20101019 Late CorrespondenceRANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Carolyn Lehr and Carolynn Petru
FROM:
Steve Wolowicz
CC:
DATE:
Carol Lynch
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
These are my basic questions many of which are likely to be answered during
the NIMS executive Training session this evening. However this list is a reminder
for current information.
RELATED TO NIMS
A. ICS Overview (October 19, 2010) is this the same as NIMS?
B. Emergency Operations Plan
(1) Per staff memo on August 17, 2010 there is also to be Adoption of
Emergency Operation Plan - when is this to be done?
(2) Where is copy of existing plan (adopted in 1997)?
C. Current rules in place:
(1) What are the current overriding criteria — NIMS, SEMS, or ICS?
(2) What is the most current RPV emergency set of guidelines (1997
handbook or the November 2004 Emergency Preparedness
Handbook)? It
NOTE: See detail questions regarding the ICS overview in last Section — Specific
NIMS Questions)
OTHER RELATED DETAIL QUESTIONS
1. Council members need copies of instructions issued to staff. (Need to
know the assigned responsibilities and the backups — because all city staff
do not live in the city and may be prevented in arriving at EOS).
2. Who are.designated as Incident Commanders in RPV?
3. City owned communications — RPV TV (channels 33/38 and 34/39)
a. What are the criteria for use and who makes decisions?
b. Who has access to them to broadcast messages?
�L
Cr
a
W�
a:,L
0a
ao
�z
aW
W
'Cc m
x
�a:
U �
�Z5
�w
U, a
= w
a0
Wo
0
13- J
LL CC
o
U
Page 1' of 3
C:\WINNT\Profiles\Carolynn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\cc meeting 2010 10.19 emergency prep session.doc 10119/10 5:17
c. How does the County reverse 9-1-1 dialing system work and who has
access to it and how is that done? Does this include cell phones (if not,
what can be done to include them)?
4. Council roles and legal decisions:
a. Should have specified meeting locations and phone numbers to call
b. Where is the city attorney to be for advice on potential legal issues?
5. City Hall site:
a. What services are set there?
b. Who makes the decision to open the EOC there?
c. What staff should be there automatically to open the building, provide
water supplies and access to facilities?
6. Regarding CERT:
a. What is their organization chart?
b. Who do they report to (who issues their orders)?
7. Emergency cache of supplies:
a. Where are these located?
b. Who has access?
c. What are the described priorities (are there different priorities of
distribution depending on the type of emergency)?
8. Water
a. Other than the reservoirs are there other emergency supplies?
b. Who has operational control over water supplies?
9. Radio communications:
a. These are DCS and PVAN?
b. What is the existing organization in RPV?
c. Who designates access to radios and broadcasts?
d. What communications are to be forwarded to city hall and council?
10. Electricity, Gas and Phone Company and cell phone service providers.
a. Who are to be the on-site contacts?
b. Who has authority to speak with them and do we have the emergency
and or cell phones?
Page 2 of 3
C:\WINNIVrofiles\Carolynn\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK4\cc meeting 2010 10-19 emergency prep session.doc 10/19/10 5:17
SPECIFIC NIMS QUESTIONS
11. (Page 8) There is a statement that Government Official must adopt the
ICS through order or action. Have we done this or are we to do this after
this presentation?
12. When were the "incident managers" directed to use ICS?
13. When will the ICS training be scheduled?
14. (page 12) Is the incident commander always a Sheriff or LA County Fire
department Commander?
15. (page 15 and page 17 of supplement) Are we to adopt these forms for
Delegation of Authority? What are the criteria and legal requirements?
16. Page 23 references legal and policy considerations and direction. What
criteria are needed and when should the City Attorney be present during
emergencies?
17. (Supplemental info, pages 14 to 16) Have we completed these checklist
pages, if not when should these be done)?
