Forrestal and consider restrictions on Pirate should be
sufficient. Adding close to $150,000 in cost is not a reasonable approach.
4) Parking on Forrestal above gate. If this is something the LL neighbors really
want then it seems like a good idea. The issue, though, is that this
accommodation may attract more people to the Preserve. We are at a point
where any solution is at least perceived to cause more problems. Perhaps a
phased approach is better for this piece. See how things go and if the parking is
later warranted, the City can add it. It does not seem like this is a necessary
component of the Plan and should not stop the City from moving forward.
5) Open Views Into Park — Sheriff Dept. analysis supports open views into and out
of the Park for enhanced security. This seems like a good idea. While having a
view of the Ocean may attract some additional people, it seems worth it for
enhanced security. It also seems that the buffer area of low shrubs between the
paths and the fence line will protect the privacy of the SV homes below the Park.
There is no way to make a perfect design.
6) Basketball Court — It is important to keep the basketball courts with the other
playground equipment. I hope the final design can include some hardtop to take
the place of the %2 basketball court now eliminated from the plan. This would be
for kids to bounce balls and maybe practice learning to ride a bike. It seems like
the elimination of the 'h court was a mistake and an accommodation that is
starting to undermine the purpose and value of the Park, with very limited
upside. Parks involve some amount of noise. So do neighbors who have
basketball hoops in their driveways.
7) Hours of Operation and Use Restrictions — These should be guidelines and not
part of the City Code. The Sheriff's representative indicated they have the
authority to address excessive noise or after-hours loitering with existing
authority. I understand the desire of the LL neighbors to keep the new
Community Center from becoming a Wayfarers Chapel. The current plan and
proposed rules do this. But, the City also should be supporting the use of the
new Community Center as a location to bring members of the community
together. City Staff should work with clear guidelines to respect the neighbors
but also should have the flexibility to make exceptions or modify the rules in
consultation with the community. I disagree that the days of community functions
and activities are over. It is particularly important to support activities for older
members of the community (such as exercise, yoga and art classes) and
activities to bring older and younger/newer members of the community together
(such as through the Docents at the Discovery Center or through community
events).
8) Traffic — The complaints about traffic seem reasonable but do not appear linked
to the modest use of the proposed Community Center. Instead, the issues seem
driven by AYSO and Trump National events. The LL residents should continue
to press the School District to address AYSO traffic and the City should work with
LL residents to address Trump and traffic in general. The redevelopment project
should not be held up. This is an issue that should be addressed through the
City's traffic commission or similar body. While I am not happy for the City to
underwrite the cost of traffic control for AYSO and Trump events, it does seem
like a good interim solution. As for a traffic light, my guess is that half of LL
residents would want one but the other half would not. We have faced the same
issue at the intersection of Ganado and PVDSouth, but were not able to gain a
clear consensus in favor of a traffic light.
25. On Wednesday February 21st you will be conducting another Ladera Linda Park
Master Plan workshop to discuss the results of the latest study as directed by the City
Richard Fisher Associates Pa� 616
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
Council to address the concerns of the local residents of Ladera Linda. I am sorry
that I cannot attend this meeting because I am out of town. The Ladea Linda
Homeowners Association (LLHOA) conducted a survey to present to you our vision
for the proposed new Park. Sixty eight of our residents responded electronically and
fifteen responded verbally to this survey. Our survey was conducted by using Survey
Monkey and we asked 10 basic questions:
1) Preferred size of the Park building?
2) Basketball courts location due to noise generated?
3) Parking restrictions on Forrestal?
4) Park security and cameras?
5) Park operating hours and activity restrictions?
6) Control of Forrestal traffic during activities such as AYSO?
7) Landscaping of Park grounds?
8) Construction costs?
9) ADA compliance?
10) Left turn accelerating lane at Forrestal and PVDS?
The bottom line is our desire to NOT have the new Ladera Linda Park become a
destination attraction that will be advertised on Social Media and draw large crowds
from outside our City and traffic congestion such as the Del Cerro Park disaster. This
Park should be designed to satisfy the needs of our local residents. They are very
concerned about crime, noise, parking, traffic congestion and they did not want the
new facility to become a trail -head information center for the reserve. Our Survey
showed that the vast majority of responses favor a low profile for the new Park. The
responses we received are summarized in the Survey results and are briefly stated
below:
1) Reduce the size of the building from the proposed 9,000 sq. ft. to 7,000 sq. ft. by
eliminating one classroom and the Discovery Room. The Discovery Room is
underutilized with only 13 group visits totaling around 800 visitors (mostly grade
school students) in 2017. Ninety percent of these were children's educational
tours conducted by the docents where the main object was the hike on the
Forrestal Reserve. As such they only spend 15 minutes in the Discovery Room
as an orientation to the hike. This could be accomplished using one of the open
classrooms supported by a cart containing the teaching aids as they do for the
whale wagon and outreach at the Interpretive Center. The Discovery Room is a
low usage facility and does not need a committed room, it can use any available
room.
2) Relocate the basketball courts and children's to a central location to reduce noise
near residences.
3) Eliminate parking along Forrestal and have restricted resident only parking on
Pirate and Searaven and moving the proposed ADA entrance to be along the
present park entrance.
4) For Park security, install ALPR cameras and observation cameras on and near
the Park site.
5) Limit Park activities that produce noise and control operating hours and activity
restrictions.
6) Control traffic on Forrestal during large activities such as AYSO. Have large
groups be responsible for a traffic control person at PVDS.
7) Keep a majority of the landscaping for the new park, especially along Forrestal to
act as a noise barrier for the nearby residences.
8) Keep construction costs at the lowest levels by reducing the building size and
saving most of the existing landscaping.
9) For ADA requirements, relocate the proposed ADA access to be alongside the
Park entry roadway.
Richard Fisher Associates Pa7
ge�A17
City of Rancho Palos Verdes — Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Public Input Summary
10) Require a left turn escape lane on PV Drive South at Forrestal and require
anyone running a large event to provide traffic control at Forrestal and PVDS.
You can click on the Ladera Linda HOA Survey Summary below, regarding the
Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. As you will see, our residents have unanimously
expressed their opinions as to the size and features for the proposed Park Master
Plan. They want a 7,000 sq. ft. building and do NOT want this Park to be an attraction
that will be advertised on Social Media to draw large crowds of outsiders.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/analyze/cRItN0O1Q9_pZeTBOREuoxpmSB9TC2GBBNovJ
IZJYSrQk5xclabvcg ROSpXf5uXOU
Attachment #1: This is the diagram for the 9,137 sq ft building (with 65 parking
places), that the Staff presented to the City Council at their meeting on August 1,
2017, that was approved by the City Council. It includes the equivalent of 4
classrooms plus the Discovery Room. With the present usage average of 4 to 5 uses
per week, this facility is way too large for it's present usage. The design of the
building has numerous recesses instead of a squared off building and is not suitable
for security purposes.
Attachment #2: In an effort to reduce the building cost, this option would reduce the
building size to 8,000 sq ft (with 57 parking places). This option includes the
equivalent of 3 classrooms plus the Discovery Room. This option is also too large for
the present usage.
Attachment #3: In an effort to reduce the building cost even more, this option would
further reduce the building size to approx, 7,000 sq ft (with 50 parking places). This
option includes the equivalent of 3 classrooms and eliminates the Discovery Room.
The Discovery Room is seldom used and can be replaced by adding glass exhibit
cabinet displays in the lobby and following the program used at PVIC. That would
mean providing a storage area for wheeled carts with additional displays and
teaching aids that can be wheeled into any vacant classroom when needed.
Attachment #4: This is the site plan that the Staff presented to the City Council at
their meeting on August 1, 2017, that was approved by the City Council. it includes
an ADA access gate at the intersection of Forrestal and Pirate and basketball courts
near that intersection creating noise for nearby residents. This plan also allows street
parking all along Forrestal.
Attachment #5: This option recommends only one full basketball court located in the
center of the property to reduce noise levels for Ladera Linda and Sea View
residents. It relocates the ADA access ramp to be parallel to the main Park entrance
driveway and red lines the curbs on Forrestal so there is no parking allowed on
Forrestal from the gate, all the way down to the end of the Park boundary. Also there
is a request that the gate be opened at dawn and closed at dusk.
26. On behalf of members of Los Serenos please see the attached letter addressing the
Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. [see attached letter]
Thank you,
Marcia Booth - President, Los Serenos
Prepared By: Richard Fisher Associates
Date Prepared: 3/12/18
Richard Fisher Associates Pa18 8
$TCP4l4;E
4Ti18t�Rss ,
2"scP_
t
1
I
I
I
.JI
�I
3t
1AA.T#4"JRPOGE R I
xx 90FE
t
1
I
1
T I �
Id
Ladera Linda Baseline Facility Layout
(Attachment 1)
This is the diagram for the 9,137 sq ft building (with 65 parking
places), that the Staff presented to the City Council at their meeting on
August 1, 2017, that was approved by the City Council. It includes the
equivalent of 4 classrooms plus the Discovery Room. With the present
usage average of 4 to 5 uses per week, this facility is way too large for
it's present usage. The design of the building has numerous recesses in-
stead of a squared off building and is not suitable for security purposes.
Cid
raTAM
STOP" we so FT.
SAV 9d VT -
WOW
Y iT/iLMM! sm es so Fr.
M3 M". i
iso sQiT. OFF=
tsTAM
��q t90 90.sT.
IMCEFnM
Y
=6 90=-s
pG
20 9oFT_ ST4YiA4E
7:1t 90FT.
TM
L t
9V 4V4_ 4
l ��
0�:1ZE CAASSROCU2 ELECT
F, Lot $so SO F? 7M so Fr.
tM
C-19
Ladera Linda Baseline Facility Layout Less Classroom
(Attachment 2)
In an effort to reduce the building cost, this option would reduce the build-
ing size to 5,000 sq ft (with 57 parking places). This option includes the
equivalent of 3 classrooms plus the Discovery Room. This option is also too
large for the present usage.
3MME
MAB.iSArt4NR5
xe 60F
1
t
t
CSTAM
rjISTORWA
so FT
UO
W
UJ$ rk4N SOW t �t �'
STC \
905 SOF 59) Sac.
fit�)
81
1
t
t
t so Fr.
1
+STAN
t
190 SO -AT.
U - -
1
'NORK
sso;r
DS1JtERY
IZNSO--T
Ci -20
Ladera Linda Baseline Facility Layout
Less one Classroom and Descovery Room
(Attachment 3)
In an effort to reduce the building cost even more, this option would further reduce the building size to approx,
7,000 sq ft (with 50 parking places). This option includes the equivalent of 3 classrooms and eliminates the Dis-
covery Room. The Discovery Room is seldom used and can be replaced by adding glass exhibit cabinet displays
in the lobby. That would mean providing a storage area for wheeled carts with additional displays that can be
wheeled into any vacant classroom when neededin support of a planned program.
N
C-21
5708 `CIF
7h.9 SO F'.
r.
71
^.
n
tSTR!FF}
14'.'S0'FT'
... ....
_
P{t T PiR '
- i
2-:
f L : P! i _1FT.
�rE
sir.
01
4
4A*IV
d
�IFF'a
✓i
�t3ff
``
J
\
LORZIPCH"
-ASINF7F
d U S'1
RUiAsr /
<
TFL
168 SQ'F
7C,5 SO F7
ILI
" 1
IV
N
C-21
�' sifCVQtYrlQItZ AlIIOGTLS /
9. '+ sTollAa► �nl,aelt
otl»►r�c Itw..TAta l'rir.1 _
LAATi�4 8TAIRLAS[ O�IdRMR.R rrR11dGY[lrAiCf71►
Irsmf cT.L+,rt scn
_ .ea rr�ItcwfE - - rARxcW Wr
- � .z w �►cc11
i ]All1G r ansa[ TK�iA ////�
r- _ CQl71T,rR4r[CT.laJ1AfQ / ►ARIax LM
St It.DI%DdwAf4
J - {� - •. _ _ _ - - ORI ATROMI
rl _r
.y � 1..Y� •` nat 4TR1 an atn
r . � s tr11 tolr.otes CIC/rrM sono rose .rar
.ruu "M Ma
IPR11TUT4%nAni
������,,.,,,///////����� �'+.� "'�'•►• �.a , \� - •� r/aLiRDYmT1 f[RrrK:NC1.lIR1'rlwry
RITTf107.Y GfifIF -�,.. ,
���''' !!l���. "' !!! •• VV (Y�' � _ dIK1/RC't F�fi1.aLC'C;*
f-t)1C ■/ r[ IrYLJCR';Y .
, r%"V.G 1OR
,iNllertt rla'MIr:W'A may `. \ '� . 01 W%Cl%
Cat olaarla'L MYUIC Rtlr +-----' - _ .� Vrorr tiC femi T.LL.St"Aw
WAItraw Lem ("T.1
�,.� ,nrnnCt aY r/wCY1
1R.arL rVVtl@A7 at [CS[R'kT
MOMCDOWMM rot," 40
T"441 CWL40111
f -`'- �' ro+cRtrr+wow+mltlnr� ` u+Rcsscc+.+rrl.+rn
' . —Mftfr� Mrs
mr twmcC74S4%I"j
[{�RANKTMUCOMI
^
_. a-... gnu CllCtri •0.-- r •"-. \ ..•� './w rARK►1Cv
M -o al.t000Ma-arxr r.r. ruu r:rrRa%t[
\ �•_ �. \ _ ,�11A.aTltT ►Aa 111GMr. .- —__�— "I"OUTA1►A" IIY►J.
' �-�� f' `` rti[aTMNTW/t _ _ - 7 C 1 1 wltxaolt VCCWf11 i1Rd MN
WVIL
ap
VAOMrM AM
TO w
vmt CCMTMJ `�• \ •� / a-rrtritprAtl6'NaA4 WYlW _
rn.1aC-rwrrirtm►.r Cu amra
Ladara Linda Baseline Park Layout
y..
Attachment 4
C-22
tltl!IICYYiC rO1MAlA /Tl r.:
+c�a SUM Alt
[1nTra1L rAt"I Ti X11.
CCK%T1►Rarr[74Porn
It
at'rTr�rtt t.Allegt ///
coacenr w tt►',IAY
-1Nt RI n 1M %W ASA
w+ullars-t raSToCfltr,t •�7
ar{TAlri t.MGrrilil%a — .,�__
tier WAO"?')
Noir wttw mtr4
tout r+r 1 n�tlrt--_.._•
1'
CCtir1NG ]TAOCAfii T
aMart)t T3ll.�l.lct) 1
�--
—SrclUMFVWK...wutcs
�_
sroer-nntnrrc
_.
owsreenwtt„Icir�rulle i✓
- rAeerw t.al !,
1
w rrutna
•
r40U2W. Un
tl4'Rr..1lr1
- - IM R.iKVip�lr'S.r.Y
JWWAK r CMX
IYti1 ORCOM
�_•
09% SM as WD
wM1&M.lOMP
IU%W%ADII
sotuav- mT 4
Add ADA Ramp ..:rl.ety titrt ��
_ _ plDPKt�K.al4
Proposed Changes to Baseline-
+
Relocation of Play Area -�
(Attachment 5)
This option recommends only one full basketball court located in they
center of the property to reduce noise levels for Ladera Linda and
Sea View residents. It relocates the ADA access ramp to be parallel to Delete,ADA Ac ess-
the main Park entrance driveway and red lines the curbs on Forrestal
so there is no parking allowed on Forrestal from the gate, all the way from Forrestal IN.�
down to the end of the Park boundary. Also there is a request that the .
gate be opened at dawn and closed at dusk. ' r
l a»
UQTSNtm Wow MM AIM
I=r "K4n rl'.SICC
(rROR[CYJo Poco
lentiv./n�lrrlt/ilsRY -'\
awn S:ATTA
t9.srtrt-aac.sda.
r.Aeli Glia
01 %P%M4
C4"M% rOm'" at AtMe, r *. �..
rug,%WMNIM -
Irlplirlllaalrr.ar,Y
TWXIK racer Q At alxmC _-
1*4Mcc%C rS _
QR17frAT-4�rL55"ft-s�=-..1y _.
nm
r Erllr7!'li tllttl,ft'VC ►OWI7AIN4
�rn rttorl".0 ii rcT,
�:�. raYtrAetcrcr-' 14
—
9010110a PARK FX eAMr ti
rte—
6=44%04, w -AA.
`�— IWOO ;111" FA"i IIVP I
�,r--- a MUMA:atll.'14rrnTR %of * mrJ
WCA"fTM
taTAa. RAu. rF-rr
t.na r/lsar101S+LLseAtnG
- No parking
along Forrestal
Restricted park-
ing on Pirate
and Searaven
C-23
1.0 Building Size
.9137 sq. ft,
0
8,000sq-tt,
57parking-
7
WOO ao, Ft.
60 parking,..
Ladera Linda Park Survey Results
0% 10% 20% 30% 404 50% 90116 70% 809E 90%100%
2.0 Relocate Basketball Courts
staff
prcp*5*d to— M
Anc&W option
mvbd be to -
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 704+ VY% 90% 100%
3.0 Eliminate Parking on Forrestal
staff p'Opmed
to the city—
An optic,:
nculd be the...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 90% 90% *0%
4.0 Park Security
Suff 6d not
rl-eftnt any...I
"d ALIPAS
can tlaa
0% W% =% W% 40% 60% 0% I= 0% W% 100%
5.0 Park Operating Hours
Suff maft m
darsmift-, 0
044
fe'scr,moft-
0% 16Rs WMI 30% -;D% 50k, 80% 70% 1104E "% 100%
6.0 Traffic Control At The Intersection Of Forrestal and PVDS
Kmp *unemt
pravvcel—
"Wofta
q15 xrw 0% 3M 0% W% 4095 M% *0% 90% 100%
7.0 Landscaping of Park Grounds
it...
rommnwndat... m
Keep as mwch
Opine nz-
0% 10% 20% 30% 4045 50% 60% 70% 30% 90%100%
8.0 Construction Costs
55 g48e9
§B.aC71iA600 Rif
615 V915 !1015 alga �i :1A15 i/016 78715 EDlS 00551!1915
9.0 Location Of ADA Ramp
Lar.¢tefdOA
LOM" ADPI
SM
.0% 10% 209E 30% 40% W% W% 70% W% W% VO%
10.0 Left Turn Accelerating Lane At Forrestal and PVDS
Yea, 'IM in
Ivor of M
NO, I wn nm
in f,2vw o/...
0% W% 20% 30% 40% W% W% n% W% 00% WO%
C-26
February 21, 2018
Attn: City Council
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear City Council Members:
POINT BVIC EIN'14i" IKFF:RPIZI,' 1'IVE CEIVI'ER
315011 Palos Vt-rdes Drive West
Rancho Talus Verdes: CA, 90275
(310) 377-5.370
www,lusserenos.o(g ' losserenos(arpv-cum
When the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan design was presented to City Council in August 2017 it included
a 30% reduction in size to address neighborhood concerns. It added no additional recreational elements
while maintaining all of the existing elements.
As Los Serenos docents we are enthusiastic about this project. The existing buildings are in poor
condition at best and are surely not up to current code. We see this re -design and rebuilding as a greatly
enhanced use of park space and the improvement of a valuable City asset.
We are aware that there have already been suggestions made to reduce or eliminate the Discovery
Room in the new design. We have quite a diverse collection of artifacts in the Discovery Room that
incorporates all of the things that Los Serenos values and teaches to the community in our public hikes
and tours. We feel that the Discovery Room should and must be maintained.
During the demolition and construction of the Ladera Linda property, all of the artifacts will have to be
removed and stored. In the selection of storage space, we are asking that the City take into
consideration the fragility of many of the artifacts and provide safe storage containers in a temperature
controlled space until the artifacts can be returned to their new home.
We all look forward to seeing this project develop and come to fruition. Please keep the Discovery Room
open.
Thank you for our attention and support
Marcia Booth, President of Los Serenos, and the undersigned docents and volunteers of Los Serenos
Los Serenos de Point Vicente is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.organ.ization. Taxpayer [denlification No. 95-4191603
C-27
w.
..�",, ,�`�►�r"�s '.'I it
C-28
Matt Waters
From: Yvettawill@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 7:24 PM
To: Matt Waters; Daniel Trautner; Brito Stephanie; Raymond Herb; CC; Parks; Emily Rodin;
Joe Judy Cocke and
Subject: Re: Ladera Linda and discovery room. Please find another room for the discovery room.
PLEASE do not let the Ladera Linda residents get by with their suggestion for hallway displays and discovery carts as a
discovery room. You have a wonderful nature room now that cannot be duplicated . It took years to get all the items
together.. A great place to teach about what is at Palos Verdes. A lot of time and effort was spent putting that room
together and many of the items cannot be replaced or duplicated. To some people nature is NOT important and to
others it is ALL important. PLEASE fight for it and know you will NEVER get another room with everything together like
that room. The butterfly collection is 80 years old and was collected as a child and with the help of a neighbor who was
a science teacher they were ID's and got mounted. The butterfly garden is very special and Leslie is wonderful. Don't
throw her away either.. Where would you find another bear skin? It was bought Many years ago and it is there
because there were bears all over the area. Children and adults are really surprised at that. You read about bears going
in swimming pools in Pasadena nearer the mountains. There were bears all over our area before they were all killed.
There is a collection of all the abalone shell varieties that are in Calif and things in our tidal pools. They were left over
from our store and are hard to find and some cannot be sold as they are on the endangered specie list. Tells about the
peacocks, peahens and peachicks and eggs. Has a display on the native plants. Hands on rocks and minerals. Humming
bird, raptors, endangered specie birds, ground squirrels, fox, raccoons, owls, skunks, possums, None of the schools or
the parks have this information . You have something special Please do not let it get away.
The reptiles, insects, spiders of our area are on display, We need to teach which are safe and that ALL are our friends
and how to act around them. To have wonderful pictures of birds taken by Steve Wolfe and to find the real next
matching the bird is special. Steve has moved out of the area. The indio artifacts and fossils are rare and you can't
replace them. PLEASE don't be so short sighted that you destroy the lovely display you have which not available
anywhere else in the area or replaceable. Please treasure it.
Thank you,
Yvetta Williams
> On Feb 8, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov> wrote:g
> Hi Yvetta,
> The plan that will be presented at the Feb. 21 workshop will include the Discovery Room (at current size) and a
butterfly garden. A number of Ladera Linda HOA members have been advocating for the removal of the Discovery Room
from the plan to be replaced with exhibit displays in the hallway and discovery carts. A survey that was distributed to
residents near to LL asked respondents to weigh in on that suggestion. I believe this topic will come up at the workshop.
> As we've discussed, the items currently stored by the Docents at LL will need to be moved. While no location has been
officially determined, I agree that PVIC is the logical location for their long-term storage.
> Let me know if you have any questions.
> Thanks,
> Matt
D-1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yvettawill@cox.net [mailto:yvettawill@cox.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 10:35 AM
> To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
> Subject: Ladera Linda
> I will not be able to attend the meeting on LL.
> Are they still having the discovery room? Butterfly garden? Can the storage be moved to PVIC? These are important
considerations. Thanks for watching out for us Matt.
> Yvetta Williams
D-2
Matt Waters
From: Marcia Booth <mbinpv@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:54 PM
To: CC
Cc: Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner; Matt Waters; Emily Rodin
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Attachments: Ladera Linda - Los Serenos.pdf
Good Afternoon,
On behalf of members of Los Serenos please see the attached letter addressing the Ladera Linda Park Master
Plan.
Thank you
Marcia Booth
President, Los Serenos
D-3
J
February 2:1, 2018
Attn: City Council
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Dear City Council Members:
31501��!��/�.rc{cs 1)irielN'cst
1�anch..o Palos VIS rdes,
f310) 377-337-1
nwtu.la� crerws.c,i Iossci�.no(rpv.com
When the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan design was presented to City Council in August 2017 it included
a 30% reduction in size to address neighborhood concerns. It added no additional recreational elements
while maintaining all of the existing elements.
As Los Serenos docents we are enthusiastic about this project. The existing buildings are in poor
condition at best and are surely not up to current code. We see this re -design and rebuilding as a greatly
enhanced use of park space and the improvement of a valuable City asset.
We are aware that there have already been suggestions made to reduce or eliminate the Discovery
Room in the new design, We have quite a diverse collection of artifacts in the Discovery Room that
incorporates all of the things that Los Serenos values and teaches to the community in our public hikes
and tours. We feel that the Discovery Room should and must be maintained.
During the demolition and construction of the Ladera Linda property, all of the artifacts will have to be
removed and stored. In the selection of storage space, we are asking that the City take into
consideration the fragility of many of the artifacts and provide safe storage containers in a temperature
controlled space until the artifacts can be returned to their new home.
We all look forward to seeing this project develop and come to fruition. Please keep the Discovery Room
open.
Thank you for our attention and support
h
Marcia Booth, President of Los Serenos, and the undersigned docents and volunteers of Los Serenos
Los Serenos de Point Vicente is a .501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Taxpayer Identification No. 95-4191603
M11
D-5
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Wednesday, February 21, 2018 11:37 AM
To:
'Mickey Rodich'
Cc:
herbertstark@cox.net
Subject:
RE: Ladera Linda Letter to the City Council
Hi Mickey,
Thanks for the email and analysis of your survey. I was not able to access the link to the statistical results -password
required. Please send me the results if possible.
Thanks,
Matt
From: Mickey Rodich [mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:28 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ann Weinland <annweinland@gmail.com>; Bill Gussman <wguss@cox.net>; Kelly Jones <kjones3298@msn.com>;
Mariana Stewart <marianastewart@icloud.com>; Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
<mickeyrodich@gmail.com>; Phil Bernard<philbernard@challengercable.com>; Sara Platte <saraplatte@mac.com>; Tim
Stewart <chesterdraws@protonmail.com>; Tom Smith <thomash.smith@gmail.com>; Herb Stark
<stearman@juno.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda Letter to the City Council
Recreation & Parks Department:
On Wednesday February 21St you will be conducting another Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
workshop to discuss the results of the latest study as directed by the City Council to address the
concerns of the local residents of Ladera Linda. I am sorry that I cannot attend this meeting because I
am out of town. The Ladea Linda Homeowners Association (LLHOA) conducted a survey to present
to you our vision for the proposed new Park. Sixty eight of our residents responded electronically and
fifteen responded verbally to this survey. Our survey was conducted by using Survey Monkey and we
asked 10 basic questions:
1) Preferred size of the Park building?
2) Basketball courts location due to noise generated?
3) Parking restrictions on Forrestal.?
4) Park security and cameras?
5) Park operating hours and activity restrictions?
