Month: May 2018

Resident Concerns Ignored~ Undergrounding, May 24, 2018

Posted on (Updated: )

Unanimous vote by City Council to underground Edison utility lines on “Key Evacuation Routes” by Ballot Measure, without first addressing the overwhelming concerns expressed by majority of residents aptly delivered during Public Comment. The opposition was well represented by a factual reasonable presentation delivered by the newly formed resident advocacy group STOP. Many concerned speakers brought forth substantive facts and valid concerns that should be reasonably considered and addressed by elected officials, prior to putting this measure to vote.

City has spent nearly half a million dollars and counting to advocate support of an under ground initiative but has ignored continued plea to consult with technological advancements by qualified energy professionals to deliver a comprehensive renewable sustainable energy plan to develop LB Solar City. To ignore available alternative energy sources is offensive toward the sustainable values of an environmentally sensitive aware community.

The city has been utilizing taxpayer money to advertise and promote their Under Grounding initiative using a cleverly designed emotional response delivered by a FIRE & FEAR Safety Campaign cleverly designed to corral sheep to favorable vote to increase Sales Tax to pay for Bonding the massive construction cost. A known business owner expressed his immediate concern.

The THIRD STREET construction debacle created a major disturbance, wait until Edison begins to trench the proposed “Key routes”. Edison has cleverly, with the assistance of the City, graciously agreed to allow taxpayers to be saddled with 100% of construction improvement cost for the aging infrastructure of EDISON, a multi billion privately owned company. Above ground utility poles don’t last forever. I find it particularly objectionable that a depreciating asset cost has not being factored into replacing archaic EDISON infrastructure. Where was the Fire & Fear campaign to underground the newly replaced poles, on LCR, 3 years ago?

Voter ignorance may win 2/3 vote, without STOP to advance an educational campaign regarding the financial risk of over spending that a debt liability of this magnitude will create for our village and the many other potential follies of cost over runs that are not being adequately addressed. I have suggested the city scale back the scope of the project to a reasonable level and include only MAIN Evacuation Routes of LCR and PCH. In this manner, city could pay as we go, using Measure LL Tax and Rule 20A credits to underground MAIN EVACUATION ROUTES.

It is reasonable to assume the intention of creating ‘Key ER’ is to gain voter favor, at the expense of those residents who have already “paid their fair share” to under ground their own neighborhoods. A misguided approach, but a clever effort to place the burden, on all taxpayers, to pay the share of key neighborhoods. Yes, this will benefit some, even specific City Council member, Toni Eisman had to recuse herself after the specific benefit was brought to attention of the city, by another resident.

One matter of particular concern is that the City must STOP (pun intended) the continued spending of the city taxpayer war chest to advocate and promote their advertising campaign designed to support the personal objective of City Council. California Government Code §54964(a) prohibits local governmental agencies from expending public funds to advocate for or against a ballot measure or other voting initiative, with some exceptions for educational/ informative materials.

In short, City Council is not adequately addressing resident concerns and are failing their constituents to reasonably explore advanced technological alternative energy sources and have refused to scale back the scope of the project to avoid assuming gross debt liability of cost over budget construction costs! We all know the government rarely comes in on budget for cost of construction.
CAUTION~BEWARE: City of Fresno went from 25M to 400M for bullet train under ground of utility lines!

Concerned Resident,
Lorene Laguna

Guest Letter – Why Underground Powerlines?

Posted on (Updated: )

Why do City Councilmembers think it’s the resident taxpayers’ responsibility to pay for these misguided “Key Evacuation Routes” (“KER”) on state-owned LCR, Glenneyre/Monterey St and Virginia Way at double expense bonds and forever one percent sales tax to finance [the] Proposed Underground Tax and Bond agenda that “our Council” voted 5-0 to pursue?

There’s no fire danger on our City owned streets mentioned above. It’s a dinosaur concept…and for these additional reasons:
Edison/SDG&E have funded Undergrounding Programs of $125k annually. Caltrans is already planning/responsible to widen and underground Laguna Canyon Road (LCR); controls that State Owned Right of Way; and will pay with power companies like Big Bend area in 2016. I observed when there’s a serious fire like 1993, smart residents and guests did head for the Beach as a quick fourth real escape route, where you’re safe/can see what’s happening, as government officials, and resting firefighters did and they parked on Coast Hwy. You’re not going to head for any “KER” mentioned above…who “thought” those up?

