Pictured: Altadena Heritage president Mark Goldschmidt took this picture of the retaining wall in Rubio Creek earlier this week.
Over a month after the county stopped construction of a homeowner's unauthorized wall that partially blocked Rubio Canyon Creek, the wall is still up and the rainy season has already begun.
Janet Fahey, president of the Rubio Canon Land and Water Association, is still very concerned that the wall will divert the stream during heavy rains right into the water association's pipes, possibly damaging them and cutting off drinking water to a substantial segment of Altadena.
"It's been a month, but [the wall] is still sitting there," Fahey said. "Time is of the essence now."
Fahey wrote a letter to the public saying "it is critical that the retaining wall be removed as soon as possible because of the potential hazard it creates for facilities owned by Rubio Canyon Land and Water Association. Specifically, Rubio has a large main line that delivers water from its treatment plant into the system. In the event of a significant storm, the retaining wall will act to divert water away from the Birdis’ property onto Rubio’s property, and will endanger the integrity of Rubio’s water line.
"Moreover, Rubio could experience flooding along a driveway that serves as the only access to Rubio’s treatment plant and other production facilities. This constitutes a significant threat to the health and welfare of hundreds of Altadena homes served by Rubio."
The streambed is on property owned by Dr. and Mrs. Moninder Birdi, who live in the house to the west of the stream. It appears the wall was constructed to protect another building on the property, an octagonal structure erected when the property was a Boy Scout camp. According to 30-year resident Heinz Ellersieck, who lives across the stream to the east, the structure is frequently flooded during years of heavy rains. Due to its proximity to the streambed, that building would not be permitted today.
In her letter, Fahey states that the construction project "was performed without benefit of any permits issued by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works or by County Regional Planning, or the California Department of Fish and Game, US Army Corps of Engineers, or Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance was not performed."
Of particular concern to local environmentalists is not only the diversion of stream water, but that it appears that native oak trees and willows were cut down in the process of construction, and a small "Bobcat" earthmover dredged sand and fill from the streamed to backfill behind the wall. Unauthorized removal of a protected oak tree can result in a $20,000 fine.
Unfortunately, it seems that removing an unauthorized wall is not as easy as building one.
Marty Moreno, principal engineer with the Los Angeles County Dept. of Building and Safety, said that the Birdis have engaged an engineer to provide a structural analysis of the wall and hyrological analysis of the creek. A mitigation plan will have to be submitted and approved before any removal or reconstruction can begin.
Said Rubio Canyon's Fahey: "We can't tear it down ourselves, we're on private property. My understanding is that he built this without any permits -- but apparently to remove it, he needs to get a permit from (state) Fish and Game."
Mark Goldschmidt, president of Altadena Heritage, has called the construction of the wall a "desecration" of Rubio Canyon. "It sounds like they are just going to engineer and 'fix' the wall," Goldschmidt said in an email to Altadenablog. "That is not okay, they need to be held accountable for their actions, for cutting down oak trees, and for ruining the riparian area aesthetically, wrecking its area aesthetically, and for endangering other properties and infrastructure."
Paul Novak, planning deputy to Supv. Michael D. Antonovich, said that the supervisor's office has referred the matter to a variety of agencies, including fish and game, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the regional water quality control board.
Despite the lack of perceived action up until now, Novak said that the county is taking this very seriously. "Building and Safety held an office conference with the [Birdis] and the District Attorney ... you literally get summoned into a meeting with the District Attorney. The reality of it is that of a thousand code enforcement cases, [only] one or two get a DA conference."
Novak said that county building and safety doesn't have the authority to order the removal of the wall -- that would be Fish and Game or the Corps of Engineers. A message to Fish and Game was not returned by time of publication.
It all may well wind up in court. In addition to the district attorney's interest, Novak said that County Counsel was considering civil prosecution, and Fahey said that that water company's attorney was also considering action.