6) Control of Forrestal traffic during activities such as AYSO?
A e
7) Landscaping of Park grounds?
8) Construction costs?
9) ADA compliance?
10) Left turn accelerating lane at Forrestal and PVDS?
The bottom line is our desire to NOT have the new Ladera Linda Park become a destination attraction
that will be advertised on Social Media and draw large crowds from outside our City and traffic
congestion such as the Del Cerro Park disaster. This Park should be designed to satisfy the needs of
our local residents. They are very concerned about crime, noise, parking, traffic congestion and they
did not want the new facility to become a trail -head information center for the reserve. Our Survey
showed that the vast majority of responses favor a low profile for the new Park. The responses we
received are summarized in the Survey results and are briefly stated below:
1) Reduce the size of the building from the proposed 9,000 sq. ft. to 7,000 sq. ft. by
eliminating one classroom and the Discovery Room. The Discovery Room is underutilized with
only 13 group visits totaling around 800 visitors (mostly grade school students) in 2017. Ninety
percent of these were children's educational tours conducted by the docents where the main
object was the hike on the Forrestal Reserve. As such they only spend 15 minutes in the
Discovery Room as an orientation to the hike. This could be accomplished using one of the
open classrooms supported by a cart containing the teaching aids as they do for the whale
wagon and outreach at the Interpretive Center. The Discovery Room is a low usage facility and
does not need a committed room, it can use any available room.
2) Relocate the basketball courts and children's to a central location to reduce noise near
residences.
3) Eliminate parking along Forrestal and have restricted resident only parking on Pirate and
Searaven and moving the proposed ADA entrance to be along the present park entrance.
4) For Park security, install ALPR cameras and observation cameras on and near the Park
site.
5) Limit Park activities that produce noise and control operating hours and activity restrictions.
6) Control traffic on Forrestal during large activities such as AYSO. Have large groups be
responsible for a traffic control person at PVDS.
7) Keep a majority of the landscaping for the new park, especially along Forrestal to act as a
noise barrier for the nearby residences.
8) Keep construction costs at the lowest levels by reducing the building size and saving most
of the existing landscaping.
9) For ADA requirements, relocate the proposed ADA access to be alongside the Park entry
roadway.
10) Require a left turn escape lane on PV Drive South at Forrestal and require anyone running
a large event to provide traffic control at Forrestal and PVDS.
You can click on the Ladera Linda HOA Survey Summary below, regarding the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. As you will see,
our residents have unanimously expressed their opinions as to the size and features for the proposed Park Master Plan. They
want a 7,000 sq. ft. building and do NOT want this Park to be an attraction that will be advertised on Social Media to draw large
crowds of outsiders.
https://"iw.sunieymonkey.com/analyze/cRItN001Q9pZeTBOREuoxpmSS9TC2GBBNovJjZJYSrQk5xcIabvcg POSpxf5ux0U
Attachment #1: This is the diagram for the 9,137 sq ft building (with 65 parking places),
that the Staff presented to the City Council at their meeting on August 1, 2017, that was
D-7
approved by the City Council. It includes the equivalent of 4 classrooms plus the
Discovery Room. With the present usage average of 4 to 5 uses per week, this facility is
way too large for it's present usage. The design of the building has numerous recesses
instead of a squared off building and is not suitable for security purposes.
Attachment #2: In an effort to reduce the building cost, this option would reduce the
building size to 8,000 sq ft (with 57 parking places). This option includes the equivalent of
3 classrooms plus the Discovery Room. This option is also too large for the present
usage.
Attachment #3; In an effort to reduce the building cost even more, this option would
further reduce the building size to approx, 7,000 sq ft (with 50 parking places). This option
includes the equivalent of 3 classrooms and eliminates the Discovery Room. The
Discovery Room is seldom used and can be replaced by adding glass exhibit cabinet
displays in the lobby and following the program used at PVIC. That would mean providing
a storage area for wheeled carts with additional displays and teaching aids that can be
wheeled into any vacant classroom when needed.
Attachment #4; This is the site plan that the Staff presented to the City Council at their
meeting on August 1,2017, that was approved by the City Council. It includes an ADA
access gate at the intersection of Forrestal and Pirate and basketball courts near that
intersection creating noise for nearby residents. This plan also allows street parking all
along Forrestal.
Attachment #5: This option recommends only one full basketball court located in the
center of the property to reduce noise levels for Ladera Linda and Sea View residents. It
relocates the ADA access ramp to be parallel to the main Park entrance driveway and red
lines the curbs on Forrestal so there is no parking allowed on Forrestal from the gate, all
the way down to the end of the Park boundary. Also there is a request that the gate be
opened at dawn and closed at dusk.
The following are the 5 attachments that belong to the Survey.
3 D-8
Ladera Linda Baseline Facility Layout Less Classroom
(Attachment 2)
In an effort to reduce the building cost, this option would reduce the build-
ing size to 8,000 sq ft (with 57 parking places). This option includes the
equivalent of 3 classrooms plus the Discovery Room. This option is also too
large for the present usage.
I-Tcr
:40 So _
SQ,77
ate®
ti
L •...- 1„�. L
�.. �..
Ly���
�i.
a rc} f.. M
I
j
L L
.w
ad+ILn
A
.Se, SOV",...yi .
3t�
1
=S6,
I
C
i z
:40 So _
ate®
ti
L •...- 1„�. L
Ly���
�i.
a rc} f.. M
L L
.w
ad+ILn
A
.Se, SOV",...yi .
LW
Ladera Linda Baseline Facility Layout
(Attachment 1)
This is the diagram for the 9,137 sq ft building (with 65 parking
places), that the Staff presented to the City Council at their meeting on
August 1, 2017, that was approved by the City Council. It includes the
equivalent of 4 classrooms plus the Discovery Room. With the present
usage average of 4 to 5 uses per week, this facility is way too large for
it's present usage. The design of the building has numerous recesses in-
stead of a squared off building and is not suitable for security purposes.
Y'r _14—Pmoi.€ 2
Ss.3 SQ,;7
'"9...
ISC
4 SC SO =7'
k:£
L
totr
Sky
3 -Is �:u 7__
T.
z4c SI
X_ 7_5
D-10
Ladera Linda Baseline Facility Layout
Less one Classroom and Des£OVery Room
(Attachment 3)
In an effort to reduce the building cost even more, this option would further reduce the building size to approx,
7,000 sq ft (with 50 parking places). This option includes the equivalent of 3 classrooms and eliminates the Dis-
covery Room. The Discover Room is SG#Um used and can be replaced by adding glass exhibit cabinet displays
in the lobby. That would mean providing a storage area for wheeled Cara with additional displays that can be
wheeled into any vacant classroom when neede#in support ofa planned program.
...
<
> ....w
TEL <
® <
� <
y «
.
/:F
2
\
m ccRAGE<
.
(
z
mc«
f
#
v
.
x
m an
«»-
7
AA
w
, .
w wm
mom,
}r y
#
mae
w w
w
,
y
. v
. .
:, .
wmsa
..
mme
<
> ....w
TEL <
® <
� <
m ccRAGE<
~
7
AA
w
w wm
}r y
w
,
y
<
->
CLAS' R0 -0V»
TEL <
® <
� <
-
D-11
h
E
StilUM ttrCT4.A,S,4ATtt
9tnR..t.r r tutu.
. [XNOM1 GSTAINCAA[
- ar.cTlt ii MRSJr.:(b Sr A[tRl
OXIMIAM .rN7r1Y7 L.7t.AC1,'.
. . IAt4t:[.A: Ltrr
W /rA1 t..
I Xr.r llr. ranaa[SL'r.P _+
COa'IRT.IROM-r-MMACID .,
�•R rA11t:LAG Lal
1
MartDRY 071KOO■
t
��,,.-• - -
agTr R.I11 nrn
UMAL"U MN" .aro
F.-..�e��
a t
r 6I111Da' AKT
rM1aTWr--ta rrat't1
KriTt*Lt GAfOt7, r T• 7 -
11wfr'"N:a.1MRS"
- _
co+plmwAuwAA �/ -
�I�-
rr.toc.ATT.
nvrtcT.ta.K..tc A
.Intna,+c.w Ari. ,
MMIXIG 2 aT
Ott-MA,IYt rAAlrC M r.r
'i
Rt1Ari.G rCWA TAL*nM"
991MV t'LXMIRlry 5 - / r
.,
TLAtIatRrrtnitAT
K% MAM
-
i nR► A�tA.nr. Y
:-, .0 raROL.TAl ILEUX%T
1. . ACCL3r
em MICT.tA,a1AVU
LASTrwG 01tr NE: i MMI ALr
1 !fr AfRttt wow%luratrl
,-�
a, ��—
&WrTCT 0CFLIM
TRAIII RWLd[7IR
j
"Mrsm, van
wtv /ASY A,Cr
�_ f
-. __�
L1t+rl trG rtlltt f.TRAK[
On AM.M MALI
ORC,1g4r11.1 /AASH. Tb
Add ADA Ramp
`''
101-MR41 rXrx�U 1T17r
„,[Agtrr�a,t _
�•f�'.\►fit-S'y
;
NI RINiM.DMA7t1A,It.mrA
- - -_ _ -,
RLtifRfTr.l
- �•'... j c"+ -\ `I
4LTAt WI"WIF
- _., _-��.-tttaT[M. STAtMt'AS�`
�+,..�.. "� �.�'
9
Mitt
`
TiV %a&%rtYl.r
rap/ +Ni.�li�' `` \
Proposed Changes to Baseline"'"'
••�
NLAMMr%nW"A*1,%
+.ItATrn
AnA mr.
Relocation of Play Area
(Attachment 5)
This option recommends only one full basketball court located in the
center of the property to reduce noise levels for Ladera Linda and
No parking
Sea View residents. It relocates the ADA access ramp to be parallel to
_t
' ' -"'
along Forrestal
the main Park entrance driveway and red lines the curbs on Forrestal
Delete ADA Ac ess- .; ,, ..
�� ','
Restricted park-
so there is no parking allowed on Forrestal from the gate, all the way
from Forrestal l v
ing on Pirate
down to the end of the Park boundary. Also there is a request that the
and Searaven
gate be opened at dawn and closed at dusk.
w
�a
D-13
Matt Waters
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2018 4:01 PM
To: patricia stenehjem
Cc: Matt Waters; Mona Dill; Cory Linder
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park Plan
Hi Patricia,
Thank you for your email and your interest in this project. Let me assure you that your concerns about privacy and noise
are definitely not being disregarded. At Council's direction we have gone back and done more research and design work
on the building layout, security concerns, landscaping, and sightlines. In response to resident concerns, we are limiting
the number and times for private rentals.
We have met with many residents since the concept was presented to Council to get more feedback. The February 21St
Workshop will be an opportunity for us to both present this information to the community and also receive additional
commentary and feedback. That feedback will be incorporated into a revised and refined concept plan to be presented
to Council.
I'd like to address a few of the points in your email.
The entrance to the park is not being changed.
* Landscaping changes reflect best practices for design and security.
The lower field will be reconfigured to prevent organized sporting events like soccer while still allowing for
casual drop in use.
® While there will be picnic tables and benches in the lower field area along a walking path they are not positioned
directly adjacent to Forrestal.
® I am aware of the gate issues at Ladera Linda. We are looking at ways to address this, particularly increasing
staff levels so they can lock the gates at dusk.
Again, thank you for your continuing to be a part of the project and I encourage you to come to the February 21"
Workshop.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov m (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291
D-14
From: patricia stenehjem [mailto:patsyanntoo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 10:06 AM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Plan
Hi Matt,
sometime (long) ago i emailed you my concerns regarding the pians for Ladera Linda Park; my concerns are still
the same, and I have now learned that the privacy and noise issues that I and and my neighbors have with a new park
design are apparently being disregarded. Changing the entrance to the park and removing the east side plants will not be
good for the neighborhood, nor will putting picnic tables near Forrestal; I oppose any plans to do so. We already deal with
noise from the Sunday soccer players who use the lower field. Also, security is an issue --most nights when I have
checked the park gate, it has not been locked, and several times in the last two weeks I have had to call the sheriff after
8pm, asking for the Forrestal gate to be locked. It is exceptionally remiss to leave that gate open, due to the heightened
fire danger now present all year! I remember you saying that you have a particular affinity for Ladera Linda --we need to
keep it peaceful and safe as possible here.
Sincerely,
Patricia Stenehjem
D-15
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:40 PM
To:
macsyl20202@yahoo.com
Cc:
Matt Waters
Subject:
LL workshop response
Hi Sylvia,
received your voicemail about the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. Thank you for attending last night's meeting and
sorry you had to leave early. I thought we had a great turnout and many insightful comments and questions from the
community. I hope you found the presentation helpful.
As to the timeline, it is far from set. We will be taking an updated plan to the City Council on March 20th for Master Plan
adoption. Our best timeline estimate, if Council approves the Master Plan and we move forward into a preconstruction
design phase, is 18-24 months if the process runs smoothly.
Regarding your turf question, I am happy to let you know that the plan calls for natural turf in the lower park area. In
fact, all of the areas marked "turf' in the design are "natural turf" grass areas. We'll make a note of that in future
presentations and in our Staff report to Council, so there is no further misunderstanding on that point.
Again, thank you for being part of the process and please feel free to contact me with any further questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw(a)-rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
Par i
d
Bet 1
D-16
Matt Waters
From: syl mac <macsy12020@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:33 PM
To: Matt Waters
Subject: Re: LL workshop response
Hello Matt,
Thanks so much for the clarification. So "TURF" on the design schematics stands for natural
grass? I think that would be a great point of clarification in the future images. Thanks for keeping
natural.
I thought the park as well as the building design was very pleasing to the eyes and am so happy we
will now have gorgeous ocean views instead of unsightly overgrown trees and bushes blocking our
stellar sightlines. That is if I understood the images correctly?
Yours,
Sylvia Macia Shafiezadeh
Sent by my mind via The Force
From: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
To: "macsy12020@yahoo.com" <macsy12020@yahoo.com>
Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 1:42 PM
Subject: FW: LL workshop response
Hi Sylvia,
I received your voicemail about the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. Thank you for attending last
night's meeting and sorry you had to leave early. I thought we had a great turnout and many
insightful comments and questions from the community. I hope you found the presentation helpful.
As to the timeline, it is far from set. We will be taking an updated plan to the City Council on March
20th for Master Plan adoption. Our best timeline estimate, if Council approves the Master Plan and
we move forward into a preconstruction design phase, is 18-24 months if the process runs smoothly.
Regarding your turf question, I am happy to let you know that the plan calls for natural turf in the
lower park area. In fact, all of the areas marked "turf" in the design are "natural turf" grass
D-17
areas. We'll make a note of that in future presentations and in our Staff report to Council, so there is
no further misunderstanding on that point.
Again, thank you for being part of the process and please feel free to contact me with any further
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.qov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
�-
I-
Life
rru, -
r,
IBM
Matt Waters
From: BW Riedman <rabbit943@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:53 PM
To: Matt Waters; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner
Cc: CC
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
Hi
I just want you to know that I thought the presentation of the proposed plans for the Ladera Linda Community
Center were very well presented. Y'all have worked very hard to try and fit in everything wanted and not
wanted and I think this plan is a good one. Not too big but large enough to accommodate small groups and
events.
As you well know, you cannot please everyone. My take on last night is that the Ladera Linda residents cannot
separate the problems with the hikers/bikers and AYSO from the community center which has NEVER been a
big draw. And the people who do use it are generally residents. I am truly getting tired of the NIMBY attitude
that I see more and more in RPV. If you want to keep the riffraff out, make this a gated community like Rolling
Hills. You say it's for the public but which public? Only the residents that live within so many feet of it?
It seemed to me that the biggest objection, over and over, was the traffic and parking. And I would venture a
guess that 99% of the traffic issues have nothing to do with the community center. And when are all the so-
called "traffic/parking" issues? I would probably be safe in assuming on the weekends when there are AYSO
games and people hiking - very few of which probably don't even bother with the center (other than to use the
bathroom). The traffic situation at the intersection of PVDrive South and Forrestal is another issue entirely and
shouldn't even be in this discussion. Yes, there is an problem at that intersection. The fix is easy - put in a traffic
light with sensors that would favor PVDrive South. BUT! I would bet the folks living on those corners would
howl about that! They don't want the noise of cars stopping and starting or exhaust. OK - put a timer on the light
so it's only active from 7 am to 10 am and from 4 pm to 6 pm (or whenever there is rush hour traffic).
The Ladera Linda Community Center is the only community center on this side of The Hill. And for people to
object to non -RPV families using it is mean and petty and selfish. You cannot tell me that the people that enjoy
Hesse Park only live in RPV.
Forrestal Nature Reserve is very special. The trails are not that difficult and the vista views are beyond belief.
The residents do not want to share these. I'm sorry, that's not right. And the City cannot be blamed for the so-
called "social media" exposure.
On to the Community Center itself -- Herb's comments re the Discovery Room are specious at most. For one
thing, I think the Discovery Room is a well kept secret. Last night I had two residents tell me that they didn't
even know it existed until they were at Ladera Linda for the Parks event. They and their children were blown
away by the photos and history it represents. Ladera Linda has been rather neglected by the City. No full time
staff (which you say will be corrected) and about the only thing the City has supported has been the school and
organization hikes that are provided by the docents. The Discovery Room was created to not only preserve
items related to RPV and the area but to share them with the children. Perhaps with a full time staff member on-
site, the room can be opened full-time to the public and maybe even a docent assigned on a daily basis to
answer questions, etc.
D-19
I hope you have personally gone to check out the Discovery Room and to actually see what it has to offer. It's
very special and a lot of effort was put into it to make it as wonderful, informative and educational as it is.
I know this is rather long but I do hope you will keep the community center as it is now planned. I would
venture to assume that all the same objections will be presented over and over again by the same people every
time you have a community outreach meeting.
Thank you.
Betty Riedman
D-20
Matt Waters
From: Herb Stark <pt17stearman@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 4:29 PM
To: Matt Waters
Subject: Re: Ladera Linda Survey Results
Hi Matt,
From what I saw at the meeting the issues that the residents were concerned about were not adequately
addressed. I understand your position AYSO and left turn lanes are not driven by the park per say but the fear
is that the new facility will attract more visitors to both the park and the trails and you cannot look at the park as
an isolated project. We do not want another Del Cerro. We have very little control because of multi media.
Somehow we need to come to grips with the issue.
One thing you need to do if you leave the Discovery Room in is insist that a condition for having the room, the
Docents have someone there. One problem with the site is the docents have never been able to get a
volunteer. Now all it is a storage room for artifacts and is only open for the docent tours of the reserve.
Herb
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Matt Waters <MattW ,rpvca.gov> wrote:
Hi Herb,
Thanks for the info and for being at the meeting last night.
Matt
From: Herb Stark [mailto:ptl7stearman@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:54 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Survey Results
Hi Matt,
Attached are the results of the survey taken by the Ladera Linda HOA.
D-21
Matt Waters
From:
Yvetta Williams <yvetta2@gmail.com>
Sent:
Friday, February 23, 2018 1:33 PM
To:
CC
Subject:
Ladera Linda redo and please keep the feeling of the discovery room.
Attachments:
HARAASNGA 1.docx; ATT00001.htm
PLEASE KEEP the Discovery room and PLEASE do.not let the Ladera Linda
residents get by with their suggestion for hallway displays and discovery
carts in place of a discovery room. The displays are too fragile to be in
portable carts. Adults as well as children need this information. You have a
wonderful nature room now that cannot be duplicated. The room gives an
overall of what is in Palos Verdes. It took years to get all the items
together. It is a great place to teach about what is at Palos Verdes. A lot
of time and effort was spent putting that room together and many of the items
cannot be replaced or duplicated. To some people nature is NOT important and
to others it is ALL important. PLEASE fight for it and know you will NEVER
get another room with everything together like that room. The butterfly
collection is 80 years old and was collected when I was a child and with the
help of a neighbor who was a science teacher myself and my mother, they were
ID's and got mounted. The butterfly garden is very special and Leslie
Williamson is wonderful. Don't throw her away either.
Where would you get another bear skin? It was bought Many years ago and it
is in the room because there were bears all over this area. Children and
adults are really surprised at that. You read about bears going in swimming
pools in Pasadena nearer the mountains. There were bears all over our area
before they were all killed. There is a collection of all the abalone shell
varieties that are in S. Calif and things in our tidal pools and how sea
shells grow. It takes years for a shell to get big enough to see. The shells
were left over from our store when I retired, and are hard to find and some
cannot be sold as they are on the endangered specie list. The display tells
about the peacocks, peahens and peachicks and eggs and how they got to Palos
Verdes. There is a display on the native plants. Hands on rocks and minerals.
Humming birds, raptors, endangered specie birds, ground squirrels, fox,
raccoons, owls, skunks, possums, None of the schools or the parks have this
information. You have something special Please do not let it get away.
The reptiles, insects, spiders of our area are on display, We need to teach
which are safe and that ALL are our friends and how to act around them and
why we shouldn't kill them. To have wonderful pictures of birds taken by
Steve Wolfe and to find the real bird nest matching the bird is special.
Steve has moved out of the area.
The artifacts of the indigenous people found in the area are special. Palos
Verdes had many different Indio communities and the people went by the name
of the community where they lived. Abalone Cove and Point Vicente were called
Haraasnga. San Nicolas Island was also called Haraasnga and people lived in
both places and boated between them. Haraasnga meant things that stand up.
(Rocks by Terranea) similar looking rocks at San Nicolas Island. The
community at White Point was called Tovemungna, the place of the rabbit. They
boated to Catalina Island which was called Pimunga. Soapstone was mined in
Catalina and traded for items the Pimu needed there. The store room that
PVIC is using at Ladera Linda has priceless things from the Indio
communities. One well known community was at Malaga cove area was Chowingna.
Suangna (Place of the reeds now known as Machado Park is where they got their
tules and there is wonderful history. They could boat from the marsh all the
way to the ocean.
1 D-22
The Historical Society has a wonderful collection of artifacts that were at
Malaga Cove school. There should be a room set aside for that exceptional
collection. Where there were fresh water springs there were communities. Many
of those same springs are still running today. Increase the size of the
building to include the history of the early people who lived here before the
European explorers. That would be wonderful!!!
In the discovery room there is a small collection of real artifacts from the
area and displays telling what the native people used for food and about
their trade. We actually need another room just for displays on this area
before the Europeans arrived and before they changed everything. People lived
here for 7-10,000 years and had all they needed to survive. They had an
extensive trade route and took care of their needs. This hasn't been taught
in the schools and we could do it with displays at Ladera Linda. We also
have displays of local fossils and rocks and minerals. It would be very
difficult to get all the items in the discovery room together again. Please
treasure it. Please don't be so short sighted that you destroy what you
already have and which is not available anywhere else in the area. Please
treasure it. I would be very happy to give the council a tour of the
discovery room and share with you the treasures of our area.
Thank you,
Yvetta Williams
2
D-23
Matt Waters
From:
Jim Hevener <jhevener@cox.net>
Sent:
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:10 AM
To:
Matt Waters
Cc:
Ken Dyda; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com; john@johncruikshank.us; eric@ericalegria.com
Subject:
Comments from Ladera Linda Outreach Meeting
Mr. Waters
On behalf of the Mediterrania HOA, I want to thank City Staff and the Consultant for an excellent presentation. It
seemed the clear consensus at the meeting was in support of moving forward with the current design, which strikes a
reasonable balance between the needs and desires of the residents of the immediately surrounding neighborhoods. We
will never have a perfect plan that will make everyone happy, as expressed by some at the meeting, but this about as
close as we will get. It seems that every change proposed at the meeting raised a counter -issue of about equal
importance (such as moving the basketball courts or adding a buffer wall). While no one is thrilled, this is usually the
sign of a good consensus.
Jim Hevener, President MHOA
Here are my personal comments on specifics issues raised during the meeting:
(1) Proposed Square Footage — I am opposed to any reduction in the square footage and feel it actually should be a little
larger — more like 12,000 sq.ft with a 3rd classroom. The total area already has been reduced to % or less than the
current total (including covered walkways). We are nearing a point where it will be too small to justify the cost. We
should have a Community Center that fosters community interaction and serves the needs of the community for the
next 30 years; not just today. A 9,000 square foot building is no Taj Mahal or PVIC.
(2) Discovery Room — I strongly support the Discovery Room. This is a very special collection and making a separate trip
to see it in a nice location is worth the investment. I am against moving and consolidating the collection with PVIC,
which already is a large facility with a very different feel. I understand that the value and fragile nature of many of
the unique specimens means it is not viable to house the specimens in a mobile unit or in temporary displays. The
Discovery Room also brings together Docents who have so much to offer and younger members of the community
who have much to learn. We are truly blessed to have these volunteers. I have spoken to numerous parents of
children at Mira Cat who feel the same way but it is difficult for them to attend these meetings in the evening.
(3) ADA ramp — I understand the concern of LL residents but would hope the proposal to red stripe Forrestal and
consider restrictions on Pirate should be sufficient. Adding close to $150,000 in cost is not a reasonable approach.
(4) Parking on Forrestal above gate. If this is something the LL neighbors really want then it seems like a good idea. The
issue, though, is that this accommodation may attract more people to the Preserve. We are at a point where any
solution is at least perceived to cause more problems. Perhaps a phased approach is better for this piece. See how
things go and if the parking is later warranted, the City can add it. It does not seem like this is a necessary
component of the Plan and should not stop the City from moving forward.
(5) Open Views Into Park — Sheriff Dept. analysis supports open views into and out of the Park for enhanced
security. This seems like a good idea. While having a view of the Ocean may attract some additional people, it
D-24
seems worth it for enhanced security. It also seems that the buffer area of low shrubs between the paths and the
fence line will protect the privacy of the SV homes below the Park. There is no way to make a perfect design.
(6) Basketball Court. It is important to keep the basketball courts with the other playground equipment. I hope the
final design can include some hardtop to take the place of the % basketball court now eliminated from the plan. This
would be for kids to bounce balls and maybe practice learning to ride a bike. It seems like the elimination of the
court was a mistake and an accommodation that is starting to undermine the purpose and value of the Park, with
very limited upside. Parks involve some amount of noise. So do neighbors who have basketball hoops in their
driveways.
