CC SR 20191015 05 - Ladera Linda RoofRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 10/15/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to select a roofing option for the Ladera Linda Park
Community Center building as part of the detailed construction drawings phase
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Direct Staff to commence with additional study of the selected roofing option for
Ladera Linda Park Community Center building as part of the detailed
construction drawings phase.
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are currently budgeted.
Amount Budgeted: $616,509
Additional Appropriation: $0
Account Number(s): 334-400-8405-8004: $300,000
334-400-8405-8402: $316,509
ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. August 20, 2019 Ladera Linda Park Master Plan (page A-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City Council approved the Ladera Linda Parks Master Plan on August 20, 2019 ,
and authorized Staff and the architecture design firm, Johnson Favaro, to proceed to
the second phase of the project, the development of detailed construction drawings.
The overall park layout and building design were both approved, with the exception of
the Council wanting to revisit options regarding the building’s roof.
The proposed conceptual plan called for a green, living roof which would consist of
saturated, lightweight soil contained in trays with mature plant cover. The green roof
had been presented at meetings with Staff, members of the City Council, interested
parties, individual residents, and adjacent homeowners associations. While concerns
were raised about the maintenance expense and the possibility for leaks, there was also
some mixed support for this approach due to its naturalistic design.
1
The City Council directed Staff to come back with additional information and financial
analyses of three roof options: (1) the initial concept of a green roof; (2)
solar/photovoltaic; and (3) a traditional roof. Johnson Favaro has also included a
membrane roof/gravel finish roof as a fourth option.
Below are analyses of the proposed roofing options based on technical description and
attributes, appearance, and cost.
GREEN ROOF
Simulation of Ladera Linda green roof option as shown in the August 20, 2019 staff report.
Detail of planting modules in trays laid out on green roof.
2
Green Roof Details
1) Plants grown to maturity before delivery
2) Utilizes drought-tolerant plants
3) Seamless: Soil-to-soil contact allows for shared moisture and nutrients
4) Requires irrigation and maintenance
5) Storm water management benefits
6) Offers additional building insulation
7) More fire resistant than traditional roof
8) Limited view impact
9) Naturalistic design
10) Increased roof life span due to reduced exposure to elements
Estimated cost: $454,000
MEMBRANE ROOF/GRAVEL FINISH ROOF
3
Simulation of Ladera Linda gravel roof option
Membrane Roof/Gravel Finish Details
Low up-front costs
Improved appearance as compared to required “cool roof” with no gravel finish
Tested, traditional roofing technology
Estimated cost: $91,000
SOLAR ROOF/PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
4
Simulation of Ladera Linda solar roof/photovoltaic panels
Solar Roof/Photovoltaic Panels Details
Option to either enter into purchase power agreement (PPA) or other
lease/financing options, or purchase equipment outright.
Will produce power for the building and site that is 100% renewable.
Estimated cost: $0 for PPA solar system.
PPA lease option/ownership comparison: PPAs are financial agreements offered by
solar developers for the design, permitting, financing, installation, and maintenance of
solar and battery systems. The upfront cost is $0. With a PPA, the City would agree to
purchase power for a 20 year period at a set price, after which they would own the
system. One of the advantages of a PPA, is you are able to lock in a cost of power over
the 20 years and not left to fluctuations of the market. In addition, under a PPA, the City
would pay no money for the system at the time of installation. However, the City would
also not receive the savings that would come more rapidly from owning its own system.
In the case of a PPA, the solar installer is making a profit on the installation of a system
5
for 20 years. Finally, in a PPA, the City is also only paying for power that is produced,
and doesn’t pay for equipment that may malfunction or need repair. Meaning, if a panel
or inverter malfunctions and is off line, the City is not paying for anything until it is
repaired and back on line. Finally, if the City owns the system outright, it is more difficult
to take advantage of the tax credits available. A PPA allows a developer to take
advantage of the tax credits.
If the City Council decides to pursue a PV option, typically the City would issue an RFP
to solar developers and installers and ask for two options: the City purchasing and
owning the system outright or the City negotiating a PPA. Given the current
environment, it is likely that the City would get multiple respons es from reputable solar
providers and could then choose what was best at the time. If the Council decides to go
this route, staff recommends that the City Council make the decision between a PPA
and owning the system at the time it received the responses to the RFP.
