Village Entrance Project: Better Answers to the City's Questions

By Roger Bütow

“Dirty deeds and they’re done dirt cheap!” -- AC/DC

The Village Entrance Project (VEP) won’t end up being cheap, but City Hall thinks that it’s a bargain nonetheless. The dirty deeds part is very true. There’s lots of contaminated soil and polluted water, plus tainted, biased, damage control rhetoric coming from City Hall, usual suspect, shills.

Now gently stir in the stain of a revenue bond that doesn’t require a Laguna Beach City Council 2/3 majority (four out of five LBCC members in our case) or a 2/3 referendum mandate vote by the registered voters either.

Hey, love means never having to say you’re sorry, or even that you might be wrong. Even if the disastrous fiscal conclusion to our traffic and parking problems constitutes Laguna’s very own Götterdämmerung, correct?

Speaking of which, Councilmember Elizabeth Pearson correctly pointed out on KX FM 93.5’s Clashing Heads radio show that vehicular circulation and parking are our #1 priorities -- except she left out that they’re a city-wide conundrum, most complaints are in our residential neighborhoods, and secondary arteries bordering commercial districts and are not specific to Forest and Broadway.

The old “bait and switch” is still alive down at City Hall, and the jury is still out regarding whether Pearson is Brünnhilde, the Valkyrie daughter of the Aryan god Wotan, divinely sent down to rescue us from ourselves (i.e., not grant us in Her Royal beneficence the dignity of voting).

Once those three city council members (Pearson, Bob Whalen, and Steve Dicterow) who wanted to circumvent the people’s input realized they didn’t have a fourth, they found their untouchable work-around. As for the con artists, the Big 3’s stalking horses who are informing us that a referendum would tie things up, that this would politicize the issue – well, what exactly have they done by their refusal to LET LAGUNA VOTE? Yeah, don’t confuse a demographic that is one of the most highly educated in OC with facts, just speculation and conjecture.

Let’s study the chemistry and increasingly delaminated, deconstructed, constant party line that City Hall pushes, keeping in mind the cover-your-butt mode down there, now that our residents have woken up to a 4.5 acre boondoggle. Like the VEP itself, the more you drill down, the worse the intentional deceit and misinformation appears.

“The final environmental impact report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the final EIR reflects the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis.”

I submit to Patch readers that the final VEP environmental impact report was incomplete and definitely not objective, and that the City Council did not exercise independent judgment.

Speaking of juries, hopefully the FBI and OC District Attorney investigation of Orange County political corruption will come to Mr. Roger’s neighborhood. There’s a case to be made that we have the best City Council that downtown money can buy, and this fiasco lends credence and feeds those suspicions. Many believe that these downtown interests are simply calling in markers due to past campaign contributions, the money that put these people in power.

Only by placing the VEP on the ballot can City Hall remove the smell of mendacity and covert manipulation.

The special July 25 press release, in which City Manager John Pietig poses and then answers his own questions, was obviously triggered by the increasing tide of outrage. The questions are ones that should have already been asked and answered in workup studies.

I’m arguably the one who pointed out deficiencies that led to the first three of those five questions here in Patch, who pushed three of his panic buttons, so this column will try to provide locals with the debunking of his responses.

I’m assuming they’re down in their bunkers with their helmets on, and carefully scrutinizing the hallways for the barbarians with pitchforks. Perhaps awaiting the acrid smell of tar and flurry of feathers? Maybe practicing the asking and answering of their own generated interrogatories?

Who says only our homeless population both asks and answers their own questions?

Q: Is there contaminated soil at the Village Entrance site and, if so, how would this affect the project?

The City says:

"As with virtually any property that has been used for various non-residential purposes over time, there is a possibility that some remediation may be necessary at the Village Entrance site.  As part of the design process and consistent with the certified Final Environmental Impact Report, the City has retained technical experts to conduct a thorough study of soil conditions at the project site.  The consultants will perform a broad-spectrum test for volatiles, organics and heavy metals.  Results from the analysis should be available in approximately six weeks and will be made available to the public.  In the event any contaminants are identified, the appropriate remediation actions would be completed using available funding from the $6.7 million contingency included in the project budget."