Page 3 of 3
CAWINWRProfiles\CarotynnlLocal Settings\Terrporary Internet Files\01-1<4\cc meeting 2010 10.19 emergency prep session.doc 1 0/1911 0 5 17
LAWks,.,
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
2 Memorandum from Burt Arnold, Chair of the Marymount
College Board of Trustees
9 Email from Lynn Swank regarding email correspondence
between Mayor Pro Tem Long and Marianne Hunter
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
MAGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20101019 additions revisions to agenda.doc
R`
miarymoull 01kh r -re
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Rancho CALIFORNIA Palos Verdes Drive East
PALO3 VERDE3 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Phone: 310-377-5501
www.marymountpv.edu
To: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
From: Burt Arnold, Chair of the Marymount College Board of Trustees
CC: Carolyn Lehr, Rancho Palos Verdes City Manager
Date: 10/19/2010
Re: Minutes of City Council Meetings
The College has reviewed the minutes from the 9/21/10 City Council meeting.
Having viewed Councilman Misetich's inflammatory City Council speech on
YouTube, we were quite surprised to see that the draft 9/21/10 minutes did not
include his comparison of Marymount College to fascist regimes of the 1930's. In
fact, many of Councilmen Campbell's and Misetich's comments regarding our
Catholic campus, our Board, etc., are missing from the minutes. Later in the same
meeting Jeff Lewis, the planning commissioner who presided over Marymount's
entitlement review process, presented images of our Board members and the
Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary. Is this politically -charged PowerPoint
presentation in the minutes? Are you holding City Council meetings or No on P
campaign video production meetings?
City Council minutes have been incomplete throughout 2010, at least in terms of
comments regarding Marymount. It is especially interesting to review the tape of
the meeting where Councilmen Misetich and Campbell admitted to trespassing on
Marymount's private property to conduct unsafe "safety" experiments without the
permission of the College and/or the City. Why didn't this appear in your minutes?
Councilman Misetich's concerns about being misquoted presumably arise from
Marymount providing RPV citizens an exact quote of his regarding the same
democratic process that he decries with Measure P. We have never said he
supports Measure P. Through cable franchise fees, RPV residents have now paid
for the production of his City Council speech which is posted on the No on P
campaign website. Councilman Misetich read his comments into the record. Don't
they deserve to be correctly recorded in your minutes?
To address another of Councilman Misetich's comments, Marymount has not and
will not file charges for any of the possible Brown Act or FPPC violations that may
or may not have taken place in the No on P campaign, per our August 2010
commitment to take the high road with the Yes on P campaign. No charges have
been manufactured or fabricated. To say otherwise is false.
2
----Original Message -----
From: LYNN SWANK [mailto:lynn.swank@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:24 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Cc: clehr@rpv.com
Subject: Mayor Pro Tem's Email
Importance: High
Gentlemen,
The Mayor Pro Tem has sent the following email about Abalone Cove . As a
resident of Rancho Palos Verdes I am greatly disturbed by the content of
this email and since it was signed by the Mayor Pro Tem I have one question.
Do the thoughts, opinions and words reflect the views of the entire RPV City
Council?
Lynn Swank
From: "Tom Long" <tomlong@palosverdes.com>
Date: Mon, Oct 18, 2010 3:47 pm
Subject: Abalone Cove/Shoreline Park Grant Proposal
To: "Marianne Hunter" <2hunter@cox.net>
Cc: <clehr@rpv.com>
Dear Marianne,
The answers to your questions can only be provided accurately after
entitlements are applied for and reviewed as part of the planning process.
It would be very expensive to go through the planning process in order to
decide whether or not to even apply for a grant. I also don't think the
city would have the time to do so for most grants. If full public hearings
are a necessary means of getting public input before any grant application
then we should just admit that we cannot afford the time and money to apply
for grants. We didn't take such an approach with our applications for open
space grants and we should not do so now.
I have to comment on the designation of "SOS." It reminds me of "PANIC."
