Grand Jury decides on Leucadia Flooding, Recommends Money Grab

10News.com story: Grand Jury Critical Of Leucadia Storm Drainage

"The grand jury cited an engineering report that overhauling the drain system could cost as much as $42 million. The city's annual is of less than $60 million. Individual projects would range from $1 million to about $4.5 million, according to the report."

Is flooding a problem in Leucadia? Yes.

Will it take $42 million to fix? No.

Total scam. Be aware.

Previous post: Floodgate-gate

Flooding, Streetscape and Roundabouts

Here are some clips from the city's draft budget. This is from the unfunded/underfunded section of the budget. Its nice to see that this budget cycle they included this information, its very interesting. (click to enlarge)


Leucadia still has a drainage problem and the city says it will cost $90 million to fix it (remember that number was developed in the rampage toward redevelopment). It means Leucadia still has an official flooding problem and that the city doesn't have the money to fix it.

Lovers of Leucadia and streetscape activisits, take a close look at the first project on the underfunded streets projects. How much funding over the next 6 years is being added for the second phase? How much money is needed? Take a look (click to enlarge). The last column is total cost, and the second to last is how much more money is needed.


No money in the next 6 years for the roundabout at Hygeia either.

Floodgate-gate

Gary Murphy has passed the torch after 16 years of advocating, speaking out, working with staff and council, and conceiving and implementing plans. Now that he's figured out how downtown Leucadia's sources of blight all lead back to one point, it will take a different personality to get the torch across the finish line. He says Leucadia's flooding and political intrigue are all tied to one geographic spot. That spot is the gate valve underneath a manhole cover across from RCP Block and Brick.


Gary says that on December 21, 2010 the gate valve was closed during that day's storm. There was no flooding of Leucadia 101. Once the gate was opened, the Leucadia 101 corridor flooded. So it looks like the 101 corridor's flooding is determined by a human decision to open or close the gate. According to Gary the original design for the nuisance drain didn't include this gate valve, because it wasn't conceived to drain the area upstream of the gate valve. There was also a human decision to draw all that extra water north, rather than south toward Cottonwood Creek.

So, if Gary is right that the person in charge of the gate valve is in charge of Leucadia' flooding it has huge ramifications. Remember that the redevelopment district was all predicated on Leucadia having a serious flooding problem. Blight. Who has been in charge of the gate valve? It all lands on Phil Cotton.

According to Gary, the city is also pumping water over the bluff at Beacons during storms using a water discharge permit that requires a situation to be declared an emergency by the Fire Chief. It is only legal to pump if there is an emergency. How does that jive if the city is making the 101 flooding happen?

Are we to believe that Gary is off-base and he is full of crazy talk? That is how a lot of citizens have been painted and like with other citizens, it was only later discovered that they were saying the exact same thing the city's own high-paid consultants were telling the city. Did we pay millions for crazy talk reports?

Here is an excerpt from a document which was not widely distributed, which coincides with Gary's conclusions. Gary had a "bingo" moment when he read the city's hydrologist's statement that said:

Although the orifice plates enhance the performance of the existing storm drain system, runoff still ponds in the sump areas during storms, resulting in potential inundation of streets and other properties. The City addressed the extent of flooding on Vulcan Avenue near Union Street with the installation of a sluice gate/orifice plate in the storm drain system. The orifice plate serves to restrict flows from crossing under the NCTD right-of-way during the storm event, and the sluice gate can be opened to expedite drainage of the stored water after the storm when the downstream facility is no longer overtaxed.

The city's hydrologists/engineers expect the gate valve to be left closed until after the storm passes.


Photo of the downstream facility being overtaxed. Gary says the city's very directed practice has been to leave the gate open during storms.

Gary leaves us with a number of questions:
Why hasn't the city been following the advice of its own high-paid experts, and thus flooding the 101 corridor?
Who knew about this practice and how far up did the approval go?
What does/did the city have to gain by flooding Leucadia 101?

See Also: Phil Cotton has authority to fix Leucadia's flooding.

