Top 10 stories of the year

Residents who live near Central Park have been barking up the right

tree.

Fed up with barking coming from the dog park, nearby residents have

managed to reduce park hours not once, but twice in the past year and now

plans to move the park are being seriously considered.

In January the Community Services Commission voted to cut back the

park’s operating hours to allow some relief for surrounding

neighborhoods.

When the dog park opened in 1995, offering about two fenced acres for

dogs to run unleashed, the hours were set at 5 a.m. and 10 p.m. As so

they stayed for five years.

But by the second week in January 2001 those hours became 6:30 a.m. to

7 p.m. on weekdays, and 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. on the weekend between

November and April. It was set to close at 8 p.m. on weekdays during

daylight-saving time.

A drastic cutback for dog owners who brought their pets to the park

for exercise before and after work.

This decision came after eight residents from Lakepoint Lane across

from the dog park complained that the barking was a bane to their quality

of life and each filed a $1-million claim against the city in December of

2000.

Residents growls over the noise quieted for a while, but did not

cease.

The battle that continued to boil under the surface erupted again in

the fall and City Council reduced the hours even further.

In September the City Council voted to reduce park hours to 9 a.m. to

6 p.m. on weekdays, and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays.

They followed that decision with yet another restriction just a month

later. In October the council limited the number of dogs an owner could

bring into the park to three.

And now, up for consideration moving the dog park altogether --

something neighbors have been pushing for all along.

The city has begun to research how much it would cost to relocate the

dog park from its current location on Edwards Street near Talbert Avenue

to a grassy sloped area of Central Park on Gothard Street.

Dog Park Foundation is in favor of the proposed move because it would

give owners a chance to take their dogs to the park before and after

work, said Laura Garay who chairs the board for the foundation.

Neighbors of the current dog park are definitely in favor.

Plans for Huntington Center move forward

By Bryce Alderton

A messy fight over a 30-year-old shopping center came to an end. Plans

are in the works for a new mall in Surf City.

Wards had won the eminent domain battle, with residents on its side,

but lost the war when it went bankrupt at the end of 2000 paving the way

for developers to take over Huntington Center at Beach Boulevard and

Edinger Avenue.

Soon after Montgomery Wards & Co. filed for bankruptcy, admitting

defeat to the developer that tried to use eminent domain to oust it and

Burlington Coat Factory.

Irvine-based developer Ezralow Retail Property LLC tried to kick out

Burlington Coat Factory and Wards, saying the businesses did not fit its

plans for a glitzy Italian village-style mall.

But City Council could not turn out the votes necessary to approve use

of eminent domain.

But with the new year, and Wards closure, the city and developers

could revisit plans for revamping the center and breathe new life into

center. The developer reduced its expansive plans for the center.

In the fall architects began drawing up new design plans, which are

still in the works, for the 1-million-square-foot center that will

include include an 80,000-square-foot movie theater with 16 to 18

screens, and full-service restaurants such as Islands, Elephant Bar,

California Pizza Kitchen and Ruth Chris Steakhouse.

The J.H. Snyder Co., The Ezralow Co., The Jerde Partnership, the

architects for the project, and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency

are teaming up on the project, which is expected to cost $150 million.

Construction is expected to begin next summer and take approximately

one year to complete.

Barnes and Noble Booksellers, Circuit City, Staples, Mervyn’s and

Burlington Coat Factory will remain open during the renovation.

New gyms on the horizon

By Mike SciaccaDespite two lawsuits filed against it, the Ocean View

School District is forging ahead with plans to refurbish the gymnasiums

and auditoriums at four of its schools.

The projects, proposed for Marine View, Mesa View and Spring View

middle schools in Huntington Beach and Spring View Middle School in

Fountain Valley, received the green light and the district currently is

in settlement discussions in regard to the two lawsuits, said Supt. Jim

Tarwater.

The projects, he said, will break ground sometime around Feb. 1, and

will take about 7 1/2 months to complete. Tarwater also noted that an

environmental study has been completed and the board accepted

recommendations from the Community Advisory Committee and met those

recommendations by relocating the gymnasiums, downsizing the buildings

and not allowing outside rentals.

In 2000 Ocean View School District officials, by a 4-1 vote, approved the $12-million project to build gymnasiums/auditoriums at the four

district middle schools. The facilities not only would house various

youth sporting events but also provide a venue for student assemblies and

concerts as well.

The project continues to draw both support and criticism from the

district community.