The acronyms chosen as names by organizations in our city says something
about us, don't you think? Implicitly the suggestion is that our shorline
is gravely engangered by a proposed nature center that would be as big as
many of the homes of the petition signers! I saw the language in the
petition that was circulated and I was surprised at the way in which it
presented the proposed project. As you know we are talking about a proposed
nature center on land that is now a parking lot that could allow us to
replace an existing facility that is in need of replacement. I suspect many
of the signers of your petition live in homes larger than the nature center,
closer to the bluff and (unlike the proposed center) with ridgelines above
the road. A 5900 aquare foot building that would serve tens of thousands of
visitors is unacceptable to some but then those very same people intrude
much more upon nature themselves for their own personal use.
The land we are talking about is city parkland, not an open space preserve.
That being said I will be interested to hear what modest improvements you
will consider supporting. In the past even trails designed to provide
access for the handicapped have drawn objection. The only thing I can
envision you supporting based on your comments below is some minor trail
improvments, native planting and signage. But with all due respect, this
land is a park, not a botanical garden. It should be more open to more
people, even if they are those from outside your immediate neighborhood and
therefore perceived as undesireables.
Personally I very much hope that there either is no "focus group" giving any
select group of residents any more say than others, or that the group
includes those interested in using parks as parks.
Tom Long
Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Palos Verdes
F
LI
mqk,.,, RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2010
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO
AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, October 19, 2010 City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
9 Emails from Sunshine; Marianne Hunter
10 Revised Staff Report
Respectfully submitted,
Carla Morreale
W:\AGENDA\2010 Additions Revisions to agendas\20101019 additions revisions to agenda through Monday afternoon.doc
From: SunshineRPV@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 11:04 AM
To: cc@rpv.com
Subject: Another Abalone Cove grant application
MEMO from Sunshine
TO: RPV City Council
RE: Another AbCove grant application
Is there a CPA in the house?
Am I reading this correctly? The City has budgeted $50K through FY 12-13 to maintain the parts of
Abalone Cove Park which are not in the NCCP. However, if we use the $50K to get and manage this
grant we will spend $432,650.00 up front and hope that the State of California will eventually give us
back maybe $200K.
May I be so bold as to suggest that we spend the $50K on trash receptacles, picnic tables, weed
abatement and trail maintenance?
10/18/2010
From: Marianne Hunter [2hunter@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 2:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Abalone Cove/Shoreline Park Grant Proposal
Importance: High
Oct. 18, 2010
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
Based on the Staff Report, the new grant request for Abalone Cove seems to generally track with
the improvements the public has supported and as such, seems appropriate. With an application
deadline less than two weeks away, however, there is little opportunity for thoughtful public input.
In light of the strong public opposition to fundamentally altering Abalone Cove Shoreline Park (as
evidenced in the 2100 plus signatures Save Our Shoreline has received in its petition drive
opposing a building at the Park) we have some questions about what Staff is proposing.
At this point we would like know:
* What will the two shade structures look like? How large will they be? How will they be
constructed? Will they be completely open or partially enclosed? Where will they be located on
the site and how will they be used?
* Is grading really necessary, advisable or desirable at this site? How much grading and
excavation is proposed; where and why?
* How do you define "art nodes"? How many will there be, where will they be located and how
will they be used?
Save Our Shoreline supports the concept of modest improvements that retain the
character of the Park as an open, natural area while adding interpretive signage that
would help to protect the natural resources there. To that end, we look forward to
learning more about the current proposal. We ask you to keep us and the public apprised
of the status and terms of this grant application as it develops. The proposed focus
group is a good beginning in this public process, but we hope that public input will be
expanded to include all members of our community.
Marianne Hunter, for Save Our Shoreline
10/18/2010
0
CITYOF
MEMORANDUM
.RANCHOPALOS
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER 6,....._
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2010
SUBJECT: RESIDENT LETTER TO CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF PARKS AND RECREATION REGARDING
ABALONE COVE NATURE CENTER GRANT
RECOMMENDATION
Provide staff direction as appropriate.
