CC SR 20210406 01 - Ladera Linda Appeal
PUBLIC HEARING
Date: April 6, 2021
Subject:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission -approval for the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project located at 32201 Forrestal Drive (Case No.
PLCU2020-0007).
Recommendation:
1. Review the Planning Commission-approved Conditional Use Permit, Major Grading Permit,
Variance and Site Plan Review application findings (planning entitlements) and Conditions of
Approval for the construction of the new Ladera Linda Community Center and Pa rk project;
2. Review responses to public comments and recommendations adopted by the Planning
Commission, via minute order, to the proposed project;
3. Review Staff recommended modifications to the Planning Commission-adopted Conditions of
Approval;
4. If acceptable, adopt Resolution No. 2021-__; upholding the Planning Commission-approved
Conditional Use Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review for the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park project with modifications to the Conditions of Appro val;
and
5. If acceptable, direct Staff to proceed with the completion of construction documents and
authorize advertisement of bids upon final completion of plans and specifications for the
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project.
6. Report of Notice Given: Deputy City Clerk
7. Declare Public Hearing Open: Mayor Alegria
8. Request for Staff Report: Mayor Alegria
9. Staff Report & Recommendation: Octavio Silva, Deputy Director of Community Development
10. Council Questions of Staff (factual and without bias):
11. Testimony from members of the public:
The normal time limit for each speaker is three (3) minutes. The Presiding Officer may grant additional time to a representative speaking
for an entire group. The Mayor also may adjust the time limit for individual speakers depending upon the number of speakers who
intend to speak.
7. Declare Hearing Closed/or Continue the Public Hearing to a later date: Mayor Alegria
8. Council Deliberation:
The Council may ask staff to address questions raised by the testimony, or to clarify matters. Staff and/or Council may also answer
questions posed by speakers during their testimony. The Council will then debate and/or make motions on the matter.
9. Council Action:
The Council may: vote on the item; offer amendments or substitute motions to decide the matter; reopen the hearing for additional
testimony; continue the matter to a later date for a decision.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 04/06/2021
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission -
approval for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project located at 32201
Forrestal Drive (Case No. PLCU2020-0007).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review the Planning Commission-approved Conditional Use Permit, Major
Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan Review application findings (planning
entitlements) and Conditions of Approval for the construction of the new Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park project;
(2) Review responses to public comments and recommendations adopted by the
Planning Commission, via minute order, to the proposed project;
(3) Review Staff recommended modifications to the Planning Commission -adopted
Conditions of Approval;
(4) If acceptable, adopt Resolution No. 2021-__; upholding the Planning
Commission-approved Conditional Use Permit, Major Grading Permit, Variance
and Site Plan Review for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project
with modifications to the Conditions of Approval; and
(5) If acceptable, direct Staff to proceed with the completion of construction
documents and authorize advertisement of bids upon final completion of plans
and specifications for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project.
FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact associated with the City Council’s appeal hearing.
Project specific costs are further discussed in the ‘Additional Information’ section of this
report.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Octavio Silva, Deputy Director of Community Development
REVIEWED BY: Ken Rukavina PE Director of Community Development
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
1
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Click on the following links to view the supporting attachments except for Attachment A:
A. Draft Resolution No. 2021-___ (page A-1)
B. Project Plans (page B-1)
C. Planning Commission-Adopted Resolution No. 2021-02 (page C-1)
D. Public Facilities City Council Subcommittee Appeal Request (page D-1)
E. Public Comments (page E-1)
F. Environmental Assessment Determination (page F-1)
G. Willdan Engineering Traffic & Parking Impact Analysis (page G-1)
H. Ladera Linda Community Center & Park Usage Analysis (page H-1)
I. Grading & Retaining Wall Exhibit (page I-1)
J. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated February 23, 2021 (page J-
1)
K. Potential Project Design Modifications Exhibit (page K-1)
L. Finance Advisory Committee Presentation dated February 25, 2021 (page
L-1)
BACKGROUND:
In 1960s, the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District (PVPUSD) developed the
project site into the Ladera Linda Elementary, which included five structures and
ancillary site improvements. The school operated until 1980 when the City purchased
the property and the Rancho Palos Verdes Parks and Recreation Department took over
operations of the site. The park officially opened to the public in 1982. From 1993 to
2011, a Montessori School leased several classrooms on the site. Since 2011, the
community center and park has been exclusively used for park recreation purposes.
2015 Master Plan Update
In 2015, the City commissioned a Parks Master Plan Update (Master Plan), which was
prepared by Richard Fisher Associates (RFA). The Master Plan update recommended
a separate Master Plan for Ladera Linda to include, but not limited to, the following
components:
• Demolish existing buildings and construct a new Community Center;
• Incorporate an expanded Nature Center/Preserve Annex;
• Incorporate a Sheriff/Ranger Drop-in Office;
• Pave access road between lower and middle parking lots.
Early in the public outreach process for the Parks Master Plan and Ladera Linda Master
Plan, there was general agreement to keep existing components and not add any new
elements. After two years of extensive community outreach and design work, in 2018,
the City Council reviewed and approved a conceptual Master Use Plan for Ladera Linda
Park prepared by RFA, which included an approximately 8,900 ft2 Community Center
building with two sets of restrooms along with ancillary site improvements. Based on
2
public input, the City Council-approved Master Use Plan for Ladera Linda was modified
as follows:
• Large scale recreation components such as a gymnasium, pool or skate park
were removed from consideration;
• Active recreation elements were relocated from the lower park tier to the upper
park tier to minimize noise and visual impacts to the Ladera Linda neighborhood;
• The height and density of project landscaping was modified to minimize visual
impacts on adjacent neighborhood while still allowing for adequate security
sightlines; and
• Multiple reductions were made to the building square footage from its current
existing size, including several Richard Fisher design iterations that resulted in
the approved 2018 RFA Master Plan.
Subsequent to approval of the conceptual Master Use Plan for Ladera Linda Park, the
City Council directed Staff to proceed with developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to
solicit proposals for the preparation of Phase 1 - Final Concepts Drawings and Phase 2
- Detailed Construction Drawings. At City Council’s direction, representatives from the
Seaview, Ladera Linda, Mediterrania, and Seacliff Hills homeowners’ associations
(HOAs) were invited to participate in the consultant selection process due to their
proximity to the Ladera Linda site. Staff prepared a draft RFP that was reviewed and
approved by the City Council RFP ad hoc subcommittee. Based on the results of the
RFP interview, the architectural firm Johnson Favaro was awarded the contract to
prepare the project plans.
Johnson Favaro Project Design
Johnson Favaro began its design work with numerous small exploratory meetings with a
wide range of interested parties in February 2019 in order to gain a better sense of the
community concerns. Johnson Favaro met with representatives from four HOAs
(Seaview, Ladera Linda, Mediterrania and Seacliff Hills) located in the vicinity of the
park, individual councilmembers, Los Serenos de Point Vicente docents, City staff,
individual residents and other small groups. As a result of this public and internal
engagement, Johnson Favaro developed a refined conceptual design, which includes:
• Reduction in the building size of approximately 4,800 ft2 from the RFA building
design;
• Further realignment of active features away from the Ladera Linda neighborhood
by positioning the building away from the western bluff edge overlooking the
Seaview neighborhood and modifications to the meeting room layout and design;
• Elimination of second set of restrooms;
• Elimination of lobby/gallery area;
• Replacement of the Discovery Room with a smaller multi-function meeting room
that incorporates elements of the Discovery Room per City Council direction; and
• Reduction in the size of the multi-purpose room.
In July 2019, the City and Johnson Favaro conducted a public workshop, in wh ich
Johnson Favaro presented its outreach efforts and proposed park design. 84 people
3
attended the Master Plan workshop at Ladera Linda with 38% of attendees from the
Ladera Linda HOA, 14% from the Seaview HOA, 2% from the Mediterrania HOA, and
46% were from other parts of the City. During the workshop, park operations were also
presented to the public including proposed hours and days of operation, staffing levels,
and Community Center usage.
On August 20, 2019, after a comprehensive public outreach and engagement effort, the
City Council approved the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center Master Plan. The
City Council’s August 20, 2019 actions included approving the design of the
replacement Community Center, landscaping, ancillary site improvements, which also
included factors such as park security, staffing levels and facility rentals.
On October 15, 2019, the City Council reviewed roof design options, including a green
roof or pitched roof, and subsequently directed Staff to study the installation of a solar
roof option on a flat roof as part of the detailed construction drawings phase. The size
and configuration of the solar panel system will be determined during the final design
phase; however, the solar panels can be laid flat and flush with the roof and sill provide
energy to operate the building.
Since 2019, the proposed project design has been further modified as follows:
• Additional reduction of approximately 110 ft2 in the size of the Community Center
square footage;
• A reduction in the overall building height and the width of exterior covered
walkways to further minimize building massing and reduce visual impacts of the
building on the site; and
• A reduction in the building exterior glass wall area by 31% and an increase in
solid wall surface area by 30% as compared to the August 2019 City Council
approved Johnson Favaro design.
On January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider
the planning entitlements for the Council-approved Ladera Linda Community Center
and Park project. The planning entitlements include a Conditional Use Permit (CUP),
Variance, Major Grading Permit and Site Plan Review. After considering information
presented at the meeting including public testimony, the Planning Commission
continued the public hearing to February 23, 2021 , to provide Staff an opportunity to
incorporate project feedback provided by the Planning Commission.
On February 23, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted the continued public
hearing and after consider information presented including public testimony, the
Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 2021-02 (Attachment C),
conditionally approving the planning entitlements for the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park project. The Planning Commission in their motion, which passed on a
7-0 vote, approved Conditions of Approval to mitigate project impacts that included, but
were not limited to, safety and security measures, hours of operation, limits on the
number of rentals and special events, noise restrictions, and lighting. The Planning
Commission also adopted, via minute order, recommendations for consideration by the
City Council which include implementing of traffic and parking measures, prioritizing
4
park usage to City residents and assessing current and future site usage.
On February 24, 2021, the City Council’s Public Facilities Subcommittee, consisting of
Mayor Alegria and Councilmember Cruikshank, notified the City Manager that they are
requesting that consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the
subject project be placed on the March 2, 2021 City Council agenda.
On March 2, 2021, the City Council, after considering information presented including
public testimony, voted to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the Ladera
Linda Community Center and Park land-use applications and tentatively set the appeal
hearing for April 6, 2021 (Attachment D). In its decision, the City Council indicated that
their action did not represent disagreement with the Planning Commission’s decision,
but felt the decision of this City project should be in the jurisdiction of the City Council,
thereby warranting the appeal.
On March 11, 2021, a public notice announcing the City Council’s consideration of the
appeal was sent to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site and
interested parties as well as published in the Peninsula News. As of the preparation of
this report, staff has received 33 public communications (Attachment E) in response to
the public notice. These public comments are discussed in the Public Correspondence
Section of this report.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) § 17.80.070(F) (De Novo
Review), a City Council appeal hearing is not limited to consideration of the materials
presented to the Planning Commission. Any matter or evidence relating to the action on
the application, regardless of the specific issue appealed, may be reviewed by the City
Council at the appeal hearing. As such, this staff report presents information considered
by the Planning Commission, as well as new evidence and is outlined as follows:
1. Site Description
2. Project Description
3. Planning Entitlement Code Considerations & Analysis
o Conditional Use Permit
o Variance
o Major Grading Permit
o Site Plan Review
o Environmental Analysis
4. Public Comments
5. Planning Commission Recommendations
6. Staff Recommended Modified Conditions of Approval
7. Additional Information
o Potential Project Modifications
o Project Cost
o Project Timeline
o Miscellaneous
5
1. Site Description
The project site is owned and operated by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
consists of approximately 11.031 acres. The project site is bounded by Forrestal Drive
and open space preserve (Forrestal Reserve) to the north and east, the Ladera Linda
Neighborhood Community to the southeast, Dauntless Drive and the Seaview
Neighborhood Community to the south and southwest and Ladera Linda Park soccer
fields (owned by the PVPUSD) to the west. The site is currently composed of five
buildings (approximately 18,574 ft2 in gross area)1 comprising the Community Center,
surface parking, playground paving, equipment, two full-court basketball courts, two
paddle tennis courts, fields, landscaping, City offices, and emergency preparedness
storage containers. Approximately 7 acres of the site are used for these purposes with
the remainder of the area being steep terraced slopes to the south and southwest of the
site that are improved with mature landscaping and drainage swales. As a result of the
topography in the area, the project site is configured into three tiers, a lower, middle,
and upper. The project site also includes two easements that traverse the property from
north to south for storm drain purposes.