TRADITIONAL ROOF
Simulation of two versions of Ladera Linda traditional roof
6
Traditional Roof Details
Initial increased capital cost; taller structure, built-in gutters; more expensive
roofing finish, more interior finishes due to higher volume
Taller building profile
More interior volume means more air to heat and cool
Variety of possible roofing materials
Estimated cost: $1.22million
Roofing Options Cost Comparison
Roofing Type Estimated Cost
Membrane Roof/Gravel Finish $91,000
Green Roof $454,000
Solar Roof/Photovoltaic Panels PPA* $0
Traditional Roof $1,220,000
*If the solar roof option is selected, an RFP process to analyze PPA and purchase
option would be recommended.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Provide alternative direction to Staff regarding roofing options.
7
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 08/20/2019
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to approve the Ladera Linda Park and Community
Center Master Plan and to move forward with the project’s second phase, the
development of detailed construction drawings
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Consideration and possible action to approve the Ladera Linda Park and
Community Center Master Plan
(2) Direct Staff and Johnson Favaro to proceed with Phase 2 of the project, the
development of detailed construction drawings
FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds are currently budgeted.
Amount Budgeted: $616,509
Additional Appropriation: $0
Account Number(s): 334-400-8405-8004: $300,000 (Quimby – LL Community Cntr/Design Srvices)
334-400-8405-8402: $316,509 (Quimby – LL Community Cntr/Building Improvements)
ORIGINATED BY: Matt Waters, Senior Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Cory Linder, Director of Recreation and Parks
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. July 10 workshop presentation (page A-1)
B. Ladera Linda Homeowner Association survey results (page B-1)
C. Ladera Linda Usage Analysis (page C-1)
D. July 10, 2019 Workshop Summary (page D-1)
E. Refined 100% Schematic Design (page E-1)
F. August 6, 2019 Herb Stark Letter (page F-1)
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The 2015 Parks Master Plan Update recommended a separate Master Plan for Ladera
Linda Park to include the demolition of existing buildings and the building of a new
Community Center. While the park had served the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes
since its 1983 opening, the pre-fabricated buildings and infrastructure were in poor
condition, as evidenced by a score of “F” in a 2013 citywide infrastructure analysis.
A-1
At its March 20, 2018 meeting, the City Council reviewed and approved a conceptual
Master Plan design for Ladera Linda Park prepared by Richard Fisher Associates after
almost two years of extensive community outreach and design work. The City Council
directed Staff to “proceed with developing one Request for Proposal (RFP) with two
phases: Phase 1-Final Concepts Drawings and Phase 2-Detailed Construction
Drawings, if the City chooses to move forward with the concept that the City has
approved.” The council also gave Staff specific direction to eliminate a dry stream bed,
consider reducing the size of the Discovery Room, and examine expanding the multi-
purpose room. Council directed Staff to take pay particular attention to the concerns and
issues affecting residents living near the park.
At Council’s direction, representatives from the Seaview, Ladera Linda, Mediterrania,
and Seacliff Hills homeowners’ associations (HOAs) were part of the selection process
due to their proximity to the Ladera Linda site. Staff prepared a draft RFP which was
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the City Council RFP ad hoc
subcommittee, which consisted of Councilmember Ken Dyda and current Mayor Pro
Tem John Cruikshank.
The interview panel of City Staff and HOA representatives ranked the
architecture/design firm of Johnson Favaro the highest of the five companies that
advanced to the interview stage. Johnson Favaro was awarded a contract in the amount
of $528,460 on December 18, 2018.
Johnson Favaro has completed Phase 1 of its contract, the creation of a refined
schematic design for the park and building. This phase involved extensive public
outreach, including multiple meetings with representatives from four HOAs (Seaview,
Ladera Linda, Mediterrania and Seacliff Hills) located near to the park, individual
councilmembers, Los Serenos de Point Vicente docents, Staff, individual residents and
small groups, in addition to a public workshop on July 10, 2019. While the Richard
Fisher plan provided guidance, Johnson Favaro was given the freedom to modify the
Fisher design based on its expertise, research and public outreach. If approved, the
second phase would consist of the development of construction-ready documents that
incorporate City Council revisions and directions.