DISCUSSION
On Friday, October 15, the City Manager was contacted by Mayor Pro Tem Tom Long,
who made a request that an item having particular time sensitivity be added to the
agenda for the October 19 Regular Meeting of the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Long noted that a letter from resident Eva Cicoria together with a
petition circulated by "Save Our Shoreline!" has been sent to the granting agency
regarding the pending grant for proposed improvements at Abalone Cove.. He asked
that the letter and template petition language be placed on the agenda for the purpose
of asking that the Council authorize staff to prepare a detailed response to the
California Department of Parks and Recreation. The submittal would offer clarification
as the agency continues to process the City's grant application for the Nature Education
Facility Grant.
Such analysis by staff would exceed one hour of staff time, and therefore Mayor Pro
Tem Long is asking for Council's concurrence to authorize staff work.
Attachments:
Letter from Eva Cicoria dated October 5, 2010
Sample Petition Form from "Save Our Shoreline!"
OCT 13 2010 Eva Clooda
(310) 5475689
28981 Palos Verdes Drive East
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
October 5, 2010
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Office of Grants and Local Services
Attn: Sandra Berry, Supervisor
1416 91th St. Rm. 918
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Ref #N1-1 "06; Abalone Cove Nature Education Facility Grant Application
Dear Ms. Berry,
Enclosed are 2,076 petition signatures (1,467 paper petition signatures plus 609 online petition
signature) opposing the Nature Education Facility Grant Application submitted by the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes (ref. #N1-19-006 per City staff) to build a 5,900 square foot nature center in Abalone Cove
Shoreline Park. Not knowing whether the Application would progress from the review phase to evaluation,
Save Our Shoreline continued its efforts to Inform the public about the Grant proposal after submitting our
Initial letter and set of petition signatures on July 31, 2010. As you can see from the number of signatures
and the comments of signers, the public shares our concern that the building is unnecessary and
inappropriate for this site and the Application should be denied.
We would like to point out a number of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the City's proposed project and
we want to highlight some competing considerations.
• The proposed project is inconsistent with the mission of the California Department of Parks and
Recreation to Inspire and to protect its most valued natural and cultural resources.
• The proposed project is Inconsistent with land use plans for Abalone Cove Shoreline Park that
designate the site for open space passive recreation.
• The project summary presented In the Application does not paint an accurate picture of the larger
context of the project: It is not necessary or desired, because the site Is currently well used and
there are already five indoor nature centers within a nine mile stretch of this coastline.
• Nature education and environmental stewardship needs for this region would be better served with
a more minimalist, outdoor format including interpretive signage and a webcam, whereas the
proposed building and Its interior contents at this site would send conflicting messages regarding
our stewardship responsibilities and protecting our natural resources.
• Current educational opportunities at the site focus on the unique, outdoor experience, and future
educational opportunities may be enhanced by a web cam on site without the adverse impacts of a
large building and substantial pavement and hardscape.
• The project proposal was hastily produced, suffers from lack of publicinput, and will suffer from
significant public opposition to this fundamental change to the unique character of this natural
resource.
10-2
...i.;..,r.�...ii+.u�,:....+.w.+a,;.:«s...„...,, ..w :�la,v r,.,.t3..:. aa.'..�.�%PSUdx...�.:,.: ..,.. ,..x :«'...�....:.a.aai✓.�rd:M"Y#i.r,:rr...... ... a...«e..:,;�J„f.G..m+ �sa...:w..wr..s�,...:.a ,. ,.. ..,,:,..�a;...:....x_x_.w .. W ..,.+n ,.a,.__. ...a.......M.m..M...-......... _...._..
