THE TIMES POLL : Many of Laguna Fire’s Victims Lost Everything : Survey: Psychological scars remain but bitterness is not common. Most blame arson, winds, not officials.

Behind the lasting images of residents fleeing their burning homes with carloads of their most precious belongings, a Times survey found there are many victims who lost everything in the fast-moving firestorm that swept through the city last month.

On the morning of Oct. 27, many of the residents in the 409 homes that were damaged or destroyed by the blaze left for work and never realized they were seeing their homes for the last time. Others were caught unprepared by the ferocious speed of the wind-driven flames.

“Everybody thought it was safe because the fire was north of us, and suddenly the wind changed,” said Edward Drollinger, 68, who is now renting an apartment in Newport Beach with his wife. “I just couldn’t conceive the thing being totally destroyed. . . . I wish I had a better appreciation of what was going on an hour before.”

About three-quarters of the residents surveyed said their houses were destroyed and everything inside was lost. Some belongings will never be recovered, but a majority of the victims said they expect their insurance to cover all or most of the damage.

“It starts sinking in later when you think that all the possessions are gone,” said Gwynne Kirkpatrick, 86, a retired Hollywood artist. “It’s irreplaceable. . . . A complete record of my whole life’s work.”

A survey by the Times Poll, conducted Nov. 3 through 17 by Times pollster John Brennan, contacted 182 of the victims forced out of their homes by the fire in Laguna Beach and the nearby Emerald Bay community and El Morro Beach Mobile Home Park. Of those contacted, 155 agreed to answer a questionnaire about their experiences the day of the fire, their plans and their opinions about who was to blame.

Unlike typical surveys, which use random sampling to represent a larger population, this survey attempted to interview as many of the fire victims as were available and cooperative. Cooperation was high and those interviewed represent a good geographic cross-section of fire victims from different areas. Still, there is no guarantee that the opinions of those who were interviewed are necessarily reflective of those not included in the survey.

The survey found a community suffering from psychological scars and a greater fear of a natural hazard most had never considered a threat to their lives.

But instead of bitterness or finger-pointing, many of the respondents indicated an acceptance of their plight as the result of a disaster that could not have been prevented.

More than half of the respondents said they believe that dangerous fires will always be a problem in the bucolic hills behind Laguna Beach, even if the city and its residents have taken all of the appropriate precautions. Just two in five of the respondents said they believe the damage could have been prevented.

“Our (house) was as fireproof as could be,” said Jo Hannah Sisson, 58, who was busy sewing at her home on Skyline Drive when the fire started and who is now renting an apartment in Laguna Niguel. “In that kind of fire there is not too much you can do.”

Forty-three percent of those surveyed blamed the disaster primarily on an arsonist being sought by authorities, and 27% blamed the gusting Santa Ana winds that fanned the flames. Forty-two percent complained about problems that have been identified since the fire, such as an inadequate public water supply, coordination of fire crews and late arrival by water-dropping aircraft.

However, the perception that the fire destruction was beyond human control was also reflected in a feeling that emergency response teams did all they could. About three-quarters of the victims gave high marks to the work done by fire crews. Less than 10% said the response to the fire was poor.

The assessment of the disaster response from other quarters--governments, charities and insurance companies--was also largely positive.

Within hours of the fire, President Clinton sent the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the fire scene with a pledge that the government response would be quick and thorough, as it was in last summer’s Midwestern floods.

The commitment appears to have struck a chord in Laguna Beach, as nearly three-quarters of the victims rated the response by FEMA as either excellent or good.

In contrast, Gov. Pete Wilson was not viewed so warmly. Even though he was weary and soot-covered from touring the fire scene, fewer than half of the respondents said Wilson and the state government performed well. About a third said the state response was fair or poor.

Local government has also been criticized since the fire. But 61% of the victims said local government’s response was good or excellent.

The Laguna Beach City Council has been the target of complaints about its rejection of plans to build a 3.5-million-gallon, hilltop reservoir that was opposed by environmentalists. Fire officials said the reservoir could have helped their effort because the emergency crews encountered low water pressure.

Just 14% of the victims said they blamed the lack of an adequate water supply for the destruction of their neighborhoods, but another 12% blamed the council for not building the reservoir. At the same time, however, more than 80% now favor the construction of the reservoir.

While most of those surveyed did not primarily blame the council for the destruction, the survey still found that it is not held in high regard by the fire victims.

Just 37% of those surveyed had a favorable impression of the council, while 39% said they have an unfavorable opinion. Of those living within the Laguna Beach city limits, 47% of the opinions were favorable and 42% were unfavorable.

As a group, the fire victims demonstrated tremendous resilience, with nearly all saying they plan to stay in Laguna Beach and most predicting that the city will be an even better place to live five years from now than it was before the fires.

Sisson said she plans to begin rebuilding her 3,000-square-foot home on Skyline Drive “immediately. . . . It was lovely,” she said. “It’ll be back just how it was.”

The neighborhoods struck by the fires were some of the most beautiful and expensive in Orange County. As a result, the profile of the Laguna Beach refugees reflects a community that is upscale and largely prepared to rebuild.