I estimate the actual undergrounded portion of Laguna is closer to 80 percent (not the 40 percent Whalen purports), when you exclude CalTrans/State-owned LCR Right of Way, and no fire issue streets/North Laguna alleys. The City shouldn’t ask residents to pay for state-owned LCR undergrounding! Existing annual Edison/SDG&E Funding, credits purchased can take care of the few real powerline/traffic conflict locations left in the City for safety without bonds and one percent added sales tax that hurts local business and taxpayers. (Link to Bob Whalen’s Guest Column: http://stunewslaguna.com/archives/front-page-archive/26953-guest-column-bob-whalen-103117)

Councilmember Whalen no longer mentions the topic of residents: 1-who paid for undergrounding in previously completed private districts, 2-are currently paying these Underground Tax Assessments (CFD’s), and 3-who [will] soon pay the $40 to $80k cost (Coast Royale, SoLag). Where’s this “Second Ballot measure” to exempt them now Bob, vs your current proposal for previously paid residents to pay a second time, to favor 20 percent plus of residents who haven’t paid, including four of five Councilmembers, ready CFD residents put on hold? I can comment both sides of the argument of the City’s Bond/Tax Measure – have one residence with, one without underground/views. I chose to pay off, instead of double cost/30 year bond.

The City has managed 40 plus years of these Undergrounding Assessment Districts since the 1970s, and it now proposes to dupe past participating owners to pay it twice? Those seven active City’s Districts that were almost finalized are now on hold (to chase this obsolete idea of undergrounding taxation) with another bond measure against our properties, and a one percent forever sales tax that isn’t directed at specified items! Could this big $$$ actually go to pay unfunded Pension Plans or free undergrounding for those who haven’t paid for it – which might be the real reason, not fire safety and ”KER”? Informed residents say yes, absolutely – look at other City slush funds misdirected from other purposes (i.e. Parking Fund for decades, $4 million from Measure LL – Bed Tax allocated on 10/24/17).

The City Proposal to underground with 24,000 residents voting on a ballot is deceptive. Actually, 14,400 resident owners/taxpayers would bear this expense. It’s manipulative to propose a measure for a vote when 40 percent of residents are renters; and additionally 17 percent are absentee owners who can’t vote on what financially affects them. It’s also a disservice and betrayal of trust to owners who paid to underground for uncluttered ocean views. Forcing owners to pay twice constitutes fraud in my view, and could start a class action lawsuit for past payment damages by 40 plus years of previously paid owners as plaintiffs. Ask the Coast Royale owners after they pay their assessment to pay it twice, not!

I think all Laguna Locals should view this YouTube Video: “Tony Seba: Clean Disruption – Energy & Transportation” www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0, to see the future of Energy/Transportation, that will shock you to see changes, future and overhead utilities are ancient technology, obsolete in 10-20 years. This Illustrates questionable leadership and lost $$$ spent to date by City to underground, and if understood, no need for undergrounding ballot vote.

To share a joint idea with another like-minded Lagunan – we suggest inviting Elon Musk to town as our guest. He’s a forward thinker, would be a great neighbor, and ask him to partner up to make Laguna Beach the first Solar City with his roof tiles, battery back up/Peaker Units, and his Tesla cars and trucks. If we added farming upper Laguna and Aliso Canyon valley floors after planner Sir Ebenezer Howard’s 1898 model for a Garden City, linking our work/jobs, farmlands, residential neighborhoods and recreational parks with pedestrian/bikeways it would be the live/work Utopian City of sustainability, surrounded by Greenbelts & Pacific Ocean. After all, Elon just works up the road in Hawthorne @ SpaceX, and he might need a second getaway beach home he can rocket to.

Bryan T.S. Menne – 54 year Laguna Resident, Former OCFD Paid Call Firefighter South Laguna-Station 6, Land Planner & CA Registered Landscape Architect.