Johnson Favaro began its work with numerous small exploratory meetings in February
2019, with a wide range of interested parties in order to gain a better sense of the
project’s nuances and community concerns and desires. This fact-finding approach was
undertaken before Johnson Favaro put pen to paper.
Feb. 2019 Exploratory Meetings
• All five councilmembers either individually or in groups of two
• City Manager Doug Willmore
• City Staff
• Representatives from four HOAs (Seaview, Ladera Linda, Mediterrania and
Seacliff Hills)
• Ladera Linda HOA Representatives
A-2
• Mediterrania Representatives
• Los Serenos De Point Vicente docents/Jay Fodor (Member of Discovery Room
Sub-Committee)
• Ladera Linda residents Jessica Vlaco, Mickey Rodich and Gary Randall
Johnson Favaro then developed a refined conceptual design, which was informed by
the following factors:
• Concerns and issues raised at the exploratory meetings, including right-sizing the
parking, reducing hardscape, reducing the square footage and landscape
concerns
• Johnson Favaro’s professional expertise and its extensive studies of the site’s
possibilities and challenges
• General agreement on the basic components that were the core of the Fisher
design: new community center (although there continues to be disagreement on
the number of rooms, primarily from members of the Ladera Linda HOA), passive
lawn area, basketball courts, paddle tennis courts and low-key landscaping
• No added active components such as a gym, pool or skate park
• Elimination of any single-use public rooms, e.g. the Discovery Room, in favor of
rooms that could serve multiple functions
• A survey conducted and distributed by the Ladera Linda HOA in February 2019,
designed to determine local resident interest in park activities and potential uses
of the community center. Based on these meetings, which were highly
productive, Staff developed a projected park usage chart, a survey created and
distributed by the K (Attachment C).
• A Staff-developed projected schedule for future building use based on previous
classes, events and programs at Ladera Linda, activities at other locations such
as Hesse Park, public outreach efforts, the exploratory meetings in February, and
the 2019 Ladera Linda HOA survey (Attachment B)
The conceptual design was presented in a number of meetings in June and July 2019 to
essentially the same groups, individuals and council members that Johnson Favaro met
with in February. There was general support for the approach taken by Johnson Favaro,
particularly the reduction in building size, the realignment of active features away from
the Ladera Linda (LL) HOA neighborhood, the positioning of the building away from the
western bluff edge overlooking the Seaview area, and the incorporation of discovery
display elements into a small meeting room that could serve additional functionality.
Concerns were expressed about the usage, rental restrictions, number of rooms (some
LL HOA representatives advocated for the removal of 1-2 classrooms/meeting rooms
while some residents advocated for more facilities), how to manage the attractive views,
and how best to secure the building and park grounds. Other meeting attendees said
they had been in favor of more active recreation components that had been discussed
early in the Master Plan process, but were willing to accept the current proposed plan
that emphasizes current components and passive use.
A-3
Below is the building diagram presented to the community at the July 10 workshop:
The building contains the following components:
• A dividable multi-purpose room
• Two classrooms
• A meeting room, with Discovery Room displays built into the walls
• A docent work room
• Storage and staging areas
• Public restrooms
• Staff office
• An outdoor breezeway covered lobby
• Small kitchen and staging area
• Covered walkways
• Janitorial and electrical rooms
• Vestibules
• Parking
The table below shows the square footage for the current layout, Richard Fisher
Associates’ design and Johnson Favaro’s proposed design. Hesse Park is added for
comparison.
Building Square Footage Comparison
Current
Buildings
Hesse Park Fisher 2018
Design
Johnson Favaro
2019
Assignable
Square Footage
13,500 9,880 8,900 6,175*
Gross Square
Footage
19,000 15,000 11,700 7,037*
*Total at Workshop was 5,980asf. 195asf Increase due to MEP requirements, wall thickness
adjustments, and refinements to room spacing
The reduction in square footage in the 2019 design in comparison with the 2018 design
was achieved by reducing or eliminating the following components:
• Eliminate second set of restrooms
• Eliminate lobby/gallery area
A-4
• Replace Discovery Room with smaller multi-function meeting room per Council
direction
• Reduction in size of multi-purpose room
Below is the proposed Johnson Favaro park design (within the red outline) that was
presented at the July 10 workshop at Ladera Linda:
The design includes the following components/features:
• 6,000-square-foot building
• Adjacent covered patio areas
• Outdoor tiered seating area for nature talks, summer camps, etc.