Nearly nine in 10 said they expect to rebuild their homes and only 6% said it is unlikely they will return to the same neighborhoods. But among the handful who expect to leave the area, almost all said their decisions were based on matters other than financial problems.

Three in five of the respondents said they expect their insurance will cover all or most of their losses. And only a third of the victims said they have applied for the low-interest federal loans that are available because President Clinton has designated Southern California a disaster area. Another 17% said they intend to apply for aid.

About two in five of the victims surveyed described themselves as professionals or administrators. The next largest categories were retired (24%) and homemaker (10%). Less than a quarter of the residents had children living at home.

Despite their significant losses, just 35% of the victims said the destruction of their homes will be a “major financial loss.” The same portion said the loss was “minor.”

About 10% of the fire victims surveyed said the home they lost was a vacation home and that they are currently living in their primary home. Many of those residents are from the El Morro Beach Mobile Home Park on Coast Highway.

In addition to the financial impact, the fire also left psychological scars. About two-thirds of those surveyed said they have had difficulty sleeping, and more than two in five said they have experienced feelings of hopelessness or depression.

But while their homes were burned, most of the victims indicated that the fire did not destroy the city that they love. Nearly everyone said they believe Laguna Beach is a good place to live.

“It’s the most wonderful town anywhere,” Sisson said.

Times staff writer Jennifer Brundin contributed to this story.

GONE TO ASHES

Among those surveyed, nearly nine in 10 said their homes were totally destroyed, and eight in 10 lost most personal belongings. Three in four lost both their homes and all their belongings.

* How would you describe the amount of damage to your residence as a result of fires in Laguna Beach and Emerald Bay? Total: 88% Serious: 4 Not serious: 8

* Besides your residence itself, how many of your personal belongings were destroyed by the fire? All: 75% Most: 10 Some: 10 None: 4 Don’t know: 1

REBUILD, NO RETREAT

Many fire victims are inclined to think hillside homes will always be hostage to brush fires, but a huge majority will rebuild and repair on the same site.

* Do you think there is always going to be a good chance that homes built on California hillsides could be severely damaged by brush fires in spite of all precautions, or could weprevent that if only we took the necessary precautions? Always: 53% Could prevent: 40 Don’t know: 7

* Are you likely or unlikely to rebuild or repair your damaged residence on the same site? (Renters asked: Do you think the owner is likely or unlikely to rebuild on the same site?) Likely: 88% Unlikely: 6 Don’t know: 6

CHANGING MINDS Although most of those who suffered damage tried to do something about the fire hazard before the most recent blaze, most people gave little thought to it actually happening. That has now changed.

* Before the fire, how much did you worry about a major fire hitting the Laguna Beach area? Very much: 10% Somewhat: 28 A little: 32 Not at all: 30

* Have you already applied, or are you planning to apply, for any of the loans and grants that are available to victims of the fires? Yes, have done so: 34% Yes, plan to: 17 No, will not: 30 Not sure: 19

* How much do you worry about another fire hitting the Laguna Beach area in the future? Very much/somewhat: 51% A little/not at all: 43 Not sure: 6

* In the next few months, where will you and your family be living? Rented place: 64% Another owned home: 10 Damaged house: 9 Relatives: 2 Friends: 2 Hotel/motel: 1 Other: 6 Not sure: 6

* Who or what do you blame the most for the major property destruction that occurred as a result of the fire that hit the Laguna Beach area? Arson: 43% Santa Ana weather conditions: 27 No one/Mother Nature: 15 Inadequate water supply: 14 Environmental groups refused controlled burning: 12 City Council’s own agenda (reservoir): 12 Overburdened firefighting resources: 9 Poor coordination of emergency services: 6 Failure to make use of military resources: 6 Slow response by firefighting planes: 5 Landscaping and roofing of homes: 5 Act of God: 4 Slow response by firefighters: 2 People living in dangerous places: 1 Older homes with inadequate fire protection: 1 Other: 1 Not sure: 3

Note: Total adds to more than 100% due to multiple responses

* Prior to the fire, had you taken steps to protect your residence and property from the possibility of fires, or not? Yes: 62% No: 37 Not sure: 1

* Overall, how would you rate the response of firefighters/local government/local churches, charities and volunteer groups/Gov. Pete Wilson and state government/the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the fire?

Fire- Local Churches, State fighters government charities government FEMA Excellent/good 73% 61% 95% 43% 72% Fair/poor 14 22 1 34 5 Don’t know 13 17 4 23 23

CITY COUNCIL, RESERVOIR ISSUE

Views toward the Laguna Beach City Council among resident victims are split. Construction of a new reservoir has overwhelming support among all victims.

* Overall, is your view of the Laguna Beach City Council favorable or unfavorable? Is thatvery favorable/unfavorable or somewhat favorable/unfavorable? City residents Very favorable: 21% Somewhat favorable: 26 Somewhat unfavorable: 15 Very unfavorable: 28 Don’t know: 10

* Laguna Beach County Water District officials say construction of a 3.5-million-gallon water reservoir near the Top of the World area is needed, while the City Council has opposed the reservoir on environmental grounds. Do you favor or oppose construction of this reservoir? All victims Favor: 81% Oppose: 5 Don’t know: 14

Source: Los Angeles Times survey