(7) Hours of Operation and Use Restrictions. These should be guidelines and not part of the City Code. The Sheriff's
representative indicated they have the authority to address excessive noise or after-hours loitering with existing
authority. I understand the desire of the LL neighbors to keep the new Community Center from becoming a
Wayfarers Chapel. The current pian and proposed rules do this. But, the City also should be supporting the use of
the new Community Center as a location to bring members of the community together. City Staff should work with
clear guidelines to respect the neighbors but also should have the flexibility to make exceptions or modify the rules
in consultation with the community. i disagree that the days of community functions and activities are over. It is
particularly important to support activities for older members of the community (such as exercise, yoga and art
classes) and activities to bring older and younger/newer members of the community together (such as through the
Docents at the Discovery Center or through community events).
(8) Traffic. The complaints about traffic seem reasonable but do not appear linked to the modest use of the proposed
Community Center. Instead, the issues seem driven by AYSO and Trump National events. The LL residents should
continue to press the School District to address AYSO traffic and the City should work with LL residents to address
Trump and traffic in general. The redevelopment project should not be held up. This is an issue that should be
addressed through the City's traffic commission or similar body. While I am not happy for the City to underwrite the
cost of traffic control for AYSO and Trump events, it does seem like a good interim solution. As for a traffic light, my
guess is that half of LL residents would want one but the other half would not. We have faced the same issue at the
intersection of Ganado and PVDSouth, but were not able to gain a clear consensus in favor of a traffic light.
D-25
in consultation with the community. I disagree that the days of community functions and activities are over. It is
particularly important to support activities for older members of the community (such as exercise, yoga and art
classes) and activities to bring older and younger/newer members of the community together (such as through the
Docents at the Discovery Center or through community events).
(8) Traffic. The complaints about traffic seem reasonable but do not appear linked to the modest use of the proposed
Community Center. Instead, the issues seem driven by AYSO and Trump National events. The LL residents should
continue to press the School District to address AYSO traffic and the City should work with LL residents to address
Trump and traffic in general. The redevelopment project should not be held up. This is an issue that should be
addressed through the City's traffic commission or similar body. While I am not happy for the City to underwrite the
cost of traffic control for AYSO and Trump events, it does seem like a good interim solution. As for a traffic light, my
guess is that half of LL residents would want one but the other half would not. We have faced the same issue at the
intersection of Ganado and PVDSouth, but were not able to gain a clear consensus in favor of a traffic light.
D-26
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:45 AM
To:
Charles Agnew
Cc:
Cory Linder; CC; Matt Waters
Subject:
RE: Ladera Linda Park Plan
Hi Charles,
Thanks for your email and for attending last week's workshop. Appreciate hearing that you think were on the right
track. Your comments about current and past usage levels, square footage, retaining the Discovery Room, red -striping
Forrestal, providing Preserve parking away from residences, and including a stairway to Forrestal Drive will be
considered by Staff and our consultant and will also be included as part of the March 20th City Council Staff report.
Please feel free to contact me with any further comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Pans Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattes _rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 P — (310) 544-5291 f
From: Charles Agnew [mailto:cvagnew@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:36 AM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>; Doug Willmore <DWillmore@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>;
Planning <Planning@rpvca.gov>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Melissa Countryman <MelissaC@rpvca.gov>; Mona Dill
<MonaD@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic <Jerry.Duhovic@rpvca.gov>; Jerry Duhovic@hotmail.com
<jduhovic@hotmail.com>; Ken Dyda <cprotem73@cox.net>; Finance <Finance@rpvca.gov>; Nicole Jules
<NicoleJ@rpvca.gov>; Sean Larvenz <SeanL@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; Parks <Parks@rpvca.gov>; PublicWorks <PublicWorks@rpvca.gov>; Pamela Mitchell
<PamelaM@rpvca.gov>; Joel Rojas <JoelR@rpvca.gov>; Nancie Silver <NancieS@rpvca.gov>; Michael Throne
D-27
<MichaelT@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>; Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Plan
li, I am Charles Agnew a 46 year resident of Ladera Linda and a past
-• president •:
The present activities at Ladera Linda Park should not • - used as an • •i
of
birthdayThe park is extremely run down and has long lost its appeal. It is a ghost town.
It is only a reminder of a past time when there were sports activities, square
dancing, children's parties,
dances,Christmas •houses,g•- • • :• .• block o parties,
neighborhood dinner dances,• etcetera.It can s. t
The clubhouse square foot is about right. There should be a kitchen with
appropriate
The other night we had about 50 people in the multipurpose room and it was full.
The new multipurpose room should be larger.
Don't eliminate the discovery room.
We need to eliminate the Forrestal street parking. Provide as many parking
spaces as possible near the trail access.
That parking must be used as overflow parking when we have a park activity
such as the Easter egg hunt.
That means we need a stairway from the overflow parking down to the park. If we
red curb Forrestal, we need this stairway.
2
D-28
Matt Waters
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Jerry
Cc: Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Master Plan Design Concept A-1
Hi Jerry
Thanks for your email about the Madera Linda Park Master Plan. Your comments about the square footage
being appropriate in size, inclusion of the Discovery loom, the ADA ramp location, view/security issues,
Preserve parking, and maintaining the proposed basketball court locations will all be considered by Staff and
our consultant and will also be included as part of the March 201h City Council Staff report.
Please feel free to contact me with any further comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rov
mattes rpvca..gov - (310) 544.-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
",a
r -
From: Jerry [mailto:jhashimoto3@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 5:30 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Master Plan Design Concept A-1
We like:
• The current proposed size and schematic floor plan and elevations of the new Community Center
building;
• Having a Discovery Room included in the Community Center;
• The location of the ADA ramp in Exhibit "C;"
• The open views from the park of the ocean and the site plan with lower landscaping providing a much
safer environment for users;
D-29
• The one full court, and half court for the younger children and their location adjacent to the play and
turf areas near the entrance;
0 The location of the 90 degree parking spaces between the two security fences and gates.
It will be a very attractive and welcome change to the area.
Jerry Hashimoto
D-30
Matt Waters
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 3:54 PM
To: Jim Hevener
Cc: Ken Dyda; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com;john@johncruikshank.us; eric@ericalegria.com;
Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: RE: Comments from Ladera Linda Outreach Meeting
Hi Jim,
Thanks for your email and for attending last week's workshop. Appreciate your feedback on the meeting and I certainly
agree that finding a solution that pleases everyone 100% is unattainable, but I think we have done our best to reach out
to the community and create a balanced approach. All of your comments below will be considered by Staff and our
consultant and will also be included as part of the March 201h City Council Staff report.
Please feel free to contact me with any further comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
wvvw.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw(cDrpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291
From: Jim Hevener [mailto:jhevener@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:10 AM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Ken Dyda <Ken.Dyda@rpvca.gov>; susanbrooks0l@yahoo.com; john@johncruikshank.us; eric@ericalegria.com
Subject: Comments from Ladera Linda Outreach Meeting
Mr. Waters
On behalf of the Mediterrania HOA, I want to thank City Staff and the Consultant for an excellent presentation. It
seemed the clear consensus at the meeting was in support of moving forward with the current design, which strikes a
reasonable balance between the needs and desires of the residents of the immediately surrounding neighborhoods. We
will never have a perfect plan that will make everyone happy, as expressed by some at the meeting, but this about as
D-31
close as we will get. It seems that every change proposed at the meeting raised a counter -issue of about equal
importance (such as moving the basketball courts or adding a buffer wall). While no one is thrilled, this is usually the
sign of a good consensus.
Jim Hevener, President MHOA
Here are my personal comments on specifics issues raised during the meeting:
(1) Proposed Square Footage — I am opposed to any reduction in the square footage and feel it actually should be a little
larger — more like 12,000 sq.ft with a 3`d classroom. The total area already has been reduced to % or less than the
current total (including covered walkways). We are nearing a point where it will be too small to justify the cost. We
should have a Community Center that fosters community interaction and serves the needs of the community for the
next 30 years; not just today. A 9,000 square foot building is no Taj Mahal or PVIC.
(2) Discovery Room — I strongly support the Discovery Room. This is a very special collection and making a separate trip
to see it in a nice location is worth the investment. I am against moving and consolidating the collection with PVIC,
which already is a large facility with a very different feel. I understand that the value and fragile nature of many of
the unique specimens means it is not viable to house the specimens in a mobile unit or in temporary displays. The
Discovery Room also brings together Docents who have so much to offer and younger members of the community
who have much to learn. We are truly blessed to have these volunteers. I have spoken to numerous parents of
children at Mira Cat who feel the same way but it is difficult for them to attend these meetings in the evening.
(3) ADA ramp — I understand the concern of LL residents but would hope the proposal to red stripe Forrestal and
consider restrictions on Pirate should be sufficient. Adding close to $150,000 in cost is not a reasonable approach.
(4) Parking on Forrestal above gate. If this is something the LL neighbors really want then it seems like a good idea. The
issue, though, is that this accommodation may attract more people to the Preserve. We are at a point where any
solution is at least perceived to cause more problems. Perhaps a phased approach is better for this piece. See how
things go and if the parking is later warranted, the City can add it. It does not seem like this is a necessary
component of the Plan and should not stop the City from moving forward.
(5) Open Views Into Park — Sheriff Dept. analysis supports open views into and out of the Park for enhanced
security. This seems like a good idea. While having a view of the Ocean may attract some additional people, it
seems worth it for enhanced security. It also seems that the buffer area of low shrubs between the paths and the
fence line will protect the privacy of the SV homes below the Park. There is no way to make a perfect design.
(6) Basketball Court. It is important to keep the basketball courts with the other playground equipment. i hope the
final design can include some hardtop to take the place of the % basketball court now eliminated from the plan. This
would be for kids to bounce balls and maybe practice learning to ride a bike. It seems like the elimination of the
court was a mistake and an accommodation that is starting to undermine the purpose and value of the Park, with
very limited upside. Parks involve some amount of noise. So do neighbors who have basketball hoops in their
driveways.
(7) Hours of Operation and Use Restrictions. These should be guidelines and not part of the City Code. The Sheriff's
representative indicated they have the authority to address excessive noise or after-hours loitering with existing
authority. I understand the desire of the LL neighbors to keep the new Community Center from becoming a
Wayfarers Chapel. The current plan and proposed rules do this. But, the City also should be supporting the use of
the new Community Center as a location to bring members of the community together. City Staff should work with
clear guidelines to respect the neighbors but also should have the flexibility to make exceptions or modify the rules
D-32
Matt Waters
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Joan,
Hope all is well with you.
Matt Waters
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:00 PM
joan barry
Cory Linder; Matt Waters
RE: LL Master Plan
Thanks for your email regarding the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. Your comments about the overall plan, concern
about mitigating neighborhood concerns and retaining the Discovery Room will be considered by Staff and our
consultant and will also be included as part of the March 20th City Council Staff report.
Please feel free to contact me with any further comments or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
-----Original Message -----
From: joan barry [mailto:itsthebarrys@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 10:09 AM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: LL Master Plan
Matt
I just briefly reviewed the master plan for Ladera Linda, and at first glance, I think it's a wonderful concept. I have not
been involved in any of the meetings or workshops, so I am not familiar with any complaints. But I would say that I think
all the neighbors' concerns should be mitigated before going ahead. Having said that,I feel it would be a wonderful
asset to the city, as this property has been underused for years.
D-33
I also think that the Discovery Room should be maintained. It is a great asset to the children' s tours and other guests.
The proposed building is large, therefore there is plenty of room to house the Discovery Room. Should it be another
PVIC? Of course not. But it is a nice annex.
Best wishes,
Joan Barry
To be shared with whomever would be interested.
D-34
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:04 PM
To:
Edward Stevens
Cc:
CC; Mona Dill; Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject:
RE: Ladera Linda Letter to the City Council
M
Thanks for your email and for your continued interest in the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Report. Staff did receive the
results of the survey that Mickey conducted. Those survey results, including reducing the square footage and
eliminating the Discovery room, along with comments received both at the Feb. 21 workshop and the subsequent
comment period, will all be considered and included as part of the staff report being presented to the City Council on
March 20, 2018.
Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Matt
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@,Epyca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
From: Edward Stevens [mailto:erstevens@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 10:08 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Mona Dill <MonaD@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Letter to the City Council
Dear Matt,
My neighbor & friend Mr. Mickey Rodich has some wonderful ideas for the Ladera Linda improvements that I and my
neighbors in Seaview totally agree with.
I hope you will really take a few minutes & reconsider his ideas into the final pians especially reducing the size of the
building to 7000 sq. feet. I have been playing paddle tennis for over 30 years & have seen the school buses show up &
D-35
the children taking 5 minutes to walk thru the Discovery room because they are more interested in taking the hike. Like
Mickey, i see very little use of the Discovery Room.
We do not want our Ladera Linda to turn into a destination attraction on the Social media,
It is not too late to make the small changes that Mr. Rodich suggests.
Sincerely
Edward Stevens
40 year resident of Seaview
From: Mickey Rodich [mailto:mickeyrodich gmail,com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 9:28 AM
To: CC; Matt Waters
Cc: Ann Weinland; Bill Gussman; Kelly ]ones; Mariana Stewart; Mickey Rodich; Phil Bernard; Sara Platte; Tim Stewart;
Tom Smith; Herb Stark
Subject: Fwd: Ladera Linda Letter to the City Council
Recreation & Parks Department:
On Wednesday February 21St you will be conducting another Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
workshop to discuss the results of the latest study as directed by the City Council to address the
concerns of the local residents of Ladera Linda. I am sorry that I cannot attend this meeting because I
am out of town. The Ladea Linda Homeowners Association (LLHOA) conducted a survey to present
to you our vision for the proposed new Park. Sixty eight of our residents responded electronically and
fifteen responded verbally to this survey. Our survey was conducted by using Survey Monkey and we
asked 10 basic questions:
1) Preferred size of the Park building?
2) Basketball courts location due to noise generated?
3) Parking restrictions on Forrestal.?
4) Park security and cameras?
6) Park operating hours and activity restrictions?
6) Control of Forrestal traffic during activities such as AYSO?
7) Landscaping of Park grounds?
8) Construction costs?
9) ADA compliance?
10) Left turn accelerating lane at Forrestal and PVDS?
The bottom line is our desire to NOT have the new Ladera Linda Park become a destination attraction
that will be advertised on Social Media and draw large crowds from outside our City and traffic
congestion such as the Del Cerro Park disaster. This Park should be designed to satisfy the needs of
our local residents. They are very concerned about crime, noise, parking, traffic congestion and they
did not want the new facility to become a trail -head information center for the reserve. Our Survey
showed that the vast majority of responses favor a low profile for the new Park. The responses we
received are summarized in the Survey results and are briefly stated below:
D-36
1) Reduce the size of the building from the proposed 9,000 sq. ft. to 7,000 sq. ft. by
eliminating one classroom and the Discovery Room. The Discovery Room is underutilized with
only 13 group visits totaling around 800 visitors (mostly grade school students) in 2017. Ninety
percent of these were children's educational tours conducted by the docents where the main
object was the hike on the Forrestal Reserve. As such they only spend 15 minutes in the
Discovery Room as an orientation to the hike. This could be accomplished using one of the
open classrooms supported by a cart containing the teaching aids as they do for the whale
wagon and outreach at the Interpretive Center. The Discovery Room is a low usage facility and
does not need a committed room, it can use any available room.
2) Relocate the basketball courts and children's to a central location to reduce noise near
residences.
3) Eliminate parking along Forrestal and have restricted resident only parking on Pirate and
Searaven and moving the proposed ADA entrance to be along the present park entrance.
4) For Park security, install ALPR cameras and observation cameras on and near the Park
site.
5) Limit Park activities that produce noise and control operating hours and activity restrictions.
6) Control traffic on Forrestal during large activities such as AYSO. Have large groups be
responsible for a traffic control person at PVDS.
7) Keep a majority of the landscaping for the new park, especially along Forrestal to act as a
noise barrier for the nearby residences.
8) Keep construction costs at the lowest levels by reducing the building size and saving most
of the existing landscaping.
9) For ADA requirements, relocate the proposed ADA access to be alongside the Park entry
roadway.
10) Require a left turn escape lane on PV Drive South at Forrestal and require anyone running
a large event to provide traffic control at Forrestal and PVDS.
You can click on the Ladera Linda HOA Survey Summary below, regarding the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. As you will see,
our residents have unanimously expressed their opinions as to the size and features for the proposed Park Master Plan. They
want a 7,000 sq. ft. building and do NOT want this Park to be an attraction that will be advertised on Social Media to draw large
crowds of outsiders.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/analyze/cRItNOOIQ9pleTBOREuoxpmSB9TC2GSSNovJjZJYSrQk5xclabvcg ROSpXf0uXOU
Attachment #1: This is the diagram for the 9,137 sq ft building (with 65 parking places),
that the Staff presented to the City Council at their meeting on August 1, 2017, that was
approved by the City Council. It includes the equivalent of 4 classrooms plus the
Discovery Room. With the present usage average of 4 to 5 uses per week, this facility is
way too large for it's present usage. The design of the building has numerous recesses
instead of a squared off building and is not suitable for security purposes.
Attachment #2: In an effort to reduce the building cost, this option would reduce the
building size to 8,000 sq ft (with 57 parking places). This option includes the equivalent of
3 classrooms plus the Discovery Room. This option is also too large for the present
usage
Attachment #3; In an effort to reduce the building cost even more, this option would
further reduce the building size to approx, 7,000 sq ft (with 50 parking places). This option
includes the equivalent of 3 classrooms and eliminates the Discovery Room. The
Discovery Room is seldom used and can be replaced by adding glass exhibit cabinet
3 D-37
displays in the lobby and following the program used at PVIC. That would mean providing
a storage area for wheeled carts with additional displays and teaching aids that can be
wheeled into any vacant classroom when needed.
Attachment #4; This is the site plan that the Staff presented to the City Council at their
meeting on August 1,2017, that was approved by the City Council. It includes an ADA
access gate at the intersection of Forrestal and Pirate and basketball courts near that
intersection creating noise for nearby residents. This plan also allows street parking all
along Forrestal.
Attachment #5: This option recommends only one full basketball court located in the
center of the property to reduce noise levels for Ladera Linda and Sea View residents. It
relocates the ADA access ramp to be parallel to the main Park entrance driveway and rel#'
lines the curbs on Forrestal so there i's no parking allowed on Forrestal from the gate, all
the way down to the end of the Park boundary. Also there is a request that the gate be
opened at dawn and closed at dusk.
The following are the 5 attachments that belong to the Survey.
D-38
1. Building Size: The staff proposed a 9,137 sq. ft. building, to the City Council. which includes
four classrooms plus The Discovery Room, and 65 parking spaces. Some residents feel that a
smaller building would be more suitable for residents based on the current usage (average 5
events per week) and would be less expensive to build (tax payers expense). It may also limit the
number of groups from outside RPT wanting to use the facility. Please see Attachment #1, #2 and
#3 for details. The Discovery room may be deleted, but it will still have a presence. Because of its
light usage it would be replaced by providing glass cabinets along the hallway walls for exhibits
and when needed have carts filled with exhibits wheeled into one of the rooms just like at the
Interpretive Center.
Attachment 1 http://ww-�v.llhoa.us/imagesiTarkLayout/BaselineFacilityLayout.pdf
Attachment 2:
http://-+lv-"�,T.11hoa.us./imagesfParkLayoutf BaselineFadlityLayoutLessClassroomRevA.pdf
s/ParkLayout/BaselineFacilityL ayoutLessClassrooinRevA. pdf
Attachment .3:
http://,,,v-vv",.Ilhoa.uslimages,rParkLayoutITloorPlaiiSttidyLessDiscoveryP oomClassroomRevA.pd
j 9,137 sq. ft., (55 parking spaces; as presented by Staff to Citt' Co incil. It would include .l Multi Purpose Room (sphtable
into 2 classrooms) plias ' additional classrooms phis a T7;scoi ery Roonn for a total of � rooms. See Attac:l7.raertt #1.
U010 sq. ft., ? parkinspaces; would delete one classroom, Lilt ii-iclude 1 1-lulti Purpose Room (splita�>Jle into
classroon7o) P11.is T1 -Le DISC V' PIV Room plus I :additional' classrooms loo a total of rooms. See Attachment
rlJl_r sq, ft,, Stu parkinor spaces; would delete the Discovery Igo+ant and este conferetice rooni, last 1,vould still have a -hilti
Furpose Room (splitable into 2 :-lassrooms) phis 1 additional c.lassrooni for a Fotal of 3 rooms. Se.e .=-attachment 43.
Other (plea -:e specif)r-,)
I
D-39
I Basketball Courts.- The Staff has proposed to the City Council (One full. size plus one half size)
basketball courts, located very close to the intersection of Forrestal and Pirate. This would
pose noise impacts to Ladera. Linda residents in that area. See Attachment #4. Another option to
consider is only having one full basketbafl court located in a more central location. See
Attachment +*.
Attachment 4:
1-ittp:,�'/i�vi.vi.v.11hoa.us`/i-tnage,s/ParkLayout,/ParkLayotttRe--.;,A.pdf
Attacbment
http:/,�'NvN,-v.11hoa.us/in-iages,/Pa.rkLayout/ParkLayotitRevB.pdf
Staiq propose -d to Citi- Co-andil one and once half basketh-11 couro- close to FiDrT-estai and Firate.
-i.-:;e to resi nts near -de
-:�-Lotdher oniononiond be io move orae ftill basketball cotut to an -Lore central locat'crn to eliminate i-io
FnrreL I — i -rate.
7 a: and F'
Othiel (Piea-se sped ifVa
3. Parking on Forrestal: The staff has proposed to the City Council restricted permit parking
along Forrestal, Pirate and Searaven and the use. of 28 parking places beyond the gate for all
users. The parking along Forrestal Dri,re causes additional noise and traffic ivhen outside groups
park there. Another option is to use the 28 parking places above the gate and red line all curbs
from the gate down to the south end of the park property to reduce traffic and noise.
o 1 Coe u
tincii thy' of 28 pank-ing places abcl ove the gate res pie=Ling-
it parkalong,,
taLf pr-ocis-ed tL t' he Cit�
Forrestat, Fn-, a te a nd Seam- en for ;I I i-tser5.
A--a'i� , opt --nwvet ld be the use of '(28 parkingplaces and no q-, along Forrestal from the gate do-vvn to Souf-hiend- of
park pTopeiry using; re -I Ene cm-bs to r& -duce traffic and noise.
Otftef sz eldfv)
D-41
4. Park S Security is a top priority for our neighborhood. The. staff has not presented
any firm security measures to the City Council. An option to clearly address measures to
improve security would be to install ALPR cameras at Forrestal and PVDS, security cameras
throughout the Park and fencing around the perimeter ,,pit locked gates to eliminate night time
actio,
`-,ate diL i no -Dfesera arry -f= security, improvemenis to the City Cotmcil.
1 I.L
the var-k, alorig with ferncing, and lca&ed gates to,
Add ALr-P,'-) cz:Lm-eras at Forrestal and -7DS and secusitv cameras M
eli-ninate ni, --tivity.
2zj-,.tl- ='--Ie aL
OtInle-F !, Pleas, -,pe
5 r'. Park Operating o
Hurs- Present park hoursM
are onday-FridNo
ay: on-5PM
:00 Saturday-
Sunday: 10:00AMI - 5:00 PM.
Amplified music is allowed inside the. building: 10:00 am -10:00 pm and no restrictions on types
of activity. An option is to limit the activities in the Park. No weddings and amplified sound not
allowed after 8:00PNI, and end all activities by 10:00 PM. The. present gate for the 28
parking spaces w. ill be open at sunrise and closed at stmdox�m by either staff or a Guard Service.
Statf made no definite c: cls to current hours and use to the Cit�--, Council.
-est, -i -ie act -ies aH -w,7 -iik. SpeciLficaLly: No weddings and an7tplifi -)t allc
Idd� :ictloi _,; to tI , v i itt ed in the p, ed sound n -L iwed after
&"I'D FNI. AH act-iivatiecS to end bv 1000 F2\4
7-�Or - -
-esent -ate fo,- tlie _?S parking spaces will open at S1=15e and dosed at sundown b -K,- staff of a Guard 5-erv, ice.
0 -
D-43
6. Traffic on Forrestal and PVD.S-. Staff has not addressed traffic problems at Forrestal and PVDS
to the Cite Council. Entering and exiting Forrestal from P%7DS can be challenging, especially
i,vhen large groups are -using the park, or AYSO soccer games as well as events taking place at the
Trump Goff Course. This sometimes poses a traffic and safety hazard because it is not a
controlled intersection.
D5.
-Lich no traffic control at PVL
Kee -p icum t -actices, TA is
NA, - - I a -ient dhat Pmark Groups of 50 or more AY 0-
-ake I ,turen L and .5 boccl;2rpro,-t,,-.,ietraificcoritrolpersorattl-iei-�-n-te-rs on
w -d Forrestal am r�7 DS during their activity.
OtIn&--L piea,zse S ecif "7) sug -
Landscapm*g of Park Grounds: Staff recommendation to City Council is to remove ALL
vegetation on Park property to create an ocean viei�7 from the perh-neter trails and provide a drip
w, atering system to each plant or tree. Rough estimates are between t-wo and four million dollars.
An option -would be to keep as much of our pre -sent vegetation as possible., including 2 old
grox-.-th pine trees. Keep all trees along Forrestal as a sound buffer, but still install a drip
system. Keep vegetation along Sea View to preserve their back yard privacy.
Staff to the Qtv Comcil is to ALL existing ve�
getation and provide all new -,,egetaticm and
11-IStall a _Lrip warering Sys-, leir"
Of -resent Vegetation as possf-ble, Mclt_,dingnp watering sy
2 old gfoi-vth pirle trees, and add a d Stem to all
ve
,, geta' L' is IR-eep c01 trees along F=estal
Otlnel_- f _14
D-45
8. Total Construction Costs: The Staff did not present any accurate construction costs to the City
Council. The rough estimated construction costs for a new Ladera Linda Park have varied from
$5,000,000 to over $10,000,000. This is our money that we pay to our City as taxes and fees.
What dollar amount range best represents what you think the City should spend on this project?
Of
OiJ,000 to Z5,999,999
S9,999,999
510',MO,OK J plus
Othei 'rdeasE -specilIfy)
9. Compliance lVith American Disabilities Act- Staff has proposed to the City Council that the
ADA (American Disabilities Act) entry be located at the intersection of Forrestal and Pirate®
where the present large gate is located. Based on suggested parking improv, ements, a preferred
location wo-udd be along side the present main Park entry driveway.
Locabe ADA �-ateatllttersc-cdona-f For -festal -and -r -i -rate. �-Attad-Lmentr-1
Locate ADAT, 5.
gate along side the preselit maun Park entry d -rive -w -ay. See Attachment �
Od-Lef (Ipleafe
D-47
10. Left Turn Accelerating Lane At Forrestal and PVDS-, Ask the City to provide a left turn
accelerating lane when making a left turn at Forrestal and PVDS , heading toward San Pedro.