I'm sending the city manager an email so he can give his side to all this. Given that we can't find a response to the Coast News editorial and city management's recent history of obfuscation, delay, and ducking questions we might have to wait a while. We'll keep track of how long it takes.

Coast News Digs

Exclusively From The Coast News,

In 2004 and 2006, Ross watched as the water bubbled up from the newly installed valve and rushed into her home. She estimates the damage from both floods at $100,000. “I’ve talked to city staff on several occasions, I’ve presented drainage questions to the council in private and public,” she said, but to no avail. “I’ve gotten nothing, no tangible response.”

“There really isn’t any need to pump over the bluff at Beacon’s Beach,” Calver maintained. “It feels like their Leucadia has always been treated second best.” However he said he holds out hope that the problems will be fixed. “I know our engineers can figure this out. They can fix this issue once and for all.” A call to the city’s engineering department was not returned

Read more: Coast News Group - No end in sight for Leucadia flooding

The interim city manager was absent for three weeks over two months in November and December despite the fact that his contract does not allow for paid vacation time.

Read more: Coast News Group - Interim city manager takes paid vacation despite contract terms

Gate Valve to Flooding

Leucadia's flooding now a city management decision?

Tim Calver and Leslie Ross

To the city of Encinitas Engineering Department, Public Works Department and any other citizens concerned about dirty water going in to the ocean:

On Dec. 21, Leucadia was hit with a storm that dropped more than an inch of rain. Although the system in the Leucadia area handled the storm all though the morning hours, at about 1:50 p.m. the city decided to open a gate valve on Vulcan by RCP to release water from the east side of the railroad tracks south of Union Street. In doing so, it overtaxed the system downstream in Leucadia and caused flooding in the sump areas west of 101, coming close to flooding and endangering more than 20 homes.

The city procedure is to pump this dirty, raw, unfiltered water over the bluff to Beacon’s Beach, a local surf spot. This brings up two questions: does Leucadia have a drainage problem or is it Old Encinitas’ problem? And do we really have to pump over the bluff to solve this problem?

In 1986, five communities were incorporated as a city to become Encinitas. I have always considered it a single city. However, in dealing with the city on drainage issues, the city has consistently treated this as a community issue, insisting that the excess water is Leucadia’s problem. E-mails from the city have stated that, by law, water cannot be diverted from one area (community) to another.

In 2003 and 2004, the city paid more than $1 million for an extensive hydrology study intended to improve the drainage in Leucadia. It clearly states in that report, and is known among city employees in the Engineering and Public Works departments, that a gate valve installed to store water in the 1,300-foot channel built at Union and Vulcan would only “be opened to expedite drainage of the stored water after the storm when the downstream facility is no longer taxed.” (Rick Engineering Co.)

And yet, the city opened the valve during a storm, the system became overtaxed, the Leucadia Park and alley flooded and the city sent out employees and pumped dirty water over the bluff. Does this need to happen? We don’t believe so … the water at Union and Vulcan can be sent south instead of being diverted north to Leucadia. And there are other solutions that have been brought to the attention to the city.

In 2004, residents suggested to install a 3-foot pipe, 5,500 feet long, to send Old Encinitas’ water to Cottonwood Creek Park. This idea was shot down by the engineering department because it was stated that it could overtax the park. In 2006, a proposed new development for 35 homes and an office building in Quail Gardens was given the go-ahead and a 96-foot diameter pipe, 1,220 feet long and additional 86 inches in diameter, 8,400 feet long was installed. (The Coast News, February 2006).

A structure already exists under Leucadia Pizzeria to connect Vulcan’s water trench/pipe to Cottonwood Creek Park to Moonlight beach, yet this system has never been utilized and it would not take many funds to allow this particular piece to function along with adding infiltration to send cleaner water out to the ocean. This system would also prevent Old Encinitas’ water from flooding Leucadia.

If Old Encinitas’ water problem is fixed and solutions are found that cost in the neighborhood of $1 million, Leucadia would no longer flood, the 101 would be far safer to drive, houses could avoid flooding and dirty water would no longer be sent over the bluff at Beacon’s Beach.