• 58 parking spaces in courtyard located adjacent to building and playground
• Naturalistic children’s playground area
• One full basketball court and a 1/2 basketball court
• Two paddle tennis courts
• Small storage facility for public works and emergency supplies
• Walking paths
• Upper and lower lawn areas
• Utilization of existing Forrestal Drive entrance
A-5
• Low-impact, native, drought-tolerant landscaping
• 25 Preserve parking spaces located on Forrestal Drive with secure gates at start
and entrance to be locked at night
• Hillsides below park
• Green roof
Below, for comparison’s sake, are the existing park conditions and the 2018 Richard
Fisher Associates design:
Existing Conditions 2018 Richard Fisher Associates Design
The following image shows the existing school buildings (red-striped) overlaying the
proposed Johnson Favaro design:
A-6
The Johnson Favaro design has a reduced hardscape and vehicular circulation/parking
footprint as demonstrated in the tables below:
Hardscape Comparison (courts, driveway, parking)
Current Buildings Fisher 2018 Johnson Favaro 2019
Acreage 2.68 acres 3.38 acres 1.59 acres
Square Footage 116,900 sf 147,400 sf 69,075 sf
Vehicular Circulation & Parking Comparison
Current Buildings Fisher 2018 Johnson Favaro 2019
Acreage 1.5 acres 1.2 acres .88 acres
Square Footage 65,500 sf 51,500 sf 38,374 sf
July 10, 2019 Workshop
84 people attended a Master Plan workshop at Ladera Linda on July 10, 2019. Based
on the sign-in attendance sheets, 38% of attendees were from the Ladera Linda HOA,
14% from Seaview HOA, 2% from Mediterrania, and 46% were from other parts of the
City. Johnson Favaro presented its outreach efforts and proposed concept (Attachment
A) which included the following:
• Site and building analysis diagrams comparing the proposed concept to the
existing park and the Richard Fisher design
• Different site and building configurations
• Summary of community outreach effort
• Methodology for “right-sizing” the facility, a mock schedule prepared by Staff, and
building reductions
• Review of proposed building and park plans, including configuration, placement
and orientation with comparisons to both existing and Richard Fisher design
• Review of site sections and sight lines
• Review of Preserve parking options
• Concept views of the building and park
• Site model of building and park in neighborhood context to scale
• Model of proposed building to scale
Following the presentation, attendees divided into small groups to discuss the following
questions among themselves before reporting back to the entire group. The questions
were:
• What do you like most?
• What needs improvement?
• What would you add or subtract?
After the group presentations, individuals asked questions and made comments about
the project.
A-7
Johnson Favaro prepared a summary of the workshop results (Attachment D). Below
are the summary’s takeaways:
1. A plurality of attendees approved the following:
• The compact arrangement of the community center building and its low
profile
• The clean, contemporary lines of the architectural design
• The setback of the building from the top of the slope overlooking the
Seaview neighborhood, which protects the privacy of downslope neighbors
• Location of parking between the proposed building and the hillside of the
middle park tier
• Location of park activities, such as the children’s playground and sports court
on the upper park tier, further away from the Ladera Linda neighborhood and
set back from Seaview
2. A plurality of attendees were concerned about how building and park security
would be addressed in the subsequent design phase.
3. No clear consensus and a wide range of viewpoints were expressed on a
number of key questions:
• Are the number of rooms too many, too few, or just right?
• What is the correct amount of parking that is sufficient for the community
center and park?
• Should Preserve parking be located in the park or on Forrestal Drive?
Workshop Comment Cards
24 individuals submitted comment cards after the workshop. Many respondents wrote
multiple comments on their cards, with responses ranging from the number of rooms,
parking, and security, to pro/con on a dog park, overall impressions of the plan, and
green roof. Below is a list of responses that received at least two comments.