Conqueror has such a lane. and they have no problems making a left turn toward San Pedro.
-Y,es, i ann in fav, or rat �n accelerating lane,
T
I U L:Clot in or of an accelerating Lme.
No, fav
e'aWl
Ladera Linda Park Survey Results
1.0 Building Size
9,137 sq. f.
■
85 patting...,.
8,000 sq. N
57 parki+rg...
7,000 sq. Et.,
50 parwng...
0% 10S, 20-S 30% 3055 5015 6045 70% 80% 907c 100%
2.0 Relocate Basketball Courts
staff■
proposed ta...
Another option
vmutd he to..,
0% 10% 20% 30:4 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3.0 Eliminate Parking on Forrestal
Staff proposed.
SO the City...
An option
would be the_.
0% 10% 20% 30% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 9095100%
4.0 Park Security
Staff did not'
present any...
Add ALPRS
Cameras At...
0% 10% 20% 30% 30% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% =%
5.0 Park Operating Hours
Staff matte no M
dwfinita..
Add
restr'cticMI.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
6.0 Traffic Control At The Intersection Of Forrestal and PVDS
Keep current
practices,.,.
Make It a
requirement...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
7.0 Landscaping of Park Grounds
Staff
recommertdati...
Keep as much
of pment...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% t00%
8.0 Construction Costs
$4,000,000 to
$5,999,999
$6,000,000 to
$7,999,999
$8,000,000 to
$9,999,999
$10,000,000 ',:`
pigs
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
D-50
9.0 Location Of ADA Ramp
Locate ADA'
gate ac..
Locate ADA
gate along a.-
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
10.0 Left Turn Accelerating Lane At Forrestal and PVDS
Yea, I am in
favor of an...
No, I am not
in favor of ...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 804. 90% 100%
D-51
Klatt Waters
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:10 PM
To: Yvetta Williams; CC
Cc: Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda redo and please keep the feeling of the discovery room.
Hi Yvetta,
Thank you for your email. Your comments in favor of maintaining the Discovery Room as part of the Ladera Linda Park
Master Plan will be included in the staff report that will be presented to City Council on March 20, 2018. Please let me
know if you have any additional comments or questions.
Take Care,
Matt
From: Yvetta Williams [mailto:yvetta2@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2018 1:33 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda redo and please keep the feeling of the discovery room.
PLEASE KEEP the Discovery room and PLEASE do not let the Ladera Linda
residents get by with their suggestion for hallway displays and discovery
carts in place of a discovery room. The displays are 'too fragile to be in
portable carts. Adults as well as children need this information. You have a
wonderful nature room now that cannot be duplicated. The room gives an
overall of what is in Palos Verdes. It took years to get all the items
together. It is a great place to teach about what is at Palos Verdes. A lot
of time and effort was spent putting that room together and many of the items
cannot be replaced or duplicated. To some people nature is NOT important and
to others it is ALL important. PLEASE fight for it and know you will NEVER
get another room with everything together like that room. The butterfly
collection is 80 years old and was collected when I was a child and with the
help of a neighbor who was a science teacher myself and my mother, they were
ID's and got mounted. The butterfly garden is very special and Leslie
Williamson is wonderful. Don't throw her away either.
Where would you get another bear skin? It was bought Many years ago and it
is in the room because there were bears all over this area. Children and
adults are really surprised at that. You read about bears going in swimming
pools in Pasadena nearer the mountains. There were bears all over our area
before they were all killed. There is a collection of all the abalone shell
varieties that are in S. Calif and things in our tidal pools and how sea
shells grow. It takes years for a shell to get big enough to see. The shells
were left over from our store when I retired, and are hard to find and some
cannot be sold as they are on the endangered specie list. The display tells
about the peacocks, peahens and peachicks and eggs and how they got to Palos
Verdes. There is a display on the native plants. Hands on rocks and
minerals. Humming birds, raptors, endangered specie birds, ground
squirrels, fox, raccoons, owls, skunks, possums, None of the schools or the
parks have this information. You have something special Please do not let it
get away.
1 D-52
The reptiles, insects, spiders of our area are on display, We need to teach
which are safe and that ALL are our friends and how to act around them and
why we shouldn't kill them. To have wonderful pictures of birds taken by
Steve Wolfe and to find the real bird nest matching the bird is
special. Steve has moved out of the area.
The artifacts of the indigenous people found in the area are special. Palos
Verdes had many different Indio communities and the people went by the name
of the community where they lived. Abalone Cove and Point Vicente were called
Haraasnga. San Nicolas Island was also called Haraasnga and people lived in
both places and boated between them. Haraasnga meant things that stand
up. (Rocks by Terranea) similar looking rocks at San Nicolas island. The
community at White Point was called Tovemungna, the place of the rabbit. They
boated to Catalina Island which was called Pimunga. Soapstone was mined in
Catalina and traded for items the Pimu needed there. The store room that
PVIC is using at Ladera Linda has priceless things from the Indio
communities. One well known community was at Malaga cove area was
Chowingna. Suangna (Place of the reeds now known as Machado Park is where
they got their tules and there is wonderful history. They could boat from the
marsh all the way to the ocean.
The Historical Society has a wonderful collection of artifacts that were at
Malaga Cove school. There should be a room set aside for that exceptional
collection. Where there were fresh water springs there were communities. Many
of those same springs are still running today. Increase the size of the
building to include the history of the early people who lived here before the
European explorers. That would be wonderful!!!
In the discovery room there is a small collection of real artifacts from the
area and displays telling what the native people used for food and about
their trade. We actually need another room just for displays on this area
before the Europeans arrived and before they changed everything. People lived
here for 7-10,000 years and had all they needed to survive. They had an
extensive trade route and took care of their needs. This hasn't been taught
in the schools and we could do it with displays at Ladera Linda. We also
have displays of local fossils and rocks and minerals. It would be very
difficult to get all the items in the discovery room together again. Please
treasure it. Please don't be so short sighted that you destroy what you
already have and which is not available anywhere else in the area. Please
treasure it. I would be very happy to give the council a tour of the
discovery room and share with you the treasures of our area.
Thank you,
YvetLa Williams
2
D-53
Matt Waters
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:20 PM
To: BW Riedman; Cory Linder; Daniel Trautner
Cc: CC; Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Community Center
Hi Betty,
Thank you for your email and for attending last week's Ladera Linda Park Master Plan workshop. I personally appreciate
the great showing of residents at the workshop and the wide range of opinions and ideas. Your general comments
about the plan and your support for maintaining the Discovery Room will certainly be considered by staff and the
consultant and will be included in the staff report that will be presented to the City Council on March 20tH
Take Care,
Matt
From: BW Riedman [mailto:rabbit943@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:53 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
Hi
I just want you to know that I thought the presentation of the proposed plans for the Ladera Linda Community
Center were very well presented. Y'all have worked very hard to try and fit in everything wanted and not
wanted and I think this plan is a good one. Not too big but large enough to accommodate small groups and
events.
As you well know, you cannot please everyone. My take on last night is that the Ladera Linda residents cannot
separate the problems with the hikers/bikers and AYSO from the community center which has NEVER been a
big draw. And the people who do use it are generally residents. I am truly getting tired of the NIMBY attitude
that I see more and more in RPV. If you want to keep the riffraff out, make this a gated community like Rolling
Hills. You say it's for the public but which public? Only the residents that live within so many feet of it?
It seemed to me that the biggest objection, over and over, was the traffic and parking. And I would venture a
guess that 99% of the traffic issues have nothing to do with the community center. And when are all the so-
called "traffic/parking" issues? I would probably be safe in assuming on the weekends when there are AYSO
games and people hiking - very few of which probably don't even bother with the center (other than to use the
bathroom). The traffic situation at the intersection of PVDrive South and Forrestal is another issue entirely and
shouldn't even be in this discussion. Yes, there is an problem at that intersection. The fix is easy - put in a traffic
light with sensors that would favor PVDrive South. BUT! I would bet the folks living on those corners would
howl about that! They don't want the noise of cars stopping and starting or exhaust. OK - put a timer on the light
so it's only active from 7 am to 10 am and from 4 pm to 6 pm (or whenever there is rush hour traffic).
D-54
The Ladera Linda Community Center is the only community center on this side of The Hill. And for people to
object to non -RPV families using it is mean and petty and selfish. You cannot tell me that the people that enjoy
Hesse Park only live in RPV.
Forrestal Nature Reserve is very special. The trails are not that difficult and the vista views are beyond belief.
The residents do not want to share these. I'm sorry, that's not right. And the City cannot be blamed for the so-
called "social media" exposure.
On to the Community Center itself -- Herb's comments re the Discovery Room are specious at most, For one
thing, I think the Discovery Room is a well kept secret. Last night I had two residents tell me that they didn't
even know it existed until they were at Ladera Linda for the Parks event. They and their children were blown
away by the photos and history it represents. Ladera Linda has been rather neglected by the City. No full time
staff (which you say will be corrected) and about the only thing the City has supported has been the school and
organization hikes that are provided by the docents. The Discovery Room was created to not only preserve
items related to RPV and the area but to share them with the children. Perhaps with a full time staff member on-
site, the room can be opened full-time to the public and maybe even a docent assigned on a daily basis to
answer questions, etc.
I hope you have personally gone to check out the Discovery Room and to actually see what it has to offer. It's
very special and a lot of effort was put into it to make it as wonderful, informative and educational as it is.
I know this is rather long but I do hope you will keep the community center as it is now planned. I would
venture to assume that all the same objections will be presented over and over again by the same people every
time you have a community outreach meeting.
Thank you.
Betty Riedman
D-55
Matt Waters
From:
BW Riedman <rabbit943@gmail.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:31 PM
To:
Matt Waters
Subject:
Re: Ladera Linda Community Center
Thanks, Matt.
Wish I could be at the CC meeting. I still strongly feel that the residents' concerns really have nothing to do
with the Community Center per se. It's the current influx hikers and bikers that are the issue (and that is not
going to change) and they will not be using the community center. And their concerns about making it a "view"
park are unfounded. It's not like driving down PVDrive South and seeing the sunset and stopping to take it in.
AND! Even if people did come to the park just to see the sunset, after the sun is gone, it's dark. Now what? Is
the City going to have barbecue pits? Are they afraid that they will stay and do wild and crazy things? Sigh!
Oh well. I'm just one little voice. And the "Less is More" approach (which leads to the NIMBY attitude) sounds
good but it is only benefiting the residents in the immediate vicinity.
Betty
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Matt Waters <MattW�vca. ov> wrote:
Hi Betty,
Thank you for your email and for attending last week's Ladera Linda Park Master Plan workshop. I personally
appreciate the great showing of residents at the workshop and the wide range of opinions and ideas. Your general
comments about the plan and your support for maintaining the Discovery Room will certainly be considered by staff
and the consultant and will be included in the staff report that will be presented to the City Council on March 20tH
Take Care,
Matt
From: BW Riedman [mailto:rabbit943@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 3:53 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>; Cory Linder <CoryL@rpvca.gov>; Daniel Trautner <DanielT@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Community Center
D-56
Hi
I just want you to know that I thought the presentation of the proposed plans for the Ladera Linda Community
Center were very well presented. Y'all have worked very hard to try and fit in everything wanted and not
wanted and I think this plan is a good one. Not too big but large enough to accommodate small groups and
events.
As you well know, you cannot please everyone. My take on last night is that the Ladera Linda residents cannot
separate the problems with the hikers/bikers and AYSO from the community center which has NEVER been a
big draw. And the people who do use it are generally residents. I am truly getting tired of the NIMBY attitude
that I see more and more in RPV. If you want to keep the riffraff out, make this a gated community like
Rolling Hills. You say it's for the public but which public? Only the residents that live within so many feet of
it?
It seemed to me that the biggest objection, over and over, was the traffic and parking. And I would venture a
guess that 99% of the traffic issues have nothing to do with the community center. And when are all the so-
called "traffic/parking" issues? I would probably be safe in assuming on the weekends when there are AYSO
games and people hiking - very few of which probably don't even bother with the center (other than to use the
bathroom). The traffic situation at the intersection of PVDrive South and Forrestal is another issue entirely and
shouldn't even be in this discussion. Yes, there is an problem at that intersection. The fix is easy - put in a
traffic light with sensors that would favor PVDrive South. BUT! I would bet the folks living on those corners
would howl about that! They don't want the noise of cars stopping and starting or exhaust. OK - put a timer on
the light so it's only active from 7 am to 10 am and from 4 pm to 6 pm (or whenever there is rush hour traffic).
The Ladera Linda Community Center is the only community center on this side of The Hill. And for people to
object to non -RPV families using it is mean and petty and selfish. You cannot tell me that the people that enjoy
Hesse Park only live in RPV.
Forrestal Nature Reserve is very special. The trails are not that difficult and the vista views are beyond belief.
The residents do not want to share these. I'm sorry, that's not right. And the City cannot be blamed for the so-
called "social media" exposure.
On to the Community Center itself -- Herb's comments re the Discovery Room are specious at most. For one
thing, I think the Discovery Room is a well kept secret. Last night I had two residents tell me that they didn't
even know it existed until they were at Ladera Linda for the Parks event. They and their children were blown
away by the photos and history it represents. Ladera Linda has been rather neglected by the City. No full time
staff (which you say will be corrected) and about the only thing the City has supported has been the school and
organization hikes that are provided by the docents. The Discovery Room was created to not only preserve
items related to RPV and the area but to share them with the children. Perhaps with a full time staff member
D-57
on-site, the room can be opened full-time to the public and maybe even a docent assigned on a daily basis to
answer questions, etc.
I hope you have personally gone to check out the Discovery Room and to actually see what it has to offer. It's
very special and a lot of effort was put into it to make it as wonderful, informative and educational as it is.
I know this is rather long but I do hope you will keep the community center as it is now planned. I would
venture to assume that all the same objections will be presented over and over again by the same people every
time you have a community outreach meeting.
Thank you.
Betty Riedman
i
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Thursday, March 08, 2018 3:08 PM
To:
Walter Goede
Cc:
Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject:
RE: Comments on Ladera Linda
Dear Mr. Goede,
Thank you for your email and for attending the workshop. Your support of the proposed design and your comments
about maintaining the proposed elements and the building's square footage will be considered by Staff and included in
the March 20th City Council Staff Report.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw@rpvca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291 f
-----Original Message -----
From: Walter Goede [mailto:waltgoede@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:32 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comments on Ladera Linda
I attended the presentations on Feb 21 and found them very interesting and informative. I fully support the plans as
presented.
I was very disturbed by many of the comments made by the local residents. It seems as if they would be happiest if RPV
but up a 10 foot wall around their area with a guarded gate so only those people who lived next to the park could use it.
This is a city resource and needs to be planned with the city best interests in mind while also trying to make sure the
local area isn't negatively impacted. I thought a great compromise was reached in the plan as presented. 1 have lived in
the Mediterranean area for over 40 years and have used the Ladera Linda area frequently.
Although we no longer have young children. we still believe the duty of the city is to plan great facilities for the kids of
the area as well as providing a place for adult education. It seems that many of the "local" residents are at an age
D-59
(similar to ours 70+) where they have forgotten the joy of hearing kids play. RPV is a family community and if they no
longer want to live in a fami►y community they need to move to a seniors retirement community.
Please do not give in to their never ending whining to: reduce the building size, move the basketball and kids parks,
reduce number of parking stalls, do away with the learning center, etc. Do what is right for the kids and the RPV
community. I wish we had such a facility closer to our house.
Thanks & keep up the good work
Walter Goede
31051 Hawksmoor Dr
RPV
310-377-0897
Matt Waters
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 3:14 PM
To: Mickey Rodich <mickeyrodich@gmail.com>
Cc: Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: RE: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Workshop Comments
Hi Mickey,
Thank you for your email about the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. The proposed plan that will be presented to the City
Council on March 20th is the result of extensive public outreach. I appreciate your comments, and your continued
involvement and passionate concern for this project. The ideas and concerns in your email will be included as part of
the Staff Report the will be considered by the City Council. Thanks again and I hope to see you at the meeting.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
,www. Palosverdes. oom/rpv
mattw@rovca.gov - (310) 544-5218 p — (310) 544-5291
From: Mickey Rodich [mailto:mickeyrodich@gmail.coml
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:35 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park Master Plan Workshop Comments
I was unable to attend the Workshop on Feb. 212018, but I was able to discuss the Workshop with some
neighbors that attended the meeting and I also was able to review your online presentation. Even though I was
not able to hear your verbal presentation, I think I got a good idea of what transpired.
During the City Council meeting on Nov. 18,2016, that you referred to in your presentation, the City Council
instructed your department to adhere to the City Council's "Less is More" guidance approach along with
incorporating the immediate residents idea's and concerns in the design of the new Park. That Agenda Report
also stated "The recommendations on what to include (and what not to include) were strongly influenced by
resident feedback received via survey, emails and Workshops". That statement was true only for the initial
Workshops, held prior to this meeting with the discussions centered on swimming pools, gymnasiums, skate
board park and a dog park, which were rejected by the City Council and they then provided you with new
guidance to listen to the desires of the residents.. At that point, after many resident comments, Staff
D-61
recommended a 9,000 sq ft building. During the first Workshop meeting it was the architect that suggested that
there was a possibility of adding up to 40 parking places on Forrestal, but we were told that that was not in the
scope of this project. However later, for some reason, 28 parking places and an upper gate became part of this
project.
Prior to the City Council meeting on August 1.2017, you held additional private meetings with residents and
users to further define what amenities to include in the new Park building. I attended one of these
meetings and reaffirmed the concerns expressed by our residents during their meetings such as: total
cost, security cameras, do not make another Del Cerro Park fiasco, 7,0000 sq ft building to meet
community needs, relocation of noise generating basketball and children's play area, relocate ADA
access, provide traffic control and left turn accelerating lane at Forrestal and PVDS, and retain
existing landscape as much as possible. At this City Council meeting you made another presentation on the
Ladera Linda Park planned design concept. Again the City Council told you to work with the residents to
determine the amenities for the new Park building. One of the biggest issues was the size of the building. The
nearby residences preferred a 7,000 sq ft building, based on the average usage of 4 to 5 per week along with a
much lower parking place requirement. We at Ladera Linda HOA recently conducted a survey to reach a
consensus as to the preferred features for the new Park and the over 80 responses were overwhelmingly in
agreement on the amenities as detailed in my correspondence to you prior to this last meeting.
Reviewing what transpired during the meeting made one thing perfectly clear: The plan that you originally
proposed 2 years ago has not changed at all. You have not listened to our residents for our input. Your minds
were already made up from the beginning. Your answer to our suggestion to provide traffic control and a left
turn accelerating lane at Forrestal and PVDS was that it is not in the scope of this project, however it is a very
critical part of this project and should be considered as part of it. This new park will create traffic problems at
PVDS.
After reviewing the artist renderings I see that the "Less is More" mantra imposed by the City Council does
not apply to this project:
1) On your Floor Plan (page 20), you still show 5 meeting/classrooms. The usage does not justify 5
meeting/classrooms. We only need 3
meeting/classrooms. Also we do not need a Discovery Room. The usage does not justify a
Discovery Room. It can operate just like it does at PVIC.
2) The multipurpose room is chopped off at a sharp angle and has a 261 sq ft staging area, in the middle of
the gallery and not connected to outside
access. There is no minimal kitchen area shown in your plans either.
3) One would think that the Storage areas shown (240 and 295 sq ft) would be connected to each large room
instead of being on the opposite side of the
gallery. Maybe you are planning to use them as future offices?
4) On pages 24 and 25 you show a dry river bed with a bridge. We are not duplicating a downtown Music
Center. I see this feature as being a liability
and not an asset. With all of the architectural (high) concrete steps, river rock, depressions and a bridge, I
see a large liability factor for injuries.
Seniors and small children will have difficulty navigating this area. The daily gardening maintenance costs
will be very high. Whats wrong with a grass
lawn and gentle slopes? This area could even someday become our skate park. Eliminating all of these
unnecessary features could more than pay for
relocating the ADA access to be next to the entry driveway.
5) The Lobby desk should be located so that Staff has unobstructed views of the galleries and likewise the
outside perimeter should not be full of nooks
and crannies for security reasons.
6) The entry court is way too large. You are talking about the Sheriff having line of site access, but this
leaves blind spots.
2
D-62
I am against P3 financing for this project. The 18% to 20% interest rates are a detriment. The total cost for
financing will be far more than double the initial
cost of the project. The same question arose when the San Ramon Canyon project was to be financed. What's
wrong with traditional debt financing or If the City has the funds, as there is in this case, then there is no need
for any kind of financing?
I think there is still time to make this project acceptable to us residents. But again, up till now, nothing was
changed as a result of resident input. After all of the meetings and Workshops, your initial proposal still stands;
nothing has changed to include resident input. Again, no one has paid attention to the residents.
D-63
Matt Waters
From:
Matt Waters
Sent:
Thursday, March 08, 2018 3:24 PM
To:
Herb Stark
Cc:
Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject:
RE: Ladera Linda Park
Hi Herb,
Thank you for your email and for your ongoing involvement in this important community project. The issues you've
raised in your email (and at the workshop) regarding square footage, parking, traffic, basketball court/bldg. relocation,
security, park usage, traffic control, etc... will all be included in the report presented to Council on March 20th. The
amount of resident interest and passion for this project has been tremendous, and I wholeheartedly believe that the
final result will be a source of tremendous pride for the community. Thanks again, Herb, and I look forward to seeing
you at the CC meeting.
Matt
From: Herb Stark [mailto:ptl7stearman@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 8:21 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Ladera Linda Park
On August V2017 2017 the Parks and Recreation staff presented to the City Council the planned conceptual
design for the renovation and upgrading of the Ladera Linda Park. At that time concerned residents
from the local community expressed their concerns. As a result staff was directed to go back to resolve
these outstanding issues before proceeding.
The objective of the February 21St workshop was to present to the community the results of studies to
mitigate the concerns of the residents before going to the City Council for approval of the proposed
development. Unfortunately what was presented did not resolve the resident's issues.
The major concern of the local residents is the fear that Ladera Linda would become another Del Cerro
disaster. The community is already suffering from the affects from AYSO, large unscheduled and non-
regulated trailhead parking and traffic issues. The community feels that depending on how the park is
developed could exasperate the problem.
Ladera Linda is unique in that there is only one entrance to the park, trailhead and the residential area
with limited parking.
The community is also concerned with the rising crime rate in the area and as the popularity of the new
park and trailhead becomes known, through mulita media, the problem will become worse. Even under
the present circumstance the residents are considering obtaining an outside security service.
Here again the Ladera Linda community is unique in that it is located near the high crime community
of San Pedro in the city of Los Angeles with the potential of crime spilling over into the community.
0M
As a result the residents asked that the city staff address the following issues:
1. Building Size to meet community needs only
2. Relocate the children's area and basketball courts to reduce noise to the residents along
Forrestal
3. Eliminate parking along Forrestal and relocate the ADA ramp on Forrestal
4. Increase park and residential security by adding ALPRS cameras on Forrestal
5. Limit park hours and use
6. Provide Traffic control during events and a left turn acceleration lane at the intersection of
Forrestal and PV Drive South
7. Maintain the park landscape as much as possible to provide view protection of the residents
along Forrestal and the Seaview residential homes
What was presented at the workshop was the same layout that was rejected by the community at the
August 1St 2017 City Council meeting. Staff's position is that the traffic and parking issues are driven
by the reserve and AYSO and not the park. The residents' position is that the redevelop park could
become an attractive nuisance if not developed properly adding to the problem. Staff agreed to restrict
the parking along Forrestal but that relocating the ADA ramp would be too costly. Staff suggested that
maybe the City should pay for AYSO traffic control.
They totally rejected reducing the size of the building, increasing the size of the Discovery Room and
adding a patio. The Discovery Room is seldom used nor manned and when used it supports the Los
Serenos Outreach Program for Title i children from outside the community. In fact at the workshop one
of the docents stated that there was no other place to store valuable artifacts. At $400 per sq. ft., or
$408,000, this becomes a very expensive storage facility. The elimination of the small classroom will
also save an additional $317,000. This savings should be more than enough to offset the cost of
relocating the ADA ramp. Further, the docents have never been able to staff the Discovery Room,
since it was established, and if retained the docents should be required to provide a docent on site
during operating hours.
To put salt in the wound, the one thing the community wanted was a large conference room to hold
association meetings and events. What staff proposed was a slightly smaller room than presently exists
and a shape that make it inefficient to use. It seemed that the staff was more interested in the esthetics
of the building than providing a functional layout.
When the issue of security came up there was no discussion of adding ALPRS cameras but to cut the
hedges down along Forrestal so the Sheriff can drive along Forrestal and look into the park. This raised
a privacy issue with the residents that live along Forrestal. Right now the present hedge height prevents
park visitors from looking into their backyards and bedroom windows.
On the other side of the park staff proposes to replace the present hedges with hedges that will allow
visitors an ocean view. This presents a problem with the Seaview residents as it would allow visitors
to look down into their backyards. Staff indicated that the new hedges would be wide enough to prevent
that. If this is the plan it needs to be stipulated in any landscaping agreement. Unfortunately, ocean
views attract visitors.
i
D-65
Parks staff readily admits in their proposal for the park there will be "some increase in usage" of the
new facilities. Obviously the residents are all worried it could be significantly higher than they anticipate
unless the facility is scaled back and opening up panoramic views are eliminated.
Adding to this the City's ill-conceived plan of adding traffic calming bicycle lanes along PV Drive South
could very well make Ladera Linda Park a trailhead for bicycle clubs.
The bottom line is our desire NOT to have the new Ladera Linda Park become a destination attraction
that will be advertised on Social Media and draw large crowds from outside our City with the related
traffic congestion such as the Del Cerro Park disaster. This Park should be designed to satisfy the
needs of our local residents. It also seems prudent to resolve the current traffic and parking issues
before updating the park.
The residents are very concerned about crime, noise, parking, traffic congestion and they do not want
the new facility to become a trail -head information center for the reserve or bicycle clubs. Our
Survey of residents showed that the vast majority favor a low profile Park.
Herb Stark
Rancho Palos Verdes
3 D-66
Matt Waters
From: Matt Waters
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 3:34 PM
To: Robert Nelson <nelsongang@aol.com>
Cc: Cory Linder; Matt Waters
Subject: RE: Comment, Questions re Ladera Linda Parks Master Plan
sff
I apologize for the delay in responding to your email. Thank you for your thoughtful email about the financial
implications and potential funding mechanisms for this project. While the Feb. 21 had some overview information
about potential alternatives, the March 20' Staff Report to the City Council on will go into more detail. The public
absolutely has the right to voice their opinion about the project in general and about the financing (and potential
interest implications) aspects. The Issues in your email will be part of the March 20 Staff report.