The project site has a General Plan and Zoning designation of Institutional Public and
Institutional (I), respectively. The site is immediately adjacent to the south-west of the
Forrestal Reserve (a sub-area of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve) and in the
immediate area of a number of public trails including, but not limited to, the Forrestal,
Pirate and Quarry Trails. The site is also within the vicinity of various conceptual trails
as outlined in the City’s Conceptual Trails Plan. Additional information about the public
trails in the area of the project site are further discussed in the Public Trails section of
this report. The existing Ladera Linda Park and Community Center is the only City
facility serving residents and the community on the east side of the City.
2. Project Description
The City Council-approved Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project involves
the following:
• Demolition of five existing buildings (18,574 ft2 in gross area), parking, ancillary
site improvements and landscaping;
• Construction of a new 6,790 ft2 single-story building (Community Center) with an
overall building footprint of 13,720 ft2 (enclosed and covered areas) at an overall
height of 16 feet – 6 ¼ inches;
• Construction of a 775 ft2 outdoor tiered seating area;
• Construction of a 54-stall parking lot located adjacent to building and playground,
including four clean air vehicle spaces;
• Construction of a naturalistic children’s playground area in th e upper tier;
1 Please note that the gross floor area of the existing buildings was previously reported to be 19,000 ft2. After
further examination of the project site survey, it was determined that the enclosed and covered area of the
buildings total approximately 18,574 ft2.
6
• Construction of one full basketball court and a half-court basketball court in the
upper tier;
• Renovation of two existing paddle tennis courts in the upper tier;
• Construction of a 400 ft2 storage facility at 12 feet in height for City and
emergency supplies;
• Construction of walking paths throughout park area along with upper and lower
lawn areas;
• Construction of a lawn area in the lower tier;
• Utilization of existing driveway off Forrestal Drive as the only vehicular entrance
into the park;
• Installation of low-impact, native and drought-tolerant landscaping, including 30-
foot to 100-foot buffer zone between the building and southerly slope;
• 9,000 cubic yards combined balanced on-site grading (4,500 cubic yards of cut
and 4,500 cubic yards of fill);
• Grading cut and fill over 5 feet in height to support an Americans with Disability
Act (ADA) access ramp between middle- and upper-tiers;
• Construction of retaining and combination walls to a maximum height of 15 ½
feet to accommodate accessibility and ADA compliant ramps;
• Installation of a new 12-foot flagpole;
• Construction of mechanical equipment and refuse storage area;
• Installation of new bike and storage area;
• Installation of vehicular entry gate for park security; and,
• Installation of on-site lighting.
Below is the proposed 6,790 ft2 single-story building floor plan diagram illustrating the
enclosed spaces:
The building is proposed to contain the following components:
• A 1,880 ft2 divisible multi-purpose room with a seating capacity of 144 in lecture
format;
• Two classrooms with a combined area of approximately 1,690 ft2. Classroom 1
has a seating capacity of 60 in lecture format or capacity for 24 seats at tables.
Classroom 2 has a seating capacity of 24 seats at tables;
• A 660 ft2 multi-function meeting room with Discovery Room displays built into the
walls and a seating capacity of 16 at tables;
• A 240 ft2 work room with a maximum occupant load of 3;
• Storage and staging areas with a combined area of approximately 490 ft2;
• Public restrooms;
7
• A 380 ft2 staff office with a maximum occupant load of 4;
• A 137 ft2 outdoor breezeway/patio covered lobby;
• A 150 ft2 kitchenette and staging area with a maximum occupant load of 2;
• Covered walkways;
• Janitorial and electrical rooms; and
• Vestibules
The building footprint measures 13,720 ft2, which consists of the entire roofed area of the
structure including the 6,790 ft2 enclosed area.
The following aerial image shows the existing school buildings (red-striped) overlaying
the proposed building siting. Please note that the new Community Center was setback
further from the southwesterly transition slope to mitigate potential view impacts to
residential properties located in the Seaview neighborhood.
A comparison of the existing versus proposed hardscape and vehicular
circulation/parking footprint is demonstrated in the tables below:
Hardscape Comparison (courts, driveway, parking)
Current Design Proposed Design
Acreage 2.68 acres 1.59 acres
Square Footage 116,900 ft2 69,075 ft2
Vehicular Circulation & Parking Comparison
Current Design Proposed Design
Acreage 1.5 acres .88 acres
Square Footage 65,500 ft2 38,374 ft2
8
Proposed Park Building Hours
The following table shows current and proposed Ladera Linda park and building hours.
Park & Building Hours Hours: Mon-Fri Hours: Sat-Sun
Current 12:00 p.m.- 5:00 p.m. 10:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m.
Proposed 8:00 a.m.- dusk 8:00 a.m.- dusk
Hours would be extended to 9:00 p.m. if rentals or classes are scheduled. Ladera Linda
Park is currently staffed by one part-time employee per shift who is overseen by a full-
time recreation supervisor. The new building will likely increase staffing to two part-time
employees per shift with one full-time supervisor.
Proposed Park Usage
The table below shows current Ladera Linda usage policies. While the park will be used
more during the day, restrictions on park usage and rental hours are proposed.
**Restriction does not apply to non-profits, City events, or HOA rentals.
Conditions require that no nighttime special events (one hour after dusk) would be permitted
without a Special Use Permit being issued, which will require public notification. Staff will
coordinate with the AYSO schedule to minimize impact by avoiding large rentals or events at the
same time as AYSO game days.
Building and Park Security
Security will be incorporated into the overall design of the park and Community Center,
which will be formalized during the construction design phase. Following is a summary
of the security measures incorporated into the City Council design -approved project and
the Planning Commission-adopted Conditions of Approval:
• Clear points of entry and improved sight lines in the final design
• Appropriately placed exterior and interior security cameras and motion sensors
• Appropriate low-level landscaping
• Control of ingress and egress points during operating hours and non-operating
hours
• Glass break sensors
Rental Polices LL Current LL Proposed
Rental Hours Not specified 10:00 a.m.- 9:00 p.m.
Classes Not specified 8:00 a.m.- 9:00 p.m.
Private Rentals after 5 p.m. No current limits 2 x month **
Amplified Music (indoor only.
Outdoor prohibited)
10:00 a.m. – 10:00
p.m. 11:00 a.m.- 8:00 p.m.
Special Events No limit 8/year
9
• Comprehensive best practices, lighting design throughout park and building
• Ability to secure park perimeter at night through fencing and improved entrance
gates for both pedestrian and vehicular access points
• Reduction/elimination of blind spots
• Increased utilization of the park combined with increased staff supervision
The Planning Commission-approved Conditions of Approval include provisions to
secure the lobby breezeway, restroom and accompanying sink areas with roll-down
gates and automatically shut-off the water to the wash area on a nightly basis.
3. Planning Entitlement Code Consideration & Analysis
The following reflects the Planning Commission’s analysis finding that the Project is
consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in relation to the required
planning entitlements for the proposed project. The planning entitlements include a
Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Major Grading Permit and Site Plan Review whereby
the required applications are analyzed separately below:
a. Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
The project site has a zoning designation of Institutional. Pursuant to RPVMC §
17.26.030(A), a CUP is required in the Institutional Zoning District for public facilities
owned or used and operated for governmental purposes by the City (emphasis added),
the county, the state and the government of the United States of America, and any
special district or other local agency. In addition, pursuant to RPVMC § 17.26.040(B),
institutional buildings erected in the City shall have a building height not greater than 16
feet and shall not exceed one story, unless with the approval of a CUP by the Planning
Commission (or City Council on appeal). As the proposed Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park site is owned and operated by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and
the proposed building will be over 16 feet in height, at 16 feet- 6 ¼ inches, thereby a
CUP is required for the project. In considering a CUP, pursuant to RPVMC §
17.60.050(A), the Planning Commission made the following findings in reference to the
property and project, which is now under consideration by the City Council (Finding
language is boldface, followed by assessment of the Project in normal type):
1. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use
and for all of the yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other
features required by this title or by conditions imposed under this section
to integrate said use with those on adjacent land and within the
neighborhood.
The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use. The
project site is approximately 11.031 acres in size and currently utilized as a park and
Community Center with multiple facility buildings, surface parking, playground pav ing,
equipment and paddle tennis courts, fields, landscaping and emergency preparedness
storage containers. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing facilities
and improvements, with the exception of the paddle tennis courts, to constru ct a single
Community Center structure that would be approximately 40% of the total area of the
10
existing facility. Consequently, the new building would occupy a significantly smaller
footprint than the existing buildings and be located in the middle of the existing built
areas of the Park. The proposed Community Center and ancillary facilities are sited
throughout the 11.031-acre tiered site, so as to provide enhanced setbacks to adjacent
properties and provide enhanced line of sight from the perimeter of the property for
security purposes. The proposed 54 on-site parking spaces, which consist of four ADA
spaces, four dedicated spaces for clean air vehicles (one Van ADA space included),
exceed the parking stalls required for both weekend (42 spaces) and weekday (15
spaces) conditions for the proposed project as outlined in the latest edition of the
Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Parking Generation Manual (5th Edition, 2019). As
such, this finding can be made.
2. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways sufficient to
carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use.
The proposed project relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the type and
quantity of traffic generated by the use. The project replaces the existing Community
Center facility, comprised of several buildings, with a single building that would be less
than 40% of the total area of the existing facilities. In addition, the new building would
occupy a smaller footprint than the existing Community Center buildings within the
existing built areas of the Park. Furthermore, the Project will not result in any increases
to the existing uses, programming, and activities. Rather, uses, programming and
activities are proposed to be limited and regulated, and would, therefore, have
substantially the same purpose, but with less capacity than the existing facility that will
be replaced. The park does not create a cumulative impact on traffic within the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes. The traffic on Forrestal Drive is mostly attributed to the only
outlet to over 160 single family homes off Pirate Drive. The proposed Community
Center and Park does not affect the traffic signal warrant at the intersection of Palos
Verdes Drive South and Forrestal/Trump National as noted in the Traffic Impact
Analysis prepared by Willdan Engineering (Attachment G). As such, this finding can be
made.
3. In approving the subject use at the specific location, there will be no
significant adverse effect on adjacent property or the permitted use
thereof.
The project site is currently improved with a park use and will continue to serve as such
as part of the proposed project. The new Community Center will serve all residents and
the community, particularly those located on the east side of the City, as an area for
recreational opportunities as well as for emergency preparedness activities such as, but
not limited to, a cooling center, storage location and emergency evacuation center. The
height of the proposed Community Center is 16 feet- 6 ¼ inches and will not create a
significant adverse effect, as residential properties to the east and south of the project
site have views of the ocean and Catalina Island oriented in the opposite direction of the
proposed building. Furthermore, the building pad of the proposed Community Center
will be located approximately 25 feet below the street of access (Forrestal Drive),
therefore views from the street and adjacent trails can be observed over the proposed
building height. The project will not result in any adverse safety or security impacts, as
11
the City Council design-approved project includes a comprehensive list of safety
measures and designs such as the incorporation of a surveillance system , motion and
glass break sensors, perimeter fencing, and lighting design. The project will not result in
adverse noise impacts as the project incorporates construction noise regulations for
potential short-term construction impacts, hours of operation for the community center
and limitations on mechanical equipment noise for potential long-term operational
impacts. The project lighting will not result in an adverse impact because the site
lighting has been designed to comply with RPVMC regulations that require lighting to be
down-cast and avoid illumination of the night sky and to provide for park safety and
security. As such, this finding can be made.
4. The proposed use is not contrary to the General Plan.
The use of the property for a community center and park is consistent with the
Institutional-Public General Plan Land Use designation for the site. The project site is
currently a park with a community center and will continue to be utilized as such. The
new community center and park will serve all residents and the community, particularly
those located on the east side of the City, as an area for recreational opportunities as
well as for emergency preparedness activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling
center, storage location, and emergency evacuation center. Furthermore, the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s 2018 General Plan Update (p age
COS-39) identified the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park as an Institutional-
Public land use with passive and active amenities including playground and sports
equipment, multipurpose rooms and classrooms, as well as ancillary site improvements
including a parking lot and restrooms. The General Plan also notes that a Master Plan
process for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park was included in the Parks
Master Plan Update. As such, this finding can be made.
5. If the site of the proposed use is within any of the overlay control districts
established by Chapter 17.40 (Overlay Control Districts) of this title [Title 17
“Zoning”], the proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of
that chapter.
The project site is not within an overlay control district. Therefore, this finding is not
applicable to the project.
