Why Is The Proposed Village Entrance Project Site Physically and Fiscally Risky?

By Roger E. Bütow

For those who’ve spent the time and have a moderate level of analytical comprehension, reading the 2006 Geotechnical Report section (Appendix D) for the Laguna Beach Village Entrance Project (VEP) Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is a treasure trove of information.

There’s a strong case to be made that this is the wrong location, partially sustained by Appendix D itself. What looks safe due to the existing concrete parking lot will rapidly turn into quicksand under extreme earthquake conditions. And this South OC region is long overdue for a major seismic event that is embedded in that report and its references.

One main feature that the geotech admits to is that the soil in this flood plain region is very porous, “sandy loam,” the very type of saturated ground that is prone to dramatic liquefaction effects. This also adds merit to the proposal that would prohibit new buildings over 2 stories in the downtown business district. Ever.

Liquefaction is similar to a waterbed under active use or perhaps jiggling jell-o. The rigid parking structure planned will straddle that muddy, watery, wiggling plain and reach down into the aquifer itself.

Japan, to their misfortune, has very large swaths of land containing soil composition and near-surface aquifer conditions conducive to the dramatic effects of liquefaction.

Once the predicted, anticipated 7.0+ magnitude hits, liquefaction will magnify and intensify the effects, exacerbate the adverse impacts, plus prolong the duration of the earthquake. The soil will closely resemble quicksand:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction

I previously pointed out the potentially expensive soil and contaminated aquifer remediation of the site in an earlier Laguna Beach Patch column:

http://lagunabeach.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/village-entrance-project-unresolved-water-quality-and-soil-remediation-issues-from-12-years-ago-linger 

The geotech report for this FEIR confirms that a lot of fill material was imported and of unknown origin, which adds to the pollutant potential because no one knows where it came from or scientifically analyzed it. There was little if any jurisdictional or regulatory oversight when this site was developed as it sits today. 

Remember back on April 23, 2012? If you lived in or were visiting San Juan Capistrano that day, you sure do. The San Joaquin Hills Blind Fault (SJHBF) was the culprit, but that estimated 3.9 event wasn't even close in magnitude to the Big One predicted by experts.

The SJHBF runs right where the 73 Toll Road runs, from Costa Mesa to San Juan Capo. UCI scientists and an expert panel discovered and discussed it at length back in the late 1990s. 

I’m assuming that the FEIR for that gargantuan 73 Toll Road project made their decision about positioning it without knowing of this potential ground zero calamity. Beyond the exorbitant rates, might make you think twice about using it next time, huh? Monolithic structures such as that experience monumental, cataclysmic damage when they fail.

In 1998, UCI experts predicted an event between 6.8 and 7.3 (or greater) on the Moment Magnitude Scale (MMS) within 25 years. 15 years later that Big One clock is ticking towards reality, it’s not IF, it’s WHEN.

The FEIR geotechnical consultants for the VEP chose to cannibalize, to reference, to rely upon the USGS modeling which predicted only a 6.6. Here’s the link to the UCI study by Dr. Lisa Grant and graduate student Daniel Raymond, within it are other pertinent links:

http://www.scec.org/education/education/internships/00/raymond/raymondreport.pdf

The 1998 report and predictive modeling was peer reviewed and its conclusions sustained by top scientists from the University of Colorado and Harvard in their white paper:

Progress Report submitted to Southern California Earthquake Center   Date: February 23, 1998

The follow-up as proposed by the consortium was completed and eventually published by Dr. Grant in 2002:

http://activetectonics.asu.edu/bidart/bibliography/bssa/bssa_92_2/grant_ballenger_runnerstrom_2002.pdf

Here’s a few extracts that should alarm anyone:

“The historic earthquake record begins in 1769 with a strong temblor described by explorer Gaspar de Portola (Townley and Allen, 1939) from his inland location in present day north Orange County, central Los Angeles basin.  The main shock was violent, and at least two dozen earthquakes followed it over the course of several days. The date, location, and apparently large magnitude (>7.0) of the 28 July 1769 earthquake make it a good candidate for the most recent earthquake that raised the San Joaquin Hills coastline (Grant et al., 1999).

There was another earthquake estimated to be of similar 7+ in magnitude back in 1855, and that one had tsunami implications:

“ The 1855 earthquake generated strong shaking in Los Angeles and San Gabriel and was felt distinctly as far north as Santa Barbara and east to San Bernardino (Townley and Allen, 1939).

“Two unusually heavy sea waves” were reported from Dana Point immediately following the last shock (Barrows, 1974,p. 62). The sea waves suggest that a modest tsunami was generated by local disturbance of the sea floor. “

From the April 23, 2012 online edition of the LA Times:

“Unlike the famous San Andreas fault, which is visible from the ground, the fracture in the Earth’s crust that makes up the San Joaquin Hills thrust fault is entirely underground. Because there is no visible break in the Earth’s crust at ground level, the fault is perhaps more dangerous because it’s unclear exactly where the boundaries of the fault are.