Workshop Comment Card Results
Liked Design/# of Rooms 8
Security Concerns 4
Too Many Rooms/Smaller in Size 11
Opposed to Forrestal Parking 4
Pro-Dog Park 2
Anti-Dog Park 3
Great Meeting and Discussion 4
Should be Neighborhood Park 4
Pro-Green Roof 2
Anti-Green Roof/Pro-Solar 2
Park Should Not Be a For-Profit Venture 2
A-8
Traffic Concerns 2
Concern About Noise/Serenity 2
Forrestal Preserve Parking
While the Forrestal Reserve is not within the park boundaries, and is therefore not part
of the Master Plan scope, the issues of providing or not providing parking, and if
provided, identifying where would be the best location, has been a much-debated topic
throughout the entire multi-year process. Due to its importance to the local community,
Johnson Favaro included this topic in all of its meetings, including the public workshop.
Recommended Option: Forrestal Drive
This option involves the creation of 25 parking spaces beyond Forrestal Drive gate. An
additional gate would be added at eastern end of parking spaces so cars would not be
able to drive past the assigned area. This would de-couple park parking from Preserve
parking which was a common concern expressed by meeting attendees. It would also
direct Preserve parking away from Ladera Linda neighborhoods and establish spaces
nearer to the trailhead. Expense would be minimal since the area is already paved.
Concerns were expressed by some LL HOA residents that the existence of dedicated
Preserve spaces would lead to increased social media awareness and a higher number
of visitors. Concerns were also expressed about the possibility of vandalism and
unwanted after-hour activities. Staff would recommend fencing and secure gates
(blocking vehicular, pedestrian and equestrian access when closed) to address those
community concerns.
Recommended Location on Forrestal Drive
A-9
Alternative Location: Preserve/overflow lot within park on paddle tennis level
25 spaces proposed. Temporary placement of Preserve parking was approved by City
Council in 2018 as part of a comprehensive Preserve Parking and access plan. This
approach would likely require the installation of switchback paths to allow for ADA
access from the parking lot to the Forrestal Reserve trailheads. This approach would
also decrease the amount of usable park ground in favor of paved parking.
Given the popularity of the Nature Preserve, there remains a pressing need to limit the
impact on residences by identifying a front door to the Preserve located away from the
Ladera Linda and Del Cerro neighborhoods.
August 6, 2019 Letter from LL HOA resident Herb Stark
Mr. Stark, writing on behalf of the LL HOA Board and Ladera Linda Park Committee,
wrote to the City Council about the proposed Johnson Favaro design (Attachment F).
His letter urged to City Council to accept the Johnson Favaro design as presented at
the July 10 workshop with the following modifications and stated reasons:
• Eliminate one classroom. It is not needed for neighborhood programming and
would increase construction and maintenance costs. (Eliminating this classroom
would reduce the square footage by 900 sf)
• Eliminate meeting room. It is not needed for programming and would be locked
most of the time, so displays would not be accessible. (Eliminating this meeting
room would reduce the square footage by 625 sf)
• Enclose the lobby and restrooms to allow for complete enclosure of building
perimeter
• Incorporate display cases in the lobby and docents could utilize display carts.
The lobby is more accessible for artifact displays.
• Consider security shutters for all windows and doors
• No amphitheater-style steps. This discourages large groups and there would be
less noise. Amphitheater-style steps would duplicate the Point Vicente
Interpretive Center (PVIC).
• Limit views to the south to a maximum of 50%. This will limit the number of
people in the park and prevent a Marilyn Ryan Park situation. Views will increase
number of visitors along with increased traffic, noise and trash.
• 25 Preserve parking spaces should be located on the upper park terrace, not on
Forrrestal Drive. No parking is needed beyond the current lot in the park. It could
become a Del Cerro Park or Marilyn Ryan Park type of issue. There could be
problems keeping gate locked.
• No components shall be moved closer to the southern bluffs.
While all of these suggestions are available for City Council consideration, Staff and
Johnson Favaro believe that their recommendations better represent the input from all
the community:
A-10
• The building and number of rooms are appropriate and merited, allowing for a
greater range of potential uses. Eliminating a classroom would result in modest
project cost savings.