Two lawsuits were filed against the district. The first one by the

City of Fountain Valley last August followed by a similar suit filed by

the a citizens’ group, Neighborhoods for Education First. The group had

several significant concerns in regard to environmental issues such as

hours of usage, increased traffic and reduced parking on streets.

Another concern was outside rental, but the board has promised that

the gymnasiums/auditoriums will only be used by district students.

The main focus of the lawsuit filed by the City of Fountain Valley is

the school gym at Vista View that is beingconstructed within its

jurisdiction.

The district, which was reconfigured in 1992 and split kindergarten

through eighth-grade schools into elementary and middle schools, had been

discussing the project for years but was criticized for failing to inform

the community until a few months before the board approved the proposed

construction on Sept. 19, 2000.

A study session in August included the discussion of such topics as

architectural drawings, landscape designs, lighting configurations,

placement of buildings, construction management firm vs. construction

project manager and funding sources and timeline for initiating

certificates of participation for construction. The board voted 5-0 at

its Dec. 11 meeting to cast to bid out contracts for the project. The

estimated project cost was announced at just over $13 million, because it

exceeds the bid limits it will require a formal bidding process.

Edison High Football Team Returns To Prominence

By Mike Sciacca

It had been 16 years since an Edison High School football team last

appeared in a CIF Southern Section football championship, but in 2001,

the tradition-rich school found its way back.

An outstanding season began in September with a 30-7 rout of El Toro

and ended with a Dec. 8 Division I championship final date with defending

champion Long Beach Poly at Edison International Field.

The fans came out in droves, and school spirit was sky-high.

The Chargers had several two-way players, but that didn’t slow down

this team. They routinely pounded the opposition.

During the course of the regular season, the offense, which featured

record-breaking performances by junior quarterback Tommy Grady and senior

receiver Denny Flanagan, averaged 32 points per game. They scored a

season high 66 points against Huntington Beach. The defense was nearly as

impressive, giving up an average of only 14 points an outing.

Edison won a share of the Sunset League championship -- its first

since the 1990 season, and earned a portion of the crown on the final day

of the regular season by beating archrival Fountain Valley for a second

consecutive year, 19-10.

But it was during the playoffs that Edison really exploded.

On the march toward the division final, the Chargers, seeded third,

whipped three perennial parochial school powers. They pinned 56 points on

St. John Bosco, 47 more on Bishop Amat and dealt Mater Dei a 41-7 loss in

semifinal action.

They averaged a school record for points scored during the postseason

with 43.

Although the season ended in a 42-28 loss to Long Beach Poly -- it was

the school’s first loss in a championship game appearance in four

attempts -- the Chargers gave the favored Jackrabbits all they could

handle. They held a 21-14 lead early in the third quarter and were within

six points with just over four minutes to play.

Edison’s final record of 11-1-1 gave the school its first 10-win

season since 1989 and was its best record since the 1985 title team went

11-2-1.

An innocent life tragically cut short

By Bryce Alderton

A shooting death in the Oakview neighborhood in May rocked the city.

Huntington Beach Police officer Mark Wersching shot and killed

18-year-old Antonio Saldivar in a case of mistaken identity during the

early morning hours of May 5 in the Oakview neighborhood where he

resided.

In the predawn hours police officers chased a man seen peering into

parked cars through the Oakview area and lost sight of him.

When Wersching, a five-year veteran of the force, came across

Saldivar, who was holding what appeared to be a rifle, he shot him,

police contend.

Police initially said it was Saldivar they had been chasing, but

acknowledged, following an Orange County Sheriff’s investigation that

that it was not Saldivar, but 21-year-old Brigido Cara Mendez whom they

were chasing after they saw a man peering into parked cars in the 17000

block of Ash Street.

Sheriff’s officials said the officer lost sight of the suspect and

came upon Saldivar, who was allegedly holding a toy gun, and shot him at

about 1:39 a.m.

The shooting prompted protests from Oakview residents frustrated and

distrustful of the Huntington Beach Police Department.

Saldivar’s family filed a wrongful-death lawsuit with the U.S.

District Court in Santa Ana in November against Wersching, in which the

city and police department are also named as defendants.

The family’s attorney Timothy A. Black said the family feels

Saldivar’s civil rights were violated and they deserve to be compensated.

A federal criminal investigation is still ongoing to determine if

Saldivar’s civil rights were violated. The Orange County Sheriff’s

Department completed a separate investigation that has been handed over

to the Orange County District Attorney for review.