Sincerely,
Matt Waters
Senior Administrative Analyst
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.palosverdes.com/rpv
mattw(a_rpvca.gov - ]310) 544-5218 p -- (310) 544-5291 f
°= xs
From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2018 4:00 PM
To: Matt Waters <MattW@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Comment, Questions re Ladera Linda Parks Master Plan
Matt,
This is written as a private citizen
Though we were unable to attend your Feb 21 Master Plan presentation I did go through your Power Point and have the
following comments and questions:
1. It is obvious you have put a great deal of thought, analysis and plan expertise into your Feb 21, 2018 presentation. As
you recognize, until Council firms up any construction bid to include what they want and, therefore, will approve, the
number is fluid. And, as those of us who have spent any time in planning, costing and scheduling know, whatever you
have planned - will then change and continue to change throughout construction.
2. You note a guess at Ladera Linda costing $7 million
D-67
Question: does that include interest over 30 years repayment? Usually your constructions costs can be doubled to find the
real 'consumer' cost of a project. As with your mortgage, amount financed plus interest will be actual cost. RPV citizens
will pay that number for Ladera Linda. That's $14 million, not $7 million. It's a 'cost to consumer' calculation. We do
'consumer cost' with staff salaries by showing RPV citizens their city's actual budgeted staff pay includes benefits the staff
member never sees but for which we pay.
3. Question:
Can RPV voters assume they will have a say in approving any incurred debt and total debt repayments for our Council
approved amount, lets say $14 million including construction + interest, be it P3 or any other debt form? We were founded
as a 'low tax' city and are facing nearly a hundred million dollar debt figure to accomplish our Council's Ladera Linda, City
Hall and Landslide projects. That's a heavy RPV citizen tax burden on top of things like RPV's unfunded pensions liability.
Many hope our Council will give their citizens a say in whether their city should assume these debts, even if only shown in
their RPV budget, that is, financed using a technique not requiring citizen vote. Again, we are a low tax city.
And again, in accord with our RPV Rules and Procedures, written as a private citizen
Bob Nelson
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/01/2017
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to review and approve the Ladera Linda Park Master
Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review and approve the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan and direct Staff to
proceed with developing an RFP for detailed construction drawings for the
project.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst ,y
REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director of Recreation & Parks l�
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager;IA/i
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. April 26, 2017, Public Workshop Minutes (page A-1)
B. April 26, 2017, Workshop PowerPoint presentation (page B-1)
C. Ladera Linda Master Plan Summary of Community Comments (page C-1)
D. Correspondence received during Public Workshop comment period (April
26 — May 10, 2017) (page D-1)
E. Ladera Linda Correspondence received after comment period (page E-1)
F. October 18, 2016 City Council Ladera Linda Update Staff report (page F-
1)
G. Estimate of Probable Construction Costs (page G-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
Ladera Linda Park has served the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes well since its
opening in 1983, following a long tenure as an elementary school. Generations of
residents and visitors enjoyed the site both as a school and as a park and community
center. However, the pre -fabricated buildings and infrastructure of this community jewel
are currently in poor condition. A 2013 Infrastructure Report Card prepared by SA
Associates, an engineering firm hired to assess the current condition of existing public
structures in the City, noted that the Ladera Linda Community Center received an
E-1
overall infrastructure score of "F" (FAIL). The report notes that Ladera Linda buildings
are prefabricated, assembled -on-site interlocking metallic panel construction structures
built in the 1960s. The report notes that "maintenance is no longer effective", the
buildings are "seismically questionable", "not ADA compliant", with "no ventilation and
no operating heating/cooling system", "no sprinkler system", and notes the buildings are
not energy efficient based on thermal infrared testing. The report also references
concerns about lead-based paint and the presence of asbestos in floor and ceiling tiles
and other building materials. The report includes the following recommendation for four
of the five buildings:
Recommendation: (1) Given the potential costs associated with
renovation, the cost of maintenance, and the fact that the building is an
energy hog, a new facility might be a better investment. (2) The
remediation of the building is unreasonable for the overall Return on
Investment. (3) For the time being, at a minimum, seismic retrofitting
should be considered.
For the fifth building, which consists of a classroom, two restrooms, and a janitors'
closet, the report recommends a seismic retrofitting along with renovation of the existing
restrooms "at a minimum." Based on that analysis, Staff recommended that the
buildings be demolished and rebuilt in the Parks Master Plan Update that the City
Council approved in 2015.
On September 1, 2015, the City Council directed Staff to issue a Request for Proposals
(RFP) for the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan. Demolition of the existing buildings and
the building of a new community center at Ladera Linda were part of the scope of the
Parks Master Plan Update that was approved by City Council on October 6, 2015. On
October 19, 2015, Staff issued RFPs to design firms for the creation of a Ladera Linda
Parks Master Plan. Richard Fisher Associates (RFA), a firm that has completed well
over a hundred park master plan and development projects, was selected by the City
Council on June 6, 2016.
Following formal approval of the project, RFA began work on the Master Plan in early
September 2016. Since that time, RFA has met with Staff, conducted preliminary site
and document research, held several site visits, met with a variety of interested parties
and other users of the facility, and co -hosted a community workshop at Ladera Linda on
September 22, 2016, which was attended by over 80 people. A number of concerns
about the process and the Master Plan project were raised, both at that workshop and
in subsequent emails.
Due to these concerns, Staff presented a status update to the City Council on October
18, 2016 (Attachment F). After hearing a number of resident comments on issues
ranging from the size of the new building, storage, traffic, safety concerns and a support
for a "less is more" philosophy in park planning, the City Council unanimously voted to
receive and file the update report. Based on feedback from residents and City Council,
RFA and Staff proceeded with creating two alternative designs for Ladera Linda Park.
2
E-2
These two designs were presented to the public at a public workshop held on April 26,
2017, at the Ladera Linda Community Center (Attachments A & B). At that workshop,
Staff and RFA presented a detailed comparison of the two designs and solicited public
comments, questions, and concerns. Approximately 60 people attended the workshop.
Both designs embraced community and City Council feedback in the following ways:
• Reduced building square footage/footprint
• Maintain existing elements
• Low-key, neighborhood feel
• No gymnasium, pool, or dog park
• New community center, trails, nature room
• Constraints on usage
• Modest/restrained design scope
• Traffic/parking Impact
• Emphasis on crime and security
Concept A
Yu\W V: nM>xMwrt.1�
J� 11'un'Ca JvsYtl llv�
waJafp
W+w.aofa.Lt�6Y!
Ie1w:�alnal
>4
_ naeu�urmaTu.mm.!
- omrav low�ywa.mu:
nvrai wrurq
eaewenii RRJrtv -.
3
E-3
Concept B
I
r,, cycy,
t,
14 l�1 4
Both Concept A and B contain the same components. No recreation components were
added that do not currently exist at Ladera Linda Community Center. Both plans also
included grading to make the current separated three -tiered layout to the park flow more
seamlessly.
The main differences between the two plans were the location of the Community Center
building, the configuration of the parking lot, and the park entrance location. Plan A
maintained the existing entrance drive way, featured a more central building location,
and divided the parking lot into two main sections, one section located on the paddle
tennis level and the other between the building and playground/turf area. Plan B shifted
the park entrance driveway to Pirate Drive, located the building in the Northeast corner
of the park on the paddle tennis level, and had one central parking lot.
The Recommended Concept: Concept A-1
Extensive public feedback and City Council direction informed the creation of the
recommended concept below (Concept A-1). Many of the ideas and comments from
the April 26th workshop and subsequent emails were incorporated into the final
recommended design (Attachments C, D & E). The general feedback received from
4
E-4
residents was that Staff and RFA had been responsive to the local community's desires
when putting together the recommended design.
f
Attachment C combines the responses received both at the April 26th workshop and in
the subsequent two-week comment period. Concept A was the clearly -preferred option,
with 22 favorable responses compared to five in favor of Concept B. Additionally, the
Ladera Linda Homeowners Association met on April 27th and voted to support Concept
A. The only other issues that registered over ten responses were: a) moving one or
both basketball courts from the proposed paddle tennis level to the lower level of the
park next to the playground equipment; and b) expanding parking to include spaces
along Forrestal Drive.
The re -positioning of the basketball courts addressed potential noise impacts on
residents to the west of the park while also accommodating families who want to use
the courts and the playgrounds at the same time. Based on this feedback, Concept A
was modified to accommodate the relocation of the basketball courts. This is not only a
standard park design configuration, but it also helped minimize the impact on the
adjacent turf area. The shift of the basketball courts necessitated a re -positioning of the
butterfly garden and the addition of some additional landscaping to the west of the
paddle tennis courts.
5
E-5
Forrestal Drive parking was not included in either Concept A or B, but due to the strong
community response, a basic layout was included in the recommended design. While
viewpoints were mixed, most speakers and respondents were in favor of having parking
on Forrestal Drive to accommodate people accessing the Forrestal Reserve. Concerns
were expressed that if parking is not allowed, Forrestal Reserve users will either take up
parking spaces intended for park visitors, or simply park in neighborhoods adjacent to
the park. The recommended design (A-1) includes 28 parking spaces located at the
end of Forrestal Drive. A turn -around area for equestrian trailers is included. A gate is
proposed at the end of Forrestal Drive to stop vehicular access into the Forrestal
Reserve. Staff would be able to secure both the existing Forrestal Drive gate and the
proposed gate at dusk to minimize possibility of un -permitted nighttime access.
Dozens of other comments and suggestions were made including community center
views (pro and con), security cameras, shaded areas, lighting, and privacy concerns.
Many of these concerns will be accommodated and addressed during the construction
design phase of the project, if approved.
Below is a list of the recommended design's main components. The existing park has
all of the same components; no additional recreation elements have been added.
• Community Center (same size and design in both layouts, approximately 9,100
Square Feet)
• Outdoor basketball courts (1 full court/1 half court)
• Children playground areas (Ages 2-5 and 5-12)
• Parking
• Outdoor Butterfly garden
• Turf areas
• Extensive Landscaping
• Walking trails
• Paddle Tennis Courts (existing)
• Separate storage building
• Drinking fountains, benches, picnic tables and other park amenities
• Trees for shade
• Perimeter fencing
• Two parking areas (65 total parking spaces)
• Walkways
• Park sign
6
E-6
Community Center Building: Recommended Design
As mentioned previously, the proposed community center was the same size (9,137
square feet) and same layout in both Concept A and Concept B. Based on community
feedback, the building was significantly reduced in size from the current combined
13,500 square footage of the 5 buildings at Ladera Linda Park. The proposed building
includes the following components:
• A 1,748 -square -foot multi-purpose room which can be divided in half.
• Two classrooms, one 883 square feet and the other 798 square feet
• A 1,026 -square -foot Discovery/Nature Room
• A drop-in office for Sheriff and Open Space personnel, and City Council
• Staff office
• Storage
• Restrooms
• Kitchen/staging area adjacent to multi-purpose room
• Lobby area and corridor space
The classrooms, multi-purpose room, and Discovery Room are approximately the same
size as similar components at the current Ladera Linda Park layout. The building size is
700 square feet smaller than the Hesse Park Community Building, which is
approximately 9,880 square feet.
The April 26th workshop included a lively discussion about views, with some residents
wanting to maximize the building's views while others expressed concerns that
impressive views might attract too much rental activity. The current building design
takes a conservative approach to views, emphasizing the activities that will take place in
the building, e.g. classes, HOA meetings, summer programs, etc. The exterior areas of
7
E-7
the park will feature greatly improved views, especially with the building moved to the
east against the natural slope.
The overlay diagram below shows the size of the proposed building (in gray) compared
to the size of the current size of the Ladera Linda set of buildings (in blue). Please note
that this diagram does not show the new building's proposed location. The proposed
new building is shown over the location of the site's current buildings.
Cost Estimate/Financial Information
The Ladera Linda Park and Community Center project was included in the 2015 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) as an estimated $7.2 million project. This estimate was
created before the Ladera Linda Master Plan process commenced.
RFA's scope of work included generating a preliminary construction cost estimate
(Attachment G). The estimate details 59 line items, including mobilization, demolition,
building a community center, landscaping, grading, parking, fencing, playground and
basketball courts construction, park amenities, lighting and signage. The construction
project total is estimated at $7,657,800. This does not include any contingency, nor
does it include the cost of the construction drawings and community input stage
($350,000), because that is already budgeted. The arch itect/engineers used to develop
the construction ready documents would be chosen through an RFP. The largest single
item is the construction of the community center which is estimated at $4,222,500.
These figures are preliminary estimates and there are many variables which impact
them. A more specific budget would be developed after construction drawings are
completed and released for bid.
After speaking with several construction estimators and construction engineers, Staff
believes that value engineering efforts can significantly lower the estimated cost during
the construction document and bidding phase. In addition, there are a wide range of
financing possibilities and opportunities to possibly minimize the City's financial impact.
• Staff believes that a number of grant funding opportunities from a variety of
sources, including State and County grant programs, might be obtained. These
could be grants from anything from playground equipment, to drought tolerant
landscaping and pervious paving. We would recommend turning over every
stone to research and apply for any grants that might apply to any aspect of this
project.
• Staff recommends that the City Council should consider developing this project
with a Public/Private Partnership model (P3). P3s are projects that are financed
and developed by private development companies. The private company owns
and maintains the building for a specific period of time during which time the
building is leased back to the public agency for a lease period of 25-30 years. At
the end of the lease period, ownership of the project is turned over to the public
agency, and the City would own the asset outright for the rest of its useable life,
typically another 20-30 years. A P3 is a viable option for a project even of this
small size. Advantages of a P3 can mean a quicker construction and
development schedule; a lower project cost (possibly by as much as 20%); and
much lower upfront costs to the public agency. A lease payment for a project of
this size could be as low as $200,000/year for a 30 year lease term.
• Unencumbered Quimby funds of $800,000 are also available and are restricted
for use to Parks and Recreation facilities. Staff recommends that $750,000 of
those funds be applied to the construction costs of this project.
Phasing is sometimes considered in park projects. Staff has looked at phasing as an
option but it doesn't appear to benefit this project and thus, Staff does not recommend
phasing. The two natural phases of this project are (1) the Community Center building
and (2) the exterior landscaping and park components. To build a building and have it
surrounded by an undeveloped or non -landscaped park doesn't seem to give the
community what it wants. Alternatively, to demolish the current dilapidated buildings and
complete the exterior landscaping and park while leaving the Community Center to a
later date also doesn't seem to give the community what it desires. Moreover, under this
last scenario, constructing the Community Center after the exterior park improvements
ends up turning much of the site into a construction zone and exterior improvements
would need to be repaired or redone after the construction of the Community Center is
complete. Doing the necessary grading and site prep to reshape the whole park into a
unified, organic whole would be problematic in a phased construction approach. So,
phasing doesn't appear to be a viable option for this project. In addition, as construction
9
E-9
costs continue to rise (The Turner Building Cost Index increased by 4.96% from the 2nd
quarter of 2016 to the 2nd quarter of 2017), phasing this project would also likely
translate to the City paying for increased construction costs down the road.
Subsequent to City Council approval of the Master Plan or at the City Council's
direction, Staff can bring back a more detailed budget for Ladera Linda, along with
alternative and recommended financing approaches.
An additional $61,000 for Forrestal Road parking improvements is listed as a separate
item in Attachment G. This potential element is located outside of the park boundaries,
but it is included for City Council consideration because of the potential impact on the
adjacent park property. This project could be constructed using existing funds in the
Public Works Department budget.
ADDITIONAL MASTER PLAN RELATED ISSUES:
City Council's "Less is More" Philosophy
The recommended design is intended to follow the City Council's emphasis on a "less is
more" approach to park planning, which was established during the Parks Master Plan
Update process which was approved in October 2015. The interior and exterior
components closely mirror current uses on site. Large-scale recreation elements such
as a pool, gym, dog park and skate park are not included. No elements that were
opposed by the community during the Parks Master Plan process are included.
Below are the Parks Master Plan recommendations for Ladera Linda Park that helped
guide this process.
2015 PARK MASTER PLAN UPDATE RECOMMENDATIONS
Development of New Community Center
• Develop facilitated Master Plan and public outreach process for
development of new Ladera Linda Park Community Center.
• Incorporate expanded Nature Center/Preserve Annex and
Sheriff/Ranger drop-in office into Master Plan Process
• Upon completion of Master Plan Process, proceed with demolition of
existing buildings and construction of new Community Center
Additional Enhancements: Recommendations below should be
done in conjunction with Community Center development
• Pave access road between lower and middle parking lots
• Improve landscaping on existing multi -use playing field
• Upgrade surfacing of current asphalt play area:; Keep two basketball
courts
• Transition to drought -tolerant landscaping where feasible
• Install interior paddle tennis fencing separating the two courts
• Replace current railroad tie stairs with concrete stairs
10
E-10
Staffing_ Levels
Ladera Linda Park is currently staffed by one part-time Staff member per shift who is
overseen by a full-time Recreation Supervisor. The new building would likely increase
staffing to two part-time Staff per shift with one full-time Supervisor. This is comparable
to staffing levels at Hesse Park and the Point Vicente Interpretive Center (PVIC). A mix
of Sheriff's personnel and 4 Open Space Management Staff would only use their office
for periodic drop-in use, since the vast majority of their time will be spent performing
public safety monitoring in the Nature Preserve. Open Space Staff and the Sheriff's
Preserve deputies are already using existing office space for a drop-in office. The drop-
in office could also be used by City Council members to meet with constituents. Several
docents might stop by occasionally to lead a tour of the Discovery/Nature Center room
or work on artifacts, just as they do now.
Alternative Storage Locations
Because of its large foot print and numerous rooms, Ladera Linda Park has been used
as an informal storage and workplace area for many years by groups such as Las
Candalistas and the Los Serenos Docents. The proposed new building does not
include storage space for non -profits or community organizations. It is anticipated that
appropriate storage for the Docents' artifacts and supplies will be established at PVIC.
This location is much better suited for this purpose, since the Docent's activities are
largely centered at PVIC. Las Candalistas has been notified and has graciously
accepted that storage will not be available for their organization once the
demolition/construction process begins.
Level of Activity
Many residents expressed a desire to keep the types of use and the levels of activities
similar to current levels. Ladera Linda Park has been a community park since 1983 and
will continue to be so. Below are some steps being taken to ensure that the Master Plan
process is in line with Council's direction to be respectful of park impacts on adjacent
neighbors while maintaining a low-key, community feel.
First, as mentioned before, the Master Plan will have no significant added elements: no
pool, gym, skate park, or dog park. Second, there will be a significantly smaller
community center footprint than currently exists, which will allow for more green space
and safe areas for children to play outside. A nature center and Sheriff's and Open
Space Management drop-in office are already on site and are being considered for the
new site. There will still be classes, HOA meetings, summer camps and paddle tennis
at Ladera Linda Park.
Third, park policies will be established during this process that will effectively manage
the type and number of events that are allowed, as well as hours and noise levels.
These policies will be created with extensive feedback from local residents who are both
most knowledgeable of and most affected by park usage. Staff will coordinate usage
with AYSO and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District to mitigate parking
and traffic impact during their busiest times.
Next Steps
Pending City Council approval of the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan, Staff would
develop an RFP process for City Council review to identify and select a consultant to
create construction -ready documents for this important community project. RFA
estimates that the total project process, including the creation and approval of
construction documents, pre -constructions, demolition and construction would take at
least 18-24 months.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council's consideration:
1. Choose not to approve the Ladera Linda Park Master Plan.
2. Provide direction to Staff regarding particular aspects of the Plan.
12
E-12
Tor
- W��c
I A D I R A LINDA
(OMMUNITY PARK
F-1
O
- owig Nci
� n
Og i pz ❑ 0� N r
n
O
GALLERY
O
N
N Z
O
CAg rn DZ
D g
�rnT�fl-1
�N�D11
�vrn O
yAy
�' 7D
O
- owig Nci
� n
Og i pz ❑ 0� N r
n
O
GALLERY
O
N
N Z
O
ro
N A T A Ai A
r O ( y[
0
ry
i
j
01-0 , "POL
HOOR PIAN
F-2
D g
y fi
O
yAy
o O
0
O
a m
m l�
ro
N A T A Ai A
r O ( y[
0
ry
i
j
01-0 , "POL
HOOR PIAN
F-2
. �. v
✓ xy 7
41
E, � ,� rad' r ., ,�,,, '��' _!''�'�•'.�_ ' ��
�► �' 025 IF i+ i
1 ol
i '
' If ;�' Yom• `\' � .� (f,,. a .`�}.•. �, d_, .�,�, T t. �'r..
A' ,,,�• it` orii-, � . ,� i � ° ' � �.' 1.''}` �' ///`
At
tin
ct'
• 4.
;gi Ilk �.
ilk
it
-W sag
ii
i
NEIG
HBORHOO
D
?��: �, . �
ss#.k _��-��
T
-;� ,:...
,;
.,
�.,- „, �.
�1 --
_—_ /� .
j� _ r �
ori ":— �ri..�.._._
� .�
.�
.�
�•
c
:l r
-;� ,:...
,;
.,
�.,- „, �.
�1 --
_—_ /� .
j� _ r �
ori ":— �ri..�.._._
F-5
1
;a
�, � !
� �
���.;
��+
�,
�'�� a.
1�,�� ;
�E
� ' ���„
•�u
.'S � 7 /
�� � 3
�� �i
ILA'.
will
.W60
OWN
OWN
mac
Rim
010-4 �-P-
11lir'' d
l
Ail, 11 mA I
I -No
;MEN
NJSJI.�
.4wi —Row
t:[.E, �� t1` y ` �+ .
-4,
I',- MIJ
� nq"
Rim
-lama
O..L
�r-
s
,'
'
�--•;ILS
1
O..L
�r-
Ir yzll�
a
a
4h,
4b 4b 4b
.
to
1 41
I
I
ix
r
-77
LOS ANGELES - TULSA - CLEVELAND
19528 VENTURA BOULEVARD, # 268, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 91356
V/F (800) 704-4193 WWW.PRIORITY1ENVIRONMENTAL.COM
DECEMBER 18, 2017
PROJECT # P 1 E 2017-11-011
SUBJECT SITE
LADERA LINDA PARK
32201 FORRESTAL DRIVE,
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
APNS: 7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910,
7564001911, 7564001912, AND 7564001913
LAT: 33.737981, LONG: -118.34854
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT
30940 HAWTHORNE BLVD,
RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA 90275
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM
800-704-4193 - OFFICE/FAX
G-1
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
APNs: 7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910, 7564001911, 7564001912, and 7564001913
Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
2.0 INTRODUCTION
6
2.1
Location and Legal Description
6
2.2
Site and Vicinity General Characteristics
6
2.3
Description of Improvements on Property
6
2.4
Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
7
2.5
Purpose
7
2.6
Detailed Scope -of -Work
7
2.7
Significant Assumptions
8
2.8
Limitations and Exceptions
8
2.9
Special Terms and Conditions
8
2.10
User Reliance
9
3.0 USER
PROVIDED INFORMATION
9
3.1
Title Records
9
3.2
Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations
9
3.3
Specialized Knowledge
9
3.4
Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
9
3.5
Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
9
3.6
Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information
9
3.7
Reason for Performing Phase 1
9
3.8
Other
9
4.0 RECORDS
REVIEW
10
4.1
EDR Map Findings
10
4.2
Subject Site
14
4.3
Surrounding Properties
14
4.4
Orphan Properties
14
4.5
Physical Setting Sources
15
4.6
Sanborn Insurance Maps
15
4.7
Historical Aerial Photographs
15
PRIORITY
I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 2
OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-2
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
4.8 Historical Topographic Maps
16
4.9 City Directories
17
4.10 Building Records
17
5.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE
18
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
18
5.2 Subject Property Reconnaissance
18
5.3 Detailed Observations
19
6.0 INTERVIEWS
21
6.1 Interview with Owner or Site Manager
21
6.2 Interview with Local Government Officials
21
7.0 EVALUATIONS
23
7.1 Findings
23
7.2 Opinions
24
7.3 Conclusions
24
7.4 Recommendations
24
7.5 References
24
7.6 Professional Signature
25
8.0 NON -SCOPE SERVICES
26
9.0 APPENDIX
26
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 3 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-3
Priority Environmental
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Recreation and Parks Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Attn: Matt Waters
PRIORITY ONE ENVIRONMENTAL
LOS ANGELES - TULSA - CLEVELAND
19528 VENTURA BOULEVARD, O 288, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 91358
VIF (800) 7044193 WWW.PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL.COM
Subject: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for
Ladera Linda Park
32201 Forrestal Drive,
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
APNs: 7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910,
7564001911, 7564001912, and 7564001913.
Los Angeles County
Lat: 33.737981 Long: -118.34854
Dear Mr. Waters:
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
As requested by Mr. Matt Waters of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Recreation and Parks Department, we have
prepared an Environmental Site Assessment (Phase 1) for the property known as Ladera Linda Park, located at 32201
Forrestal Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. The property is identified by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs)
7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910, 7564001911, 7564001912, and 7564001913. This report was
produced in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments Process (ASTM 1527-13) and is in general
compliance with the All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) rule.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted for the subject property, the Opinion, Conclusions and
Recommendations are provided below.
Findings
1) Site Legal Description: The subject property consists of seven parcels, collectively known as Ladera Linda
Park, located at 32201 Forrestal Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. The property is identified by the
Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910, 7564001911,
7564001912, and 7564001913.
2) Site History: In 1928, the subject property was vacant land. From 1947 to 1963, roads run through the
property to the quarry operation to the north and northeast. Some vehicles and possible equipment are visible
in the 1963 aerial photograph. By 1967, the quarry operations to the north had stopped and the property was
redeveloped with the three graded pads. The five -existing structures were constructed at this time and used
by the Rancho Palos Verdes Unified School District as Ladera Linda Elementary. The school operated until
1989. Rancho Palos Verdes Parks and Recreation Department took over operations. From 1993 to 2011, a
Montessori School leased several classrooms. The site is currently the Ladera Linda Community Center.
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 4 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-4
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
3) Site Observation: The subject site is currently the Ladera Linda Community Center. No significant staining
was observed throughout the indoor and outdoor grounds of the subject property.
4) Summary of Historical Maps and Aerial Photographs: Based on the aerial photos and topographic maps
of the site, as well as the assessor records, the subject property's building was constructed circa 1967.