• Having display cases in the meeting room is functional and allows the docents to
conduct nature tours as they have done for many years.
• The amphitheater steps are a small, functional and aesthetically-pleasing
component. They are not equivalent in size or purpose to the PVIC amphitheater.
• Limiting views during open park hours is not a design best practice or in keeping
with the City’s celebration and embrace of its majestic views. The park would be
fenced and locked at night so usage would be limited to daytime hours.
• Locating parking adjacent to trailheads and away from homes is a logical and
preferable option to having Preserve parking mingled with park parking. Adding
security gates and fencing will make it possible to secure both the park grounds
and Preserve access. Staff is not recommending creating permanent preserve
parking within a park site.
• Installing security shutters on doors and windows is a common and effective
measure that has worked well at Hesse Park for over 30 years and is worth
considering.
• No components are being considered for relocation closer to the southern bluffs.
The Johnson Favaro design moved the playground further away from the
Seaview overlook.
Security/Rental Restrictions/Staffing Levels
Concerns have been raised throughout this process regarding park security, staffing
levels and usage restrictions. The analyses below are consistent with ones presented at
past workshops, small group meetings and the March 20, 2018 Council meeting.
Building and Park Security Analysis
Neighbor concerns about security have been clearly heard. As has been noted
previously, the existing park and community center layout has poor overall security due
to its multiple buildings and access points, poor sightlines, numerous blind spots, and
overgrown landscaping. The security plan will be more fully detailed during the
construction design phase, pursuant to City Council direction.
While the security design will be formalized during the construction design phase, below
is a short list of the ways security will be addressed:
• greatly-simplified single building design
• appropriately-placed security cameras
• appropriate low-level landscaping
• control of ingress and egress points
• comprehensive best practices, lighting design throughout park and building
• increased staffing presence
A-11
• ability to secure park perimeter at night through fencing and improved entrance
gates
• reduction/elimination of blind spots
The refined security provisions are included in the schematic design (Attachment E).
A. Security systems (keypads, glass break sensors, security cameras, etc.) will be
developed in conjunction with the City, Community Center Staff and maintenance
personnel to provide staff and public access to the building during operating hours and
non-operating hours. The following security provisions are recommended for the project:
1. Perimeter fencing and gates at vehicular and pedestrian access points in order to
secure park property and buildings
• Vehicular entry gates at driveways and maintenance/storage building
• Pedestrian gates from stairs or at entries onto property
• Pedestrian gates at playground areas
• Maintain all existing and add new fencing where needed to create continuous park
perimeter fencing at or near park property line
• In order to restrict access from the park to the south slope abutting the Seaview
neighborhood, install fencing near top of slope below sight line
2. Site and building security and safety lighting
• Site lighting at sufficient illumination levels to support camera and security force
observation
• Site lighting at parking lot and driveway to maintain safety
• Site lighting around play areas to discourage inappropriate users
• Minimal motion detection site lighting around clearly outlined walkways at head
height for user safety
• Lighting at appropriate areas around the building to discourage inappropriate users
3. Site and interior and exterior building cameras and motion detectors
• Clear sightlines at entries of buildings allow for maximum security camera
coverage around building and parking lot
• Interior building cameras to be monitored, motion detector coverage used in areas
where persons may congregate or approach
• Fixed cameras (not capable of remote movement) to be installed upon light
standards, custom camera poles, building soffits and walls sufficient to view all
areas of the park and park perimeter
• Cameras are connected through security system network to a server location and
recording equipment
4. Glass break sensors to provide monitoring of glazed areas where security alarm will
be triggered. When glass breaks, a microphone will detect the frequency emitted,
distance of frequency to be determined.
A-12
5. Door hardware and security: door sensors and security hardware will include alarms,
and special door locks (combination, push button, card key access, etc.) where
applicable.
B. Additional security measures:
1. Integral to the design are improved sight lines throughout the site due to the compact
community center housed under one roof. Sightlines running north and south run
through the building at large openings (breezeway), specifically sited windows and
glazed doors, and floor to ceiling glazing (multipurpose rooms and classroom).
