Laguna OKs Compromise Plan to Build Reservoir : Government: But neither water district officials nor residents are satisfied with $3.7-million project.

Striving to end a three-year stalemate, the City Council early Wednesday conditionally approved a 3-million-gallon reservoir that many angry residents believe would have helped save homes in the recent fires if it had been built earlier.

However, the council’s compromise agreement to let the Laguna Beach County Water District finally build the $3.7-million reservoir on city-owned land was sharply criticized by district officials, who hinted they would reject it. One water official called the agreement a “political ploy.”

Even Councilman Wayne L. Peterson, a leading advocate of the reservoir, which the council majority has long rejected for environmental and other reasons, admitted many residents were describing the council’s 3-1 vote for the reservoir as a “non-victory.”

“I mean, nobody is happy with it,” he said.

Still, other council members who voted for the compromise said it’s a good first step that demonstrates a commitment to work with the water district on the project that was proposed in 1990.

“We are showing we are acting in good faith to get this moving forward,” said Councilwoman Kathleen Blackburn. “That’s a step in the right direction.”

The vote, with Mayor Lida Lenney the lone dissenter, came after midnight in a marathon meeting in which about 150 people packed the 115-seat council chambers, many of them upset that the council had not approved the reservoir long before the devastating Oct. 27 fire that ruined 366 homes and caused more than $400 million in damage.

Councilman Robert F. Gentry, who had opposed the reservoir before, crafted the compromise that would require the water district to meet two new major conditions before getting land-use approvals from the city.

Under the council’s plan, the district must bury the huge water tank completely below ground level and provide an exchange for the 2.5 acres of open space that would be used by the reservoir. The site is situated on the knoll at the end of Alta Laguna Boulevard in an area set aside as open space, part of the Laguna Greenbelt.

Mayor Lenney voted against the compromise, saying she wanted more information from an independent agency on how the city water system performed during the massive fire, and how it could be improved. She said she’d be willing to support the recommendations from such a study, including building the reservoir on the knoll.

Councilwoman Ann Christoph abstained from voting, citing a potential conflict of interest because of her past work designing Alta Laguna Park, next to the proposed reservoir.

The reservoir issue has become a point of controversy in the community since the fire as numerous residents have insisted the facility could have saved more homes. Critics also claim the council majority is more concerned about the environment than crucial city services.

“It seems to me we should designate the citizens of Laguna an endangered species and then we’d get the protection we need,” resident Don Tragnitz said during the meeting. “If we had gnatcatcher status than we’d have real clout in this town.”

Others, however, urged the council to get more information about the fires, and pleaded with the water district to take more immediate fire precautions, such as adding water pumps and linking outlying reservoirs by pipelines.

Judy Brennan, a board member with Laguna Greenbelt Inc., advised the council to delay action on the reservoir until “the facts are in and the rhetoric and finger pointing have cooled.”

But Gentry said he was tired of fighting over the issue, and he hoped the water district will accept the compromise.

“We’re spending too much time and energy on something that wasn’t going to be solved either in the courts or by more biased information,” said Gentry, who lost his own home in the fire. “It seemed to me we just had to compromise.”

However, the plan was poorly received by Louis Zitnik, vice president of the district’s board of directors.

“He (Gentry) knows this will not work,” said Zitnik. “This is just a political ploy to gain some popularity.”

Although the reservoir would be buried under the water district’s own plan, it would still create a 17-foot-high mound above ground.

By putting the reservoir totally underground and eliminating the mound, Gentry said the public will have better access to the land that was bought by the city years ago at public expense for preservation as open space.

The second part of the compromise, calling for the replacement of open space, could be accomplished through a land exchange or giving the city money to purchase land, Gentry said.

Yet problems loom for the council’s plan, water district General Manager Joseph Sovella predicted Wednesday.

He said the district has told the city before that it was unwilling to compromise on the elevation of the reservoir. Because the proposed reservoir site is more than 1,000 feet above sea level, officials have said it would be a valuable water source for hillside neighborhoods should mechanical or electrical pumping fail. That’s because water could flow freely by gravity to virtually every home in Laguna Becah, Sovella said.

However, if the reservoir elevation were lowered, even by 17 feet to make it virtually invisible, the district would have to rely on a pump station at the site to protect more homes.

“The higher you have the water, the better off you are,” Sovella said.

The reservoir is also proposed at the same elevation as an existing reservoir in the Top of the World neighborhood, a crucial factor in providing gravitational flow, said Zitnik.

“We want a gravity flow system that can flow from either unit for the maximum of protection,” he said. “We don’t want to worry about pumps failing or electricity failing or emergency generators failing.”

Zitnik said he would be willing to compromise, though, on an open space exchange.

Water board President Richard Jahrus said there’s no way he would accept a compromise involving the elevation of the reservoir, and predicted the dispute would again end up in court.

The compromise will reach the water board for formal consideration at its Dec. 7 meeting, Sovella said.

Meanwhile, as part of the council’s action, the city Planning Commission will consider a zoning change that would allow the reservoir to be built upon the knoll site.

The dispute over the reservoir was heating up even before the firestorm.

Responding to the city’s refusal in July to rezone the parcel for use as a reservoir, the water district sued the city through eminent domain to take control of the site.

A judge granted the water district possession of the parcel only days before the fire, although the district still does not have full ownership rights and would still need to clear other environmental and bureaucratic hurdles before building. A price for the parcel must also be settled.

In other fire-related action taken by the council, the city hired four firms at a cost of about $424,000 to haul away fire debris from private lots for those who have not cleared the lots themselves.

The cleanup will cost a homeowner between $2,000 and $5,000, which would be billed to their insurance companies. The city would expect receiving reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for cleanup work on properties not covered by insurance.

The crews will begin clearing the lots next week. Property owners must notify the city in writing by 5 p.m. on Friday if they intend to clear the lots themselves.

* EROSION CONTROL: Reseeding starts on burned acres in Emerald Canyon. B1