The United States attorney’s office and the FBI have yet to determine

if Saldivar’s civil rights were violated, said Thom Mrozek, spokesman for

that office in Los Angeles.

The suit comes five months after the family’s $15-million claim was

rejected by the city, which is also named as a defendant. Black estimates

that it will take 18 months or longer before a trial date is set.

City School District failed once but will try again for a school

bond

By Mike Sciacca

If at first you don’t succeed, you try again.

Such is the case with the Huntington Beach City School District which,

last June, asked voters to approve a $25-million bond measure that they

said would help repair and modernize aging buildings.

That measure failed by a very slim margin.

It gained a majority approval of 62.4% from voters, but fell short of

the required two-thirds majority vote of 66.7%.

The measure would have helped the district repair and modernize aging

buildings. It would have cost taxpayers $16 per $100,000 of assessed

value of a home, each year, for 30 years.

The district spent more than two years studying and preparing for the

measure, which had been unanimously passed by the board.

Those who were in favor of last June’s proposed bond measure are still

passionate about their objective and say that the buildings continue to

age and needs have not gone away. The average age of the schools is 30.

Some buildings have bee in use for 40 years, and Dwyer Middle School is

now in its 68th year of use.

Those who opposed the ballot measure said that the bond had no listing

of specific projects, site-by-site, for voters to evaluate, and other key

taxpayer accountability provisions.

Since the election, the passage of Proposition 39 has put a gleam back

in bond proponents eyes. The initiative calls for a 55% majority approval

for school bond measures.

In September, the school board voted to give a school bond another go.

They gave the administration the green light to proceed with the

development of a new resolution calling for the construction and/or

improvement of school facilities. At its Dec. 4 meeting, the board of

trustees decided by a 4-0 vote -- board member Brian Reichsteiner was

absent -- to put a new bond measure on the March 5, 2002 election. The

district will again ask voters, now for $30 million, to fix crumbling

schools.

In June, district needs were about $41.6 million in repairs and

upgrades. This time around, less than a year later needs were assessed at

$56.5 million.

The school district is still eligible for $16.7 million in matching

funds from the state.

Garofalo resigns from office, ending long investigation

By Danette Goulet

With less than a year to go before his second term was scheduled to

end, Councilman Dave Garofalo resigned from public office as the result

of more than a year of investigation by the District Attorney.

Garofalo stepped down Dec. 21, leaving a muddied political legacy

behind. In a letter to the city he cited a desire to work on his personal

life as his reason.

His impending resignation had been a topic of community rumor mills

for months and the strong suggestion of many residents for more than a

year.

As the year began Dave Garofalo was already heavily under

investigation and had been for many months. A citizen group with the sole

purpose of ousting the former mayor from public office hit the streets in

January with fervor. The Citizens for Honest and Responsible Government

began collecting signatures from registered voters who support their

cause.

On April 12, investigators with the Orange County District Attorney’s

office showed up at his home and office with search warrants and seized

computer equipment and files from Garofalo’s Main Street home, a SeaCliff

Office Park publishing office and from Coatings Resource Co., owned by

longtime friend Ed Laird.

Laird had purchased the publishing rights to the city’s visitors

guide.

Then, on July 18, the district attorney’s office released court

documents filed by investigators that alleged the councilman failed to

report the source of more than $25,000 in business income.

The papers also state that Garofalo voted 200 times between 1997 and

2000 on issues that affected businesses that advertise in the Local News,

the annual Huntington Beach Visitors Guide as well as the city’s Chamber

of Commerce Business Directory -- all publications that were owned by the

councilman.

Despite the continuing probe into alleged wrongdoing, Garofalo filed

papers in November to run for the state Board of Equalization, but never

returned completed forms, effectively withdrawing his bid.

Although he continues to deny any wrongdoing Garofalo has ended his

political career to devote more time to personal issues.

AES had the power, but not the support

By Danette Goulet

They had the power when it was most needed and yet, with plans to dust

off two old generators and rev their engines, AES became Huntington

Beach’s Public Enemy No. 1.

With the state facing an energy crisis early in the year, AES Corp.

proposed the refurbishment of two old generator units, which were shut

down in 1995, to produce about 450 more megawatts of electricity.

The proposal for the plant on Newland Street met with strong

opposition from the city and neighbors.

And so discussions of expansion commenced among AES plant President Ed

Blackford, city officials and the California Energy Commission, which had

ultimate approval that superseded the concerns of the city.

City officials were gravely concerned about the possible pollution

from firing up those generators.