Sightlines running east and west are unimpeded with low-lying landscaping and
terracing providing full views over the site. From the entrance driveway and a drive aisle
location within the parking area, a sheriff’s deputy can view a majority of the park site
and building area without leaving vehicle.
2. Clear points of entry to the building spaces are within sightlines and within view of the
monitoring staff office. In addition, guests are directed to overhang under building as
first point of contact, reducing potential way finding problems.
3. Increased utilization of the park and the building, combined with enhanced staff
supervision, will deter undesirable behavior in the park during operating hours.
4. Planting height, placement, density and type must be considered in order to eliminate
visual obstructions to all park areas.
Ladera Linda Proposed Staffing Hours
Ladera Linda Park staffing hours have traditionally been limited when compared to other
park sites, with Staff departing at 5 p.m. 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.
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 9 a.m.-Dusk 10 a.m.-Dusk
PVIC 10 a.m.-5pm 10 a.m.-5 p.m.
Ryan Park 9 a.m.-Dusk 9 a.m.-Dusk
Ladera Linda (current) 12 p.m.-5 p.m. 10 a.m.-5 p.m.
Ladera Linda (proposed) 8 a.m.-dusk 8 a.m.-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
A-13
staffing to two part-time staff members per shift with one full-time supervisor. This is
comparable to staffing levels at Hesse Park and PVIC.
Ladera Linda Proposed Park Usage
Concerns continue to be raised about park hours and park usage. While the park will be
used more during the day, we are recommending tight restrictions on park usage and
rental hours. The table below shows current Ladera Linda usage policies, proposed
changes, and current policies at Hesse Park, Ryan Park and PVIC for comparison.
Rental
Polices
LL Current LL Proposed Hesse Park
Current
Ryan Park
Current
PVIC
Current
Rental
Hours
Not specified 10 a.m.- 9 p.m. 8 a.m. - 11 p.m. 8 a.m. - 10 p.m. Noon-Midnight
(Fr-Sun)
Non-profit mtgs 8
a.m. - 10 p.m. (M-
Th)
Classes Not specified 8 a.m.- 9 p.m. 8 a.m. - 11 p.m. 8 a.m. - 10 p.m. n/a
Private
Rentals
after 5
p.m.
No current
limits
2 x month ** No established
limit
No established
limit
Fri-Sun
One per day max.
Amplified
Music
(indoor
only)
10 a.m. - 10
p.m.
11 a.m.- 8 p.m. 10 a.m.- 10 p.m. 10 a.m. – 10
p.m.
5 p.m. – 10 p.m.
(allowed on patio,
also)
Special
Events
No limit 8/year No established
limit
No established
limit
No established
limit
*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.
100% Schematic Design Submittal
Subsequent to the July 10 workshop, Johnson Favaro continued its work on the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park Project 100% Schematic design, following the
specifications and guidelines detailed in Phase 1 of its contract (Attachment E). The
document was prepared by the following professionals:
• Architect: Johnson Favaro
• Civil Engineer: KPFF
• Structural Engineering: Englekirk
• Landscape Architect: KSA Design Studio
• MEP Engineering: Novus Design Studio
A-14
The schematic design is broken down into the following categories:
1. General project requirements
2. Civil sitework
3. Landscape
4. Structural system
5. Building enclosure
6. Interior construction and finishes
7. Mechanical (HVAC) systems
8. Electrical systems
9. Plumbing and fire protection systems
10. Technology and audiovisual systems
11. Security
12. Sustainability
13. Code analysis
14. Design standards
15. Exhibits
16. Outstanding issues
Next Steps/Cost Estimate:
The schematic design, if approved, or approved with modifications, will be used by Staff
and Johnson Favaro as the basis to proceed with Phase 2 of the project, the creation of
detailed construction drawings. This phase will include the generation of detailed cost
estimates and project financing alternatives. Johnson Favaro estimates that, if
approved, construction could start by June 2020 with a potential construction
completion date of August 2021.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Provide direction to Staff and Johnson Favaro regarding modifications to
the proposed plan
2. Reject the proposed plan and provide direction to Staff
A-15