Lagoon Center Comment

I was pleasantly surprised by the outcome of the planning PROCESS.
I do have a serious problem with the OUTCOME of that process.
The architects really did listen to everybody and delivered on most if not all the “requests”.
The next step should be a major effort of either triage or editing or making an effort toward multi uses for these facilities: this project is simply TOO BIG.
The main goals of the San Dieguito River Park project is
a. to create a wildlife corridor along the San Dieguito River
b. to create a Coast to Crest trail
c. to educate the public.
From my perspective the educational effort should be toward informing the public how this Restoration could happen and how the public at large should become the steward of this wonderful project.
The educational effort should NOT be to replace or even complement the school system’s responsibility of teaching biology, etc…


1. Name
The SDRP is comfortable with long names:
The San Dieguito River Valley Regional Open Space Park or
The David Kreitzer Lake Hodges Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge!!!!!
Nobody can remember such long names.
Could the name for this facility
NOT BE:
Strawberry Center: obsolete
Visitor Center: dull
Nature Center: there is nothing natural about the Restoration, this project is nature re-engineered
SO could the name be:
San Dieguito Lagoon Center to be replaced by XYZ Lagoon Center when XYZ has been found to fund all this.

2. Seek to coalesce functions with multi-use rooms.….
Two examples:
A. In my comments I suggested that in spite of internet access, hard copies of crucial reference documents should be preserved.
The architects responded with to plan for a 12x17 Archive Room: very nice.
The preserving of these archival documents could be done equally well by lining up the blind wall of the Conference Room with locked book-cases.
This would be a saving of $ 100,000 in construction costs.

B. In the same vein.
• Rethink the first building east of the courtyard so that the exhibit room could be used as a very rare large meeting room (DO provide a large storage area).
• Exhibit hall: most people acquire information through the internet and do not visit exhibitions.
* Entirely delete the eastern most building.
* The laboratory cannot operate without a mother institution. And should be sharply reduced or deleted etc…

3. Campus like concept: many building.
This is a very good idea. The Payne Scripps Center is a good example on how that can be done elegantly.
The park should clarify in this final presentation what comes first.
A. Obviously the landscaping of the whole Villages Property. Is it realistic to believe that grants can be found for that?
B. In my eyes the principal function of the Lagoon Center is the one entrusted to the rangers: their space requirement, equipment and staffing should come first.
C. The Lagoon Center should have a narrow focus program what it does what others cannot do: tell about the Restoration. This huge complex with new programs changes the original purpose of the Park; A wild life corridor and trail.

4. Financing.

This project is operating in a financial vacuum. This cannot be.
When construction considerations are made, financing for staff and maintenance MUST be part of the equation.
I visited the San Elijo Lagoon Center yesterday and found out that they have 5 Rangers for an area that is probably very similar to the SDgto Lagoon.
• We have 2.5 rangers so that an endowment funding and extra 2.5 rangers is necessary.
• How many square feet does the project propose? San Elijo is 5525 sq ft and they seemed to think that that was sufficient.
• What is the average sq/ ft cost estimate?
• What are the staff needs for such a large project besides the rangers?
•Where is the money coming from to pay for a stable staffing force to man all those buildings?
* What are expected maintenance cost?

In conclusion this is a very large project but to be successful it must be severely reduced in size and scope.
No Taj Mahal, please.
Jacqueline