i It) 1 • • • i 1 Loi • la li•
"The mission of California State Department of Parks and Recreation is to provide for the heath,
inspirAM. and WUgam of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary
biological diversity, n and creating Opportunities for
higirqualityr outdoor recreation.' [Emphasis added.) This open blulftop *)date as an ever -diminishing
natural resource within a short distance from one of the world's largest cities. No matter how educational
or inspiring the contents of a building at this site might be, they cannot replace what would be lost by
Inserting a large building in the middle of the bluff top. The vista stretches from Portuguese Point out to
Catalina Island and up the oosolne. Indeed, this vista is one of the attractions to the Peninsula. Daily
commuters and occasional virtitors driving along the a ascent roadway (Vallee Verdes #give South);
thousands of visitors to the beach, We pads and picnic areas at Abalone Cove, as well as ardsts setting
up their easels, alt have been Inspired by this taste of wild east.
P
The proposed building and hardseape are inconsistent with Land and Water Conservation Fund
requirements for Abalone Cove Shoreline Perk and Rancho Palos Verdes planning documents for this
site. When Los Angeles County first acquired the property, one-half of the purchase price was provided
by the Land and Water Conservation Fund with the specific condition that the land be used for outdoor
recreation in porp Oulty. ( e Project Number 0640M In your department.) When the land was
transferred to Rancho Palos Verdes, the City formally accepted this agreement.
The Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan, General Plan {Map, Open Spade Recreation Zoning Ordinance,
and Zoning Map all doOgnato Abalone Cove as pie open space with a socio -cultural overlay. The
General Plan (page 94) defines the passive recri0on designation as "mostly unstructured in order to
allow natural ecosystems to function with the Wast amount of human disturbance." The Open Space
Recreation Zoning Ordinance provides for areas of outdoor recreation, particularly for park and recreation
purposes. it does not include buildings. Last, the City's recently adopted Coast Vision Plan does not
include any building at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park.
P,,,,,gr. inert S.urrhrnairy
The Grant Guidelines indicate that the project summary in the grant application "is to facilitate the
Department's understanding of the proposed project within its larger context." The City's Application aptly
describes Abalone Cove in the lamer context (in the opening statement of its project summary) as "an
area of ... expansive views of the Pacific Ocean among the concrete and asphalt of urbanized Los
Angeles." Mow ironic that the City proposes to add a large building and hardscape. Abalone Cove is a
natural treasure and the fact that it is on the border of vast urban sprawl underscores the urgency of
leaving it as close to its natured state as possible. Marry of the currant visitors to Abalone Cove are from
urbanized neighboring areas. They, like most of us, visit Abalone Cove for a particular type of experience
away from concrete and asphalt and buildings. Their attraction to this place should serve as further
justification for minimizing the disturbance of nature at Abalone Cove.
The Project Summary statement that the Park is underutilized is inaccurate. By the City's own admission
(page 25 of the Grant Application), the Parte has 20,000 visitors annually. Those visitors presumably paid
a fee to park at Abalone Cove; others park on nearby City streets and walk to the Cave. Moreover, these
numbers don't reflect the thousands of people who enjoy the vista when driving along the coast or those
who linger awhile at the viewing area just southeast of the proposed building site.
Last, the Project Summary paints a misleading or inaccurate picture of the availability of other sites nearby
for the public to loam about the unique flora and fauna in the area. There are five existing nature centers
in the vicinity. The Pt. Vicente Interpretive Center is an indoor museum and is well known for its whaled
watching activities. Indoor exhibit areas at Ladera Unda Nature Center feature examples of flora, fauna
and other materials found on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. White Point Nature Center, only 5.2 miles from
Abalone Cove, though in Los Angeles, has indoor and outdoor displays of coastal sage and other native
plants. The Cabrillo Marine Aquarium provides exciting exhibits of ocean Iris.
