Undergrounding is for Warlocks

The City’s urgency in undergrounding utilities is the mitigation of risk from wildfire caused by SCE utility poles, yet nothing in the schedule or execution of this project actually mitigates fire risk until project completion. That’s because the project duration is so long the town remains under threat from fire while you are busy replacing poles – for 51 years. It’s like a moon-shot project, first you subsidize a spaceship for twelve years and $25.4 billion, but you land a man on the moon at project end.

The undergrounding project plan calls for removing Laguna’s threatening utility poles. City Undergrounding Supporting Documents show four wildfires occurred in 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2015 associated with SC Edison utility poles. One pole was located along a main evacuation route (LCR), one fire started by a fallen tree, one by a car impact, two caused by SCE equipment failures.

Taken in sequence the projects LCR, Evacuation Routes, and Residential Assessment Districts would take 51 years to complete (6+15+30) for $200 million ($90M+$45M+$65M). Fifteen years into the project our traffic will increase by 167 percent and the threat from wayward drivers will also increase. Fifty-one years in, the project will finish and the Warlocks below ground rejoice (H.G. Wells: The Time Machine). Above ground the power delivery technology has changed, the buried utility is now obsolete and the Eloi are screwed. Apollo 11 doesn’t go to the moon anymore because the purpose for going and technology are both obsolete.

The supporting documents show one encouraging slide titled City Acquisition of Electrical System, the last bullet reads “Costs and Debt Unknown” but sadly the project has not investigated this option. Another slide titled Harden Existing Utilities System explains how the existing overhead utilities could be upgraded and “hardened” from fire danger in 2-4 years. If we want to mitigate Laguna’s risk from wildfire we should do something effective like turn the power off, or better perform inspections upgrades and install impact barriers around poles while we study replacement utility technologies. 

Les Miklosy

Laguna Beach

Responding to Peter Blake

I read with interest Mr. Blake’s response to my letter on the homeless issue. I was surprised by the tone of his response. In my original letter I made sure to be respectful and recognize Mr. Blake’s expertise as a successful local businessman. Yet, in his response Mr Blake has elected to attack me because of my membership in a local nonprofit civic association! He then goes on ascribe to me views on the homeless issue that I did not state in my original letter nor in any other public venue. 

I do not know nor recall ever meeting Mr. Blake although I have peeked into his gallery a time or two. So, let’s analyse what his response to my respectful letter says about Mr. Blake:

--He is obviously emotionally committed to a purely “palpable” police only response to the homelessness issue. 

--He uses guilt by association to attack those he does not agree with on city issues.

--He uses a crystal ball (or a psychic hotline) to guess what people who do not agree with him are thinking.

--He uses fear of the unknown rather than logic to debate civic issues.

I have been happily involved with a number of civic, environmental and neighbourhood organizations during the 30+ years I have lived in Laguna. The letter I wrote were my own thoughts and not those of any specific organization. To accuse me of such a subterfuge is unfortunate.

So, to earn a seat on the council, one must be fair, honest, open to all residents and respectful of all points of views. Imagine what someone who is none of these things would do on our council. The ideal candidate should be measured for a civic leadership position by the way he treats his fellow citizens and the level of respect he shows different points of views. 

Armando Baez

Laguna Beach

City Council is asking residents to vote for the highest sales tax in OC

City Council [gave] 5/0 approval to place their recommended one percent Sales Tax Increase on the November 2018 Ballot. Despite objection by a clear majority of residents, who spoke to provide arguments against the excessive taxation projected to generate $5.6M that would be used to support a 30-year bond debt to underground utilities.

Compelling concerns, the public deserves a cautionary approach:

--Residents will pay to improve Edison’s aging infrastructure improvement but will not benefit or be provided any shares of privately held company stock.

--Many neighborhoods have already paid their fair share and have elected to underground their own street.

--A city debt liability of a 100 million dollar plus Bond may be the unintended consequence for our ability to borrow for any serious catastrophic emergency, think Bluebird Canyon landslide!

--The 2016 Measure LL raised TOT tax, under the main premise of undergrounding, however, the majority of the funds has been paid to other expenses. 

--It is reckless and irresponsible to expect a vote in favor of a Sales Tax Increase when the scope and total bid cost for undergrounding remains unclear and without any certainty. It is of particular importance to know that the City of Fresno’s recent cost estimate to underground PG&E utility went from 40 million to a [whopping] 396 million, in five short years! In short, residents are being asked to tax themselves, for 25 years, to pay for a project of an undetermined amount. 