6. That conditions regarding any of the requirements listed in this paragraph,
which the Planning Commission finds to be necessary to protect the
health, safety and general welfare, have been imposed (including but not
limited to): setbacks and buffers; fences or walls; lighting; vehicular
ingress or egress; noise, vibration, odors and similar emissions;
landscaping; maintenance of structures, grounds or signs; service roads
or alleys; and such other conditions as will make possible development of
the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent
and purposes set forth in this title (Title 17 – Zoning).
Conditions of Approval were approved by the Planning Commission to mitigate potential
impacts to adjacent properties and to protect the health, safety and general welfare of
12
the residents, businesses, and visitors of the City. A further discussion of the proposed
Conditions of Approval is presented in the ‘Conditions of Approval’ section of this report.
Based on the above discussion, the Planning Commission was able to make the
required CUP findings as reflected in the attached resolution for City Council
consideration.
b. Variance
Pursuant to RPVMC § 17.76.030(C)(2)(b)(ii), walls combined with a fence, the total
height may not exceed 8 feet, as measured from grade on the lower side and may not
exceed 7 feet as measured from grade on the higher side. The project proposes the
construction of a retaining wall measuring up to 15 ½ feet (retaining wall and safety
railing) in height and approximately 265 feet in length to support ADA complaint ramps
between the middle- and upper-tiers of the park. Pursuant to RPVMC § 17.64.010(A),
the Planning Commission was able to find that a Variance may be granted because of
practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the general
intent and purpose of the title occurred by reason of the strict interpretation of any of its
provisions, as reflected in the following findings (Finding language is boldface,
followed by assessment of the Project in normal type) are met:
1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property,
which do not apply generally to other property in the same zoning district;
The project site was originally developed as an elementary school with multiple
classroom buildings and play areas on a three-tiered site due to the unique and steep
topographic conditions in the area, which have been used as a community center and
park facilities since the 1980s. The three tiers include a lower, middle and upper tier
with 5-foot to 15-foot transitional slopes between the tiers. The project proposes to
maintain the same three-tier park layout and will also include new accessible walking
paths and ramps to enhance accessibility and walkability throughout the project site. In
order to accommodate an ADA-compliant accessible ramp between the middle- and
upper-tiers of the park, the project proposes to construct a retaining wall with an overall
height of up to 15½ feet. The existing site development and requirement to provide for
enhanced accessibility to meet ADA requirements present exceptional circumstances
that warrant the need to construct a retaining wall that exceeds the height lim itations
established in the RPVMC. Although other Institutional-zoned properties in the City
were developed with similar topographic conditions, the project site is unique in that it
was previously developed as an elementary school and the project proposes to re-
develop the site but maintain the existing park’s tiered layout but meet current
accessibility requirements without conducting substantially more grading that would
disturb the overall site. As such, this finding can be made.
2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant, which right is possessed by other
property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district;
13
The construction of the proposed retaining wall up to 15½ feet in height are necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, which right is
possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same zoning district.
The project site is encumbered by steep topographical conditions in certain areas of the
project site, including transitional slopes between the various tiers of the park that are
not present in other developed Institutional zoned properties. As a public facility, owned
and operated by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City is required to provide for
ADA accessibility throughout the site and to ensure the safety of the public . As such,
this finding can be made.
3. That granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the area in which the
property is located; and,
The construction of the proposed retaining wall up to 15½ feet in height in order to
accommodate an ADA access ramp will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the area, as the construction of the
proposed wall will be reviewed and inspected by the City’s Building and Safety Division
for conformance with the California Building Code and associated geological
requirements. In addition, the proposed retaining wall will support the transition slope
between the middle and upper tiers of the park. Not granting the Variance application
request for the construction of retaining walls up to 15½ feet in height and not
accommodating an ADA accessible ramp would in fact be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to visitors of the park. Furthermore, the face of the retaining
walls will be screened with landscaping and include areas of terracing, so as to soften
the appearance and scale of the structure. A rendering of the proposed retaining wall
along with landscape improvements is attached to this staff report (Attachment I). As
such, this finding can be made.
4. That granting the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the
general plan or the policies and requirements of the coastal specific plan.
The variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or the policies
and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan. The project site is not located in the
City’s Coastal Specific Plan. The use of the property as a community center and park is
consistent with the City’s updated General Plan. The Conservation and Open Space
Element (Pg. COS-6) of the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies related to
Open-Space and Recreation Resources, which promote public access to all recreational
land and building additional parks and playfields, where appropriate, for multiple use by
various groups. The proposed retaining wall with an overall height of 15 ½ feet, will
provide enhanced ADA accessibility to recreational land and for the use of various
groups. As such, this finding can be made.
c. Major Grading Permit
Pursuant to RPVMC §17.76.040(B)(2)(a), a Major Grading Permit is required for
projects that result in an excavation, fill or combination thereof, in excess of 50 cubic
yards in any two-year period. Since a total of 9,000 cubic yards combined grading
14
(4,500 cubic yards of cut and 4,500 cubic yards of fill) as part of the project request, a
Major Grading Permit is required. RPVMC §17.76.040(E) sets forth the criteria (in bold
type) that the Planning Commission was able to make (or the City Council on appeal) to
approve the required Major Grading application:
1. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot;
The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted primary use of
the lot. The proposed project is in an Institutional Zoning District, in which the primary
use of the lot is a park and community center. The new park and community center will
serve all residents and the community, particularly those located on the east side of the
City, as an area for recreational opportunities as well as for emergency preparedness
activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling center, storage location, and emergency
evacuation center. The proposed 9,000 yd3 of grading will be balanced on-site therefore
avoiding the need to export or import soil or rock. Furthermore, the proposed grading
will be limited to the existing developed portions of the site, which have been previously
graded and disturbed to support existing improvements. The project grading proposes
targeted cut and fill into portions of the existing site to accommodate the proposed park
and community center, parking lot, tiered seating, walking paths, ADA compliant
accessible ramp, and other ancillary park improvements. In addition, the proposed
grading will enhance adequate drainage of the site. As such, this finding can be made.
2. The proposed grading and/or related construction does not significantly
adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing
area of neighboring properties. In cases where grading is proposed for a new
residence or an addition to an existing residence, this finding shall be
satisfied when the proposed grading results in a lower finished grade under
the building footprint such that the height of the proposed structure, as
measured pursuant to Section 17.02.040(B) of the Municipal Code, is lower
than a structure that could have been built in the same location on the lot if
measured from preconstruction (existing) grade;
The proposed project and associated grading will not significantly adversely affect the
visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing areas of neighboring properties
because the project site is currently improved with an existing park, building facilities,
and ancillary site improvements. The proposed grading will continue to accommodate a
park use and a single community center building that would be less than 40% of the
total area of the existing facility. In addition, the new community center would occupy a
smaller footprint than the community center buildings within the existing built areas of
the Park. The proposed building height will not create a significant adverse effect, as the
height of the community center, as a result of the site grading, will not impact vi ews as
observed from neighboring properties due to the topographic conditions in the area.
Residential properties to the east and south of the project site have views of the ocean
and Catalina Island oriented in the opposite direction of the proposed build ing. Finally,
the building pad of the proposed community center will be located approximately 25 feet
below the street of access (Forrestal Drive), whereby views from the street and adjacent
15
trails can be observed over the proposed building height. As such, this finding can be
made.
3. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural;
The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and finished
contours are reasonably natural because the proposed grading is generally limited to
developed portions of the site. In addition, the proposed grading maintains a majority of
the existing contours surrounding the developed areas on the project site. The project
proposes to maintain the existing transitional slope along the south and southwest of
the site as well as the slopes between the project site and Forrestal Drive. The finished
contours of the project will blend with the existing contours on the existing site. As such,
this finding can be made.
4. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic
features and appearances by means of land sculpturing so as to blend any
man-made or manufactured slope into the natural topography;
The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic features and
appearances by means of land sculpturing. The project site has been previously graded
in order to accommodate the existing park, parking lot and ancillary site improvements.
The proposed grading is generally limited to developed portions of the site to support
the construction of ADA-compliant ramp. Moreover, the proposed grading generally
follows the existing slope of the property and results in finished slopes that appear
reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land-sculpturing is proposed to occur, it
is designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes into the natural topography. As
such, this finding can be made.
5. For new single-family residence, the grading and/or related construction is
compatible with the immediate neighborhood character;
The proposed grading does not involve a new single-family residence and therefore this
criterion does not apply.
6. In new residential tracts, the grading includes provisions for the
preservation and introduction of plant materials so as to protect slopes from
soil erosion and slippage and minimize the visual effects of grading and
construction on hillside areas;
The proposed grading does not involve a new residential tract and theref ore this
criterion does not apply.
7. The grading utilizes street designs and improvements which serve to
minimize grading alternatives and harmonize with the natural contours and
character of the hillside;
The proposed project does not involve modification s to streets or other public
16
infrastructure and therefore, this criterion does not apply.
8. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the
natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation;
The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of the natural
landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation because the proposed
grading area does not contain natural landscape or wildlife habitat. The proposed
grading is limited to areas of the project site that have been previously graded to
accommodate existing structures and ancillary site improvements. As such, this finding
can be made.
9. The grading conforms to standards related to grading on slopes equal to or
exceeding 35%; fill and cut depths; grading on slopes exceeding 50%
gradient; number and location of retaining walls and driveways:
The grading conforms to the City’s standards for grading on slopes, maximum finished
slopes, maximum depth of cut and fill, and retaining wall heights with the exception
grading on slopes over 50% steepness and the construction of a retaining wall up to 6
feet-11 inches in height along the driveway in the immediate area of the mechanical and
refuse enclosures. The proposed grading over slopes with 50% and the retaining wall
are consistent with the purpose of the Grading Permit because it will result in the
reasonable development of the project site. In addition, the proposed grading and
retaining wall will contribute to the overall site accessibility and retention of groundcover
to aid against flooding, erosion and other similar hazards. Furthermore, the sce nic
character of the neighborhood would not be altered as the retaining wall along the
driveway would not be readily visible from the public right-of-way as the location of the
wall will be located below the Forrestal Drive street level. The proposed grading and
retaining wall will comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as the project
supports policies for public health/ safety related to the environment. More specifically,
the proposed retaining wall is required to be designed to performan ce standards that
ensure both engineering standards and the topographic treatment of slopes on the
property. Furthermore, the City’s geotechnical consultant and the Building Official will
be required to review and approve engineered grading plans prior to grading permit
issuance and inspections will be conducted throughout the construction process. With
these provisions, the proposed deviation will not cause a detrimental impact to public
safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project. Notice of this decision shall
be given to all owners of property adjacent to the property.
d. Site Plan Review
Pursuant to RPVMC § 17.70.010, the Site Plan Review procedure enables the Planning
Commission (or the City Council on Appeal) to check development proposals for
conformity with the provisions of the Municipal Code and for the manner in which they
are applied, when no other application is required. As the project proposes a number of
ancillary site improvements, including but not limited to, parking, a 400 ft2 storage
facility, and mechanical equipment, a Site Plan Review is required to ensure compliance
with the Institutional zoning designation of the project site. Based on a review of the
17
project plans, the proposed project including, but not limited to, the accessory
structures, flag-pole, mechanical equipment and parking was determined by the
Planning Commission to comply with applicable code requirements such as
development setbacks.
e. Environmental Analysis
The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed project is Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pursuant to § 15302 of the State CEQA Guidelines—Class 2, Replacement or
Reconstruction. The proposed project meets the requirements of Class 2, as it consists
of the reconstruction of an existing facility where the new structure will be located on the
same site as the structure(s) replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and
capacity. A Class 2 Categorical Exemption Evaluation Report and Cultural Resources
memorandum (Attachment F) were prepared to provide supplemental information
related to staff’s environmental assessment.
Based on the analysis above, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed
Ladera Linda Community Center and Park project is consistent with the requested CUP,
Variance, Major Grading Permit and Site Plan Review applications and that all the
associated permit findings for the project can be affirmatively made. Attached for the
City Council’s consideration is a draft resolution, including conditions of approval,
memorializing the findings made for the required planning entitlements (Attachment A)
4. Public Comments
As part to the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park project, Staff received a wide range of public comments both in
support and opposition to the proposed project. In response to the public notice that
was issued on March 11th, announcing the City Council’s appeal consideration, Staff
received an additional 33 comments as of the preparation of this report. The comments
in opposition expressed concerns related to, but not limited to, design, compatibility,
traffic, safety, and facility/park use. The table on the next page summarizes public
comments and provides a staff analysis of the issues, as well as any corresponding
Planning Commission-approved Conditions of Approval or newly proposed conditions of
approval intended to address the concern (please note that newly proposed Conditions
of Approval are identified with the “New” notation):
18
Table No. 1- Public Comment Analysis
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Community
Center
Structure Size
Public
comments
requested
clarification
regarding the
overall size of
the proposed
community
center and
Community
Centers at
Hesse Park,
Ryan Park and
PVIC.
