Planning Commissioner Jim Knight has some definite ideas about the proposed Abalone Cove Nature Center as outlined in the city's grant application, and
discussed in an earlier blog post.
He doesn't like it. And because Jim cares about our community and the environment, and he's knowledgeable about the city's long-range plans, and he understands the state's rules and regulations, I think he's worth listening to. I hope you do, too.
Jim has some alternative ideas about a nature center that he thinks would be less invasive and more workable that the plan outlined in the city's grant application. He discussed these ideas this week in a meeting with City Manager Carolyn Lehr and in a follow-up letter, which he has agreed to share online in this blog. It's long, but I hope you will take the time to read it because Jim has some good ideas. If you agree, please email city manager
Carolyn Lehr or call her: 310-377-0360. You might want to contact the city council members as well. Their contact information is here:
http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/index.cfm
Here's the problem: the grant application is due July 1. So time is short. Actually, it's critical.
And here's a bigger problem: The city council has said that it will accept public input on this issue after the grant is awarded. But as Jim points out in the fourth paragraph of his letter, which I have highlighted in red, that won't work.
Here's the letter:
"...First, as I said, I think an 8-10,000 sq. ft. structure at Abalone Cove will change the natural, open character of this site. Good urban planning and good common sense would dictate the structured educational facilities be located at Lower Point Vicente where it will be centralized, infrastructure already exists, the city already has staff available for ongoing maintenance, is compliant with our Coastal Vision Plan and Specific Coastal Plan and is closer to one of our greatest economic engines: Terranea.
The outlying recreational areas such as Abalone Cove and Gateway would be preserved for more of a natural, open space experience enhanced with interpretive kiosks, trail improvements with signage, etc. I agree that educational opportunities for the public to better understand stewardship of the sensitive tidepools at Abalone Cove would be a good addition to the park but it doesn’t necessitate a 10,000 sq. ft. building to achieve that goal. Outdoor informational kiosks or a modest pavilion, including interactive exhibits to educate the public on tide pools, marine life, trails, conservation and protection of the habitat, geology and Native American history, would all be more appropriate for this site.
Possible outdoor Ramada design with interpretive information
The other components of the proposal such as improving the parking lot, trail system and landscaping could remain provided they comply with the grant criteria of a “focused learning about the natural environment”. I also agree a webcam would greatly help monitor the Abalone Cove tidepools.
Council has stated that there is plenty of time for public input on this proposal as it progresses through the entitlement process. But in reality, once the project description is submitted to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS), there is little opportunity for significant changes. The CA State Parks has made it was clear that a city must enter into a contract specifying the scope of the project when applying for a grant. If the City signs a contract to build an 8,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. building, then it appears the City is locked into those specifications. Remedy for any breach the contract, in addition to any compensatory damages, would be specific performance of the contract. This leaves little room for shaping the proposal with further public input. So we must get it as close to right as possible the first time around.
It is unfortunate that this has come to a crunch time for submitting the grant, not allowing for more public input. I think Council should be reminded of the “Recreation Activity” section of the Urban Environment Element of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan (1975), which provides guidance on recreation land use: “Policy 8 Encourage local citizens groups to participate in the planning, development, and maintenance of recreation facilities to the extent possible”. So I recommend reaching out to the public as soon as possible.
I am concerned that the current proposal may have some characteristics that might not qualify for the grant. For instance
1) The grant program Authorizing Resolution Form of the Nature Education Facilities Guide states an applicant must certify that this project is consistent with appropriate planning documents. The Coast Vision Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan for Abalone Cove both identify new park amenities with picnic tables, shade features, benches, trash receptacles, an ADA accessible bluff top trail, trail signage implementation of an invasive species removal and low profile shade tree planting program within the park. An 8-10,000 sq. ft. building does not fit within any of the recommendations of these Plans and would constitute a substantial change with little public input. Staff has stated in the Coastal Vision Plan “" It has been Staff's past experience with grant funding that projects that are a part of a City approved plan, such as the Vision Plan, have a much better chance of being funded." pg. 5 of 143
2) Abalone Cove is within Subregion 5 of the Coastal Specific Plan which describes this site as “entirely undeveloped” and has a “subregion environment like no other in the entire coastal region”. This site is categorized in the CSP as medium to high fire hazard. Our CSP also specifies view corridors that are continuous along PV Dr. South.(p.C-9).