Scientists weren’t aware of the blind thrust faults that triggered the 6.7 Northridge quake in 1994, nor the 6.0 Whittier Narrows quake in 1987 until after the ground began shaking.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/04/orange-county-quake-san-joaquin-hills-thrust-fault.html

FYI:

A 6.1 to 6.9 is considered strong and has destructive power up to a 60+-mile radius. A 7.0 is major with attendant severe damage up to a 100+-mile radius. These scales are on a “base-10 logarithmic scale.”  Every unit is 10 times bigger than the previous one.

A 6.9 centered in Laguna Canyon on the SJHBF would be 1,000 times as strong in shaky amplitude as last year’s San Juan Capistrano event. It would also release 31,000 times as much energy as measured in “joules.”

What our Geotech Report doesn’t address is a kind of “perfect storm” potential, a worse case scenario which it should in all good conscience have included: A 6.9 magnitude occurring either during an El Niño winter-spring period, or within a few months afterwards, would mean that the aquifer would be fully charged (filled) and jeopardize the parking structure’s integrity. Not to mention most of downtown flood plain (business district) due to age and lower construction requirements back when originally built.

The type of surrounding soil composition in the VEP flood plain would amplify the effects, magnify and intensify via liquefaction. Everyone knows that there’s usually a tapering off, a series of aftershocks, subsequent albeit less in severity. So that needs factoring into the damage algorithm.

Top of the World is in fact one of the highest peaks formed by that thrust, so this earthquake won’t just affect the lowlands sitting in the floodplain but city wide. A lot of those residences on steep slopes, on stilts, will become ocean front property.

And one has to wonder if unlike the two Bluebird Canyon slides, will FEMA scrutinized what’s self-inflicted and avoidable, reimburse us for building our parking structure in such an obviously adverse, potentially negligent place? Who will bail us out?

It might not just be cars and/or people buried, municipal services equipment access disrupted due to their proximity, but we could get buried in negligence and personal injury lawsuits with ambulance chasers and national media camped out on the lawn at City Hall.

These are catastrophic and fiscally imprudent factors that add merit to many of the screaming complaints we’re hearing from usually disparate community demographic leadership. “Put it to a vote!” is the basic message, why can’t City Hall hear that cry?

The residents, and especially the taxpayers, deserve better from their government.  Circumventing, finding a work-around to placing it before the electorate by the method our City Council invoked is unacceptable. It deprives the public of a direct voice in the matter.

The French statesman, Georges Clemenceau said: “War is too important to be left to the generals.” Well, this is too important for 3 non-engineers who each only received what, 20% of the total votes cast in each election?

And it’s borderline taxation without representation because it didn’t need the mandated 2/3 majority that other such big budget items normally require nor via referendum process.

Full disclosure regarding the VEP shortcomings due to its location deserves 100% transparency. I profoundly believe that once the site’s multiple downsides are revealed publicly and dialogued, once the possible cost over-runs and damage that could accrue realistically estimated, that it will ultimately be rejected by citizens.

If this were a residential real estate purchase, ownership changing hands, due diligence would have revealed that “information of material fact, conditions that are known hazards and could affect the value” must be divulged.

This VEP incarnation as it now stands, is in my opinion susceptible to not standing: As in not withstanding the significant earthquake that national seismic experts assert will occur in the next 10-15 years. My usage of the word “buried” earlier is apropos, because we could end up with a pile of rubble, dead and injured bodies, plus community services disrupted indefinitely.

Keep in mind that an alternative at the same VEP site once considered, a lower profile 2 story parking structure wouldn't go as deep into the sand bed and/or aquifer, nor would it gyrate as radically in the major forecasted event. Unfortunately, that plan wouldn't "net" the additional 200 spaces the Council feels necessary, but it would lessen the loss of lives and property.

It would have a much greater chance of staying up during a good shake plus reduce the undisclosed and unknowable contaminated soil & water remediation costs I’ve discussed earlier. 

This is why Councilwoman Iseman's plan of a dual tier ACT V makes much more sense: It's relatively out of view, out of the aquifer and flood plain, low profile, and less prone to seismic collapse.

It could be done cheaper, in stages, with minimal traffic and parking disruption. And probably give us the same parking space net without hazards or potentially enormous cost over-runs. It’s less risky physically and financially.

Hopefully this brief education I’ve provided will wake the general public up. We’re not on the verge of actualizing a long held dream, and that’s not a viable, idyllic entrance vision: It’s a nightmare.

The 3 Council members that voted for this site and 3-level structure must be wagering that the 7+ MMS event won’t happen in their lifetime. I guess that’s easy when you’re using other people’s money to gamble with.

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.