Ladera Linda
Community
Center:
• 6,790 ft2
(enclosed
building
areas)
• 13,720 ft2
(building
footprint
including
extended
roof eves)
Hesse Park
Community
Center
(approx.):
• 7,901 ft2
(enclosed
building
areas)
• 9,130 ft2
(building
footprint
including
extended
roof eves)
Ryan Park
(approx.):
• 1,379 ft2
(enclosed
building
areas)
• 2,208 ft2
(building
footprint
including
extended
roof eves)
PVIC
(approx.):
• 10,781 ft2
(enclosed
building
areas)
• 13,365 ft2
(building
footprint
including
extended
roof eves)
None
19
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Traffic
Conditions
Public
comments
expressed
concerns with
the project
impacts on
traffic conditions
in the immediate
aera of the site.
Willdan Engineering prepared
a Traffic Impact Analysis
(Attachment G), which
determined that:
• The park does not create a
cumulative impact on traffic
within the City.
• Traffic on Forrestal Drive is
mostly attributed to the only
outlet to over 160 single
family homes off Pirate
Drive.
• The proposed community
center and park do not
affect the traffic signal
warrant at the intersection
of Palos Verdes Drive
South and Forrestal/Trump
National. The traffic signal
was warranted based on
weekend traffic volumes
due to AYSO soccer
matches, Trump National
traffic and residential trips
accessing the intersection.
None
On-Site
Security
The public
raised security
and safety
concerns related
to the proposed
project and
design.
Robust security features will
be developed by a security
specialist and incorporated
into the final design, including
but not limited to:
• Clear points of entry and
improved sightlines;
• Surveillance cameras;
• Low-level landscaping;
• Control of ingress and
egress points;
• Glass break sensors;
• Fencing and improved
entrance gates;
• Drop down gates to
preclude access to
Condition Nos.
28 - 31
20
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
restroom and wash areas
during non-operating hours;
• Lighting; and
• Increased park supervision.
The driveway entrance from
Forrestal will be gated and
locked during non-operating
hours.
Building
Design
Public
comments
expressed
project concerns
with the glass
façade; climate
control;
extended roof
eves, open
restroom design;
neighborhood
compatibility
(Please see the
‘Potential
Project
Modifications’
section of this
report of more
information)
Total wall surface area and
glass wall/glass door area
were reduced from the City
Council design-approved
project in August 2019,
including a 9% reduction in
total wall area, a 31%
reduction in glass wall area
and a 30% increase in solid
wall area. The glass areas of
the building incorporate high
performance glazing.
Furthermore, as currently
designed, the Community
Center incorporates roll down
black-out blinds on the
interior of the building.
The proposed community
center is designed with
extended roof eves around
the perimeter of the building.
The extended roof eves serve
to provides shade, reduces
the amount of air conditioning
needed, reduces the overall
cost of the building, provides
a circulation route around and
into the building, and allows
for overflow from classes and
events where appropriate,
given use and amplified
sound conditions. The overall
size of the building footprint
Condition Nos.
30-34
21
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
with extended roof eves is
approximately 13,720 ft2.
The Planning Commission-
approved Conditions of
Approval include provisions to
secure the open lobby,
restroom and accompanying
sink areas with a roll-down
gate and automatically shut-
off the water to the wash area
on a nightly basis.
The Community Center is
designed as a single-story
structure with articulated
facades that include
vernacular finished materials
(glass, wood, concrete) that
are found in the immediate
area.
Project
Lighting
Public
comments
expressed
concerns with
the proposed
project lighting
and illumination
impacts to
neighboring
properties.
Project lighting has been
designed to:
• illuminate the ground
surface for safety;
• not illuminate park areas
that will not be used
during night hours;
• provide minimum lighting
for the operation of
surveillance cameras,
security patrols and park
personnel surveillance;
and to achieve code-
required illumination for
egress.
Condition Nos.
56-63
Seismic Public
comments
voiced seismic
concerns with
the glass
building design.
Proposed Conditions of
Approval require project
review and approval by the
City’s Geologist prior to
Grading or Building Permit
issuance.
Condition No.
21
22
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Community
Center Rooms
Public
comments
expressed
concerns with
the number and
size of
community
center rooms.
Use Analysis (Attachment H)
of existing and proposed
facility use at Ladera Linda
Park determined that the
proposed project will result in
a reduction of available space
for classes, rentals and other
programing.
None
Museum &
Amphitheater
Public
comments
expressed
concerns with a
museum and
amphitheater.
The proposed project does
not include a museum or
amphitheater, but rather a
660 ft2 multi-use meeting
room that also includes some
interactive displays and 775
ft2 outdoor tiered seating area
built into an existing slope.
The project architect,
Johnson Favaro, prepared a
grading exhibit that depicts
proposed grading between
the middle- and upper-tiers of
the park, which included a
rendering of the proposed
tiered seating area
(Attachment I).
None
Discovery
Room
Exhibits
Concerns were
expressed with
the incorporation
of the existing
Discovery Room
exhibits into the
project.
The current Discovery Room
is a single-use 961 ft2 room at
Ladera Linda full of geologic,
cultural and static animal
artifacts and displays.
The proposed new design
does not include a stand-
alone dedicated Discovery
Room. In its place, is a 660
ft2 multi-use meeting room
with a capacity of 16 people.
Designed for small meetings,
the room has wall spaces and
built-in cabinets to display a
fraction of the Discovery
Room’s total exhibits. There
is no space in the proposed
Condition No.
72 (New)
23
Summary of
Comment
Project Clarification and/or
Staff Analysis
Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
building to store these items.
A Condition of Approval is
proposed that would require
that the exhibits be placed in
storage containers at the
Point Vicente Interpretive
Center or alternate location to
be determined prior to
construction.
Other
Improvements
Public
Comments
suggested that
the Community
Center would
include shower
facilities.
The proposed design does
not include shower facilities.
None
Silhouette
Public
comments
requested that a
building
silhouette be
constructed.
The Planning Commission-
approved Conditions of
Approval do not include
provisions that require the
construction of a project
silhouette prior to
construction. A project
silhouette is not required as
the project plans include 3-D
renderings and a community
center model was developed.
Furthermore, the Planning
Commission determined that
the community center will not
significantly impair views from
neighboring properties.
None
Noise Public
comments
expressed
concerns with
noise impacts
The Planning Commission-
approved Conditions of
Approval include a
comprehensive list of noise
restrictions and requirements
related to mechanical
equipment, deliveries, and
amplified noise.
Condition Nos.
65-68
24
Project Cost Public
comments
express a
concern with the
cost of the
proposed
project.
Please see Staff’s analysis in
the ‘Project Cost’ section of
this report.
None
Parking Public
comments
request that
more project
parking be
provided.
Willdan Engineering traffic
and parking analysis
determined that the proposed
54 on-site parking spaces will
more than accommodate park
and community center needs.
Condition Nos.
46-50.
Compliance
Review
Concerns were
expressed on
operational
impacts.
The Planning Commission-
approved Conditions of
Approval include a one-year
review (or earlier) to assess
community center operations,
at which time conditions may
be added, deleted or modified
accordingly.
Condition No. 2
Enforcement
of Conditions
Concerns were
expressed with
the enforcement
of proposed
Conditions
Enforcement of conditions will
occur through compliance
review, park supervision and
signage.
None
Based on the discussion above, Staff is of the opinion that additional clarification has
been provided to further address public comments and concerns with the proposed
project. Furthermore, in response to the public comments, the Planning Commission -
approved Conditions of Approval include a comprehensive set of provisions to mitigate
negative project impacts.
5. Planning Commission Project Recommendations
As part of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Ladera Linda Community Center
and Park project applications, the Planning Commission also provided a number of
recommendations, adopted via minute order, for the City Council’s consideration to
further address project impacts (Attachment J). The table below identifies the
recommendations along with staff’s analysis and/or associated action(s):
25
Table 2. Planning Commission Project Recommendations
Recommendation Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Develop parking and traffic
strategies for Preserve
Access, AYSO activities, and
the Community Center that
limits parking on residential
streets and long wait times at
PVD South. Strategies to
include:
A. Collection of traffic data
and usage in the vicinity
of the park, so as to
develop a baseline by
which to assess future
project-specific traffic
and parking impacts;
B. Consider
implementation of traffic
calming measures, in
order to provide
immediate traffic relief
in the area; and
C. Develop a parking
permit program in the
area of the project site
A. Add new Condition of
Approval requiring the City
to collect baseline traffic
data in the area of the park,
prior to grading and
construction activities.
B. Installation of the traffic
signal at Palos Verdes
Drive South and Palos
Verdes Drive East is
expected to begin in the
spring of 2021 and be
completed in the summer of
2021. Additionally, a
Citywide traffic and speed
study is being prepared that
will assess, among other
areas, this intersection.
C. Add new Condition of
Approval requiring the City
to perform a parking
demand analysis to assess
alternatives for the
development of a parking
management program as
part of the annual
compliance review
Condition Nos.
73 and 74
Explore ways to prioritize
community center and park
use for City residents.
The City Attorney’s Office
reviewed the request and
determined that preferential
treatment to residents needs
to be justified by rational basis
and supported by relevant
evidence.
Additionally, it is anticipated
that the majority of community
center and park users will be
City residents based on usage
at Hesse Park. In review of
the 2019 data, the last full year
prior to the pandemic, shows
that 94% of reserved hours at
None
26
Recommendation Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
Hesse Park’s McTaggert Hall
were used by either RPV
resident non-profits or RPV
resident private rentals. The
remaining 6% were a
combination of non-resident or
non-profit private rentals.
Facility Rental Group
Breakdown:
Group I
• City Sponsored Events,
Gov. Agencies, Peninsula
Residents, Public or
Candidates Forums, RPV
HOA’s, Peninsula Seniors
Groups, Peninsula Non-Profit,
Civic, Social and Youth
Organizations with Non-Paid
Management.
Group II
• Non-Resident HOA’s,
Non-Resident Non-Profit,
Civic, Social and Youth
Organizations with Paid
Management.
Group III
• RPV Residents/Private
Party Activities, Resident
Commercial and Religious
Organizations.
Group IV
• Non-Residents/Private
Party Activities, Non-Resident
Commercial and Religious
Organizations.
Lastly, Staff is of the opinion
that park use restrictions are
not warranted, as the park
does not create a cumulative
impact on traffic and the
27
Recommendation Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
project and Planning
Commission-approved
Conditions of Approval provide
sufficient measures to reduce
project impacts in the area.
Assess current and future
usage of proposed park
improvements, such as the
basketball and paddleball
courts, to ensure balance of
recreational opportunities and
adequate facilities.
During community workshops
and meetings regarding this
project, there was strong local
community support for
maintaining existing
recreational components.
During the outreach process,
there was limited support for
expanding the quantity of
existing facilities.
None
Address public safety
concerns and parking impacts
of stairs that provide access
from the park’s court area to
the soccer fields owned by the
Palos Verdes Unified School
District.
Given the age of the stairs,
their relatively poor condition,
and the fact that they are not
currently intended to provide
for access to or from the
soccer field, a Condition of
Approval is recommended to
remove the stairs as part of
the park reconstruction.
Condition No. 75
Staff is of the opinion that the Planning Commission’s recommendations and associated
Conditions of Approval serve to further address any project impacts as well as to ensure
that new Ladera Linda Community Center and Park remains compatible to with the
surrounding land uses.
6. Modified Conditions of Approval
Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendations and a reassessment of the
adopted Conditions of Approval, Staff proposes that the City Council consider adding
the following conditions of approval to the Commission-adopted conditions:
• Condition No. 72- Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall
place all Discovery Room exhibits/displays into storage at Point Vicente
Interpretive Center or at other City facilities as deemed appropriate. After
construction is complete, the exhibits/displays that are not incorporated into the
Discovery Room, shall remain in storage.
• Condition No. 73 - Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall
conduct a traffic engineering study to collect baseline traffic data in the area of
28
the park.
• Condition No. 74 - The City shall perform a parking demand analysis to assess
alternatives for the development of a parking management program as part of the
annual compliance review.
• Condition No. 75 - The access stairs between the upper tier of the project site
and the adjacent property in the area of the lower soccer fields shall be removed
as part of the park reconstruction.