Get Off The Grid! – Undergrounding Guest Opinion Article

Posted on (Updated: )

Laguna supposedly prides itself on being “progressive” and “forward thinking,” yet the city wants us to invest in old 20th Century technology by undergrounding utilities. The city has fast and furiously been spending our taxpayer dollars to blitz residents with ads on TV, Facebook, newspapers, etc. (just under $30,000 in April alone) on its “fear and fire” undergrounding campaign to scare voters into agreeing to tax ourselves hundreds of millions of dollars to underground a soon to be obsolete method of delivering power.

Why are we not planning for the very near future, and instead encourage every property owner to invest in solar technology and become individual self-generating power sources? The technology is here now and the recent break-throughs in lithium-ion battery storage capacity and cost makes spending millions on “old school” utility power technology a very poor return on investment. Another bonus is that lithium-ion solar batteries are virtually maintenance free. Likewise, the price of installing solar has dropped dramatically, and solar panels are now incorporated into roof tiles that are unobtrusive and aesthetic as well.

California just passed legislation requiring all newly built homes to have solar panels beginning in 2020. That’s less than two years away, and more than likely before the city would even begin to break ground on undergrounding Laguna Canyon Road. Why should residents be expected to cover the cost to improve SC Edison’s aging, archaic infrastructure on Laguna Canyon Road? We certainly aren’t being given “stock” in exchange for this misguided taxpayer “investment.”

The new state solar mandate is a quantum leap toward the future, embracing solar technology so readily available in our coastal state and encouraging power self-sufficiency. Let’s get OFF the grid, and not send hundreds of millions of dollars under ground. Think about it – Laguna has no major industrial business within its six square miles, so it has no need for major power production.

Our residences can generate more than sufficient power for home residential use and charging our vehicles. Laguna could become one of the first self-sufficient “solar cities” in the state, and the nation. That’s progressive action we can all get behind (or ahead of!). Many small islands are already 100% solar self-sufficient. If they can do it, so can we.

Stop taxing our property to pay for old technology. Let’s lead, embrace the future. It’s a much better return on our investment and our tax dollars.

Fire Risks and Undergrounding – Guest Article

Posted on (Updated: )

“What I find most interesting is the tacit assumption that urban utility lines constitute high risk. Yes, there is risk of fire from utility lines, but the proponents do not quantify the risk for urban lines; rather, they talk about wildfires and car accidents without any hard numbers or facts. The Orange County Emergency Management Plan says that the risk of urban fire, caused by all sources, is about the same as an oil spill, train accident, or aircraft crash. The city has not cited any statistics of cars hitting poles. Nor will removing poles reduce accidents — cars will hit what was behind the poles — in some cases houses. The city has not done a cost/benefit analysis of risk vs. cost.

There is another assumption that is simply false: a fire caused by a downed pole in an urban area seldom spreads, as did the fire in North Laguna or Sonoma recently — the fires began in the dry chaparal. Wildfires start in the chaparal and head toward cities, not from them. Undergrounding the utilities in the city does nothing to reduce the risk of wildfires in the chaparal, nor does it put the high voltage, cross-country lines underground.

None of this information is new. The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has been studying power line safety for over 100 years, and there are thousands of scientific papers published on the subject, but who has time to look up facts? We’ve seen time and again that science does not enter into City Council decisions, only tax and spend. Laguna Beach is not the first city to have utility poles — most cities have them. The truth be known, this initiative is about taxing and spending tens of millions for aesthetics and over-priced ocean views, not public safety. Under State law the city’s highest priority is safety, but it goes begging.

The Orange County Emergency Management Plan says that flood/storms, hazardous materials, earthquakes, epidemics, and mudslide/landslide are all higher and more frequent risks in Laguna Beach, yet the Council makes little-to-no effort for flood protection or mudslides, for which Laguna Beach regularly makes the national news. How quickly we forget the flooding, houses falling down hills, and deaths that have happened from mudslides. The slide in Montecito that killed dozens was only a few weeks ago.

As for exit routes, Laguna Canyon has a much higher risk from flooding and slides than from downed poles. Remember how many days it was impassible after the last major flood, as was PCH in South Laguna? The flooding is regular and not rare. Unfortunately, flood control is not chic or trendy or ever mentioned in real estate ads, i.e., 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, great view, and flood control. It is the last item that our City Council is, by law, responsible for, not great views.”