Our City Manager, Phil Cotton, and engineers have the knowledge and ability to fix this problem once and for all. I’m hoping they do.

Tim Calver and Leslie Ross are Encinitas local residents.

Read more: Coast News Group - COMMUNITY COMMENTARY Is Leucadia’s flooding problem really Old Encinitas’ problem

Rain

Is Flooding an Issue?

Not that long ago Leucadia's flooding was the big issue at city hall. We were told that we needed a $30 million dollar storm drain and we would need to turn Leucadia into a redevelopment district to pay for it. City hall stopped talking about our flooding, after Leucadians fought against big brother government control and being declared blighted. Did the problem just go away? Was the problem overhyped as part of the redevelopment campaign? Is the problem being swept under the rug?

We still have a pump at Leucadia Roadside Park.

We still have those really weird no parking zones on Hermes, near Deputy Mayor Dalager's house.Years ago staff told me these signs went in because of the flooding and that they would get pulled out after the drains were installed. It has been years since the drains were installed. Do the drains not work well enough to eliminate the flooding problem on Hermes? Did the city just forget to clean up this loose end?

Is the drainage situation no longer in need of attention?

National Weather Service Predicting Butt Loads of Rain for the Weekend

National Weather Service is calling for 2 to 4 inches of rain by Monday.

What Is a Pasco Fiasco?

guest commentary by Kevin C.

It is Just an Extra $30 Million

The Encinitas City Council continues to bob around when it comes to Leucadia’s flooding. After decades of struggling with periodic flooding, residents along the 101 corridor were provided a $4+ million dollar solution in 2003. From several perspectives the project became a fiasco.

The system was either poorly designed or the City knew it was not up to the task from the outset (or, why are back at this so soon?). First consider that more competent engineering firms were available for the job. Unfortunately, other firms had fewer ties to politically connected insiders. The City’s current story is that the project did have a good design, but “we” didn’t ask for a system that meets our needs.

The first big storm to test the completed system occurred in 2003 and the flooding was terrible. Poor design coupled with poor execution and weak City oversight collided. The contractor did not install the backflow preventer valves and the City failed to ensure they were installed in time. The valves are necessary to ensure that the system does not cause a catastrophe.

Some credit the City Council for rushing in and hiring a new engineer. At great cost* to the City, the new engineer installed orifice plates at all the storm system’s intakes, which slow the entry of water into the system, which is evidence that the system was poorly conceived. Now we have well planned flooding.

Every time a storm hits Leucadia a small army of public servants shows up. Sheriff, public works, and fire departments block off streets and pump water away from the system (much of their work is overtime). Given the original project’s cost, perpetual storm event costs, and newly acquired political and legal liabilities to the City, it is not surprising that some Council Members were quick to put a spin on the failure.

The worst spin was the blame publicly proposed by Council Member Stocks (and others). During a Leucadia Town Council meeting, while Mayor Dalager was present, Stocks told the public that the original system did not live up to its sales pitch because the Coastal Commission had limited the size of the storm drain’s outfall into Batiquitos Lagoon. The Coastal Commission was to blame. But, it wasn’t long before that meeting that Mayor Dalager had told me that the City had gone to closed session regarding the project to discuss how to respond to the blunder. (Was the City liable for all the damage? How did they justify the closed session?) At that time, the Mayor did not mention the Coastal Commission as the problem.

Last December the Council moved to alleviate Leucadia’s flooding, again. At the cost of $290,000 the City hired a new engineering firm to design a $30 million storm drain system, with a bigger pipe. If the Coastal Commission squashed the first project, why should tax-payers spend money designing another that will be denied? The answer must be that the City Council is not worried about the Coastal Commission’s response. This is probably because it turns out that the Coastal Commission did not direct the City to install a small pipe. The response to my public records request provides evidence that the Coastal Commission did not limit the size of the pipe (although they did suggest we microtunnel and have outfalls at the beach, but we ignored that suggestion. We didn’t follow the real recommendations).

It is a brazen act that Council Member Stocks continues to take campaign contributions from the original engineering company’s employees even though they don’t report living in Encinitas. Maybe this helps explain why Stocks remains uninterested in explaining what really went wrong and why there appears to have been a blame-game cover-up.