My response:

First, don’t you love the phrase “… there is a possibility” as a guiding light of logic for such a monolithic and expensive project? Regardless, in order to properly assess remediation dynamics and expenses, thorough environmental site assessment and comprehensive geotechnical investigations should have been performed prior to overall cost projection budgeting. These (as you’ll be reading in my remediation column), can be very large, big ticket items -- not to mention have complex, disruptive logistics. As a consultant, I don’t just provide best, but also worst-case scenarios. Downtown, they just drink their own happy face Kool-Aid.

Second, I’ve analyzed the data, checked around with my soil resource peers, and they all agree: The City would need to grid off the entire prospective site, probably do test borings in at a minimum 70 sites (about 15 per acre). They’d need to take core samples at about 3-5 feet down, subsequently (in the same hole) 10 feet down, and about 20-30 feet down or so, where the alluvial resides, where they plan to sink the caissons (pilings). This would enable analysts to develop a cross-sectional representation, a kind of remote viewing that facilitates understanding the subterranean contours and constituent placements. In other words, a kind of 3-D version, a professional underground holograph of the site. Contaminants aren’t evenly distributed, might be in clusters and or at different depths, even in different concentrations.

Even this technique is a Cliffs Notes database acquisition. Like Shrödinger’s Cat, we’ll only know everything once they’ve peeled back the impervious surfaces (opened the box), and started digging that physical and fiscal hole.

Third, no way that this can be done in six weeks on a professional level. The soil samples must be taken to labs, the information analyzed, collated and correlated. More like a six-month task to be accurate, so a six-week turnaround means we’ll get only a Cliffs Notes version of a Cliffs Notes version of what’s really down there, plus what types and where the pollutants might be.

Fourth, on the Clashing Heads radio show, Elizabeth Pearson stated that 15 percent -- i.e., the $6.7 million -- was an ample metric for cost overruns (contingencies) and that it was actually conservative. This is a blatant fallacy. As a 41-year builder, I can assure you it is a standard business practice that construction of a single level residence on flat ground would have a 20 percent contingency fund. Local contractors, because of the difficulties (and surprises while in progress) of building in Laguna Beach use the 25 percent metric. Obviously, this is a very large, complex commercial and public works project, thus 25 percent is actually conservative.

So City Hall should have set earmarked more like $11-12 million for contingencies. I have some additional research that leads me to believe whomever “guesstimated” -- and make no mistake, they’re guessing down there in the basement -- $50 million and up would have been a more realistic, conservative budget number.

Q: How will the groundwater level affect the design of the village entrance parking structure?

The City says:

"Based on the current design concept, the bottom level of the Village Entrance parking structure, while below existing grade, remains above the groundwater level.  With that said, the potential for liquefaction is expected.  The geotechnical study will examine multiple foundation system alternatives to identify the appropriate system to support the parking structure from bedrock through the existing soils.  The project budget anticipates funding for a deep foundation system."

My response:

This is ridiculous. Since they don’t really know or understand sub-surface conditions until AFTER they start digging, how can they allege they’ve provided for that contingency? The assertion by Pietig and Pearson that this site shares the same general characteristics as all of downtown development, of the general area, is false. How many massive four-level (one of which is subterranean) buildings exist now or are planned? And how many are planned at the underground water table and aquifer choke point, where this project is planned? And with sandy loam soil, groundwater incursions go down and sideways somewhat, but can also daylight (geyser) and flow back up when hitting more impervious surfaces. Since just about ANYTHING is more impervious than sandy loam, no one can absolutely predict what the cumulative drainages and flow vector impacts will be.

And puh-lease -- saying that everyone will literally be in the same boat downtown when a 7.0+ seismic event hits is sophistry, a straw man. The other buildings are already in position, they aren’t as tall and insinuated deeply or are located in the specific area -- the watery conveyor belt and path that is Laguna Canyon Creek drainage. The groundwater capacity is on average about 40-50 acre feet total, according to the City. That doesn’t include the slopes that also contain water. Hydrologists usually add about another 25-50 percent for the retention in adjacent slopes and arroyos, so the watershed and basin could have a 70+acre foot capacity if one includes slope drainage incursions and other discharges.

Slope and terrain drainage (migration) is very slow, on average three feet per day, thus it can take as much as a year after an El Niño for residuals to migrate. This helps explain why ephemeral streams can look perennial. Apparently, along with a lot more, no one studied that total watershed drainage pattern or its potentiality.