7. Additional Information
Potential Project Modifications
Through the public comment process, Staff received a number of comments
recommending modifications to the design of the proposed Community Center . During
the Planning Commission’s consideration of the proposed project, the Planning
Commission was directed to focus on the land-use/planning entitlements and to not to
make design modifications to the Community Center, as design modifications would
present fiscal impacts and project schedule extensions that would be under the purview
of the City Council. The table below summarizes the potential project modifications
along with Staff’s analysis, which includes an assessment of fiscal and project schedule
impacts as well as any corresponding Condition(s) of Approval for the City Council’s
consideration. The table also includes a Planning Commission conditioned project
modification requiring that the lobby breeze, restroom and accompanying sink areas be
secured with roll-down gates as well as shutting off the water to the wash area on a
nightly basis. Please note that visual representations of the project modifications
that would add security gates, enclose the breezeway or add a corridor
(Modifications 1-4) are available in Attachment K of this report.
Table 3. Project Modifications and Analysis
Project Modification Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
1. Secure Community Center
lobby breeze, restroom and
accompanying sink areas with
roll down security gates as well
as shutting off the water to the
wash area on a nightly basis
(Commission-approved).
$45,000 approximate
cost increase; No
schedule increase.
Condition No.
31 (included as
part of the
proposed
Conditions of
Approval)
2. Enclosing the Community
Center lobby breezeway (but
not restrooms).
$100,000 approximate
cost increase;1 month
schedule increase;
changes to building plan
backgrounds and
None
29
Project Modification Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
involves all consultants;
requires re-design and
City approval of re-
design before
proceeding with
Construction Document
Phase.
3. Enclosing the Community
Center restrooms (but not the
lobby).
$175,000 approximate
cost increase; 2 month
schedule increase;
requires re-design and
City approval of re-
design before
proceeding with
Construction Document
Phase.
None
4. Creating an enclosed corridor
along the north side of the
Community Center enclosing
the lobby and restrooms.
$1,550,000 approximate
cost increase; 3 month
schedule increase; will
require the building to
move south on the site to
accommodate a
separation between the
building and parking lot;
increased annual
operating costs with
added interior floor area;
requires re-design and
City approval of re-
design before
proceeding with
Construction Document
Phase.
None
5. Modifying the flat roof design
of the Community Center to a
pitched roof design.
$1,325,000 approximate
cost increase; City
Council was presented
with a wide range of roof
options in October 2019
with comparative costs
for each option. Cost
increase is associated
with added building
material and increased
cost to operations due to
None
30
Project Modification Staff’s Analysis Recommended
Mitigating
Condition(s) of
Approval No.
added volume to the
interior.
6. Removing Discovery Room ($35,795) approximate
cost decrease; the
Discovery Room is not a
dedicated room, but
rather a part of the
660 ft2 multi-function
meeting room, whereby
the multi-purpose room
can function as a
“Discovery Room” when
displays built into the
walls are turned visibly
outward; eliminating this
feature will not cause a
reduction in floor area or
size of building footprint;
cost savings are for
fixtures only.
None
Based on the analysis above, all changes other than the installation of roll-down
security gates at the restroom area and lobby breezeway will result in a significant
increase to the project budget and the project schedule. More specifically, th e
modifications requiring major project revisions (i.e. creating an enclosed corridor) will
require the project architect and associated consultant team to step-back into the
Design Development Phase before proceeding to the Construction Document Phase.
Staff is of the opinion that the incorporation of the roll down security gates augments the
project’s comprehensive set of safety and security measures, which include, but are not
limited to, surveillance cameras, lighting, fencing and increased site supervision.
Project Cost
The following discussion encompasses a financial analysis of costs incurred to date and
committed expenditures, project construction cost estimate, operating and maintenance
cost estimates, and a summary of potential procurement and financing options.
a. Year-to-Date Expenditures and Commitments
To date, the project cost is approximately $849,993 based on year-to-date expenditures
and committed expenditures, as described in greater detail below. From 2016 to March
12, 2021, the City has expended almost $550,000 in both the General Fund and the
Quimby Fund toward the development of the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
Project. Of this amount, $263,000 or 48% was expended on design with Johnson
Favaro and $184,000 or 34% was expended on the master plan with Richard Fisher
31
and Associates. The remaining $102,000 or 19% was expended on surveys,
environmental review, financial services, traffic study, and other miscellaneous services.
At this time, the project has almost $300,000 committed for design services, CEQA
analysis, and financial services. Table 4 below page summarizes the project year-to-
date expenditures and outstanding commitments by categories and funds.
Table 4. Year-to-Date Expenditures and Commitments
*YTD as of March 1, 2021
b. Project Construction Cost Estimate
Pursuant to the project description stated earlier in this report, the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park Project has two major components, which include the
community center building and the park ground improvements. The enclosed building is
approximately 6,790 ft2 while the building footprint which includes the enclosed interior
of the building and covered walkways and eaves is approximately 13,720 ft2. The total
overall project, community center building and park improvements, encompass
approximately 273,600 ft2 or 6.3 acres out of a total site of approximately 11 acres.
The estimated total construction cost for both the community center building and park
grounds is approximately $15.7 million. This cost includes the construction costs,
escalation costs, and soft costs associated with the project. The escalation cost of
YEAR-TO-DATE EXPENDITURES Amount Funding
Anderson Penna - Survey/Geotech 62,883$ 334 - Quimby
Richard Fisher and Associates - Master Plan 184,045$ 334 - Quimby
Priority One Environmental - Environmental Review 1,500$ 334 - Quimby
Willdan - traffic study for PC meeting 10,175$ 101 - General Fund
Michael Baker - CQEA analysis for PC meeting 3,599$ 101 - General Fund
Johnson Favaro - Design 263,131$ 334 - Quimby
Cal-Water - water pressure fire flow 525$ 334 - Quimby
Kosmont - Financial services 23,277$ 101 - General Fund
Total year-to-date expenditures 549,135$
OUTSTANDING COMMITMENTS
Anderson Penna - Survey/Geotech -$ 334 - Quimby
Johnson Favaro - Design 290,069$ 334 - Quimby
Michael Baker - CQEA analysis for PC meeting 8,006$ 101 - General Fund
Kosmont - Financial services 1,723$ 101 - General Fund
Total year-to-date expenditures 299,798$
TOTAL YTD PROJECT COSTS 848,933$
YTD PROJECT COSTS BY FUND Amount
334 - Quimby 802,153$
101 - General Fund 46,780$
TOTAL YTD PROJECT COSTS BY FUND 848,933$
32
approximately $550,000 is included in the estimate with a projected construction start
date of December 2021. The projected escalation cost per month is approximately
$31,000 for each month delay from the December 2021 start date.
Table 5 below provides a summary of the total estimated project cost based on the
project scope as approved by the Planning Commission.
Table 5. Total Estimated Construction Cost
*The estimated future costs include rounding and escalation to a projected start date of
December 2021
Table 6. Total Estimated Construction Cost per FT²
*The estimated future costs include rounding and escalation to a projected start date of
December 2021
The soft costs are estimated as a percentage of hard costs based on staff experience;
the percentages applied can vary depending on project manager judgement and the
organizational structure and staffing of Public Works departments.
HARD COSTS Amount
Community Center (enclosed areas and covered areas) 5,700,000$
Sitework (demolition of existing buildings, site prep, etc.) 6,700,000$
Furnishings, fixtures, equipment (FFEs)300,000$
Sub-total of construction costs 12,700,000$
Construction contigency (5%)640,000$
Total estimated construction costs 13,340,000$
SOFT COSTS
Construction management (5%)640,000$
Construction inspection (7.5%)950,000$
Permitting (2%)250,000$
Hazardous materials abatement (1%)130,000$
Engineering support during construction (3%)380,000$
Total estimated soft costs 2,350,000$
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS 15,690,000$
Description Area Amount Unit
Community Center (40%)6,276,000$
Sitework (60%)9,414,000$
15,690,000$
Structural framed area (ft²)13,720.00 457.43$ per ft²
Enclosed building areas (ft²) 6,790.00 924.30$ per ft²
Park ground (ft²)259,870.00 36.23$ per ft²
Overall project (ft²)273,590.00 57.35$ per ft²
33
The estimated construction costs for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park
have been publicly compared to other facility projects in nearby communities. However,
the publicly stated costs for other projects, do not include soft costs such engineering,
management, permitting, and inspection; escalation to projected year of construction;
furnishings, fixtures, and equipment (FFEs); special requirements; and contingencies.
These costs can increase the project totals by at least 30% to 50%, particularly when
projects are in the early planning stages.
Table 7. Comparison between the George F Canyon Nature Center and the Ladera
Linda Community Center
c. Phased Construction Cost
Should City Council decide to phase the project, e.g., build only one section of building
now and the remainder later, costs are almost certain to increase. First, a decision will
need to be made as to what is to be included in the first phase, which will require an
iterative scoping phase and a phasing plan. There will be additional costs for multiple
bidding processes, and plan revisions as building codes may change prior to permitting
later phases. Next, phased construction requires additional mobilizations and
secondary impacts to neighbors. There will be the need to join existing construction
and match materials. Additionally, phasing loses the advantage of economy of scale for
construction of improvements and for engineering, inspection, and construction
management. Lastly, there will likely be increased construction costs due inflationary
cost escalation affecting materials and contactors’ overhead, as well costs associated
with operational impacts.
d. Operating & Maintenance Costs
Currently, Ladera Linda Community Center and Park has one part-time employee per
shift who is overseen by a full-time recreation supervisor. The estimated operating and
maintenance costs for FY 2020-21 is approximately $191,000. Staff estimates the
operating and maintenance costs for the new facility and park to be less than $210,000.
The estimate includes staffing, supplies, utilities, maintenance, playground equipment
repair, and fuel modification. Due to the health emergency order and the shutdown of
park facilities, staffing and supplies for FY 2020-21 is lower than a typical year. Staff
anticipates that the new facility will require more staffing (as previously reported) and
supplies. However, staff anticipates that the newer facility will not have the same
George F Canyon
Nature Center
Ladera Linda
Community Center
Building 1,750 6,790
Structural framed area 3,355 13,720
Estimated costs w/out soft costs and contingency 1,694,376$ 5,080,000$
Cost per ft²505$ 370$
34
maintenance needs and will more energy efficiency, so staff is projecting these to
remain flat or just a modest increase. Table 8 below illustrates the increase of the
operating and maintenance budget of the new facility to FY 2020-21.
Table 8. Proposed Operating & Maintenance Costs
e. Procurement and Financing Options
In October 2019, the City entered into a Municipal Advisory and Consulting Services
agreement with Kosmont Transaction Services (KTS). The scope of the agreement is
for KTS to identify alternative financing options based on the 2019 City Council's
approved design for the Ladera Linda Community Center and Park Project. KTS
presented the procurement and financing options to the Finance Advisory Committee
(FAC) on February 25, 2021. A copy of the presentation given to the FAC on February
25 is attached (Attachment L).
According to the presentation provided to the FAC, there are generally two major
components to consider funding this City capital project:
I. Procurement Options
o Traditional
▪ The City is responsibility from start to finish of the project.
▪ May take longer to complete.
▪ Flexible financing options.
o Total Project Delivery
▪ The City is not responsible for the project installation.
▪ Guaranteed delivery.
▪ Limited to lease payment.
o Design-Build
▪ One contractor to design and build.
▪ The City is responsibility from start to finish of the project.
▪ Streamline process to reduce the time to complete.
▪ Flexible financing options.
FY 2020-21 Proposed Increase
Salaries & benefits 47,400 127,300 79,900
Supplies 1,000 6,500 5,500
Utilities 28,200 27,700 (500)
Maintenance 115,000 76,800 (38,200)
TOTAL 191,600 238,300 46,700
35
The P3 (public private partnership) model was not presented as a procurement option
because of the size of the project. A desirable P3 project for most developers would have
to be in the range of $50 million or more. Moreover, since most of the design work has
been completed, it too is less desirable for a P3 developer.
II. Financing Options
o Current Resources
▪ Cash reserve
▪ Grants
▪ Special revenues
o Issue Securities
▪ Loan
▪ General Obligation Bonds – requires an affirmative vote of 2/3 of
registered voters
▪ Lease Revenue Bonds – no voter requirement
o Lease
▪ Direct Lease – non-tax exempt, term of less than 30 years
▪ Total Project Delivery – tax exempt, 30-year term
As illustrated on Page 11 of the FAC presentation (Attachment L), financing 100% of the
project is the most expensive financing method. The general obligat ion bond requires
an affirmative vote of 2/3 and has to be on a ballot during a November election. The
lease revenue bond does not require a 2/3 vote but it needs a good credit rating to take
advantage of a low interest rate. A capital loan with iBank is s ubject to credit check and
project review. These financing options have at least a 20-year term. Table 9 below
provides an example of the financing cost per $1 million as presented by KTS on
February 25, 2021.