The Council has failed to educate the public. We are left with a lot of concerns and questions. Why didn’t the City do the job right the first time? Why did the City pay the engineering contractor in full? How did the engineer get the contract in the first place (a touchy subject with some staff)? Why did the Council hire a new engineer? Why not tear out the current small pipe and replace it with a bigger one? How could the repair cost 6 times as much as the original project? Why can the City of San Diego lay storm drain for $1million a mile but it costs Encinitas $25 million a mile? When publicly and privately asked these questions, why won’t the Council answer? I hope they answer them tonight.

The details need to be understood by the public so that we can understand where all this tax money is going. This goal might be difficult to obtain because the Council is not publicly curious about what happened. So, the biggest question of all is, why doesn’t the Council act like they want to get to the bottom of this? Is it because they already know?

We shouldn’t have trusted this Council with the first project and we should not trust them with the newly proposed and overpriced $30 million dollar project, at least not until they are straight with the taxpayers. The first project was not promoted as a short-term fix. It now looks like we should call it “phase I” and the $30 million project “phase II.” Lets hope there is no phase III.

Kevin C.

I by no means wish to present myself as an expert on this blunder. I don’t think there is anyone outside the City that has much of a clue what went on, because the Council has not kept the public in the loop.

Let's Talk Flooding...

Even though the city council is backing away from redevelopment this whole flooding thing is really sticking in my craw. Let's break it down:

The only rational reason for declaring Leucadia blighted is our flooding problem.

Flood = Blight

If it only rains on average 2 weeks of the year, are we blighted a full 52 weeks a year?

Since it was the city that made the flooding worse than ever...well, I just don't know what to say. This is something that nobody wants to touch with a ten foot pole, the fact that our 4.8 million drainage system makes the flooding worse and nobody is holding the contractor accountable. I mean, shucks.

The big Catch-22 at the Monday night meeting was that the council didn't want to talk about flooding, but flooding is the only thing that could possibly make Leucadia blighted. I confess, that made me a little crazy.



30 million bucks is the figure we hear the most often about how much it will take to fix the flooding once and for all (yeah right). By now we've all heard Mr. Caldwell's excellent question, "Why does San Diego pay 1 million per mile when we have to pay 25 million per mile? What is the extra 24 million for?"
No-one has an answer to this. At the Monday night meeting after this question was poised the city council asked the city manager and then the city manager fingered the city engineer lurking in the back and the color in the city engineer's face drained and turned white and he pretty much got the hell out of there.

About the flooding. Man, are we all just being big wusses about this? I think Jim Bond pointed our that maybe the citizens of Leucadia might be happier just trying to deal with it.

Is it cheaper in the long run just to pay a crew to show up when it rains and pump the water away? How much did we spend last winter, the rainiest winter in 100 years? (20 inches, whew!) Assuming it won't rain that hard again for another 100 years, is cherry picking the rainy days more cost effective than installing the 30 million drainage? Which by the way, will really tie up traffic on the coast highway for weeks, maybe months?

Flooding is not a unique problem.


Are we Leucadians whining about the flooding too much? It's not like people's homes and cars are washing down the coast highway. Nobody has drowned. Maybe we can just take it on the chin once and awhile?
Maybe the city could just pay Carpet Bob to replace everyone's carpet every spring, that would probably be cheaper.


Should all future structures be built on stilts?

I should note that my home does not get flooded out (but my roof leaks).

Someone left a comment on an earlier post that it would be cheaper to hire the illegal aliens from Encinitas Blvd. to form a bucket brigade whenever it rains. I have to admit that really slayed me.

Keeping our tax money in Leucadia

Redevelopment is a good idea because Leucadia has the potential to keep a million dollars (pronounced "meeeeeelliiiiiooooon") per year in tax money in Leucadia instead of it going to the state fund.

Awesome!

It is estimated that to finally solve the flooding problems in the coast highway corridor it will take at least $30 million and possibly up to $40 million.

Dang.


Another reason why taking the bus sucks.