ACT V is fine place for...

ACT V is fine place for city yard

(Re: “Should the city corporation yard be moved to ACT V?”

Coastline Pilot, Dec. 20)

Absolutely. That was the recommendation of the 1996 report, and the site is logical for a corporation yard. As I recall, when Wayne

Peterson was on the council, he stated that he had inspected every

possible location for it and only ACT V met any sensible criteria.

Bastardizing the Village Entrance by enclosing the corporation

yard inside it is silly, a poor use of some of the most valuable land

in Laguna. Even with the corporation yard, ACT V still has room for

200 of the park-and-ride cars.

I hope the council will follow the recommendations of the 1996

task force and finally vote to demand that the city manager contract

out many services now performed at the corporation yard and move the

rest to ACT V.

TOM AHERN

Owner, Latitude 33 Bookshop

in Laguna Beach

Newport Beach resident

Previous decision was the right one

(Re: “Should the city ask for county funds for a flood control

project on Broadway?” Coastline Pilot, Dec. 20)

The Laguna Beach City Council Meeting this week (Dec. 17)

addressed the issue once again of the Broadway Flood Control Project.

Approximately six months previously, the council voted to abandon a

plan that was about 10 years in the making to replace the old flood

control channel with a new underground conduit to carry run-off and

flood waters from the surrounding hillsides and the canyon under

Broadway to the sea at Main Beach.

The county of Orange and the Army Corps of Engineers were to carry

out the lion’s share of the project. The costs were to be shared, and

Laguna would be obliged to come up with around $2 million of the $10

million cost. Construction was projected to take a full year. Much of

that time would have involved around-the-clock construction along the

major thoroughfares including most of Broadway and much of downtown

Coast Highway.

Several traffic studies were conducted anticipating alternative

flows and redirection during construction. They envisioned, among

other things, diverting traffic onto Main Beach Park over a temporary

by-pass and having traffic flow through one lane on Broadway over

steel plates used to cover a portion of the 16-foot-wide ditch into

which the new eight-foot diameter storm drain pipe would go. Needless

to point out, there would be virtually no parking available anywhere

near the construction site.

Why it was turned down before?

Several environmental concerns were put forward raising serious

objections to the project. Main Beach as the recipient or depository

of significant volumes of floodwaters through a single huge outfall

would most certainly result in extensive beach erosion and major sand

loss. Arguably more urgent is the issue of the contaminated dirt and

sand under the pavement in and around the intersection of Coast

Highway and Broadway.

Leaky gasoline storage tanks from the service stations that have

occupied that corner off and on for over 50 years have created a

critical situation, one that under California law, the city will be

liable for once the site is unearthed. This contaminated dirt is

considered hazardous material and must be carefully transported and

disposed of at significant expense. Even getting rid of the “clean

dirt” isn’t going to be a routine task.

It was suggested dumping it in the canyon, perhaps at the ACT V

site. But that might make the flooding and run off problems during

storms more acute, since creating berms and levies with this dirt

might intensify run-off problems.

Why can’t we live with manageable levels of flooding?

I have barely touched on only the most obvious possible problems

the town can expect in connection with the Broadway Flood Control

Channel. Surfrider Foundation and the Waste Water Advisory Committee

offered testimony to the City Council six months ago and the then

council was convinced the cure was worse than the disease.

After this week’s council meeting, by a 4 to 1 vote (Iseman

against), new life has been breathed into the project. In spite of

the hand wringing by the council members ... that “something must be

done,” ... I question the wisdom of a such a large-scale undertaking

to deal with the reality of periodic flooding in Downtown Laguna.

There currently exist a culvert that carries floodwaters through

town to the beach. Where it goes underground at Wild Oats’ parking

lot, it has a carrying capacity of approximately one-third of that

required to carry all the volume that comes into town via the canyon

channel. The funneling causes overflow and the volume that doesn’t

fit into the underground pipe plumes and gushes over flooding the

Downtown business district. In some sense, it may be preferable to

have this excess volume of floodwater dispersed onto the city streets

and through the network of storm drains rather than all be dumped at

a single outfall at Main Beach.

In the past 25 years, there have been some fairly serious episodes

involving property damage and loss of business attributable to

flooding. But various measures have been taken to reduce the severity

of these incidents, and they have succeeded in abating more dire

consequences. Today, virtually all the shops and businesses in the

Downtown have been outfitted with hatches blockading floodwaters from

invading their interiors. What is more, city crews are now

experienced and efficient at removing water, silt and debris from

streets and sidewalks and business closures have not exceeded two

days in recent memory.