5) Local Records Review: The subject address was not listed in the Los Angeles County Public Works online
file review for Storm Water, Industrial Waste, and Underground Storage tanks. No records were found with
the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The site was not listed in with the State Water Resource Control
Board website GEOTRACKER. The subject address was listed under the Department of Toxic Substance
Control website ENVIROSTOR; however, upon further review this is case is located on the Rancho Palos
Verde Unified School District property to the north.
6) EDR Findings for Subiect Site: The subject property was listed in Environmental Records Sources searched
under the RESPONSE, ENVIROSTOR and Cortese databases; however, upon further review, this pertain to
the property to the north which is owned by the Rancho Palos Verde Unified School District. This site is
discussed in section 4.3 Surrounding Properties.
7) EDR Radius Report Findings:
EDR reports one (1) RESPONSE site within the searched parameters of the subject property.
EDR reports two (2) ENVIROSTOR sites within the searched parameters of the subject property.
EDR reports one (1) WMUDS/SWAT site within the searched parameters of the subject property.
The Orphan Site List was Review. Three (3) Orphan Sites were reviewed. Of the three sites listed, no sites
were within the searched radius of the subject property.
Opinions
8) General Site Condition: The subject property is currently used as a Public Community Center. The interior
and exterior grounds were free of significant staining during the visual site inspection and no hazardous
materials in reportable quantities are stored on the subject property.
9) Recognized Environmental Conditions: No Recognized Environmental Conditions related to the subject
property were found during the visual site inspection and review of available records.
10) Environmental Business Risks: Based on the age of the structures located on the subject property, the
potential of asbestos containing material and lead-based paint to exist on site is very high. Prior to any
demolition work, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey should be conducted.
11) EDR Radius Report Review: The cases listed in the EDR report are not anticipated to impact the subject
property at this time, based on the type of listings, distance to the subject site, and additional information
located in Geotracker and EnviroStor databases.
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 5 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-5
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
Conclusions
12) We have performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations
of ASTM Practice El 527-13 forthe subject property, which consists of seven parcels, known as Ladera Linda
Park, located at 32201 Forrestal Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. The property is identified by the
Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910, 7564001911,
7564001912, and 7564001913. The subject property was listed in Environmental Records Sources searched
under the RESPONSE, ENVIROSTOR and Cortese databases; however, upon further review, this pertain to
the property to the north which is owned by the Rancho Palos Verde Unified School District. Any exceptions
to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the Limitations Section of this report. This assessment has
revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property.
Recommendations
Additional Environmental Investigations are not recommended at this time; however, prior to any significant
remodel or demolition work on the property an asbestos and lead-based paint survey should be conducted.
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Location and Legal Description
The subject property consists of seven parcels, collectively known as Ladera Linda Park, located at 32201 Forrestal
Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. The property is identified by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs)
7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910, 7564001911, 7564001912, and 7564001913. A site vicinity
map and a generalized location map are located on in Appendix 9.2.
2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics
The subject property is located in in the southwest side of the Palos Verdes peninsula, in Los Angeles County and
located roughly 1,000 feet to the north of the intersections of Palos Verdes Drive S and Forrestal Drive on the west-
southwest side of north trending Forrestal Drive. Surrounding properties consists of unified school district property
to the northwest, residential housing tracts to the south, southwest and southeast properties, and vacant land to the
north and east.
2.3 Description of Improvements on Property
The subject property consists of an approximately 11.4 -acre parcel with five single -story modular buildings, each
building is roughly 2,883 sqft single -story, located in the west center portion of the property. Concrete walkways
among landscaped grass lands connect the buildings to an asphalt parking lot to the east. The asphalt parking lot
connects to a driveway leading up to the hill to the east-southeast towards the subject street. The area east-northeast
of the buildings consists of a fenced storage area. The south portion of the property consists of asphalt basketball
courts, grass fields and sand covered playground. The north portion of the subject property consist of a tennis court,
grass field, playground and a shipping container stored emergency supplies A fenced area with storage containers used
by public works is located in the north most corner of the subject property.
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 6 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-6
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
2.4 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
Direction
Type of Use
North
Soccer Fields — Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District Property.
East
Vacant land and residential single-family housing tract.
South
Residential single-family housing tract.
West
Residential single-family housing tract.
2.5 Purpose
The purpose of this Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment is to identify to the extent feasible recognized
environmental conditions (REC) in connection with the property. Following the processes prescribed by the AAI rule
and in ASTM Standard E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment process.
❖ As defined by ASTM E1527-13, §1.1.1, the term "recognized environmental conditions" is defined as
follows: "The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum products in, on or at a
property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the
environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De
minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions."
❖ As defined by ASTM E1527-13, §3.2.18, the term "controlled recognized environmental condition" is
defined as follows: "A recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous
substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory
authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting
risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products
allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use
restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). "
❖ As defined by ASTM E1527-13, §3.2.42, the term "historical recognized environmental condition" is defined
as follows: "A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in
connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority
or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to
any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional
controls, or engineering controls). "
2.6 Detailed Scope -of -Work
The scope of work performed for this Phase 1 Environmental report includes:
➢ Collecting and reviewing available environmental related information concerning the property and other data
pertinent to the specific site per the ASTM standard 1527;
➢ Conducting a site visit to observe current site uses, observe adjacent land use, and gather data on possible
spills, or misuse of chemicals that could be considered a REC;
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 7 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-7
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
➢ Contracting appropriate regulatory personnel, and reviewing regulatory files regarding the property in
question.
No additional non -scope considerations per Section 13 of ASTM 1527-13 were included in this Phase 1 Report
including sections 13.1.5.1 to 13.1.5.14.
2.7 Significant Assumptions
No Significant assumptions were made in this assessment.
2.8 Limitations and Exceptions
Limitations
This report is applicable only for the project and site studied. Report findings and statements of professional opinion
do not constitute a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied. This report contains information and data provided
by others and Priority One Environmental, Inc. in no way warrants the accuracy or completeness of the information
provided by those sources. Our services are performed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. This report
is prepared using the ASTM Standard E1527-13 and includes several inherent limitations, including but not limited
to: Section 4.5.1 - Uncertainty Not Eliminated, Section 4.5.2 - Not Exhaustive, Section 7.4 - No Sampling, and Section
7.5.2.1 - Reliance.
Exceptions
No exceptions to or deviations from the ASTM standard 1527-13 were made during the course of our work except for
the following:
➢ No Interviews were conducted with local agencies as part of this assessment. Relevant local agencies for the
area have policies of referring requests for interviews to their file review departments.
These limitations are not anticipated to represent a significant data gap for the investigation.
2.9 Special Terms and Conditions
We have been authorized by Mr. Matt Waters of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Recreation and Parks
Department to perform a Phase 1 environmental site assessment of the subject property. It is our understanding that
Mr. Waters will use the information contained in the report for due diligence and innocent landowner's protection
under CERCLA. Without prior written consent of the client, Priority One Environmental, Inc. will keep confidential
and not disclose to any person or entity, and data or information provided by the client or generated in conjunction
with the performance of this study, except when required by law. Provisions of confidentiality shall not apply to data
or information obtained from the public domain or acquired from third parties not under obligation to the client to
maintain confidentiality.
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 8 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
LNME4
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
2.10 User Reliance
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Parks and Recreation Department.
No other person or entity is entitled to rely upon this report without the specific written authorization of Priority One
Environmental, Inc. Such reliance is a subject to the same limitations, terms, and conditions as the original contract
with the client. Priority One Environmental, Inc. specifically disclaims any responsibility for any unauthorized use of
this report. Based on the ASTM standard this Phase 1 report is reliable for 180 days from the date the work was
conducted.
3.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
3.1 Title Records
Primarily Title Report was not provided by the client for the use in preparing this report.
3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations
No Additional information was provided identifying actual knowledge of environmental liens or activity and use
limitations recorded against the subject property. No environmental liens placed by the federal environmental agency
under CERCLA regulations for the subject site was found during a record search on available government records.
The California State Department of Toxic Substances website EnviroStor was searched and no environmental liens
placed by the State environmental agency for the subject site was found.
3.3 Specialized Knowledge
No information was provided identifying specialized knowledge or experience that is material to recognized
environmental conditions in connection with the subject property.
3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information
No information was provided identifying knowledge of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information
related to the subject property.
3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
No Information was provided identifying knowledge of valuation reduction of the subject property.
3.6 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information
Information provided by the owner of the subject property is discussed in Section 6.0 of this report.
3.7 Reason for Performing Phase 1
The Phase 1 has been requested by the client for the use in the redevelopment of the property.
3.8 Other
No other information was provided for review related to the subject property.
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 9 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-9
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
4.1 EDR Map Findings
The subject property is known as Ladera Linda Park, located at 32201 Forrestal Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
90275. The property is identified by the Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908,
7564001910, 7564001911, 7564001912, and 7564001913. The subject property was listed in the Environmental
Records searched under the ENVIROSTOR, REPONSE, and CORTESE databases.
EDR MAP FINDING SITMMAl21
`.
SEARCH
TARGET'
DATABASE
DISTANC
PROPERTY
<1/$
1/8 1/4
114-1/2
1/2 -1` '
1
PLOTTED ,
MILES
STANDARD ENVll�, ONM64A L RECORDS
'.
Federal NPL site list
NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Proposed NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NPL LIENS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS list
SEMS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List
SEMS -ARCHIVE 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD fa cilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-SQG
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-CESQG
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal institutional controls I Engineering controls registries
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUCIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
RESPONSE 1.000
1
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS '
ENVIROSTOR
1.000
1
0
0
0
1
NR
2
State and Tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 10 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-10
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
EDR MAP FINDING SUMMARY
SEARCH1ARGETi'
DATABASE
DISTANCE
<118
118-114
I/4 -I12
1%2 - i
>I
PLOTTED
MILES
PROPERTY
SWF/LF
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SLIC
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN LUST
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
UST
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
AST
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN UST
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
FEMA UST
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN VCP
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Local Lists of Landfill ISolid Waste Disposal Sites
ODI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
WMUDS/SWAT 0.500
0
0
1
NR
NR
0
SWRCY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
HAULERS 0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN ODI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /Contaminated Sites
US CDL 0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
HIST Cal -Sites 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
SCH 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Toxic Pits 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
CDL 0.001
0
NRNR
NR
NR
0
US HIST CDL 0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks
CA FID UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
HIST UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
SWEEPS UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
LIENS 0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DEED 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 11 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-11
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 12 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-12
EDR MAP FINDING SUMMARY
SEARC�I
TARGET-
DATARASE
DISTANCI
<I%8
118=114
I%4-112;
I/2 -1'
>I
PY.OTTED
PROPERTY
MILE
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
CHMIRS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
LDS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
MCS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SPILLS 90
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
DOT OPS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
CONSENT
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
ROD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
UMTRA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
TRIS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
TSCA
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FTTS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
HIST FTTS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SSTS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
ICIS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PADS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
MLTS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RADINFO
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
FINDS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RAATS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RMP
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
CA BOND EXP. PLAN
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
UIC
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NPDES
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Cortese
0.500
1 0
0
0
0
NR
0
HIST CORTESE
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
CUPA Listings
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Notify 65
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DRYCLEANERS
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
WIP
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
ENF
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Los Angeles Co. HMS
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 12 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-12
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
For the full name, description, and the date each of the databases were last updated, please refer to the Government
Record section of the EDR9 Report.
PRIORITY IENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 13 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-13
FDR MAP FINDING SUMMARY
SEARCH
DATABASE
DISTANCE
TARGET;
4/8
115-114
1/4-112
112 -1
>1
PLOTTED,
MILES
PROPERTY
LA Co. Site Mitigation
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
HAZNET
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EMI
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN RESERV
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
MWMP
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH DOE
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
COAL ASH EPA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
HWT
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
HWP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Financial Assurance
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
LEAD SMELTERS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
2020 COR ACTION
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
US AIRS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PRP
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
WDS
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EPA WATCH LIST
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US FIN ASSUR
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PCB TRANSFORMER
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
PROC
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ECHO
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
EDR US Hist Auto Stat
0.125
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EDR US Hist Cleaners
0.125
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
EDR RECOVERED GOVERMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA LUST
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
RGA LF
0.001
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
For the full name, description, and the date each of the databases were last updated, please refer to the Government
Record section of the EDR9 Report.
PRIORITY IENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 13 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-13
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
4.2 Subject Site
Ladera Linda Site is listed at 32201 Forrestal Drive and is listed under RESPONSE, ENVIROSTOR and Cortese
databases. Upon further review, this pertains to the soccer fields located to the north of the subject site, and does not
include the subject site. This site is discussed below in the surrounding properties section 4.3.
4.3 Surrounding Properties
Three (3) sites were listed in the EDR Radius Report, these sites were reviewed and are discussed below:
Ladera Linda Site is listed at 32201 Forrestal Drive (1200' to the northwest) and is listed under RESPONSE,
ENVIROSTOR and Cortese databases. DTSC obtained information that debris found on the surface of soil stockpiled
at the site contains asbestos. On August 1, 2016, DTSC issued an Order to Fence and Post which required (1) installing
a fence around the stockpiled soil area, (2) covering stockpiled soil with plastic sheeting, and (3) locking the existing
fence surrounding Upper Ladera Fields.
Site History: Reportedly, roughly 1,020 cubic yards of soil (85 truckloads) ftom a residential project in
Torrance, California, were imported to the Site in April 2015. Imported soil was placed on top of, then spread over,
an existing stockpile createdyears ago when the improved soccer field, known as Ocean Field, was first constructed.
The Site also includes any areas on which stockpiled soil and any other material contained within the stockpiled soil
may have been deposited and to which stockpiled soil and any other material containing within the stockpiled soil
may have migrated, spread, or been moved.
A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Report for the Ladera Linda Site, Summary of Findings:
No soil samples detected asbestos, all potential asbestos containing debris (6 total pieces) encountered during the
investigation were shipped to the laboratory for analysis. None of the potential asbestos -containing debris contained
friable asbestos. DTSC only considers bulk asbestos containing debris to be a hazardous waste and a hazardous
substance if it is friable. The report concluded that no further investigation is need for the site due to the absence of
hazardous substances. Environmental sample results and finding were reported in the PEA report concluding no
threat to human health and the environment exists.
Palos Verdes Estates is located at 2761 Palos Verdes Drive (2,562' to the southeast) and is listed under
WMUDS/SWAT database. The Waste Management Unit Database System is used for program tracking and inventory
of waste management units. The source is the State Water Resources Control Board.
Norad Cen San Pedro is 4,706' to the northeast and is listed under ENVIROSTOR database. The status of the
ENVIROSTOR case is Active as of July 20, 2017 and is a Military Evaluation. A future document is listed as site
screening with a future due date of 2018.
4.4 Orphan Properties
Three (3) Orphan Sites were reviewed. The sites are discussed below:
■ Palos Verdes LDFL #2 is located at three miles to the north and is listed under the SEMS -ARCHIVE
database.
■ Golden Cove Shopping Center is located roughly 3 miles to the west-northwest and is listed under the SLIC
database. The status of the SLIC case is no further action required. The substance of concern was VOCs.
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 14 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-14
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
■ Unocal #7109 is located roughly 3 miles to the west-northwest and is listed under the HIST CORTESE,
LUST, and SWEEPS UST databases. The status of the LUST is case closed as of 1996. The substance was
gasoline and the case type were soil.
4.5 Physical Setting Sources
According to the most recent USGS Topographic map covering to subject property and vicinity, the subject site slopes
downward to the southwest and lies at approximately 436 feet above sea -level. The regional topography slopes to the
southwest.
According to EDR GEOCHECK the site is mapped as a Loam soils with a Hydrologic Group Classification of Class
D. Class D is defined as soils with very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high-water table, or are shallow
to an impervious layer. The soils have a high corrosion potential versus uncoated steel.
According to State Database: CA Radon, the subject site is located within zipcode: 90275. Zipcode 90275 had four
hundred and seven (407) tests taken with eighty (80) above >4 pCi/L. Federal EPA Radon Zone for Los Angeles
County is 2. No interior or exterior radon measurements were performed as part of this report.
4.6 Sanborn Insurance Maps
An attempt was made by EDR to obtain Sanborn Insurance Company maps for the period covering the years 1860
through the present in order to determine what types of activities were conducted on the subject property and on
adjoining properties. No Sanborn maps were found.
4.7 Historical Aerial Photographs
Aerial photographs of the subject property provided by EDR were reviewed as part of this investigation.
Subject Property 11928: The subject site is undeveloped land with a seasonal creek flowing through the
center of the property from northeast to southwest. A trail is located on the north portion
of the property. The trail appears to lead from a roadway to the southwest towards quarry
areas to the north and northeast of the subject property.
1947: The quarry to the north and northeast has expanded with dirt roads running through
the subject property. Areas of disturbed soils are visible on the north side of the subject
property.
1954: The site appears to be roads leading to the quarries to the north and northeast.
1963: The south portion of the subject property appears to be used for possible equipment
storage and parking area for autos.
1979: The subject property has been developed into the existing three pads with six
community buildings and asphalt parking area.
1981: The northeast most building has been removed, leaving five roughly similar shaped
buildings.
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 15
OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-15
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
These photos are included in the Appendix.
4.8 Historical Topographic Maps
i opograpnic maps of the subject
by hL)K were reviewea as part or tms
1896 In 1896, the subject site is mapped on the southwest site of San Pedro Hill, with natural
creeks mapped running from northeast to southwest through the property. The topography
slopes to the southwest.
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 16
OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-16
1990: The tennis court on the north portion of the property has been developed. The area
on the northeast side of the buildings is used for storage and parking.
1994: The property appears similar to 1990, with the exception that the area to the
northeast of the buildings is not used as parking.
2002: A building is existing on the northeast side of the northeast building. The building
is existing in 2005. By 2009, the building has been removed and is an asphalt covered
area that is fenced. The storage shed on the southwest side of the community buildings is
existing by 2009.
The storage containers on the north portion of the subject property were placed in 2009,
and between 2015 and 2016. The storage container adjacent the community buildings
was placed sometime between 2016 and 2017.
Property to North
In 1928, the areas to the north appear to have two small areas of disturbed hillside
and Northeast
(possible quarry) with a dirt trail leading to it. By 1947, the disturbed hillside areas to the
north and northeast is have expanded and appear to be an operating quarry. The area
appears similar in 1954 and 1963. By 1979, the subject street extends to the north and the
area to the north has been graded into two pads. Areas to the northeast appear to be dirt
trails. The areas to the north and northeast appear similar from 1979 to 2012.
Property to
In 1928 and 1947, the properties to the southeast are undeveloped land. By 1954, the
Southeast
properties to the southeast appear to be used for agricultural row crops. In 1963, the
residential housing tract to the southeast is under development. By 1979, the residential
housing tract to the southeast has been completed. From 1979 to 2012, the properties to
the east appear similar.
Property to West &
In 1928, 1947, and 1954, the properties to the west and southwest are vacant land. By
Southwest
1963, the existing residential housing tract to the west and southwest is existing. The tract
appears similar in 1979, 1981, 1990, and 1994. In 2002, the final vacant lot in the tract
near the mid portion of the southwest property of the subject site has been developed.
From 2005 to 2012, the properties to the southwest is residential housing tract.
These photos are included in the Appendix.
4.8 Historical Topographic Maps
i opograpnic maps of the subject
by hL)K were reviewea as part or tms
1896 In 1896, the subject site is mapped on the southwest site of San Pedro Hill, with natural
creeks mapped running from northeast to southwest through the property. The topography
slopes to the southwest.
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 16
OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-16
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
1925, 1928
In 1925, the elevation of the site is mapped as 400' on the west portion and 500' on the
north portion of the site. A canyon is mapped near the center of the property trending
downward to the southwest. No structures are mapped on the subject site.
1942, 1944, 1946
Appears similar to previous date.
1951
A street is mapped in the area of the subject site. Granite Quarries are mapped to the north
and northeast.
1964
The residential tracts to the south, southwest, and southeast have been developed.
1972, 1981
Five buildings are located on the subject property in the area of the existing buildings. The
subject street has been developed.
2012
Current Topographic Map.
These maps are included in the Appendix.
4.9 City Directories
A search of local historical city directories was conducted by EDR for the subject property. The review included
directories in five-year intervals from 1920 to 2006 (as available).
■ Subject site: 33201 Forrestal Drive.
YEA:R�T.ISTED [ISES.
2010 Montessori School of Manhattan Beach, City of Palos Verdes Estates.
No additional records were identified for the subject property based on the address provided. The surrounding
properties are listed in detail in the attached Directory Search.
4.10 Building Records
The city of Rancho Palos Verdes, provided building permit records for the subject site. No environmental concerns
were identified in a review of the records. Below is a partial list of the permits reviewed:
1967 Repair Y in sewer line in street — Owner — Palos Verdes Penn. U.S.D.
1981 Erection of Earth Station for Satellite reception — cable system.
1984 Occupancy Inspection B-2.
2008 Reroof 18,220 sqft, The community Center and Montessori school.
2010 Install Photovoltaic Supply System for emergency back-up 100sf, 2 -supply containers (1
large and I small).
Based on the aerial photos, topographic maps of the site and the assessor records, the subject properties' building were
constructed between 1963 and 1967.
PRIORITY]ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 17 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-17
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
5.0 SUBJECT PROPERTY RECONNAISSANCE
A visual reconnaissance of the subject property was conducted on Thursday, December 7, 2017 by Mr. Paul Robinson.
Photographs of the subject property are attached to this report in Appendix.
5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
The periphery of the subject property was inspected. A detailed inspection was conducted of all major site features
visible from the public portions of the property.
5.2 Subject Property Reconnaissance
Observations made during the site visit are summarized in the following table:
Current Use of Property Community Center.
Evidence of Past Uses of Property? No past use is identifiable.
Potable Water Source Citv Water or Well
Topography of property and vicinit
Current use of adjoining properties
Field/Mound
Relatively level
NORTH: Open Space, Soccer Fields.
WEST: Residential single-family homes.
EAST: Vacant Land and residential single-family homes.
Past Uses of Surrounding Properties? No past use is identifiable.
Observation Check List
Type Observed Not Observed Notes
Odors X
Transformers (Pad Mounted) X Pad -mounted transformers, good
condition. no observed stainine.
USTs
ASTs
Fuel Island
In -ground Hydraulic Hoist
Hazardous Waste Storage
Hazardous Waste Treatment
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Major Spills
Major Leaks
Significant Staining
Distressed Vegetation
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 18 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-18
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
Stocked Piled Soils
X
Waste treatment Unit/Clarifier
X
Solid Waste Disposal
X
Two trash dumpsters in parking
area.
Wells
X
Underground Pipelines
X
Pits, Ponds, and/or Lagoons
X
Herbicide and/or Pesticide
X
5.3 Detailed Observations
Odors - Indoor and Visible Emissions
No unusual smells, obnoxious odors, or visual emissions were observed during the inspection of the subject property.
Asbestos -Containing Material (ACM)
Asbestos -containing building materials were banned in 1978 by the federal government. The buildings were
constructed in 1968, therefore, the potential of Asbestos being present at the subject site is very high. No sampling
was performed as this was outside the limits of the current contract.
Lead -Based Paint (LBP}
In 1978, the federal government banned the use of lead-based paint in residential applications. The buildings were
constructed in 1968, therefore, the potential of lead based paint being present at the subject site is very low. No
sampling was performed as this was outside the limits of the current contract.
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB's)
PCB manufacturing in the United States was discontinued in 1978. Pad -Mounted transformers were found in the
vicinity of the subject building, appearing in good condition without any sign of leakage.
Pools of Liquid of Chemicals
No pools or excessive ponding of liquid or chemicals were observed during the visual site inspection.
Underground Storage Tank (UST)
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of surface or above ground (e.g., fill pipe, vent pipes,
fill connections, concrete pads, saw cuts, sumps, spill containment device, leak detection device, etc.) features
normally associated with underground storage tanks (UST's).
Aboveground Storage Tank
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of surface or above ground (e.g., fill pipe, vent pipes,
fill connections, concrete pads, saw cuts, concrete pad, drains in vicinity, etc.) features normally associated with
aboveground storage tanks (AST's). Visual observation also includes the inspection to identify any surface markings
indicating the existence of aboveground product pipelines. No evidence for the presence of on-site aboveground
storage tank was identified.
Fuel Islands
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no evidence of fuel islands or dispensers either in operation or
abandoned.
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 19 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-19
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
Hydraulic Hoist Unit
The visual inspection of the subject site revealed no presence of underground hydraulic hoist units within the subject
site premise.
Hazardous Materials/Petroleum Products Storage & Handling
During the visual site inspection, no containers storing automotive or industrial batteries, pesticides, paints or
chemicals, seemingly exhibiting toxic hazards were observed. No significant oil or chemical staining was observed to
be present around any containers.
Other Containers
No other containers indicating any sign of environmental concern were observed during the site inspection.
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, Disposal (TSD)
No storage, treatment, or disposal of hazardous waste was found during the visual site inspection.
Major Spills, Leaks or Staining
The visual site inspection did not reveal any evidence of on-site or off-site spills, leakages, or staining significant
enough to pose immediate environmental concern onto the subject property. No significantly stained catch basins,
drip pads, or sumps were observed. There were no major spills around surface drains, pipes, gutters, spouts, or tubes,
if any, at the time of the visual site inspection.
No staining or surface staining on the bare soil or unpaved lands were identified during the visual site inspection.
Distress Vegetation
Planters and vegetation in the vicinity of and within the subject site were found well maintained on bare soil or within
separate planers in relatively good appearance with no sign of chemical stress or unnatural appearance.
Stockpiled Soils
The site inspection did not reveal any evidence of stockpiled soils on the ground of subject property.
Wastewater Treatment Unit/Clarifier
No underground industrial wastewater treatment facility, i.e., clarifier was observed on the subject property during the
site visit.
Storm water drainage system in the close proximity of the subject area did not identify any abnormal accumulation of
petroleum or chemical run-off or foreign materials. No unusual blockage of the storm -water control system was
observed during visual site inspection on the outdoor parking lot, roof of subject building, or surface areas.
Solid Waste Disposal
There were no observations of improper activities of treatment of disposal of hazardous, medical, or toxic wastes
being performed at the subject site.
Wells
The site walk-through did not discover any irrigation wells, injection wells, abandoned wells, groundwater monitoring
wells, dry wells septic wells, oil wells, gas wells, domestic water wells, or other monitoring wells on the subject site
premise.
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 20 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-20
December 18, 2017
P1E 2017-11-011
Underground Pipelines
The visual site inspection did not reveal any evidence of underground pipelines beneath the ground of the subject
property, other than public utility lines such as sewer, power, and electric lines, for which public "dig -alert" service
would easily identify upon 48-hour telephone notice in advance.