Table 9. Financing Comparison Per $1 Million
Based on the information provided above and discussion at the FAC meeting, if the
project budget is deemed acceptable to the City Council, Staff will bring the information
back to the FAC at a meeting tentatively scheduled for April 22nd for further discussion
and recommendations for consideration by the City Council tentatively at its May 4,
2021 meeting.
Variable 100% Cash
50% Cash
50% Financed 100% Financed
Principal amount N/A $515,000 $1,025,000
Financing costs -$ 10,300$ 20,500$
Total principal & interest payment -$ 789,800$ 1,569,350$
Cash 1,000,000$ 500,000$ -$
Total spent on project 1,000,000$ 1,289,800$ 1,569,350$
All-in interest cost N/A 3.16%3.16%
Average annual payment N/A 26,327$ 52,312$
36
Project Timeline
If the City Council approves the requested land -use applications for the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park, the project timeline will be as follows:
• Completion of Construction Documents: approximately three months
• Permitting: approximately two months
• Bidding: approximately four months
Design changes directed by the City Council could increase the project timeline by up to
three months, depending on the changes.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
Appeal Hearing Participation
Staff invited the Planning Commission Chairman Gordon Leon to participate in the City
Council appeal hearing. Staff also invited Steve Johnson of Johnson Favaro and his
consultant team, including the cost estimator, to participate in the public hearing.
Advisory Committee Update
Staff provided the Infrastructure Management Advisory Committee (IMAC), Civic Center
Advisory Committee (CCAC) and the FAC with a presentation of the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park project for informational purposes.
ALTERNATIVES
In addition to the staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Provide staff with further project input and continue the public hearing to the May
4, 2021 City Council meeting in order to provide staff with an opportunity to
incorporate feedback.
2. Uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park planning entitlements with no modifications to the approved
Conditions of Approval.
3. Overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Ladera Linda Community
Center and Park planning entitlements thereby denying the project.
37
RESOLUTION NO. 2021-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO PALOS VERDES UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION-APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
MAJOR GRADING PERMIT, VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW FOR THE LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER
AND PARK PROJECT WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CASE NO. PLCU2020-
0007).
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2019, after a comprehensive public outreach and
engagement effort, the City Council approved the Ladera Linda Community Center and
Park Master Plan, which included approving the design of the replacement Community
Center, landscaping, ancillary site improvements, as well as factors such as park security,
staffing levels and facility rentals; and,
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2019, the City Council reviewed roof design options
and directed Staff to study the installation of a solar roof option as part of the detailed
construction drawings phase; and,
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2020, a 15-day public notice for the public hearing
on the project-required planning entitlements was sent to property owners within a 500 -
foot radius of the project site, interested parties, as well as published in the Peninsula
News; and,
WHEREAS, on December 31, 2020, an amended public notice was issued to
identify additional required project applications that were not previously outlined in the
original public notice; and,
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
regarding the proposed project to review plans for the replacement of the Ladera Linda
Community Center and Park, as it relates to Chapter 17 (Zoning) of the Rancho Palo
Verdes Municipal Code, and continued the public hearing to February 23, 2021, in order
to provide staff an opportunity to assess input and incorporate project feedback as
necessary; and,
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
to further discuss the subject project and after considering public testimony adopted P.C.
Resolution No. 2021-02, conditionally approving the requested Conditional Use Permit,
Major Grading Permit, Variance and Site Plan review with minute-order recommendations
to the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2021, the City Council Public Facilities
Subcommittee, consisting of Mayor Alegria and Councilmember Cruikshank, notified City
Manager Mihranian to request that an item be placed on the next available agenda for
A-1
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 2 of 21
the City Council to consider whether to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of
the subject project; and,
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021, the City Council approved the filing of an appeal to
the Planning Commission’s approval of the subject project and setting the appeal hearing
date to April 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2021, a 15-day public notice of the public hearing
regarding the appeal was provided to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the
Property and published in the Palos Verdes Peninsula News; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code the proposed project has been found to be
categorically exempt under Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA
Guidelines. Specifically, the project consists of the reconstruction of an existing facility
where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure(s) replaced and
will have substantially the same purpose and capacity; and,
WHEREAS, on April 6, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing,
at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present
evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS
VERDES DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The above recitals are hereby incorporated into this Resolution as
set forth herein.
Section 2: The project involves the demolition of five existing buildings,
parking, ancillary site improvements and landscaping to accommodate the construction
of a new 6,790ft2 single-story community center building measuring 16’-6¼” in height,
parking for 54 cars on-site, play areas, landscaping, ancillary site improvements and
9,000 yd3 of combined balanced on-site grading (4,500 yd3 of cut and 4,500 yd3 of fill).
Section 3: The Conditional Use Permit for the new Ladera Linda Park, 6,790 ft2
single-story community center, play areas, landscaping, and ancillary site improvements
is warranted based on the following findings:
A. The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
proposed use. The project site is approximately 11.031 acres in size and
currently utilized as a park and Community Center with multiple facility
buildings, surface parking, playground paving, equipment and paddle tennis
A-2
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 3 of 21
courts, fields, landscaping and emergency preparedness storage
containers. The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing
facilities and improvements, with the exception of the paddle tennis courts,
to construct a single Community Center structure that would be
approximately 37% of the total gross square footage of the existing facility.
Consequently, the new building would occupy a significantly smaller
footprint than the existing buildings and be located in the middle of the
existing built areas of the Park. The proposed Community Center an d
ancillary facilities are sited throughout the 11.031 -acre tiered site, so as to
provide enhanced setbacks to adjacent properties and provide enhanced
line of sight from the perimeter of the property for security purposes. The
proposed 54 on-site parking spaces, which consist of four ADA spaces, four
dedicated spaces for clean air vehicles (one Van ADA space included),
exceed the parking stalls required for both weekend (42 spaces) and
weekday (15 spaces) conditions for the proposed project as outlined in the
latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Parking
Generation Manual (5th Edition, 2019).
B. The proposed project relates to streets and highways sufficient to carry the
type and quantity of traffic generated by the use. The project replaces the
existing Community Center facility, comprised of several buildings, with a
single building that would be less than 40% of the total square footage of
the existing facilities. In addition, the new building would occupy a smaller
footprint than the existing Community Center buildings within the existing
built areas of the Park. Furthermore, the Project will not result in any
increases to the existing uses, programming, and activities. Rather, uses,
programming and activities are proposed to be limited and regulated, and
would, therefore, have substantially the same purpose, but with less
capacity than the existing facility that will be replaced. The park does not
create a cumulative impact on traffic within the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes. The traffic on Forrestal Drive is mostly attributed to the only outlet
to over 160 single family homes off Pirate Drive. The proposed Park and
Community Center does not affect the traffic signal warrant at the
intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South and Forrestal/ Trump National.
C. The project site is currently improved with a park use and will continue to
serve as such as part of the proposed project. The new Community Center
will serve all residents and the community, particularly those located on the
east side of the City, as an area for recreational opportunities as well as for
emergency preparedness activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling
center and storage location. The height of the proposed Community Center
is 16 feet- 6 ¼ inches and will not create a significant adverse effect, as
residential properties to the east and south of the project site have views of
the ocean and Catalina Island oriented in the opposite direction of the
A-3
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 4 of 21
proposed building. Furthermore, the building pad of the proposed
Community Center will be located approximately 25 feet below the street of
access (Forrestal Drive), therefore views from the street and adjacent trails
can be observed over the proposed building height. The project will not
result in any adverse safety or security impacts, as the City Council design -
approved project includes a comprehensive list of safety measures and
designs such as the incorporation of a surveillance system, motion and
glass break sensors, perimeter fencing, and lighting design. The project will
not result in adverse noise impacts as the project incorporates construction
noise regulations, hours of operation for the community center and
limitations on mechanical equipment noise. The project ligh ting will not
result in an adverse impact because the site lighting has been designed to
comply with RPVMC regulations and to provide for park safety and security.
D. The use of the property for a park and community center is consistent with
the Institutional- Public General Plan land use designation for the site. The
project site is currently a park with a community center and will continue to
be utilized as such. The new park and community center will serve all
residents and the community, particularly th ose located on the east side of
the City, as an area for recreational opportunities as well as for emergency
preparedness activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling center and
storage location. Furthermore, the Conservation and Open Space Element
of the City’s 2018 General Plan Update (pg. COS-39) identified the Ladera
Linda Park and Community Center as an Institutional-Public land use with
passive and active amenities including playground and sports equipment,
multipurpose rooms and classrooms as well as ancillary site improvements
including a parking lot and restrooms. The General Plan also notes that a
Master Plan process for the Ladera Linda Park and Community Center was
included in the Parks Master Plan Update.
Section 4: The Variance for the construction of retaining walls up to 15½ feet in
height to support ADA complaint ramps between the middle -tier and upper-tiers of the
park is warranted based on the following findings:
A. The project site was originally developed as an elementary school wit h
multiple classroom buildings and play areas on a three-tiered site due to the
unique and steep topographic conditions in the area, which have been used
as a community center and park facilities since the 1980s. The three tiers
include a lower, middle, and upper tier with 5-foot to 15-foot transitional
slopes between the tiers. The project proposes to maintain the same three-
tier park layout and will also include new accessible walking paths and
ramps to enhance accessibility and walkability throughout th e project site.
In order to accommodate an ADA-compliant accessible ramp between the
middle and upper tiers of the park, the project proposes to construct a
A-4
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 5 of 21
retaining wall with an overall height of up to 15½ feet. The existing site
development and requirement to provide for enhanced accessibility to meet
ADA requirements present exceptional circumstances that warrant the need
to construct a retaining wall that exceeds the height limitations established
in the RPVMC. Although other Institutional-zoned properties in the City were
developed with similar topographic conditions, the project site is unique in
that it was previously developed as an elementary school and the project
proposes to re-develop the site but maintain the existing park’s tiered layout
but meet current accessibility requirements.
B. The construction of the proposed retaining wall up to 15½ feet in height are
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right, which right is possessed by other property owners under like
conditions in the same zoning district. The project site is encumbered by
steep topographical conditions in certain areas of the project site, including
transitional slopes between the various tiers of the park that are not present
in other developed Institutional zoned properties. As a public facility, owned
and operated by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the City is r equired to
provide for ADA accessibility throughout the site and to ensure the safety of
the public.
C. The construction of the proposed retaining wall up to 15½ feet in height to
accommodate an ADA access ramp will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property and improvement in the area, as the
construction of the proposed wall will be reviewed and inspected by the
City’s Building and Safety Division for conformance with the California
Building Code and associated geological requirements. In addition, the
proposed retaining wall will support the transition slope between the middle
and upper tiers of the park. Not granting the Variance application request
for the construction of retaining walls up to 15½ feet in height and not
accommodating an ADA accessible ramp would in fact be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to visitors of the park.
D. The variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan or
the policies and requirements of the Coastal Specific Plan. The project site
is not located in the City’s Coastal Specific Plan. The use of the property as
a park and community center is consistent with the City’s updated General
Plan. The Conservation and Open Space Element (Pg. COS-6) of the City’s
General Plan includes goals and policies related to Open -Space and
Recreation Resources, which promote public access to all recreational land
and building additional parks and playfields, where appropriate, for multiple
use by various groups. The proposed retaining wall with an overall height
of 15 ½ feet, will provide enhanced ADA accessibility to recreational land
and for the use of various groups.
A-5
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 6 of 21
Section 5: The Major Grading Permit to conduct 9,000 yd3 of combined grading
consisting of 4,500 yd3 of cut and 4,500 yd3 of fill with grading above 5 feet in height is
warranted based on the following findings:
A. The grading does not exceed that which is necessary for the permitted
primary use of the lot. The proposed project is in an Institutional Zoning
District, in which the primary use of the lot is a park and Community Center.
The new park and community center will serve all residents and the
community, particularly those located on the east side of the City, as an
area for recreational opportunities as well as for emergency preparedness
activities such as, but not limited to, a cooling center and storage location.
The proposed 9,000 yd3 of grading will be balanced on-site therefore
avoiding the need to export or import soil or rock. Furthermore, the
proposed grading will be limited to the existing developed portions of the
site, which have been previously graded to support existing improvements.