More needs to be done, but at what cost in terms of inconvenience

and disruption of daily life, not to mention several cans of worms

opened in connection with a mega project of the scale being

contemplated? Clearly, the existing culvert could be remodeled. Both

its structural integrity and carrying capacity need to be enhanced.

Conservation crews could cut in catch basins, and more seeding could

be carried out to enlarge the watershed in the canyon. All of these

efforts would still leave us with some periodic flooding. Can this

town learn to live with some manageable levels of flooding? I believe

we can.

Let nature take its course

California naturalist and poet Wallace Stegner eloquently reminded

his readers on numerous occasions that the natural environment of

Southern California is a desert. We shouldn’t try to transform its

fundamental character.

Draught, brush fires, flooding and mudslides are inevitable. The

capacity of this ecosystem to absorb heavy periodic rains or El

Nino’s is grossly inadequate. Stegner argued we should not try to

constantly tame or engineer nature in a never-ending effort to make

it more conforming and hospitable to our needs and preferences.

Instead, people need to adapt to their natural environment. We should

let nature take its course to as great an extent as possible.

Sometimes nature will inconvenience us. It should. After all, we are

nature’s servant, and not the other way around.

TED CALDWELL

Member, Waste Water

Advisory Committee

Laguna Beach

Flood control project is fiscal black hole

Laguna Beach residents won’t require a trip to Mt. Palomar

Observatory for a glimpse of a black hole. Instead of gazing upward,

taxpayers’ attention can be focused down on the possible monetary

fiasco (event horizon) of the proposed Laguna Canyon Flood Control

project.

A brief history is this: With Orange County Flood and the U.S.

Corps of Engineers taking the lead, an Environmental Impact Report

necessitated by the California Environmental Quality Act was drafted.

Reading this 4-inch thick document was a task for only the

hermetically initiated -- these things are lengthy

bureaucratic/scientific equivalents of “War and Peace.”

Unfortunately, it only allowed for a pitiful (by industry standards)

10-year event flood protection, whereas categorically all others are

mandated to provide a minimum of 50-year event protection or greater.

Three items contained within this report were alarming:

(1) The extensive petroleum by-products permeating the aquifer

beneath the junction of Coast Highway and Broadway as reported in the

report. Extending up to Laguna Beach City Hall, numerous water

quality samples pointed to several possible sources. At Main Beach,

the finger (as in the middle one) was directed toward the Exxon-Mobil

station as the dominant, but not singular, contributor and culprit.

But high concentrations of benzene and company at two other sites

(Beach and Broadway plus Forest Avenue and Broadway) led to this

startling revelation: (a) Historical records indicated that the GTE

annex failed to prove remediation after removing a former

10,000-gallon diesel storage tank in their basement; and (b) Perhaps

the city yard storage tank, coupled with infiltrated residues from

the vehicular maintenance yard, had polluted upstream near city

offices.

(2) The erosive effects on the sand at Main Beach would give us

our own grand canyon during and post rainy events. Also, a hazardous

and potentially negligent condition due to: (a) the lowering of the

outfall approximate 6 to 7 feet; plus (b) increased flow volumes.

Instead of dispersing these capacities equally to several sites, all

runoff would emerge similar to a high-pressure blasting machine. The

shoreline sand replenishment, in a section already starved, might

never occur. This could wipe out the boardwalk, as well as eliminate

our “window to the sea” and its athletic facilities. Not to mention

alter the natural off-shore parallel transport of creek mouth

deposits.

(3) Noting the enormous volumes of polluted soil and water, in the

environmental impact report the San Diego Water Quality Control Board

mandated separate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

permits for the (a) pumping of said contaminated water to

infrastructure leading to a wastewater facility, prohibiting the

accidental (illegal) dumping into the receiving waters of the Pacific

Ocean; and (b) the temporary storage of contaminated sediment and

soil at ACT V parking lot. Also, the lot needed to be used

exclusively for staging of heavy equipment.

The roll of the dice is this: As confirmed by the Laguna Beach

city attorney during discussion of this flawed project’s

resurrection, remediation (cleanup) comes out of the pocket of the

agency who breaks ground -- us. You and me. Once started, we must

complete it. The cost cannot be determined until we finish digging.