Pits, Ponds, Lagoons
No visible evidence of wetlands, such as pits, ponds, lagoons, or any other water bodies, was observed within the
subject property's boundary lines.
Herbicides/Pesticides
No evidence of herbicide or pesticide use on the subject property was observed during the visual site inspection.
6.0 INTERVIEWS
An attempt has been made to obtain historical as well as current information relative to the subject property from
several individuals and local agencies. The objective of the interview process is to obtain any information indicating
recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject site.
6.1 Interview with Owner or Site Manager
An Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement were sent to Mr. Matt Waters, on Monday, November 27,
2017. The client portion of the questionnaire was returned on Wednesday November 29, 2017. The questionnaire
mentions that previous reports conducted on the site have mention concerns for asbestos containing material and lead-
based paint. All buildings consist of modular units, each 31' by 31', 3 units per building, five buildings total. All
constructed mid-1960s. Four storage containers and a shed -construction date unknown.
Current Owner of the property is City of Rancho Palos Verdes; year purchased 1981-1989. Previous owner of the
property was Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. Ladera Linda Elementary School 1960s(?) to 1981-
approximiatley. Montessori School — used classrooms on long term lease 1993-2011.
Steel Containers: Open Space Management (1) Public Works supplies (2), Emergency Shelter (1).
Emergency: Food, water, cots, communication equipment, tools, lighting, tents, traffic safety equipment.
Public Works: Barricades and signs.
Open Space: Polaris vehicle, powered wheelbarrow with backup battery and charger.
Off-site: In 2015, a large pile of dirt was dumped on the site. Concerns were raised about the possible presence of
asbestos in the soil. DTSC issued an order to fence and cover. No soil samples tested contained asbestos. None of the
debris samples tested contained friable asbestos. Currently in public comment period till December 8.
6.2 Interview with Local Government Officials
County Environmental Health Department
The County of Los Angeles Public Works, Online database was searched for records pertaining to Storm Water,
Industrial Waste, and Underground Storage tanks for the subject address. No records were listed under the subject
address.
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 21 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-21
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
County Fire - Hazardous Material Department
The Los Angeles County Fire Department was contacted as part of the records review of the subject property; No
records were found for the address 32201 Forrestal Drive.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District was contacted as part of the records review of the subject property;
No asbestos records were found for the subject address. A Notice to Comply was found for the subject address in the
Inquiry System. Rule Not. 1403: Asbestos Emission from Demolition/Renovation activities and Rule No. 42303:
Supply information, plans, specs, etc.
GEOTRACKER/ENVIROSTOR Database Review
The GEOTRACKER database and the ENVIROSTOR database were reviewed for any additional information
available in regards to the subject property. A Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Report was found on
Department of Toxic Substance Control's website ENVIRSTOR. Below is the summary of the findings from the
report:
Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) Report Ladera Linda Site, Dated November 3, 2017 prepared by
Avocet Environmental, Inc.
Broader findings from the PEA and the various phases of investigation that preceded it are as follows:
To date, a total of five pieces of C&D debris collected from the Site have been identified as ACM, i.e., they
contained I percent or more of asbestos. One piece of ACM C&D debris was considered potentially friable,
however, none of the five pieces of ACM C&D debris were determined to be friable and, therefore, are not
hazardous substances per the California Health and Safety Code and would not be expected to have resulted
in a hazardous release into the soil. With the exception of the piece of 4 -inch -diameter ACP, all of the ACM
C&D debris were present on the surface of the imported soil. Also, the 4 -inch -diameter ACP and white,
patterned vinyl floor covering are inconsistent with the ACMs identified and abated at the Sharynne Lane
residence prior to its demolition.
• None of the soil matrix samples analyzed to date by Avocet or any of the two previous investigators have
contained asbestos, including the 25 soil matrix samples analyzed using TEM in the course of the subject
PEA. Absent asbestos in the Torrance soil, there is no reason to suspect that the underlying Ocean Field soil
or the reworked Quarry material beneath or downslope of the imported soil has been impacted by asbestos.
• None of the air samples collected at and around the Site in the course of the subject PEA or any of the
previous investigators have contained asbestos.
• None of the soil matrix samples collected from the south -adjoining Upper Ladera Field contained asbestos.
• Based on the absence of friable ACM at the Site, there are no complete exposure pathways via which human
or ecological receptors could be exposed. As such, risk cannot be quantified but is considered negligible.
California School Directory
According to the Directory, Ladera Linda Elementary school operated from July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1989.
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 22 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-22
Interview with Others
No additional interviews were conducted in this assessment.
7.0 EVALUATIONS
7.1 Findings
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-I1-011
1) Site Legal Description: The subject property consists of seven parcels, collectively known as Ladera Linda
Park, located at 32201 Forrestal Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. The property is identified by the
Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910, 7564001911,
7564001912, and 7564001913.
2) Site History: In 1928, the subject property was vacant land. From 1947 to 1963, roads run through the
property to the quarry operation to the north and northeast. Some vehicles and possible equipment are visible
in the 1963 aerial photograph. By 1967, the quarry operations to the north had stopped and the property was
redeveloped with the three graded pads. The five -existing structures were constructed at this time and used
by the Rancho Palos Verdes Unified School District as Ladera Linda Elementary. The school operated until
1989. Rancho Palos Verdes Parks and Recreation Department took over operations. From 1993 to 2011, a
Montessori School lease several classrooms. The site is currently the Ladera Linda Community Center.
3) Site Observation: The subject site is currently the Ladera Linda Community Center. No significant staining
was observed throughout the indoor and outdoor grounds of the subject property.
4) Summary of Historical Maps and Aerial Photographs: Based on the aerial photos and topographic maps
of the site, as well as the assessor records, the subject property's building was constructed circa 1967.
5) Local Records Review: The subject address was not listed in the Los Angeles County Public Works online
file review for Storm Water, Industrial Waste, and Underground Storage tanks. No records were found with
the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The site was not listed in with the State Water Resource Control
Board website GEOTRACKER. The subject address was listed under the Department of Toxic Substance
Control website ENVIROSTOR; however, upon further review this is case is located on the Rancho Palos
Verde Unified School District property to the north.
6) EDR Findings for Sub iect Site: The subject property was listed in Environmental Records Sources searched
under the RESPONSE, ENVIROSTOR and Cortese databases; however, upon further review, this pertain to
the property to the north which is owned by the Rancho Palos Verde Unified School District. This site is
discussed in section 4.3 Surrounding Properties.
7) EDR Radius Report Findings:
EDR reports one (1) RESPONSE site within the searched parameters of the subject property.
EDR reports two (2) ENVIROSTOR sites within the searched parameters of the subject property.
EDR reports one (1) WMUDS/SWAT site within the searched parameters of the subject property.
The Orphan Site List was Review. Three (3) Orphan Sites were reviewed. Of the three sites listed, no sites
were within the searched radius of the subject property.
PRIORITY]ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 23 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-23
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
7.2 Opinions
8) General Site Condition: The subject property is currently used as a Public Community Center. The interior
and exterior grounds were free of significant staining during the visual site inspection and no hazardous
materials in reportable quantities are stored on the subject property.
9) Recoenized Environmental Conditions: No Recognized Environmental Conditions related to the subject
property were found during the visual site inspection and review of available records.
10) Environmental Business Risks: Based on the age of the structures located on the subject property, the
potential of asbestos containing material and lead-based paint to exist on site is very high. Prior to any
demolition work, an asbestos and lead-based paint survey should be conducted.
11) EDR Radius Report Review: The cases listed in the EDR report are not anticipated to impact the subject
property at this time, based on the type of listings, distance to the subject site, and additional information
located in Geotracker and EnviroStor databases.
7.3 Conclusions
12) We have performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations
of ASTM Practice El 527-13 forthe subject property, which consists of seven parcels, known as Ladera Linda
Park, located at 32201 Forrestal Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275. The property is identified by the
Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 7564001905, 7564001906, 7564001908, 7564001910, 7564001911,
7564001912, and 7564001913. The subject property was listed in Environmental Records Sources searched
under the RESPONSE, ENVIROSTOR and Cortese databases; however, upon further review, this pertain to
the property to the north which is owned by the Rancho Palos Verde Unified School District. Any exceptions
to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the Limitations Section of this report. This assessment has
revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the subject property.
7.4 Recommendations
Additional Environmental Investigations are not recommended at this time; however, prior to any significant
remodel or demolition work on the property an asbestos and lead-based paint survey should be conducted.
7.5 References
➢ Environmental Data resources, Inc (EDR) Report
➢ ASTM Standard E1527-13 - Phase 1 Standard
➢ U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps
➢ State Water Resources Control Board, GEOTRACKER (geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov)
➢ Department of Toxic Substance Control, ENVIROSTOR (www.envirostor.dtse.ca.gov)
PRIORITY I ENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 24
OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-24
December 18, 2017
PIE 2017-11-011
7.6 Professional Signature
According to Code of Federal Regulations CFR - Title 40 §312.10, Environmental Professional is defined as:
"(1) a person who possess sufficient specific education, training, and experience necessary to
exercise professional judgment to develop opinions and conclusions regarding conditions
indicative of releases or threatened releases (see §312.1(c)) on, at, in, or to a property, sufficient
to meet the objectives and performance factors in §312.20(e) and (f).
(2) Such a person must:
(i) hold a current professional engineer's or Professional Geologist's license or registration from
a state, tribe, or U.S. territory (or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) and have the equivalent of
three (3) years of full-time relevant experience; or
(ii) Be licensed or certified by the federal government, a state, tribe, or U.S. territory (or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) to perform environmental inquiries as defined in §312.21 and
have the equivalent of three (3) years of full-time relevant experience; or
(iii) Have a Baccalaureate or higher degree from an accredited institution of higher education in
a discipline of engineering or science and the equivalent of five (5) years of full-time relevant
experience; or
(iv) Have the equivalent of ten (10) years offull-time relevant experience".
We declare to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we have met the definition of Environmental
Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training,
and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. We have developed
and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR 312.
It has been a pleasure to be of service. If any questions arise, please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Paul J. Robinson
Environmental Professional
Priority One Environmental, Inc.
PRIORITYIENVIRONMENTAL@GMAIL.COM 25 OFFICE/FAX (800) 704-4193
G-25
PARKING FULL BASKEI
LOT COURT
PLANTING_,; WALKWAY PLANTING
AREA AREA
SECTION LINE AA
BASKETBALL I I FORRESTAL _1 LADERA LINDA
PLANTING AREA
COURT : , , DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
WALKWAY PLANTING
PLANTING AREA
AREA WALKWAY
292 FT FROM NEW BASKETBALL COURT TO RESIDENCE
(W FT FROM CURRENT BASKETBALL COURT TO RESIDENCE)
SEAVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD
SECTION LINE BB
j I
SEAVIEW
HELM PL NEIGHBORHOOD
SECTION LINE CC
FENCE
.. . .......
AVG. 27'
EXISTING SLOPE
PLAY AREA PARK LAWN
WALKWAY
PARK TURF FORRESTAL D
EXISTING SLOPE
- COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDING SLOPE. AND
AREA i ",
PARK STREET PARP
WALKWAY= WALKWAY DRIVEWAY
PLANTINGAREA WALKWAY SLOPE PLANTING AREA WALKWAY
WALKWAY
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS AA - CC
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018
FORRESTAL RESERVE
H-1
pf
SEAVIEW EXISTING SLOPE 4-�
HELM PL NEIGHBORHOOD
24' SETBACK
TO FENCE
SECTION LINE DD WALKWAY
PARK LAWN AREA PLANTING ... FORRESTAL LADERA LINDA
WALKWAY AREA : � DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
WALKWAY PLANTINGAREA
SECTION LINE EE
SECTION LINE FF
TURF
PICNIC SHELTER
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS DD - FF
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018
H-2
--Jl
F
LADERA LINDA
PARK PLANTINGT
....
FORRESTAL NEIGHBORHOOD
LAWN AREA AREA
DRIVE
WALKWAY WALKWAY -
PLANTING AREA
SECTION LINE FF
TURF
PICNIC SHELTER
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK SECTIONS DD - FF
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES FEBRUARY 2018
H-2
EXISTING SLOPE
DAUNTLESS
DRIVE EXISTING WALKWAY
SECTION LINE GG
SCHOOL SLOPE
FIELD
PLAZA AND PLAYGROUND AREA - FULL BASKETBALL COURT
PLANTINGAREA SLOPE
SLOPE PORRESTA
DRIVE
PARK DRIVEWAY
WALKWAY WALKWAY
UTILITIES
FORRESTAL
RESERVE
UPPER PARKING LOT
COMMUNITY CENTER PLANTING FULL BASKETBALL PLANTING •I BUILDING LOWER PARKING LOT AREA COURT AREA
PLANTINGAREA i WALKWAY
WALKWAY SLOPE DRY S -REAM BED PLANTING AREA TURNAROUND SLOPE WALKWAY
WALKWAY -TURNAROUND WALKWAY
F)
WALKWAY
WALKWAY PLANTING AREA FORRESTAL DRIVE
WALKWAY PLANTING AREA
it
SECTION LINE HH
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VER.DES FEBRUARY 2018
SECTIONS GG - HH
H-3
Summary of Section Line Studies drawn across the parksite
Section Line A -A: Looks at grade relationships from the corner residence at Forrestal & Pirate (Ladera
Linda HOA), across shrub plantings within the park, the half -court and full court for basketball, and to
the turn -around at the south end of the lower parking lot. This corner residence sits 6' higher than the
T -intersection, and 4' higher than the proposed basketball courts. The distance from this corner
residence to the proposed half -court basketball court is identical to the distance to the asphalt game
courts that have been on the site for the past 38 years.
Section Line B -B: Looks at grade relationships from the closest residence at Dauntless & Helm (Sea View
HOA), up the 50' tall / 2:1 slope (including across the existing concrete staircase) to the park pad area
with the 2-5 age group playground, which is 60' higher than the elevation of the closest residence in
SeaView. From the subject residence backyard, one may barely see the top of the play structure, but no
children's activities.
Section Line C -C: Looks at grade relationships from the end of the Helm cul-de-sac at Dauntless & Helm
(Sea View), up the 50' tall / 2:1 slope to the park pad area, where a 20' wide barrier shrub planting area
keeps park strollers away from the fence and the ability to peer down to the SeaView residents'
backyards. The proposed Community Center building sits 110' away from the top of the 50' slope and
will not be viewed at all from the Helm Place location. Beyond the proposed building, there is a 10' tall /
2:'1 slope, then the driveway to the rear parking lot, the existing 30' / 2:1 slope, Forrestal Drive, and the
Forrestal Preserve beyond.
Section Line D -D: Looks at grade relationships from the same location at the end of the Helm Place cul-
de-sac at Dauntless & Helm (Sea View), up the 50' tall / 2:1 slope to the park pad area, where the 20'
wide barrier shrub planting area keeps park strollers away from the fence, and then the picnic shelter
with (3) picnic tables, which is 40' beyond the top -of -slope fence. From the subject cul-de-sac location,
one could not see the top of the picnic shelter or the activities of picnic participants.
Section Line E -E: Looks at grade relationships from the open turf area of the park (same location as the
existing open turf area) across the proposed perimeter sidewalk, up the existing 15' tall / 2:1 slope to
the parkway sidewalk along Forrestal Drive, across Forrestal to the corner residence on the northeast
corner of Forrestal and Pirate. This residence sits 12' higher than the open turf area (both as the
existing and proposed condition).
Section Line F -F: Looks at grade relationships from the corner residence at Forrestal & Pirate (Ladera
Linda HOA, also shown in Section Line A -A above), across 30' of shrub plantings within the park, across
the proposed perimeter sidewalk, and onto the open turf area (both as existing and as proposed).
Again, the subject residence sits 8' higher than the open turf (existing and proposed grade relationship
does not change).
M
Section Line G -G: Looks at grade relationships from Dauntless Drive (Sea View), up the 50' tall / 2:1
slope to the park pad area, to the 2-5 age group playground, seating plaza for adult supervisors, through
the edge of the (4) seat children's swings area, across the sidewalk and through the long axis of the full
basketball court (same location as existing asphalt game courts), up the existing 8' tall / 2:1 slope, across
the existing vehicle entrance ramp, up the existing 16' tall / 2:1 slope, through the existing utility vaults
along Forrestal, across Forrestal , and through the existing trailhead leading into the Forrestal Preserve
and beyond into the Preserve.
Section Line H -H: Looks at grade relationships from Forrestal Dr (4t' residential lot south of the Pirate
intersection (Ladera Linda HOA), across a 100' distance of shrub plantings within the park to the open
turf area (14' higher than the street elevation at this section line), then across the flat open turn area
which is 8' above Forrestal and 14' above the residence beyond (same grade relationship as exists now),
then to the perimeter walkway and bench seating area, across the full basketball court (4' higher than
the open turf), across the length of the front parking lot (6' higher than the open turf), through the entry
space and Community Center building (8' higher than the open turf), up a 10' tall / 2:1 slope to the
upper parking lot, and finally up the rear 22' tall / 2:1 slope to the School District open field area used by
AYSO.
H-5
-12
14
.20
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY PARK RELATIVE GRADE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDFS fiript l%pv2olA
Summary of Relative Grade Elevations within the parksite
Open Turf Area: Assumes this grade stays as it currently exists; so we've assigned a relative grade of +0.
This includes the circular sidewalk area with benches, and the open turf play area.
Basketball Courts: The general grade of this area for basketball courts and children's playgrounds is
four feet higher than the open turf area; so assigning a relative grade of +4. In about the same location
as the existing asphalt game courts, they are four feet higher than the existing gamecourts. The
concrete sidewalks approaching these activity areas are sloping in grade to accommodate the four feet
grade difference, but all walkway grades are ADA compliant.
Front Parking Lot: The general grade of this area for the parking lot in front of the proposed community
center building is six feet higher than the open turf area; so assigning a relative grade of +6. The parking
lot's general grade is two feet higher than the basketball courts / children's playgrounds, while two feet
lower than the community center building.
Community Center Building:: The general grade of this area for the proposed community center
building is eight feet higher than the open turf area; so assigning a relative grade of +8. The community
center building's general grade is two feet higher than the front parking lot's general grade.
Rear Parking Lot, existing Paddle Tennis Courts and Covered Picnic Area: The general grade of the area
for the rear parking lot, existing paddle tennis courts, and covered picnic area is eighteen feet higher
than the open turf area; so assigning a relative grade of+18; This upper area is at the approximate same
grade as the existing DG parking area and Paddle Tennis Courts; is ten feet higher than the community
center building grade, and is connected in a quick route by a series of exterior concrete steps as well as
an ADA -compliant sidewalk system for those park users with special challenges.
1-2
Ladera Linda Park Rental/Usage Policies
32201 Forrestal Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes
(310) 544-5370
Ladera Linda Community Park has several rooms that are
available for rent for classes and private events. Outside
areas are not available for rent.
Rental Hours
10am-9pm (time includes setup and cleanup) Renters may
not enter the premises before 10am and need to vacate the
premises by 9pm. Classes are permitted between 8am to
9pm.
Restrictions
Night-time private events (events going past 5pm) are strictly
limited to two per month. This restriction does not apply to
Peninsula non-profit groups, City or City -sponsored events,
or Homeowner Association events.
Indoor Facilities
Multipurpose Room:
• Maximum of 125 people (# to be determined)
• Non -Resident: $59 per hour
• RPV Resident: $25 per hour
• Rentals include use of banquet tables (and chairs
Classrooms:
• Includes Use of tables/chairs
• Maximum of 40 people (#to be determined);
• Non -Resident: $47 per hour
• RPV Resident: $22 per hour
J-1
Peninsula Non-profit groups and Home Owner Associations
may contact the Park Supervisor at 310-544-5266 for
relevant fees and more information.
Rates Subject to Change
Kitchen Facilities
• Limited kitchen facilities are available as part of rental
Additional Fees
An additional staff fee of $18 per hour will be charged for
room rentals scheduled outside the parks normal hours of
operation: See Below:
Mon -Friday 12-5 Sat/Sun 10-5
Deposit: A $175 security deposit is required for all room
rentals. The deposit will be fully refunded if renter adheres to
the hours on the contract, and rental area is cleaned with no
damage to the facilities. Refunds check will be mailed
approximately six weeks after the event. If renter cancels the
event, or changes the rental date once the deposit had been
paid, written notice must be received at least 30 days before
event date. All cancellations are subject to a $50
cancellation fee. If less than 30 days written notice is
received, the entire deposit may be forfeited.
Insurance: Insurance varies with the type of event, whether
or not liquor is served and attendance. See below for
insurance fees. The City requires a Liability Insurance
Certificate and Additional Insured Endorsement page(s)
naming the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as an Additional
Insured for one million dollars ($1,000,000) single -limit
liability. If alcohol is served at the event, liquor liability
coverage naming the City as an additionally insured party is
J-2
required. Insurance may also be purchased through the
City's vendor.
The following fees apply to insurance purchased
through the City's provider:
• For events with attendance of 100 people or less, the basic
premium is $81. If you will be serving liquor, the total
premium is $141.
• For attendance of 101 people or more, the basic premium
is $113. If you will be serving liquor, the total premium is
$173. Certain events such as reunions, dances and
corporate events are considered higher risk if alcohol is
served. Serving Alcohol at these events requires pre -
approval by Staff and insurance company; higher rates may
apply.
Fees subject to change
Private Classes
Private instructors can teach classes at Ladera Linda Park.
Instructors cannot arrive before 8am and must vacate the
premises by 9pm. Classes can be taught in the MPR,
classrooms, paddle tennis courts, basketball courts, or
outside area. An approved contract and proof of insurance
naming the City as an Additionally Insured Party is required.
Interested instructors should contact the Department for
more details and rates.
Amplified Music
Amplified music (inside only) for rentals may begin at 11:00
am and must end by 8 pm, since the park is located in a
residential area in close proximity to homes. No amplified
sound is allowed outside of the room being rented. If sound
is audible to adjacent residents, Staff will direct renters to
J-3
lower the sound. Indoor classes may have amplified music
beginning at 9am and ending at 8pm.
Renter Responsibilities
Respect for local residents is essential and will be enforced
by Park Staff.
Renters are responsible for all event setup and cleanup
within the contracted time rented, including tables, chairs,
floors and countertops. Contact Staff about the availability of
audio/video equipment. Open flames, confetti, rice or bird
seed are not allowed at this site.
Process for reserving a room at Ladera Linda Park
Call the park for availability at 310-544-5370. A completed
and approved Facility Use Permit is required.
Payment may be made by personal check or by credit card.
If payment is made less than 30 days before rental date,
only money orders, cashier's checks, or credit cards will be
accepted. Please make all checks payable to: City of
Rancho Palos Verdes
SPECIAL EVENTS
City -sponsored events will be scheduled on a limited basis,
no more than 8/year to minimize impact or overlap with other
rentals and adjacent events, particularly on AYSO game
days. No nighttime special events will be scheduled without
City Council approval and neighborhood notification.
Outdoor Uses
Except for City -sponsored Special events, outdoor rentals
are not permitted. Informal outdoor use is allowed on a first-
come, first-served basis. Groups larger than 25 are not
permitted without prior approval from the Recreation and
J-4
Parks Director. Amplified sound, inflatable "bounce" houses,
carnival rides, pony rides, generators, canopies, motorized
vehicles, and BBQs are not permitted. All other park rules
must be followed.
J-5
Usage Analysis
Ladera Linda Community Center
Note on Future Use
For many years now, the poor conditions of Ladera Linda's building and the limited park hours have
been a significant deterrent to many potential instructors and groups interested in renting the facilities.
It is anticipated that newer, more attractive and modern facilities would attract a higher number of
classes and potential user groups. These uses would be spread throughout the week, minimizing their
overall impact. A reduction in the number of rooms from the current 11 to the currently proposed 3
will also serve as a constraint on the total number of possible classes/uses.
A strict rental policy would encourage renters and instructors during daytime hours, and would severely
restrict the type, frequency, and hours of nighttime rentals. Large rental groups would also be restricted
from use during AYSO hours to minimize further parking/traffic use. This policy would help maintain the
serenity and neighborhood feel of this local community park. Renters interested in having late night
weddings, for example, would still have the option of renting at the Point Vicente Interpretive Center or
Hesse Park.
This report includes historical usage data for 2015-2017 for Ladera Linda Park
Ladera Linda offers the following amenities, including:
• A community center with one multipurpose room (1,922 SQ Ft) &
Multiple classrooms (961 SQ Ft each)
• Paddle tennis courts (2)
• Basketball courts (2)
• Open Field/Play Space
• Two playgrounds
• Exhibit Room (Discovery Room)
Facility Rental Trends, 2015-2017
Three years' worth of LL facility rentals are included for analysis:
• 2017= 269 (January through August data)
• 2016 = 310
• 2015 = 369
LL Annual Rentals (Aggregate)
500
N
386
w 400
at 310
300 269
u
M
LL
6 200
L
100
E
Z
M 0
F 2015 2016 2017
1
J-6
Currently, 2017 is on track for meeting and exceeding 2016 rental numbers.
A closer look at annual LL rentals reveals there are categorical and recurring rentals, including:
• Instructional/class rental
• Non-profit rental
• City Rental
• Social rental, Resident
• Social rental, Non-resident
2015 = 386 rentals
• 318 instructional/class rentals
• 29 Non-profit rentals
• 8 City rentals
• 27 Social Rentals, Resident
• 4 Social Rentals, Non-resident
Social,
Resident
3%
Non -Profit
15%
2016 LL Rentals socia,
Non-
resident
6%
City
5%
Instruction
/Classes
71%
2017 = 269 rentals (through August 31, 2017)
• 200 instructional/class rentals
• 31 Non-profit rentals
• 16 City Rentals
• 18 Social Rentals, Resident
• 4 Social Rentals, Non-resident
2015 LL Rentals
Social Non
resident
1%
Social,
Resident
7%
Non -Profit
8%
City
2%
struction/Classes
82%
2016 = 310 rentals
• 221 instructional/class rentals
• 45 Non-profit rentals
• 15 City rentals
• 18 Social Rentals, Resident
• 11 Social Rentals, Non-resident
Social,
Resident
7%
Non -Profit
12%
2017 LL Rentals
Socia, Non-resident
1%
City
6%
Instruction
/Classes
74%
2
J-7
Social, Non-resident in
°' Social, Resident a
0
to
m
U City
M
Non-profitCr r
Instructional/class
LL Rentals by Category
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Number of Rentals
2017 ■ 2016 ■ 2015
Data tables indicate instructional/class rentals are the primary type of rental each year at LL.