3) Even though you stated this will be within category 4 of the coastal setback line, there is the risk of unknown results of a geological review and, if the Coastal Commission is as concerned as they were on the Abalone Cove Improvement project, they could nix the proposal.
Other factors:
-It is possible that night lights will be required with a large building installation which could radically change to character of the site.
-The SEA lab I found, which is operated by the Conservation Crops, is not a marine biological research entity; it is an educational foundation for all ages to “educate schoolchildren and visitors about marine life and the importance of protecting our oceans. “ LA Conservation Corps manages programs which includes summer camp programs, community service projects and the Traveling Tidepool mobile exhibit. This group would not need a part of a 10,000 sq. ft. building to operate marine research and could easily complete their objectives with outdoor display kiosks and organized trips to the tidepools with the trail improvements. If there is another SEA lab that you were thinking of that does research, find out what space they need. I doubt if they would need a part of a 10,000 sq. ft. building. But if they do, this may not be the place for them.
- The Abalone Cove site would require additional funds for part-time staff and additional full-time staff supervision. Fiscal impact to the city would be less at Lower Point Vicente as it is more centrally located for staff support and there will be a savings in maintenance and operational costs at PVIC as a result of the public-private partnership with the Annenberg Foundation.
Below is an alternative that I have put together as best as I could within this short time.
Alternative Plan
The grant program offers opportunities for the city to apply for several different grants in each tier. The number of applications is only limited by the number of site locations each applicant owns and/or operates. The site location is the specific property, park or place where the project will be located and there are several grant tier categories available for consideration by the CA State Parks Office of Grants and Local Services. A multi-component plan would offer the city more opportunities through this grant program and would better fit into the Coastal Vision Plan, Coastal Specific Plan and grant guidelines.
The grant guidelines define a facility as incorporating “indoor and/or outdoor elements and structures, including interpretive trails and native plant areas.” Also included are related restrooms, interpretive signs, kiosks and parking lots. Structures that qualify can be:
• Freestanding interpretive exhibits, either indoor or outdoor
• Outdoor structures used for nature education, e.g., arbors, ramadas, pavilions.
Project 1 Lower Point Vicente Park
Tier A $3,000,001 to $7,000,000 Grant request: $5,500,000
You mentioned that in the grant workshop it was said a “brick and mortar” building has a better chance of being accepted. So I think that “brick and mortar” building should be at Lower Point Vicente for the following reasons.
A Nature Educational Center at Lower Point Vicente would complement the mission and work of the PVIC facilities and to enhance the civic and education opportunities for the Rancho Palos Verdes community and the general public. This grant could provide a state-of-the-art facility featuring educational exhibits related to indigenous terrestrial animals to complement the Interpretive Center and its marine exhibits. This project would address the needs and interests of a variety of organizations and local citizens’ groups, including the docents, community organizations and educational districts near and far. Either Terranea or Golden Cove would provide visitors and their families an opportunity to get something to eat.
This plan for this site would comply with the Coastal Specific Plan (CSP) which identifies Subregion 2 as “…an attractor/generator, this homogeneity and predominately developed character are the major factors which establish the area as a subregion…”
The Vision Plan identifies Lower Point Vicente as a key site for connecting the community to the ocean and land, and people and animals with a goal to develop a design concept for the entire site that integrates the existing and proposed facilities. This includes the existing Interpretative Center and its outdoor educational components, surrounding public parkland, and other potential complimentary uses, such as connecting the site to the trails at the Vicente Bluffs Reserve and the Terranea Resort and Spa.
A partnership with the Annenberg Foundation, which has offered capital improvements and ongoing maintenance funding for this site, would lessen fiscal impacts to the City’s operational budget and leave more for the Educational Center’s capital costs. The Foundation has already said they are willing to fund: an outdoor exhibit area; reconstructed Tongva Village; an interactive archaeological dig; a water conservation garden; expanded group picnic areas; Restroom facilities; grassland and habitat restoration; and improved watershed management protecting tidal areas below the cliffs.