--At this time a tax increase is especially concerning since Federal Tax Reform has adversely raised taxes, for the majority of California homeowners who may not fully understand the full tax ramifications, until after they cast [their] vote. It is the unintended consequences of a ballot measure that later causes disappointment, regret and stings the well-intended voter.

--The Affordable Housing Tax Force seeks to maintain economic diversity through balance in our city. We have many seniors on fixed incomes, millennials and a challenged middle class who struggle economically to afford to continue to live in Laguna Beach. Increased taxation by local government is a sure way to move toward gentrification. 

Lorene Laguna

Laguna Beach

City has full discretion on Historical Preservation Ordinance

Please attend the July 31 special council meeting to voice support of a new Historical Preservation Program (HPP) that is based on voluntary participation and private initiative. This meeting will focus on the discretion the City has under state laws to implement a new ordinance. 

These facts show that the City has maximum discretion:

--Messages from senior planners at the CA Office of Historical Preservation have confirmed “there is no legal requirement that a city have a registration program or an inventory”;

--Over 400 CA cities have chosen not to have an HPP. They are not breaking any laws.

A survey of dozens of cities with HPPs show that each is starkly different from the others. This demonstrating that each City freely exercised their discretion to design an HPP responsive to
wishes of residents;

--Neither CEQA nor the Coastal Act mandate a City have an HP ordinance.

Lagunans do not want to be forced onto a registry, inventory or survey without their consent. CEQA exempts home building permits unless the home is on the National or CA Registry or on a local registry. The existence of subjective “windshield” survey or inventory has been interpreted by some as a mandate force your home into costly and lengthy CEQA review process. Placing your home on a list of “eligible historic structures”, against your wishes, may be a wrongful “taking” and lead to unwanted litigation.

Other cities have clear ordinances that declare participation in any HP program strictly voluntary. Many cities rely [on] private philanthropic preservation foundations to motivate homeowners to preserve the historic character of their homes. Most cities use high National and State standards to select truly historic homes. Other have created “districts” or “preservation zones” to encourage private preservation initiatives while “immunizing” other homes from CEQA control. Many rely on the Mills Act as the only significant incentive. No other City has the onerous “agreement” Laguna demands of historical homeowners. This agreement is a huge disincentive.

Please speak out on July 31. The Council must accept the fact that we have total local control of this issue. The Council should create a new “committee” chartered with the task of writing a new HP ordinance from scratch, borrowing the best ideas from other cities while avoiding their mistakes, and complying with clear detailed directives. Those should include 100 percent voluntary participation, no surveys or inventories to avoid CEQA entrapment, insist on the CA and Federal high standards, grant Mills Act contracts concurrently with registration, and encourage formation of a private preservation society to drive private initiatives. 

Doug Cortez

Laguna Beach

Don’t bury our money underground

Tonight the City Council will vote to increase taxes on residents by approving one of two measures increasing the local sales tax from 7.75 to 8.75 percent for the November ballot.  If passed, Laguna Beach sales tax would equal the highest sales tax rate in the County. Here are the two tax measures being proposed:

The General Sales Tax increase ballot measure requires only a 50 percent plus one, a simple majority vote. This measure is deceitfully worded to mislead residents to believe the tax increase will be used for “utility undergrounding” and “fire safety.” But the taxes can be spent instead on any “Other Essential City Services.” In other words, it›s a city slush fund and legally not a dime is required to be used for undergrounding. All the tax money goes into the “general fund.” The City says this gives it “latitude,” but what it really means is “we can spend it anyway we want,” based on the whim of the city council. Don’t be misled and manipulated by the City and City Council. This is a money grab by a city has budget surpluses year after year!

The Special Sales Tax increase ballot measure requires a 2/3rds vote. This measure is also deceitfully worded to mislead residents to believe the tax will be dedicated exclusively for “utility undergrounding and fire safety.” But read the small print. The tax money is not limited to just Laguna Canyon Road and PCH and the initial so called “evacuation routes” – it has now morphed to 14 arbitrary streets and “other areas.” All these streets should be paying to underground their own utilities, like neighborhoods have done for years, not riding on the backs of all taxpayers. But the city wants even more – it wants an open checkbook so this measure as drafted also allows the city to use the tax money for “other fire safety measures and improvements,” whatever the city decides that means, not you! It’s another blank checkbook that the city does not need! 

Stop this taxation now!

Jennifer Zeiter

Laguna Beach