blod f r NgWM E u n, F=nvIEonm2EdMJ PftaaMle gad Qutlpch
To be clear, we wholeheartedly agree with the Grant Application that there is a need for nature education
and environmental stewardship --both with respect to the Intertidal marine environment at Abalone Cove
and with respect to the Coastal Sage Snub habitat of the Palos Verdes Nature Preserve. We also believe
that the site Is an ideal location for interpretive signage that explains the unique biodiversity-- the different
types of marine life as well as the adjacent Coastal Sage Scrub habitat, that alerts visitors to the harm that
can be done and has been done to these ecosystems, and that describes what we can all do to help
protect the habiitat. The proposed building and contents, however, stand to get in the way of education
and send the public conflicting messages regarding environmental stewardship. Indoor exhibits featuring
sustainable practices in building design, while important, are not coastline dependent, would distract from
where the focus ought to be, and would be more appropriate in more populated, urban inland areas.
The Grant Application also contemplates indoor classrooms at this site, yet Abalone Cove has proven
effective as an outdoor classroom where programs like those led by the Docents of Los Serenos de Point
Vicente and by Sierra Club's Inner City Outings offer children from many different areas an opportunity to
actively explore and learn about Abalone Cave's amazing tide pools, fragile geology and other natural
wonders.
At a time when we should be sending a very dear message about the need to take better care of our
environment and cherish what remains of dwindling natural open spaces, particularly so dose to urban
areas, enacting a building on this bluff top sends the public mixed messages: We want to protect the
habitat and teach the public about the degradation of land use, but we'll put up a building and hardscape
that reduce the open space corridor, we'll install lighting that may adversely impact wildlife; we'll grade the
bluff top possibly undermining the fragile geology; and we'll install exhibits on energy usage and
conservation at a site far from the populace so they have to drive further to learn these things.
Structures should be limited to restrooms. On -location interpretive signage, paired with a patrolling park
ranger presence and webcam, would meet the need for nature education, while focusing the attention of
Visitors to the bluff, beach and tide pools on what is important here --exploring the sights, sounds, and
smells of nature's rich biodiversity in a sustainable, responsible way.
L4pcationgl Ogp rt„Q unities
Educational opportunities that the City proposes for outside the building are listed on page 31 of the
Application. They include many of the things that the Application describes in other parts, underscoring
that the building contents will either be duplicative of outdoor information or inappropriate at this site. An
exception to this is the installation and monitoring of the tide pools by web cam. On that point, we don't
object to the City's plans. Strategies and Methods on page 35 indicates an outreach program
incorporating web cam feed will be developed to take to classrooms and elsewhere. These types of
opportunities that the City's Application outlines for off-ske education make sense. The Application
indicates that teachers "will receive materials prior to the visit for suggested in -lass activities before and
after a visit," Then why have indoor classrooms on site at Abalone Cove's Better to loam material suited
for the classroom at school and save the time at Abalone Cove for outdoor education.
Ift! P 'e ro osed i of Qgnsfta Mhjnal Pra
We take issue with the City's repeated statements that Abalone Cove Shoreline Park is "the City's most
sustainable choice" for the 5,900 square foot facility. The site is close to the tide pools of Abalone Cove
10-4 3
Ecological Reserve. That much is true. Should the fact that there is already a parking lot there be
justification for adding a building? And once time is a building, will that justify yet more development to
Improve access"? If the parking capacity proves insufficient to handle the additional traffic to the site on
busy summer weekends, will the response be to pave over even more of the bluff top?
A fundamental planning concept for any natural area of importance is to consolidate the infrastructure in
one location. This makes sense from a maintenance and operating cost perspective. It also relieves
stress on unspoiled locations. Other locations a short distance from Abalone Cove already have the
infrastructure for indoor nature education.
The proposed exhibit for "Sustaining the Earth" is out of place here. Why invest in such an important
theme at a location on the edge of the Peninsula, far from the public that would benefit from the
Information? Better to put up that type of display in a more centralized urban location.