The project grading proposes targeted cut and fill into po rtions of the
existing site to accommodate the proposed park and community center,
parking lot, tiered seating, walking paths, ADA compliant accessible ramp,
and other ancillary park improvements. In addition, the proposed grading
will enhance adequate drainage of the site.
B. The proposed project and associated grading will not significantly adversely
affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from the viewing areas of
neighboring properties because the project site is currently improved with
an existing park, building facilities, and ancillary site improvements. The
proposed grading will continue to accommodate a park use and a single
community center building that would be less than 40% of the total square
footage of the existing facility. In addition, the new community center would
occupy a smaller footprint than the community center buildings within the
existing built areas of the Park. The proposed building height will not create
a significant adverse effect, as the height of the community center, as a
result of the site grading, will not impact views as observed from neighboring
properties due to the topographic conditions in the area. Residential
properties to the east and south of the project site have views of the ocean
and Catalina Island oriented in the opposite direction of the proposed
building. Finally, the building pad of the proposed community center will be
located approximately 25 feet below the street of access (Forrestal Drive),
whereby views from the street and adjacent trails can be observed over the
proposed building height.
C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural contours and
finished contours are reasonably natural because the proposed grading is
generally limited to developed portions of the site. In addition, the proposed
A-6
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 7 of 21
grading maintains a majority of the existing contours surrounding the
developed areas on the project site. The project proposes to maintain the
existing transitional slope along the south and southwest of the site as well
as the slopes between the project site and Forrestal Drive. The finished
contours of the project will blend with the existing contours on the existing
site.
D. The grading takes into account the preservation of natural topographic
features and appearances by means of land sculpturing . The project site
has been previously graded to accommodate the existing park, parking lot
and ancillary site improvements. The proposed grading is generally limited
to developed portions of the site. Moreover, the proposed grading generally
follows the existing slope of the property and re sults in finished slopes that
appear reasonably natural. Additionally, although some land-sculpturing is
proposed to occur, it is designed so as to blend the manufactured slopes
into the natural topography.
E. The grading would not cause excessive and unnecessary disturbance of
the natural landscape or wildlife habitat through removal of vegetation
because the proposed grading area does not contain natural landscape or
wildlife habitat. The proposed grading is limited to areas of the project site
that have been previously graded to accommodate existing structures and
ancillary site improvements.
F. The grading conforms to the City’s standards for grading on slopes,
maximum finished slopes, maximum depth of cut and fill, and retaining wall
heights with the exception grading on slopes over 50% steepness and the
construction of a retaining wall up to 6 feet-11 inches in height along the
driveway in the immediate area of the mechanical and refuse enclosures.
The proposed grading over slopes with 50% and the retaining wall are
consistent with the purpose of the Grading Permit because it will result in
the reasonable development of the project site. In additi on, the proposed
grading and retaining wall will contribute to the overall site accessibility and
retention of groundcover to aid against flooding, erosion and other similar
hazards. Furthermore, the scenic character of the neighborhood would not
be altered as the retaining wall along the driveway would not be readily
visible from the public right-of-way as the location of the wall be located
below the Forrestal Drive street level. The proposed grading and retaining
wall will comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan, as the
project supports policies for public health/ safety related to the environment.
More specifically, the proposed retaining wall is required to be designed to
performance standards that ensure both engineering standards and the
topographic treatment of slopes on the property. Furthermore, the City’s
geotechnical consultant and the Building Official will be required to review
A-7
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 8 of 21
and approve engineered grading plans prior to grading permit issuance and
inspections will be conducted throughout the process. With these
provisions, the proposed deviation will not cause a detrimental impact to
public safety and/or other properties in the vicinity of the project. Notice of
this decision shall be given to the Applicant and to all owners of property
adjacent to the property
Section 6: The Site Plan Review for the proposed ancillary site improvements
including, but not limited to, the accessory structures, flag pole, mechanical equipment
and parking comply with all applicable Code requirements.
Section 7: In order to further mitigate any potential project impacts to
neighboring properties in the area, the City Council also modifies the Planning-
Commission approved Conditions of Approval to include the following Conditions of
Approval:
• Condition No. 72 - Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall
place all Discovery Room exhibits/displays into storage at Point Vicente
Interpretive Center or at other City facilities as deemed appropriate. After
construction is complete, the exhibits/displays that are not incorporated into the
Discovery Room, shall remain in storage.
• Condition No. 73 - Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall
conduct a traffic engineering study to collect baseline traffic data in the ar ea of
the park.
• Condition No. 74 - The City shall perform a parking demand analysis to assess
alternatives for the development of a parking management program as part of the
annual compliance review.
• Condition No. 75 - The access stairs between the upper tier of the project site
and the adjacent property in the area of the lower soccer fields shall be removed
as part of the park reconstruction.
Section 8: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State's CEQA Guidelines,
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., the City's Local CEQA
Guidelines, and Government Code the proposed project has been found to be
categorically exempt under Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA
Guidelines. Specifically, the project consists of the reconstruction of an existing facility
where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure(s) replaced and
will have substantially the same purpose and capacity.
A-8
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 9 of 21
Section 9: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption
of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and her certification to be entered in
the Book of Resolutions of the City Council.
Section 10: The time within which judicial review of the decision reflected in this
Resolution must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure and/or Section 21167 of the California Public Resources Code.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 6th day of April 2021.
_________________________________
Eric Alegria, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES )
I, __________, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, do hereby certify that the
above Resolution No. 2021-__, was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 6, 2021.
__________________________________
CITY CLERK
A-9
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 10 of 21
EXHIBIT 'A'
LADERA LINDA COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE,
MAJOR GRADING PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW
(CASE NO. PLCU-0007)
1. Approval of this permit shall not be construed as a waiver of applicable and
appropriate zoning regulations, or any Federal, State, County and/or City laws and
regulations. Unless otherwise expressly specified, all other requirements of the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code (RPVMC) shall apply.
2. No later than one year after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the
Community Center building, the City Council shall review the Conditions of
Approval contained herein at a duly noticed public hearing. As part of the review,
the City Council Commission shall assess the project’s compliance with the
Conditions of Approval and the adequacy of the conditions imposed. At that time,
the City Council may add, delete, or modify any conditions of approval as evidence
presented at the hearing demonstrates are necessary and appropriate to address
impacts resulting from operation of the project. Notice of the review hearing shall
be published and provided to owners of property within a 500-foot radius of the
site, to persons requesting notice, to all affected homeowners associations, and to
the property owner, in accordance with the RPVMC. As part of this review, the City
Council shall consider, among other things, the parking conditions, circulation
patterns, lighting, landscaping, noise, and operational hours. The City Council may
require such subsequent additional reviews, as the City Council deems
appropriate. This provision shall not be construed as a limitation on the City’s ability
to enforce any provision of the RPVMC regarding this project.
The City Council may remand this review to the Planning Commission to provide
recommendations in the advisory capacity. In this case, the Planning Commission
shall conduct a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to public notification
requirements stated above.
3. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.78.040, the Director of Community Development
is authorized to make minor modifications to the approved plans and any of the
conditions of approval if such modifications will achieve substantially the same
results as would strict compliance with the approved plans and conditions.
Substantial changes to the project shall be considered a revision and require
approval by the final body that approved the original project, which may require
new and separate environmental review and public notification.
4. The project development on the site shall conform to the specific standards
A-10
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 11 of 21
contained in these Conditions of Approval or, if not addressed herein, shall
conform to the Institutional zoning district development standards of the RPVMC,
including but not limited to height, setback standards.
5. In the event that any of these conditions conflict with the recommendations and/or
requirements of another permitting agency or City department, the stricter standard
shall apply.
6. Unless otherwise designated in these conditions, all construction shall be
completed in substantial conformance with the plans stamped APPROVED by the
City with the effective date of this Resolution.
7. This approval is only for the items described within these conditions and identified
on the stamped APPROVED plans and is not an approval of any existing illegal or
legal non-conforming structures on the property, unless the approval of such illegal
or legal non-conforming structure is specifically identified within these conditions
or on the stamped APPROVED plans.
8. The construction site and adjacent public and private properties and streets shall
be kept free of all loose materials resembling trash and debris in excess of that
material used for immediate construction purposes. Such excess ma terial may
include, but not be limited to: the accumulation of debris, garbage, lumber, scrap
metal, concrete asphalt, piles of earth, salvage materials, abandoned or discarded
furniture, appliances or other household fixtures.
9. All construction sites shall be maintained in a secure, safe, neat and orderly
manner, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official. All construction waste and
debris resulting from a construction, alteration or repair project shall be removed
on a weekly basis by the contractor or property owner. Existing or temporary
portable bathrooms shall be provided during construction. Portable bathrooms
shall be placed in a location that will minimize disturbance to the surrounding
property owners, to the satisfaction of the City’s Building Official.
10. Permitted hours and days for construction activity are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, with no construction
activity permitted on Sundays or on the legal holidays specified in RPVMC Section
17.96.920. During demolition, construction and/or grading operations, trucks shall
not park, queue and/or idle at the project site or in the adjoining street rights -of-
way before 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday and before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday,
in accordance with the permitted hours of construction stated in this condition.
When feasible to do so, the construction contractor shall provide staging areas on -
site to minimize off-site transportation of heavy construction equipment. These
areas shall be located to maximize the distance between staging activities and
neighboring properties, subject to approval by the building official.
A-11
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 12 of 21
11. If construction projects that are accessible from a street right-of-way or an abutting
property and which remain in operation or expect to remain in operation for over
30 calendar days, the City shall provide temporary construction fencing, as defined
in RPVMC Section 17.56.050(C). Unless required to protect against a safety
hazard, temporary construction fencing shall not be erected sooner than 15 days
prior to commencement of construction.
Project Specific Conditions
12. This approval allows for the following:
• Demolition of five existing buildings (18,574 ft2 in gross area), parking,
ancillary site improvements and landscaping;
• Construction of a new 6,790 gross ft2 single-story building (community
center) and adjacent 137 ft2 of covered patio areas with an overall height of
16 feet – 6 ¼ inches;
• Construction of a 400 ft2 storage facility at 12 feet in height for City and
emergency supplies;
• Construction of a 54-stall parking lot located adjacent to building and
playground, including four clean air vehicle spaces;
• Construction of a naturalistic children’s playground area in the upper
terrace;
• Construction of one full basketball court and a half-court basketball court in
the upper terrace;
• Renovation of two existing paddle tennis courts in the upper t errace;
• Construction of walking paths throughout park area along with upper and
lower lawn areas;
• Construction of an outdoor tiered seating area between the middle - and
upper- terraces;
• Construction of a lawn area in the lower terrace;
• Utilization of existing Forrestal Drive entrance into the park;
• Installation of low-impact, native and drought-tolerant landscaping,
including 30-foot to 100-foot buffer zone between the building and southerly
slope;
• 9,000 cubic yards combined balanced on-site grading (4,500 cubic yards of
cut and 4,500 cubic yards of fill);
• Grading cut and fill over 5 feet in height to support an Americans with
Disability Act (ADA) access ramp between the middle- and upper terraces;
• Construction of retaining and combination walls to a maximum height of
15 ½ feet to accommodate accessibility and ADA compliant ramps;
• Installation of a new 12-foot flagpole;
• Construction of mechanical equipment and refuse storage area;
A-12
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 13 of 21
• Installation of new bike and storage area;
• Installation of vehicular entry gate for park security; and,
• Installation of on-site lighting.
13. The height of the proposed community center shall be 16 feet-6 ¼ inches tall, as
measured from the highest existing grade covered by the structure
(elev. 448.00 feet) to the highest roof ridgeline (464.525 feet).
BUILDING HEIGHT CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED BY A
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OR CIVIL ENGINEER PRIOR TO ROOF
SHEATHING INSPECTION.
14. The height of the proposed accessory storage building shall not exceed a height
of 12 feet as measured as measured from the lowest preconstruction grade
adjacent to the foundation wall to the ridge.
15. Unless modified by the approval of future planning applications, the approved
community center building and storage building shall maintain the following
setbacks:
• Front & Street Side- 25 feet (abutting a dedicated street)
• Interior Side & Rear- 20 feet
Grading Permit Conditions
16. The following maximum quantities and depths of grading are approved for the
project site as shown on the grading plan reviewed and approved by the City
Council:
a. 9,000 cubic yards of combined on-site grading (4,500 cubic yards of cut and
4,500 cubic yards of fill) with retaining walls up to 12 feet in height in support
of the proposed improvements.
b. Cut and fill depths up to 10 feet in height
No export or import of earth material shall occur with the exception of base material
and other construction related material.