\
In addition, the program states that eligible projects include exhibit galleries, including but not limited to, annex, wing or room added to or, renovated in, an existing building to house interpretive exhibits as well as installation of new exhibits and related fixed equipment within an existing building. So it would seem as though the program would apply to new exhibits for the PVIC. If PVIC wanted to move the terrestrial components (Native American, local history) to the new Nature Education Center it would open up more space for PVIC to focus on marine exhibits and the grant could help with those new exhibits.
Project 2 Abalone Cove
Tier C $500,000 to $1,000,000 Grant request: $1,000,000
The project for this site would include outdoor informational kiosks or pavilion with interactive exhibits to educate the public on tide pools, marine life, trails, conservation and protection of the habitat, geology and Native American history. A monitoring webcam would help in protecting the tidepools. Other components of the proposal such as improving the trail system and landscaping would remain but must comply with the grant criteria of a “focused learning about the natural environment”.
This site is within Subregion 5 of the CSP which states this subregion is “…almost entirely undeveloped..” and is a “…subregion environment like no other in the entire coastal region”.
The FY09-10 Capital Improvement Plan, which follows the Coastal Vision Plan improvement list, is similar to Gateway. It calls for $100,000 in year 3 and $150,000 for year 4 with the same “To ‘Be Announced” impact on our budget and the same “outside funding committed or eligible” status. Again, I don’t know of any “committed” funding for Abalone Cove it would fall under “eligible” for funding.
This grant opportunity might also allow the relocation of equipment (Sewer power box and tank ) to a location away from the roadside but still accessible for maintenance to be more compliant with the CSP view corridor element.
Project 3 Gateway Park
Tier D: $100,000 to $500,000 Grant request: $500,000
Gateway park is outside of the CSP but is within the Coastal Vision Plan which specifically calls out this site as being the ideal location for a Nature Education Center serving as a major public access portal to the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. An outdoor kiosk center or pavilion at Gateway Park could include a restroom, new parking lot and interpretive signs on the Preserve trails as well as native planting or restoration.
Grant acceptance is based upon points and the greatest amount of points are awarded for showing a “deficiency of similar opportunities in the community”, and the “project serving the needs of a broad range of people.“ as well as for providing “alternate means of access to the nature education”. Unlike Abalone Cove, Gateway Park is currently chained off from P.V. Dr. South and this improvement would open up new educational opportunities and access to the Nature Preserve areas that currently does not exist. It can be accessed both from P.V. Dr. South by car, bike or foot as well as from the Crenshaw entrance by hikers, bikers and equestrians.
The FY09-10 Capital Improvement Plan for Gateway Park calls for $200,000 in year 3 and $275,000 in year 4 with a “To Be Announced” impact on operating budget. These amounts might provide parking but I doubt that it will cover everything listed. The box for “outside funding committed or eligible” is checked. I don’t know of any outside funding that is currently committed so I can only assume this means that this is eligible for outside funding. Here is the prime opportunity to see if we can help with that outside funding to make this a reality with less impact on our budget.
Ranger station
A small park ranger/sheriff substation is a good idea. I have not included it in Project 2 or 3 because the grant guidelines state “Any part of a building or facility which is not related to the need to provide, or support nature education “including unrelated office, storage and equipment space” does not qualify. The Park Ranger station would have to relate to the nature education and satisfy the requirement of a “plan to sustain, operate and maintain the project”. There are also geological issues at both Gateway and Abalone Cove. The consultant would be better suited to address these issues.
It is a tossup as to whether it should be at Abalone Cove or Gateway. The tidepools need monitoring (although a webcam at Abalone Cove could work well in this capacity) yet immediate access to the bulk of the Preserve would be a great asset as well. A modest sized structure at the Gateway Park would provide a point at which the rangers could regularly patrol the larger Portuguese Bend Preserve and still have quick access to Abalone Cove. (I see them parked outside the locked gates at Gateway all of the time.)
Thank you and I hope you can reach out to the community soon for other input to shape this grant proposal so that we can find a way to maximize this once in a lifetime opportunity that is being offered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation for the greatest good of our community.
Jim Knight
6-16-10"