Furthermore, planned during several off-seasons (meaning rain is

possible), it could result in many more watery incursions during

construction. As fast as we pump and carry off soil, Mother Nature

and El Nino could provide a free refill and redistribution. Removal

and relocation of hazardous material is problematic, not to mention

expensive. ACT V, already being coveted for other uses, might be tied

up indefinitely. Fines (assessed civil liabilities) by the

Environmental Protection Agency for breaches of the permits are

another consideration.

Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman, a self-described bean counter

(accountant), has wrapped herself in the flag of “financial realism”

since running for office. What kind of Twilight Zone thinking results

in this inevitable black hole of fiscal Russian roulette? If the

eventual cost for this city, now at $2 million, swells out of our

control who will bail us out? Already over-burdened taxpayers are

wading into precarious waters, when only the subterranean section

from Beach Street to the boardwalk needs attenuation. Enhance this

culvert, yes, but without polluted aquifer intrusion. Let the city of

Laguna Beach be the lead agency, tailoring the project to our

monetary ability and actual needs. Taking the county’s and the corps

of engineer’s money upfront is like accepting a nickel for something

which might eventually cost us a dollar. This is irresponsible

gambling with city funds. Now that’s realism.

ROGER VON BUTOW

Founder and chairman Clean

Water Now! Coalition;

Founder and board member

of South Orange County

Watershed Conservancy

Laguna Beach

Baglin’s actions were not conflict of interest

In regard to the matter of Wayne Baglin: Is every individual who

gains office expected to give up their livelihood? Wayne was only

conducting his normal business.

He didn’t vote on the issue when it came to the city, nor did he

participate in council discussions of the matter. He did not seek out

the Hatfields as an agent -- they sought him.

I therefore see no conflict of interest in the councilman

conducting his normal business.

ALAN R. FITZSIMONS

Laguna Beach

Not guilty plea is insult to community

Anyone unwise enough to act as obviously inappropriately as

Councilman Wayne Baglin did in taking a $30,000 commission on a sale

to the city while being a councilman certainly would compound the

offense by pleading “not guilty” and also insults the intelligence of

the community.

Admitting his mistake might go a lot further with the court and

also save him some legal fees, which I certainly hope are not being

picked up by the city.

ANDY WING

Laguna Beach

The low down on Hospitality Night

* In the Dec. 13 issue of the Coastline Pilot, the community was

asked if anyone knew the origin of Hospitality Night. Barbara

Diamond’s column suggested Harry Lawrence might know the answer. The

following is his welcome response:

From my Chamber of Commerce files on the subject, the date could

be December 1952. I headed the Christmas Spirit Committee Seven

Points program, dedicated to the children of Laguna and the true

spirit of Christmas for all in Laguna Beach.

The most important event about 3 p.m. began with the children in

holiday costume led by Santa Claus and the elves up Forest Avenue

past City Hall with its holiday-lit Pepper Tree and the large

religious Cresh set below. Then down to Ocean Avenue to the South

Coast Theater, which was donated to us for the afternoon by owner

Goldberg. Entrance for parents and children was with food cans or

toys for the poor. Inside was entertainment with Santa Claus as host

and finally those costumed children crossed the stage to be judged

and awarded prizes.

After Thanksgiving, homes and businesses were encouraged to string

Christmas colored lights and decorative creations that represent the

theme. The homes on the hillside actually became a blaze of color.

Judged evaluated homes and businesses in keeping with the spirit of

Christmas, and winners were given certificates.

Downtown, with the help of merchant funding and the city hung

tinsel and colored lighting across city streets.

Merchants’ windows Downtown and up and down Coast Highway were

judged as to the theme, and winners were given certificates.

All service clubs were encouraged to bring food or toys to a

central building and give gift baskets. Rotary Club alone delivered

24 large baskets to needy homes on Christmas Eve.

So the Coast Highway was not neglected, the idea of the Christmas

theme was painted on large artist pallets of wood to be hung on lamp

posts, which was the work of sign painter Earl Secor and his wife and

underwritten by the Pottery Shack and Warren Imports. It was to be

expanded each year until pallets reached the Art Center in the south

and Boat Canyon in the north.

At that time, Laguna Beach was a member of the Coastal City Assn.,

San Clemente to Seal Beach, and for three years in a row, Laguna

Beach won the top award for the best Christmas presentations.

HARRY J. LAWRENCE

Laguna Beach

* Editor’s note: Thank you Harry!