17. The Director of Community Development shall be authorized to allow deviations to
the project grading quantities up to 200 cubic yards over the stated maximum
quantities for unforeseen circumstances due to conditions encountered in the field
provided that such deviation or modification to the grading quantities achieve
substantially the same results as with the strict compliance with the grading plan.
A-13
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 14 of 21
Any modifications resulting in additional grading in excess of the above amounts
shall require approval of an amendment to the grading permit by the City Council
at a duly noticed public hearing. This is a balanced grading project. No export or
import of earth shall be permitted, except for rock material or fine grading materials,
such as select fill.
18. Prior to the final inspection of the precise grading, a certified as -built grading plan
prepared and wet-stamped by a license engineer shall be reviewed and approved
by the Building Official and the Director of Public Works. If applicable, the as -built
grading plan shall identify any revisions to the grading plan.
19. For all grading, landscaping and construction activities, the City shall employ
effective dust control techniques, either through screening and/or watering.
20. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, haul routes to
transport soil shall be approved by the Public Works Department, if applicable.
21. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the
contractor shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development how dust generated by the grading activities will be mitigated, so as
to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 and the
RPVMC requirements, which require watering for the control of dust.
22. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the project
geologist shall review and approve final plans and specifications and shall stamp
and sign such plans and specifications.
23. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the City shall
submit for review and approval a drainage plan that complies with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater
discharges.
24. All grading shall be monitored by a licensed engineering geologist and/or soils
engineer in accordance with the applicable provisions of the RPMVC and the
recommendations of the Director of Public Works. Written reports, summarizing
grading activities, shall be submitted on a weekly basis to t he Director of Public
Works and the City’s Building Official.
25. Grading activity on-site shall occur in accordance with all applicable City safety
standards.
26. If applicable, any water features, including bioswales, shall be lined to prevent
percolation of water into the soil. Designs of all water features shall be included on
the grading plans submitted for review by the City’s Building Official and the City’s
A-14
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 15 of 21
Geologist prior to the issuance of any grading permits.
27. Prior to the final grading inspection by the Building and Safety Division, the graded
slopes shall be properly maintained in accordance with the project landscape plan.
Plan materials shall generally include significant low ground cover to impede
surface water flows.
Safety Conditions
28. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the
project plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles Count y Fire
Department to ensure compliance with the fire code and fuel modification
requirements.
29. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, the
City shall contract with a security consultant to develop a Safety & Security Plan,
which incorporates the following safety design elements:
• Clear points of entry and improved sight lines in the final design;
• Appropriately placed exterior and interior security cameras and motion
sensors with lighting;
• Appropriate low-level landscaping;
• Control of ingress and egress points during operating hou rs and non-
operating hours;
• Glass break sensors;
• On-site security lighting incorporating comprehensive best practices in
lighting design throughout the park grounds and building;
• Ability to secure park perimeter at night through fencing and improved
entrance gates for both pedestrian and vehicular access points;
• Ability to make restroom and vestibule area secured and inaccessible
during community center non-operating hours;
• Reduction/elimination of blind spots; ,
• Increased utilization of the park combined with increased staff supervision
30. The on-site surveillance system, including security cameras and motion sensors
shall be maintained by the City in perpetuity.
31. The community center open lobby, restrooms and accompanying sink areas shall
be designed to be secured on a nightly basis with a roll-down security gate or other
means to secure the area and prevent hour use.
A-15
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 16 of 21
Landscape and Park Improvement Conditions
32. A final Landscape Plan shall be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect in
accordance with the standards set forth in the RPVMC. The Landscape Plan shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development, a qualified
Landscape Architect, and/or an Arborist hired by the City, prior to the issuance of
any building or grading permits. The Landscape Plan shall include, at include, a
minimum, the plant species (Latin and common names), growth rate, and
maximum height at maturity of all proposed trees. During the Director’s review, the
Landscape Plan shall also be made available to the public for review.
The Landscape Plan shall comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance, the View Preservation Ordinance, the planting requirements, the
irrigation system design criteria, and all other requirements RPVMC. All new trees
and foliage shall not exceed 16-feet in height, as measured from the grade
adjacent to the tree or foliage. The Landscape Plan shall also include an Integrated
Pest Management Plan that addresses the use of grass-cycling and pesticides for
the lawn and landscape areas.
33. Prior to approval of the landscape plan, the project shall comply with the City’s Low
Impact Development Ordinance, as applicable.
Construction Conditions
34. All construction vehicles onsite shall minimize idling time by requiring that
equipment be shut down after 5 minutes when not in use (as required by the State
airborne toxics control measure, 13 CCR § 2485). Clear signs that lists this
requirement shall be posted with the requirements for workers at the entrances to
the site and provide a plan for the enforcement of this requirement including a
phone number to contact a designated City employee (i.e. project manager).
35. Unless safety provisions require otherwise, the construction contractor shall adjust
all audible back‐up alarms to the lowest volume appropriate for safety purposes
(i.e. still maintaining adequate signal‐to‐noise ratio for alarm effectiveness). The
contractor shall consider signal persons, strobe lights, or alternative safety
equipment and/or processes as allowed for reducing reliance on high ‐amplitude
sonic alarms.
36. The project shall utilize construction equipment equipped with standard noise
insulating features during construction to reduce source noise levels.
37. All project construction equipment shall be properly maintained to assure that no
additional noise, due to worn or improperly maintained parts is generated.
A-16
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 17 of 21
38. Construction of the project should not impede upon any City Council-approved
public trails in the immediate area.
39. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, a
Staging Plan shall be prepared and reviewed by the Director of Community
Development, which includes, but is not limited to, the identification of equipment
staging and construction-associated parking.
Operational Conditions
40. Pursuant to RPVMC Section 12.16.030, the Ladera Linda park ground hours shall
be one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset, seven days a week, or as
designated by City Council action.
41. The Ladera Linda parking lot shall be open at 8:00 a.m. to dusk, seven days a
week, or as designated by City Council action.
42. The Ladera Linda Park Community Center hours shall be 8:00 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven
days a week, or as designated by City Council action. Operating hours may be
extended if rentals are scheduled, or for City conducted business, such as public
meetings.
43. Rental for purposes of the use of the community center shall mean any contracted
or permitted use of a park facility by an individual, business, non -profit, HOA, or
the City, and hours of use shall be limited to between 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
44. Classes (instructor-led class, either private or City-sponsored) shall be conducted
only between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
45. No more than two private rentals per month shall be allowed after 5 :00 p.m. This
restriction shall not apply to non-profits, City events, or HOA rentals.
46. No more than eight special events (a large City-sponsored or permitted private
event) shall be allowed per calendar year. Special events that extend until after
9:00 P.M. shall only be permitted upon approval of a Special Event Permit.
47. All maintenance and grounds-keeping equipment shall be entirely enclosed when
not in use.
Parking Conditions
48. No fewer than 54 on-site parking spaces consisting of 47 standard parking spaces
at a minimum of 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep, one electric vehicle space, one ADA
electric van accessible space, three clean air vehicle spaces and three ADA
A-17
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 18 of 21
accessible spaces.
49. All parking, loading and access shall comply with RPVMC Chapter 17.50
(Nonresidential Parking and Loading Standards).
50. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING OR BUILDING PERMITS, a
Parking Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development that shall include, but not be limited to, parking striping, directional
arrows, wheel stops or curbs, landscaping, way finding signs and other necessary
parking and circulation amenities.
51. All proposed driveways and aisle shall be designed in substantially the same
alignment as shown on the propose project site plan, subject to final design review
and approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Director of Public
Works.
52. Prior to the installation of the bicycle storage lockers, a color sample for the
locker exterior shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community
Development.
On-Site Walk and Pathway Conditions
53. The location and number of on-site walk and pathways shall generally comply with
the project plans. These walk and pathways shall be constructed pursuant to the
standards approved by the Director of Public Works.
54. Handicap access ramps shall be installed in accordance with the current standards
established by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
55. All sidewalks and pathways throughout the project site shall be designed to comply
with the minimum width standards set forth in the most recent Disabled
Accessibility Guidebook.
Site Lighting Conditions
56. The Lighting Plan approved by the City Council shall comply with the Non-
Residential Outdoor Light Ordinance pursuant to RPVMC Section 17.56.040. An
as-built lighting plan shall be submitted to the City prior to the final inspection and
shall include, but not limited to, the location, height, number of lights, wattage and
estimates of maximum illumination on site and spill/glare at properties lines for all
exterior circulation lighting, outdoor building lighting, walking and sidewalk lighting,
parking lot lighting, landscape ambiance lighting and sign lighting. The Lighting
Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community
Development prior to the issuance of any building permit.
A-18
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 19 of 21
57. An Illuminated mock-up of one of the proposed -10-foot high light poles shall be
placed prior to installation for review by the Director of Community Development.
58. There shall be a trial period of thirty (30) days from the installation of all the project
exterior lighting, including building and parking lot lighting, during which the lighting
shall be assessed for potential impacts to the surrounding properties. At the end
of the thirty (30) day period, the Director of Community Development may require
additional screening or reduction in the intensity or numbers of lights which are
determined to be excessively bright or otherwise create adverse impacts.
Furthermore, said lighting shall be reviewed as part of the one-year compliance
review described in Condition No. 3.
59. Parking and security lighting shall be kept to minimum safety standards and shall
conform to City requirements. Fixtures shall be shielded to emit light below 90
degrees so that only the project site is illuminated; there shall be no spillover onto
residential properties or halo into the night sky.
60. No outdoor lighting is permitted where the light source or fixture, if located on a
building, is above the line of the eaves. If the light source or fixture is located on a
building with no eaves, or if located on a standard or pole, the light source or fixture
shall not be more than 10 feet above existing grade, adjacent to the building or
pole.
61. The parking lot light standards shall be limited to a maximum height of 10 feet, as
measured from adjacent finished grade.
62. The lighting bollards shall be limited to a maximum height of 42 inches, as
measured from adjacent finished grade.
63. The use of laser lights, strobe lights, flashing lights, or any similar lighting shall be
prohibited during all events.
Utility Conditions
64. Prior to issuance of the final inspection for the project grading, all new utilities
exclusively serving the project site shall be placed underground including, but not
limited to, cable, telephone, electrical, gas and water. All appropriate permits shall
be obtained for any such installation.
65. No above ground utility structure cabinets, poles, pipes, or valves shall be
constructed within the public rights-of-way without prior approval of the Director of
Public Works. If permitted, above ground utility structure cabinets, pipes, or valves
shall not impede on the pedestrian circulation flow and shall be painted a color to
A-19
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 20 of 21
the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The use of above
ground utility poles is prohibited.
66. The project shall comply with all recorded easements on the property.
Noise and Mechanical Equipment
67. If applicable, all new mechanical equipment, regardless of its location, shall be
housed in enclosures designed to attenuate noise to a level of 65 dBA CNEL at
the project site’s property lines.
68. Mechanical equipment shall be oriented away from any sensitive receptors such
as neighboring residences, and where applicable, must be installed with any
required acoustical shielding.
69. Use of amplified sound in excess of 65 dB at the property lines shall require a
special event permit pursuant to RPVMC Section§ 12.20.040.
70. The use of indoor amplified music shall be permitted between 11:00 a.m and 8:00
p.m. Music amplification or reproduction equipment shall not be operated in such
a manner that it is plainly audible from the nearest property line in any direction
from the community center building for classes or exercise programs . Use of
amplified music outdoors shall require a special event permit; not be allowed after
9 p.m.; speakers shall be oriented away from residential property and sound shall
not be in excess of 65 dB at the property lines.
71. All deliveries of goods and supplies; trash pick -up, including the use of parking
lot trash sweepers; and the operation of machinery or mechanical equipment
which emits noise levels in excess of 65 dBA, as measured from the closest
property line to the equipment, shall only be allowed between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and dusk, Monday through Sunday .
April 6, 2021 City Council-Approved Conditions
72. Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall place all Discovery
Room exhibits/displays into storage at Point Vicente Interpretive Center or at other
City facilities as deemed appropriate. After construction is complete, the
exhibits/displays that are not incorporated into the Discovery Room, shall remain
in storage.
73. Prior to on-site grading or construction activities, the City shall conduct a traffic
engineering study to collect baseline traffic data in the area of the park.
74. The City shall perform a parking demand analysis to assess alternatives for the
A-20
Resolution No. 2021-__
Page 21 of 21
development of a parking management program as part of the annual compliance
review.
75. The access stairs between the upper tier of the project site and the adjacent
property in the area of the lower soccer fields shall be removed as part of the
park reconstruction.
A-21