As stated above, the City's proposal to build at Abalone Cove Shoreline Park suffers from lack of public
support and will encounter significant hurdles ti It were to be approved by the Department it does not
comply with the City's General Plan and zoning and seeks a fundamental change to RPV's public
parkland. Page 6 of the General Pian states, "Careful planning and management of a natural
environmental resource must be comprehensive and anticipatory In order to preclude irreversible and
irretrievable commitments of this resource made on a plecemeal and expedient basis at future dates."
The City Council gave authority to proceed with completing and submitting the Grant Application at the
Council meeting of June 1, 2010. A draft of the Application was not available for review by City Council
Members or the public until just prior to the meeting and several members said they had not had time to
review It. At that meeting, and through June, residents objected to the building proposal and offered
alternative ideas that would be consistent with City planning documents. The final proposal was
completed just prior to the July 1 submission deadline and is, at best, a conceptual outline of the proposed
building project.
Just two years ago, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes adopted tis "Coast 'Vision Plan." The Coast Vision
Plan represents over two years of planning, including considerable staff hours and public input. The Plan
is touted on the City website as "an informational planning document for the City's coastal areas ... with
public access, interpretive materials, recreational amenities, and other facilities to improve the experience
of the coast and open space for residents of and visitors to the Peninsula." The Plan's goal was to "identify
program, design and linkage concepts for the entire area.* Yet, ri,,,1tM in the Vision Plan is there
mention of a nature education center, or any building for that matter, in Abalone Cove or at Abalone Cove
Shoreline Park.
The Coast Vision Plan for Abalone Cove identifies new park amenities with picnic tables, shade features,
benches, trash receptacles, an ADA accessible bluff -top trail, and trail signage. A program to remove
Invasive species and plant lo"rofiie shade trees is contemplated. That's it.
The Vision Pian does identify other locations for nature education within the City. it identifies Lower Point
Vicente (1.7 miles up the road from Abalone Cove and the site of Point Vicente Interpretive Center) as a
key location for connecting the community to the ocean and land. The Vision Plan identifies an area
referred to as "Gateway Park" immediately adjacent to the Portuguese Bend Reserve (in the Palos Verdes
Nature Preserve) as the site for connecting the community to the Preserve. This vision contemplated an
outdoor education center at that location, immediately adjacent to the largest and most frequently
visiteftiked swath of preserve lands --the contiguous reserves of Forrestal, Portuguese Bend, Upper
Fiillorum, and Three Sisters. The plan was for an outdoor pavilion and interpretive signage to educate the
visiting public about the value of Coastal Sage Scrub and the public's role in protecting and restoring it.
4
That pian would reach 50,000 annual visitors to the Preserve, most of whom are unlikely to hike or ride
their bikes or horses down the road to Abalone Cove to learn about Coastal Sage Snub and stewardship.
Abalone Cove Shoreline Park fulfills a unique function on the coastline as it is. Yes, it would benefit from
improvement$ to parking, restrooms, interpretive signage and trails. But a large building would
unnecessarily alter its character and is not what the public wants for this site as evident from the response
to Save Our Shoreline's petition drive. Once again, we request that you deny the Rancho Palos Verdes
Nature Education Facilities Grant Application.
Very truly yours,
Ft"I.IC4, f✓'.iwe�
Eva Clcoda, for Save Our Shoreline
cc: Rancho Palos Verdes City Council
Carolyn Lehr, City Manager
5
a
aJ
O
a)
C
O
.o
m
c
.a
m
.o
d
ulO
0
2
CL
m
z
a
m
V)
F.
i
aUi
.5
x
m
a
a
c
L
O
t
a
O
V
aJ
c
O
`w
.L2
m
ai
0
H
CL
O
CL
0)
s
a
N
CL
CL
O
M
w
'o
C
aJ
�F+
aJ
r�
a)
+•0
m
0
N
N
Q
.E
w
v
-Q
c
N
N
�1
'C5
N
+
H
aj
E
z
c
a
ate+
ru
to
t/1