After the considerable debate, the city approved a plan by AES to

install a selective catalytic reduction system in its operational units

to cut back on noxious chemical emissions.

Council members were also concerned about an ongoing study to

determine whether AES is partially responsible for beach closures caused

by bacteria in 1999.

The power plant uses cold ocean water for cooling purposes, and then

pumps up to 88,000 gallons of hot water back into the sea each minute.

With units No. 3 and No. 4 also generating electricity, that water output

could double.

Meanwhile, the Orange County Sanitation District was studying whether

AES’ hot water was interacting with the district’s waste-water plume from

an outfall pipe 4 1/2 miles offshore, drawing the partially treated

sewage back toward the shore.

After repeated delays and rolling blackouts, the commission on May 10

approved a 10-year operating permit for the two units that hinges on a

review after five years to make sure water quality and sea life have not

been hurt by the added generators.

AES then went before the commission again a month later, seeking the

reconsideration of a permit condition that would keep its power in

California.

Despite massive outcries from the city, the commission agreed to AES’s

requests.

Before the dust could completely settle, and just when AES had about

slipped off residents’ radar screens, the City Council approved a March

ballot measure that would charge AES a 5% utility tax on the natural gas

it uses to generate electricity.

In response, Blackford filed a lawsuit in November against the city,

alleging that the ballot measure is based on inaccurate information is

misleading and contains slanderous and libelous attacks on the company.

An Orange County Superior Court Judge agreed, demanding that the city

rewrite much of the argument in favor of a the city-sponsored ballot

measure.

The city filed a writ of appeal, which will be heard on Jan. 2

City pleads guilty to sewer charges

By Bryce Alderton

It was not a proud day for Surf City. Former Mayor Pam Julien Houchen

stood on behalf of the city and pleaded guilty to three criminal counts

in connection with widespread sewer leaks during the 1990s.

In 1996, the city identified the need to repair the sewer system

Downtown and Old Town areas by using video cameras to trace pipelines.

Those findings, which included massive leaks that may have let loose

more than 70,000 gallons of raw sewage a day into the ground, were not

reported to the water board.

A court battle ended with Julien Houchen’s pleading guilty on behalf

of the city and Orange County Supreme Court Commissioner Martin Engquist

put the city on five years’ probation, and fined it $75,000 for

violating sections of state water code governing negligent and

intentional discharge of pollutants.

As part of the plea agreement, the city was ordered to spend at least

$250,000 to assess and clean up any remaining sewage residue.

City Council is now more determined than ever to see to it that

Huntington’s sewer system is repaired.

A new sewer usage fee began showing up on Huntington Beach resident

and business owners’ sewer bills in October that will pay for the repair

and maintenance of the city’s aging sewer system.

The new fee is expected to raise about $5.6 million annually, with

$1.1 million to be used for cleaning, operating lift stations and

videotaping sewers.

The remaining $4.5 million is earmarked for capitol improvements

including pump-station replacements and slip lining.

But what about the sewage that is pumped into our oceans? That

practice came under scrutiny this year as many consider it could be the

cause of many water quality issues.

Huntington Beach waits to see if the 243-million gallons of sewage the

Orange County Sanitation District pumps into the ocean each day is pushed

backed to its coastline.

The district is conducting a $5.1-million study to determine if that

is in fact happening.

Results should be ready by the spring, said Councilman and former

sanitation district board member Peter Green.

The City Council voted in September to oppose the sanitation

district’s waiver from federal law that allows it to pump partially

treated sewage 4.5 miles off the city’s shoreline. City officials have

joined many in questioning whether the plume of waste water is

responsible for the high levels of bacteria in the water off Huntington

Beach and the numerous beach closures in 1999.

Back in November 2000, UCI scientist Stanley Grant theorized that a

combination of tides, underwater waves and AES power plant’s ocean

water-fed cooling system is responsible for the sewage drawn back to the

shore.

Studies are ongoing that inspect every inch of pipeline and any other

possible contributing factor one can come up with.

Ed Blackford’s name is familiar, even if his face isn’t.

By Danette Goulet

Ed Blackford has a wife. They have two children.

The family lives in a condo in the north end of Huntington -- not in

the monstrous steel structure with twin smoke stacks that sits on the

corner of Newland Street and Pacific Coast Highway.

But the 54-year-old chemical engineer’s name -- Blackford -- has

become synonymous to many with AES Corp.

It is Blackford who fought a seemingly endless battle to bring two

additional power generators on-line all year. It is Blackford who filed a

lawsuit last month against the city demanding that a city-sponsored March

ballot measure be tossed out and rewritten.