Non-profit rentals account for about 12% of facility rentals, with event rentals by the City of RPV
at about 4%. Social rentals from residents account for an average of 6% of rentals, and non-
residents at an average of 3% over the past three years.
Outdoor Facilities
The outdoor elements at Ladera Linda (Paddle Tennis courts, playgrounds, basketball courts, grass areas,
picnic tables etc...) are all used on an informal drop-in basis. No records of usage levels are available.
Discovery Room
No numbers are available for use of the Discovery Room drop in use.
2017: 853 School tour visitors
Special Events
Trunk or Treat (October)
Egg Hunt
Kids to Park Day
Flutterby Storytime
Attendance
200 over a four hour period
200 over a 1.5 hour period
100 over a 6 hour period
4-8 (monthly)
Historic Programming Trends
Ladera Linda has offered a wide range of programs/classes during its over -30 year existence as a City
Park.
• Parent and child developmental classes
• Arts classes
• Dance Classes
• Sports Clinics (basketball, soccer, tennis)
• Education classes for children and adults
• Long term leases (Montessori School, Canyon Verde School)
3
UK•
Future Usage
As mentioned previously, usage will likely rise with the building of a newer facility. The type of events,
classes, and programs will closely mirror what has been offered in the past: Daytime classes and
programs, City and non-profit meetings, limited special events, and drop-in use of outdoor facilities.
Permitted nighttime use, which is already minimal, will be further reduced to minimize wedding
receptions, parties and similar events. Available hours for usage will be limited as well.
4
J-9
Ladera Linda Current Usage
Ladera Linda Current Usage 2017
2017
CLASSES
TIME
WEEKLY
MONTHLY
Quarterly BI -ANNUAL ANNUAL
Est Attendance/per event
Concorde After School Program*
3:30pm-4:30pm
WED, FRI
3 to 6
Adult Tap
7:00pm-8:OOpm
TUE
5
Tai Chi
3:OOpm-4:OOpm
WED
5 to 8
Yoga
4:OOpm-5:OOpm
WED
5 to 8
Tai Chi
11:OOam-Noon
SAT
5 to 8
ONGOING MEETINGS/EVENTS
Port. Bend Community Assn. HOA
7:OOpm-9:OOpm
MON
12 (40 at annual event)
Port Bend Nursery School Family Fun Day
9am-3pm (April)
X
60-80
Klondike Canyon Landslide Abatement
5:Opm-7:OOpm
MON
6
Las Candalistas**
8:OOam-Noon (Oct -May)
WED
25
Port. Bend HOA
3:OOpm-5:OOpm
SAT
12
Delta Sigma Sorority
2:30pm-6:30pm
SUN
25
Las Madrecitas
2:OOpm-5:OOpm
SUN (Oct -Dec)
40-50
Volunteer Trail Watch Meeting
6:OOpm-8:OOpm
X
30
Volunteer Trail Watch Trainings
X
2 day training 35
City Meetings: Council/PW/R&P/Special
Meeting
varies
X
varies
CERT Training
5-9pm
X
2 -day mtg 20-40
National Charity League
X
40-50
Ladera Linda HOA
X
45
Staff Trainings Recreation and Parks
X
45
Staff Trainings YMCA
X
20
Docent Training (in Discovery Room)
12:30-3pm
X
6 to 10
Hikes
varied
X
it total hikes 60 -
90 per hike
Elections
X
6-20 volunteers #
of voters fluctuate
Girl Scouts
X
40
Flutterby Storytime
FRIDAY
6 to 14
Special Event: Egg Hunt
X
125
Special Event: Trunk or Treat
X
200
Special Event: Kids to Park Day
X
100
10/5/2017X:\Dept\Recreation & Parks\Ladera Linda Master Plan\Usage\Copy of LL Current Usage 2017 MW comments.xlsxCopy of LL Current Usage
2017 MW comments.xlsx
J-10
Ladera Linda Current Usage
2017
STORAGE FOR COMMUNITY GROUPS
TIME WEEKLY MONTHLY Quarterly BI -ANNUAL ANNUAL
Est Attendance/per event
LLHOA: 1 Storage Shed
year round use
na
Las Candalistas: 1 Room
year round use
na
Los Serenos Docents: 1.5 Rooms
year round use
na
ONGOING USE
Discovery Room
year round use
850 tour visitors dropin
visitors unknown
Game Room (Rm. J)
year round use
na
Container (1) -Emergency Operations
year round use
na
Container (2) Public Works
year round use
na
Container (1) Open Space Management
year round use
na
MPR, Classrooms A, E, I, K, L
Year round availability for
rentals
na
MISC. USE BY PUBLIC
Playgrounds (2)
year round use
na
Paddle Tennis Courts (2)
year round use
na
Paddle Tennis Tournaments
X
12 to 16
Lower Field Play Space
year round use
na
Lower Field Basketball Courts
year round use
na
PRIVATE RENTALS
NON-RESIDENT RESIDENT
2017 January to August
4 18
varies by event
2016
11 18
varies by event
*Concord class use increases and varies as attendance grows and/or drops. Last spring they ran M -F
**Las Candalistas meetings can increase based on needs
***Scout groups vary based on requests and change each school year
10/5/2017X:\Dept\Recreation & Parks\Ladera Linda Master Plan\Usage\Copy of LL Current Usage 2017 MW comments.xlsxCopy of LL Current Usage
2017 MW comments.xlsx
J-11
G
H
I
Las Candalistas
Docent Storage
Open Classroom
F
Multi -use
Storage
E
After
School
program
D
Discovery
Room
MPR
Open
Classroom
Ladera Linda Building Plan
(Not to scale)
Current Usage/ Lettering of Buildings
J
Game
Room
K
Open
Classroom
L
Open
Classroom
Parking Lot
Staff
Office
A
Girls'
Janitor
Boys'
Open classroom
Bathroom
Closet
Bathroom
J-12
Ladera Linda Park Master Plan
Security Analysis of Proposed Design
Introduction
The following report analyzes the draft Park Master Plan for Ladera Linda Park on the
basis of security. While no park can ever be made 100% secure, the goal of an
effective park design is to minimize the possibility and opportunity for crimes and
undesired behaviors to occur. In the case of this site, the analysis also focuses on how
the proposed park compares to the existing park grounds and buildings.
The basis for this analysis are the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
(CPTED) guidelines which have been a model for security design for decades. These
techniques apply to urban settings, homes and to public spaces such as parks.
While there are different terminology used by CPTED practitioners and designers, this
analysis will focus on four core principles:
• Natural Surveillance
• Natural Access Control
• Territorial Reinforcement
• Maintenance
The following security components are covered in this analysis:
o Lighting
o Fencing
o Access Points
o Parking
o Blind spots
o Sightlines
o Security cameras
o Ingress/Egress
o Landscaping
o Maintenance
o Staffing
o Impact on adjacent properties
Natural Surveillance
Natural surveillance design improves the visibility and sight -lines in a park or community
building, thereby increasing the likelihood that a potential criminal will be seen. "See
and be seen is the overriding goal." The criminal will also not feel as free to commit
undesirable behaviors if he or she believes they may be seen. Below are elements that
K-1
either are incorporated in the proposed Ladera Linda Park design or could easily be
incorporated during a pre -construction design phase:
• Landscape designs that provide and enhance surveillance, especially near to
both official ingress/egress points and opportunistic ingress/egress points
• Appropriate fencing: Use of the lowest -profile fencing that is appropriate for the
location, with the least limitations on visibility.
• Lighting design: Limits or eliminates blind spots. Potential problem areas are
well lit, particularly pathways, hallways, entrances/exits, parking areas, children's
play areas, storage areas, dumpster locations etc...
• Placement of windows for staff/park users easily to observe parking lots
• Use of lower intensity lighting. Overly bright security lighting can create intense
glare of deeply shadowed area which actually hinders effective observation.
Appropriate luminaires can also control glare.
• Place lighting along paths and pedestrian areas at appropriate heights to better
light people's faces.
• The use of security cameras can be effectively used in conjunction with natural
surveillance techniques to enhance or complement their effectiveness.
The existing park site and buildings have far too many blind spots to allow for adequate
surveillance. The three distinct and separated terraces, the overgrown landscaping,
and the multitude of building entry points and hidden areas are not conducive to
enhancing observational opportunities and limiting criminal opportunities. While
improvements in lighting and landscaping could be made to the existing park, the
overall layout and especially the buildings could not easily be altered or reconfigured to
make them anywhere near as well-designed as the proposed new park design.
Natural Access Control
Natural Access Control, as its name sounds, incorporates physical obstacles and
impediments into the design, where appropriate, to limit access to undesired areas and
control access in other areas. The selective use of ingress and egress points,
appropriate fencing, lighting and landscaping features are all part of the current plan or
could be part of a more refined pre -construction schema.
• Use of clearly identifiable entry points.
• Align layout of building structure and outside features to naturally direct people to
established reception areas.
• Eliminate features that provide opportunity to access upper levels.
• Use of appropriate low landscaping and ground cover to discourage undesired
access and direct park users to appropriate access points.
• Use of appropriate, open fencing to both control access and enhance sightlines.
Again, the existing park grounds would have to be completely redesigned in terms of
fencing and landscaping and overall layout to improve its Natural Access Control profile
K-2
to an acceptable level. The existence of five distinct buildings with multiple entry points
cannot feasibly be reconfigured to make it anywhere near as safe and secure as the
proposed building design, which has one easily defined point of access and the capacity
to lock off the other entry point at the exterior restrooms.
Natural Territorial Reinforcement
Natural territorial reinforcement techniques create a clear distinction of appropriate and
inappropriate use in a given location. They create a sense of ownership and an
environment where "strangers" and undesired park users stand out and are more easily
identified. All park design elements: buildings, fences, pavement, signs, lighting,
landscaping work together to identify both appropriate and inappropriate park use. An
appropriate park user should feel safe while an undesired park user should feel an
increased risk of apprehension. The following elements and techniques are already
included or easily incorporated into the currently -proposed park design.
• Maintain landscaping and building so it sends a clear message that there is an
active staff and community presence
• Well designed and defined pathways
• Security system signage at access points
• Avoid chain link fencing and razor wire because this sends a message to
possible intruders that there is not a physical presence
• Motion sensor lights and cameras where appropriate
• Locate park elements such as courts, picnic tables and children play areas in
prominent locations to attract appropriate users and make inappropriate users
more visible
• Sufficient and well designed and lighted parking
The current park does not follow these techniques and would require a substantial
redesign to be close to equivalent to the proposed park design. The dilapidated
condition, the erratic and inconsistent landscaping and fencing, the insufficient parking,
and the poor lighting do not convey a sense of community ownership or security for park
visitors, and is potentially attractive to undesirable elements.
Maintenance ("Broken Windows Theory")
The well-known "Broken Windows Theory" is certainly applicable to park design. The
theory, in short, encourages a zero tolerance approach to the maintenance of a
particular site, based on the proven belief that a single instance of graffiti or a simple
broken window, if left unfixed, will serve as a magnet for more and greater problems.
The sooner that graffiti or any damage is repaired, the less likely that future vandals or
miscreants will repeat this behavior. Clearly, this zero tolerance could be applied to the
existing Ladera Linda site, but its well-documented state of deterioration makes that
problematic at best. There are so many issues with the existing park and its buildings
that bringing it to an acceptable starting point would be difficult. 50 year old temporary,
K-3
modular structures cannot be maintained to the same degree as a new modern facility.
The numerous blind spots combined with the poor aesthetic and physical condition of
the existing facility would continue to make it a target.
This approach has significant positive impacts on properties adjacent to park sites. An
unattractive site is a magnet for undesirable elements who may be attracted to local
residences. While impossible to quantify the exact impact, a well-maintained and
secure facility will have a positive overlapping effect on adjacent neighborhoods. Blight
leads to additional blight which unfortunately can bleed into other areas as well.
The new design with its single structure, controlled access point, low -profile, site -
appropriate landscaping, and modern materials would be significantly easier to maintain
at a zero -tolerance level. Based on past experience, it is doubtful that the City would
invest sufficient maintenance funding and resources into a facility as rundown as Ladera
Linda is today. Staff is recommending a high level of maintenance and dedicated
budget line item for the new facility once it is constructed.
Other Issues
Staffing/Hours
Ladera Linda's staffing hours have always been substantially lower than other park sites
such as Point Vicente Interpretive Center and Hesse Park. Ladera Linda's hours were
increased by Council direction several years ago to M -F 12-5 and 10-5 Sat/Sun. This
increase is still far short of Hesse, PVIC, and Ryan Park as the following chart
demonstrates:
Park Site
Hours Mon -Fri
Hours Sat -Sun
Hesse Park
9am-Dusk
10am-Dusk
PVIC
10am-5pm
10am-5pm
Ryan Park
9am-Dusk
9am-Dusk
Ladera Linda (current)
12pm-5pm
10am-5pm
Ladera Linda (proposed)
8am-Dusk
8am-Dusk
Staff is recommending an increase in Ladera Linda's staffing hours to Daily 8 -dusk.
This sends a concrete message to the community that the Park is staffed and that there
are eyes on the property to ensure a higher level of maintenance and an awareness for
undesired activities. Staff currently is rarely present to secure the park at dusk, which
reduces security, especially in securing the facility's gates. The proposed new hours
would enable staff to inspect the facility first thing in the morning and last thing at night,
allowing them to secure the building and gates and notify law enforcement of any
inappropriate activity.
Being open more hours will likely attract more users, but they will be the kind of users
you want -people who are at the park for the right reasons. The concern should not be
the total number of visitors but the number of undesirable, unwanted visitors. Having a
beloved, well -staffed, well-maintained community park will attract more of the desirable
type of park users.
Law Enforcement Access/Sightlines
The proposed new design with its improved sightlines and singular building provides law
enforcement the opportunity to easily scan the facility for inappropriate nighttime
activity. The low-level landscaping and fencing also increases law enforcement ability to
scan the sight and reduce blind spots. This is 180 degrees different from the current
design with its multitude of blind spots and overgrown landscaping. Undesirable and
criminal elements have literally dozens of hiding places that would currently require
Sheriff personnel to exit their vehicle and walk around multiple building.
Having lower -profile landscaping is clearly a trade-off for nearby residents. While it
discourages unwanted visitors and improves sightlines, it may increase views into the
park for adjacent neighbors. Given the overriding importance of neighborhood safety,
this is a balance that needs to be established and maintained. Staff has discussed
security concerns and the contents of this report extensively with Captain Beringer of
the Lomita Sheriff's Department. He fully concurs with its conclusions that the new
design effectively addresses safety concerns and, if built, would have a positive impact
on overall neighborhood safety.
Limiting Parking on Forrestal Drive/Dedicated Preserve Parking
Numerous concerns have been raised about park visitors parking on Forrestal and
walking up into the park. These visitors walk past the residential Ladera Linda
neighborhood. Red -striping the majority of Forrestal Drive, up from Palos Verdes Drive
South, would make parking in that area illegal. That action combined with creating a
modest parking area for Preserve visitors located well beyond the current gate, would
funnel visitors to appropriate parking areas located away from residences. Appropriate
park design seeks to both minimize impact on residences and increase security, and
this plan would achieve those twin results.
Park visitors would be directed by signage to the proposed parking lots adjacent to the
park building and park amenities. Preserve visitors would be directed to the Preserve
lot. All parking lots would be secured at night, since staff would now be scheduled until
dusk.
Conclusion:
From a law enforcement perspective, the current park is problematic in terms of security
and access. The condition of the buildings, the overgrown and inappropriate
landscaping, the poor sightlines, the multitude of blind spots and many other factors laid
out in this report all contribute to this determination.
The proposed design addresses these concerns. There is only building instead of five,
eliminating the access and blind spot problems. The landscaping and lighting schema
K-5
is much more conducive to security and sightlines. Those improvements, combined
with improved fencing, increased staffing, better parking, and interior/exterior cameras
will make both the new park and the surrounding neighborhoods more secure.
W
M0 R""'
Ascac�atee
Job 090-001
Acres:
Estimate Jim Collison / Dick Fisher
Estimate Of Probable
Construction Costs Worksheet
Project: Ladera Linda Community Park Concept'A'
Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Date: 7/18/2017
ITEM
NO #
JITEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$350,000.00
$350,000
2
Demolition
1
LS
$120,000.00
$120,000
3
Hazzardous Material Removal Allowance
1
LS
$150,000.00
$150,000
4
Tree & Shrub Removal (perimeter)
27,000
SF
$0.25
$6,750
5
Clearing & Grubbing
1
LS
$8,000.00
$8,000
6
lGrading
6,844
CY
$30.00
$205,320
7
Drainage
1
LS
$60,000.00
$60,000
8
Retaining Walls at Basketball Courts
130
LF
$200.00
$26,000
9
Rock Retaining Walls at Playground Area
100
LF
$120.00
$12,000
10
New Driveway Apron
191
SF
$7.00
$1,337
11
AC Paving 3"
1,126
Tons
$100.00
$112,600
12
JAggregate Base 4"
677
CY
$65.00
$44,005
13
Concrete Curb
1,181
LF
$25.00
$29,525
14
Concrete Curb & Gutter
1,049
LF
$40.00
$41,960
15
Concrete Mow Strip
424
LF
$12.00
$5,088
16
Security Lighting
23
EA
$8,000.00
$184,000
17
Parking Lot Lighting
22
EA
$7,000.00
$154,000
18
Parking Lot Striping
1
LS
$14,000.00
$14,000
19
Concrete Walkway (6")
42,626
SF
$8.00
$341,008
20
Concrete Parkway Walkway (4")
6,383
SF
$6.50
$41,490
21
Concrete Full Basketball Court
1
LS
$55,000.00
$55,000
22
Concrete Half Basketball Court
1
LS
$30,000.00
$30,000
23
Handicap Access Ramp
2
EA
$5,000.00
$10,000
24
Handicap Signage
4
EA
$300.00
$1,200
25
Enhanced Paving
6,505
SF
$15.00
$97,575
26
Play Area Curb
687
LF
$30.00
$20,610
27
Playground Equipment
1
LS
$200,000.00
$200,000
28
Playground Resilient Surfacing
8,470
SF
$15.00
$127,050
29
Group Picnic Shelter
1
LS
$55,000.00
$55,000
30
Butterfly Garden
2,510
SF
$1.50
$3,765
31
Bridge (261 sf)
1
LS
$6,000.00
$6,000
32
Stairs (185 sf)
1
LS
$15,000.00
$15,000
33
Dry Stream
698
SF
$10.00
$6,980
34
Large Boulders Placement (Boulders Provided by City)
39
EA
$200.00
$7,800
35
Medium Boulders Placement (Boulders Provided by
34
EA
$150.00
$5,100
36
Community Center Building
1
LS
$4,222,500.00
$4,222,500
37
Storage Building
1
LS
$250,000.00
$250,000
38
Trash Enclosure
1
LS
$16,000.00
$16,000
39
Utilities
1
LS
$65,000.00
$65,000
40
New Park Sign
1
LS
$12,000.00
$12,000
41
Boulders Relocation
1
LS
$3,000.00
$3,000
42
Drinking Fountain
2
EA
$9,000.00
$18,000
43
Picnic Table
13
EA
$2,500.00
$32,500
SUB TOTAL (Items 1-43)
$7,167,163
XADept\Recreation & Parks\Ladera Linda Master Plan\March 20 2018 CC SR\Copy of Concept'A-1' Cost Estimate (07.18.17)-2.xls Page 1 of 2
L-1
wene�d
Aeooc�axee
Job
No.: 090-001
Acres:
Estimate Jim Collison / Dick Fisher
(cont)
Estimate Of Probable
Construction Costs Worksheet
Project: Ladera Linda Community Park Concept'A'
Client: City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Date: 7/18/2017
ITEM
NO #
ITEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
44
6' Bench
31
EA
$1,500.00
$46,500
45
4' Bench
8
EA
$1,300.00
$10,400
46
Chair
16
EA
$1,000.00
$16,000
47
Chainlink Fence
1,407
LF
$80.00
$112,560
48
Wood Post & Metal Fencing
1,383
LF
$20.00
$27,660
49
Removable Bollards
2
EA
$800.00
$1,600
50
Automatic (Overhead) Irrigation System
185,072
SF
$1.50
$277,608
51
Weed Abatement
185,072
SF
$0.10
$18,507
52
Soil Prep / Fine Grading
185,072
SF
$0.25
$46,268
53
Shrub Planting
133,194
SF
$0.85
$113,215
54
Slope Shrub Replacement
26,695
SF
$0.85
$22,691
55
3" Layer Wood Mulch
1,237
CY
$50.00
$61,850
56
Hydroseeded Turf
51,878
SF
$1.00
$51,878
57
24" Box Tree
105
EA
$275.00
$28,875
58
120 -Day Maintenance
1
LS
$5,000.00
$5,000
SUB TOTAL (Items 44-58
$840,612
SUB TOTAL (Items 1-43)1
$7,167,163
TOTAL
$8,007,774
10% CONTIGENCY
$800,777
TOTAL
$8,808,552
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE FUNDED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS
ITEM
NO #
ITEM DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
UNIT
I UNIT PRICE
TOTAL
59
AC Paving 3"
109
Tons $100.00
$10,900
60
Aggregate Base 4"
65
CY $65.00
$4,225
61
Concrete Curb & Gutter
422
LF $40.00
$16,880
62
Parking Lot Striping
1
LS $6,000.00
$6,000
63
Concrete Parkway Walkway (4")
1,841
SF $6.50
$11,967
64
Irri ation System and Planting
1,362
1 SF 3.85
$5,244
SUB TOTAL (Items 59-64
$55,215
10% CONTIGENCY
$5,525
TOTAL
$60,740
X:\Dept\Recreation & Parks\Ladera Linda Master Plan\March 20 2018 CC SR\Copy of Concept'A-1' Cost Estimate (07.18.17)-2.xls Page 2 of 2
L-2
Notes on Meetings with Residents Following August 2017 City Council Meeting
Meeting with Susan Wilcox: Matt Waters and Cory Linder
• Raised concern about including Equestrian/trailer turnaround area at potential second gate on
Forrestal -would be a significant concern with many LL residents, mentioned that Fire Dept. need
would need turnaround capacity
• Doesn't want area to experience same issues as Del Cerro
• Concern about noise by Forrestal Gates
• Advocated for youth services, including child care
• Concerned about cost on ongoing maintenance
• Parking and traffic control concerns, esp. involving AYSO
• Mentioned shuttle service to various Preserve entry area
• Thought red -striping of Forrestal combined with secondary gate concept had merit
Meeting with Jim Hevener: Matt Waters and Cory Linder
• General discussion of timeline.
• Noted frustration with pace of the project
• Thought that concept A-1 was a good compromise and didn't want to see significant changes to
it or reduction in size of building or amenities
• Supported more information being developed and presented to the public/Council about P3
financing options.
• Supported concept of red -striping Forrestal and opening Forrestal Gate to push cars away from
neighborhood.
• Pro Discovery Room
Meeting with Jessica Vlaco, Amanda Wong (and husband): Matt Waters
• Discussed concerns about noise, ADA access, traffic, and crime/security
• Requested shrub sound barrier between their homes and park
• Favored 1 basketball court
• Raised comparison to Ryan Park both in terms of ADA access and facility use hours
o Staff noted that Ryan Park's building is much smaller than LL's- a better comp is Hesse
Park which has the same hours and general policy. Staff noted that they would be
presenting a detailed policy/protocol that would limit rental frequency and times at LL
• Wanted outreach to AYSO/School District
• Anti -conversation area near southern edge of park
• In favor of potential red -striping of Forrestal and creating second gate on Forrestal to push cars
away from neighborhood
• Favored Discovery Room being removed from plan -thought there was minimal use by hikes,
wanted to reduce parking spaces
• Pro New Zealand Xmas trees (ok with thinning) but not removal
• Concerned about weekend hours/usage
• Wanted basketball courts and playground moved to East paddle tennis level -building moved to
lower area if sound issue/visual issue from their homes could not be minimized
M-1
Meeting with Mickey Roddich and Tom: Matt Waters and Cory Linder
• Recent home break-ins
• Security/crime concerns has led to "sea change"
• Concerned about ADA access location
• Discovery Room should be eliminated (Mickey said he had talked to 15 people)
• Wanted to reduce size of bldg. to reduce parking requirements
• Wanted lower -key landscaping
• Opposed to EQ elements in plan'
• Wanted ALPR camera on Forrestal
• Mickey said several people preferred a "leave it as is" option
• Opposed to P-3 financing -had heard of "horror stories"
• Opposed to PVDS/Forrestal traffic light
• Wants traffic study -mentioned Seaview has accelerating lane/turn out lane ---LL does not
• Mickey said reduce size of building but design in way so bldg. SF could be increased later
• Eliminate %2 basketball court
• Reduce parking on Forrestal past gate/28 to 20 or 12 spaces
• Emphasized that the space is for residents
• Smaller structure would equal more support
Meeting with Herb Stark/Gene Dewey: Matt Waters
• Different idea for ADA access. Start on Northside of driveway and follow slope to bldg..
• Pro red-striping/Forrestal gate approach
• Go to one basketball court
• Playground/bball switch to reduce noise
• EQ/trailer inclusion is problematic
• Mentioned break-ins/pro security cameras and ALPR on Forrestal/security shutters in bldg
/fencing along Forrestal
• Discussed usage and constraints policy
• Traffic big issue during rush hours and weekends/AYSO
• Herb expressed distrust of traffic studies
• Wanted to keep two large trees in Quad (staff noted that they are in current plan)
• Believed Seaview resident would be opposed to opening up view, favored hedge to obstruct
view/landscaping buffer above swale
• Would eliminate Discovery Room -replace with exhibits/displays in MPR/lobby and roll-out
discovery carts kept in storage -would reduce parking spaces
• Shave down building size, get rid of corners
• Rearrange room order so one restroom could serve as interior/exterior bathroom like Hesse
Park
• Gene asked about water fountain
Meeting with Gary Randall/Bill Shumer and Marty Foster
M-2
• Wanted more detail on P-3 financing
• Agreed that noise, traffic, parking, usage and security were big "takeaway" issues from CC mtg
• Bill favored traffic calming measures, speed cushion
• Pro red-strip/Forrestal gate proposal
• Wanted hour/time limit signage/policies on usage
• Bill mentioned including (and improving) Alan's garden at main entrance
• Did not want to improve views
• Maintenance/Staff projections
• Discussion of keeping AYSO out of proposed Preserve parking -
o Matt said that staff could potentially be assigned to be present on AYSO game days
M-3