During an El Niño, it’ll also retain and transport significantly more due to the type of soil (sandy loam). That’s about 22 million gallons of constant push (hydrostatic pressure) in rainy times (maybe 15 in non-rainy cycles), not to mention sheer volume passing just beneath the surface. Keep in mind that the sub-surface is not uniformly square or a rectangular box. Mother Nature doesn’t use neatly drawn straight lines -- she’s amorphic, and she’s actually pretty curvy.

Hydrostatic pressure can deform rigid structures, not to mention create new subterranean stream flow patterns. Once insinuated, the lower level slab and grade beams necessary will deflect and direct those increased flows towards the flood control channel.

Considering that channel is 60 years old, not built to today’s standards and hence a candidate for replacement soon, it might not even take a 7.0 to collapse the channel. One needs to consider cumulative potentials, not in isolation. The California Environmental Quality Act mandates that cumulative impacts of significance be addressed: Unless you’re the City of Laguna Beach, oh, nothing ever goes wrong here. And if the seismic event happens during a significant rainy event, the surrounding soil thoroughly and deeply saturated, then the liquefaction would cause much worse damage. And gee golly, did anyone ask Orange County Flood Control if the channel is a prime candidate for rehab, and when that might be scheduled?

Q: Did the groundwater level in the area impact the below-grade parking at the Community and Susi Q Center on Third Avenue?

The City says:

"With respect to the Community and Susi Q Center, groundwater was encountered at depths of nine-and-a-half to 17 feet below the surface.  To remain above the groundwater, a design was selected that provided only one level of below-grade parking, as a potential second level of below-grade parking would have breached the groundwater depth and added significantly to the project cost.  Additionally, based on the geotechnical analysis, it was determined that liquefaction in the event of a strong earthquake was possible. For these reasons, 36-inch caisson shafts were drilled into competent bedrock to support the building foundations."

My response:

Elizabeth Pearson on the Clashing Heads show asserted that this Center is on par, identical to the Village Entrance Project.

Balderdash. The soil type is different and drains more easily due to the sloping terrain, it doesn’t straddle the aquifer but only has minimal subterranean groundwater flows from the hill above, it’s higher in elevation (hence not in the seawater/freshwater mixing zone as the VEP), well above mean sea level, etc., so it’s not the same groundwater configuration, either in volume or drainage type/dynamic.

Hello? Earth to City Hall? A creek runs through the VEP. Apples and oranges, one intentionally deceitful statement after another, who do these people think they’re kidding? They’re pumping out erroneous information to a highly educated demographic. These aren’t even “kissing cousin” projects.

Philosopher George Santayana defined fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."

Winston Churchill said that: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

City Hall became fanatical and refuses to admit that their VEP plan is what they call my challenges: Speculation and conjecture. Who’s right? Here’s a hint: I’m not the one trying to convince my town that blowing $50 million on an obsession, an experimental concept is a good investment. I’m just noting its procedural and planning deficiencies, plus possible false assumptions.

Whilst our City gambles and “doubles down,” tries to spin this lame excuse of a project, anticipates yet loves writing blank checks and IOUs we’ll have to pay, refuses to reconsider and change their dull, anchor-biased minds … if this were a play, it would be considered a whimsical farce.

Former and current planning commissioners, nepotistic recipients of post-election political patronage, anointed by the City Council, along with the three members who voted for this, claim that “We, the People” (silly ducks), just don’t understand the revenue bond process.

Well, we get it alrighty, which explains the outrage, the clamor they’re trying to dismiss. We don’t matter, but you, our fearless leaders do. Oh, we will matter at election time, but by then it’ll be too late. And wasn’t that the idea in the first place?

Roger E. Bütow is a 41-year resident and local builder. He’s also a land use and regulatory compliance advisor. He can be reached at rogerbutow@me.com or at his home office: 949.715.1912. 

Previous Roger Bütow columns on the Village Entrance Project:

• Laguna Beach VEP: Why FEMA Won't Bail Us Out This Time

• Village Entrance Project: Unresolved Water Quality and Soil Remediation Issues From 12 Years Ago Linger

• Why is the Proposed Village Entrance Project Site Physically and Fiscally Risky? 

Laguna Beach Patch welcomes all opinions regarding the Village Entrance Project and any other topic.