As the mouthpiece and operator of the power plant that looms over Surf

City’s pride and joy, its beaches, he is disliked by many who don’t even

know what he looks like.

He and AES have taken the place, in the minds of many residents, of

Bolca Chica developers Lucy Dunn and the Koll Co. as public enemy No. 1.

That negative public image, Blackford contends, starts with the city,

which opposed the sale of the plant by Southern California Edison to AES

from the beginning.

“The city opposed the sale and had hoped the plant would go away,” he

said. “That set the adversarial stage and been the basis of talks and

conversations since.”

Councilwoman Shirley Dettloff agreed that the relationship, which

started with such promise, had indeed taken a combative turn.

“I don’t know him that well,” she began. “He is someone that of course

we had great expectations when AES came into the community and we had

hoped Ed would bring a new leadership and we could expect from him that

we’d see a progressive company, and I’m afraid through various

disappointments we’ve not.”

Despite serving on the board of the Boys and Girls Club with him,

Dettloff said, she really only knows him through his dealings with the

city.

“There were, if not promises made, then strong indications that they

would make improvements to the plant and be a good neighbor and we’ve had

more of an adversarial relationship,” she concluded.

Although he is the spokesman for the plant, Blackford is an engineer

and not a public relations man, which some have said is what AES needs

and what made Edison so likable.

Earlier this year Councilman Ralph Bauer lauded Southern California

Edison as having a top notch PR department, unlike AES.

“Here comes AES, headquartered in Virginia, a very large international

company,” Bauer said in August of the difference between the two

companies. “They were not as well known to us and when you come to

small-town USA., we expect some pleasantness and the neighborly things.

They still don’t have a [public relations] person. A large corporation

comes to a small town and doesn’t know what being a good neighbor is all

about.”

For Blackford, who has been with the company since 1985 and

transferred from Pittsburgh four years ago, the attention and public

spotlight are a new twist to his job.

“If I talked to someone from a newspaper once a year back in my Beaver

Valley days, that was a lot. We were just an industrial complex, not

where a town had grown up around the site. This has been a learning

experience,” he said.

Blackford came out to California when the Huntington Beach, Alamitos

and Redondo Beach plants were taken over by AES. Having grown up in

coastal New Jersey, he said he was happy to be near the ocean again --

and in such a temperate climate -- so he decided to stay.

He loves living in Huntington Beach, he said, and is getting used to

the notoriety.

For him, he simply is doing his job.

As for this year’s controversy, it was the company’s intention all

along to expand the Huntington plant, he said. Having been designed as a

much larger facility, the plan was to replace the two generators, given

that power is always a precious commodity in the area.

“We always looked at Huntington Beach as a site for expansion,” he

said. “This area of northern Orange County you can’t get a lot of power

in and power out.”

And with the hot summer in 2000 and the electrical shortages that

ensued, the power crunch was on and the demand for the new equipment

suddenly at a premium. So, Blackford began plans to revamp the old

generators and bring them back on-line.

Despite the need for more energy in California, which led to a

high-profile power struggle within the state government, a local power

struggle ensued as Blackford’s plans met with opposition from the city

and neighbors.

Discussions with the California Energy Commission dragged over about

five months, with residents and city officials remaining intensely

concerned about possible pollution from the plant.

And with no public relations firm in charge, Blackford continued to

field all questions. Despite this enormity of the AES Corp. it always

appeared a one-man show.

In May, the commission finally approved a 10-year operating permit for

the two units that hinged on a five-year review of environmental concerns

and included a condition that limited sale of the electricity to

California.

With that victory in his pocket, Blackford returned to the commission

a month later asking that the sales condition be reconsidered. And

despite another fight from the city, Blackford and AES won again.

Things quieted for a while and the talks began about beautifying the

property -- talks that Dettloff and her fellow council members hoped for.

But the peace didn’t last for long.

In October, the City Council approved a March ballot measure that

would demand AES pay a 5% utility tax on the gas it uses to produce

electricity.

In November, Blackford filed a lawsuit against the city, alleging that

ballot measure was based on inaccurate information, was misleading and

contains slanderous and libelous attacks on the company.

This third battle of the year is not over yet. An Orange County

Superior Court Judge ruled that much of the language in favor of the

measure be thrown out, but an appeal is pending.

* DANETTE GOULET is the assistant city editor. She can be reached at

(714) 965-7170 or by e-mail at o7 [email protected] .