The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board’s executive officer has approved a $430,851 settlement agreement with the city of Encinitas for violations of storm water requirements that led to sediment pollution in Rossini Creek, a tributary of the San Elijo Lagoon.As is customary at the City of Encinitas, no one in city management has been held accountable.
The San Elijo Lagoon is a designated natural preserve by the State Park and Recreation Commission and is a federally listed impaired water body for damage to the salt marshes caused by excess sedimentation and silt.
Encinitas and its contractor, USS Cal Builders, Inc. failed to prevent pollutants at the Encinitas Community Park from entering storm water runoff during storm events in December 2012 and March 2013.
The polluted runoff resulted in part because of a failure to implement adequate management practices during construction and the city’s failure to properly oversee the construction project. The statewide construction storm water permit and the San Diego Water Board’s municipal storm water permit require management of sediment during construction to avoid the type of discharges that occurred from the project. The maximum penalty for the violations could have been $2.7 million.
[...]
“The mismanagement at this construction site was really unexpected given the level of experience of both the contractor and the city of Encinitas,” said Chiara Clemente, the Water Board’s enforcement coordinator.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Water Board approves $430,851 fine for city stormwater construction mismanagement
Water Board press release:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to the theory of Sculpin, not even Mother Nature should hold any blame. The city must have a ton of money to waste.
ReplyDeleteCrazy. They won't use their money to pay. They will increase our water rates and we all will pay. Each individual involved should have to pay not the community.
DeleteDon't Blame the Sculpin, he doesn't work for the city...
Delete-MGJ
8:57 AM No one said he worked for the city.
DeleteThe sad part of this story is that the City knew full well that the company that they hired to build the Park was not up to par; the City knew about the runoff and did nothing until it became apparent to the citizens, then they reported it to the Water Control people. This was all known before the fine and could have been taken care of instead of lying to citizens about there being no run off. I guess since we are so wealthy, what's a half million dollars to the City, It's not their money they are spending.
ReplyDeleteA 2000 lb load of gravel (French drain) is probably all it needed. Where's Gus? Brentwood.
ReplyDeleteMismanagement was unexpected??? Seems like the norm at City Hall. And they're talking pay raises???? Unbelievable!!!
ReplyDeleteNo one is held accountable by council. Shaffer has a horror of "public shaming" - what the rest of us call accountability, especially weird on her part considering we are paying these fools to misbehave.
ReplyDeletewho was in charge of the park for the City. They should be fired. I heard it was Franken. that guy has fucked up and cost the City so many times. Why is he still at the City. He has to go.
ReplyDeleteFranken retired.
ReplyDeleteDeduct the fine from his pension payments.
DeleteNope, guess again. Perpetrators still happily ensconced at City Hall putting your tax dollars to work.
DeleteTrue. Write the city and ask for the correspondence with the state. You'll see currently-employed names on the documents.
DeleteSkip the pay raise. Pay the fine. Force some accountability.
ReplyDeleteThis Wednesday, June 10, the council will vote to put on the ballot an increase in assessment fees for the Encinitas Landscape and Lighting District (ELLD). Every property in Encinitas is currently assessed $5.22 per year under Zone A which pays for the traffic lights, street lights and landscaping on certain streets. If you have street lights close to your residential property, you are assessed another fee of $9.90 per year for the resident street lights under zone B. The commercial properties are assessed a different fee for street lights under zone C.
ReplyDeleteThe council must "renew" the ELLD each year or the city cannot collect the assessment fees. The public hearing on Wednesday is for anyone to object or oppose the renewal of the district and the fees.
In addition, the council will be approving that the public works director allocate $100,000 from zones A,B, and C for a campaign to convince property owners to increase the fees by a ballot vote. This could be a mail-in ballot.
The council knows that they are illegally assessing properties for zone A with the traffic lights, streetlights, and landscaping on certain streets which are general benefits and must be paid from the general fund not by property assessments..
Property owners must email the city clerk or drop off their opposition letters to the council's renewal of the district before the Wednesday night council meeting which begins at 6. The agenda item is 10B.
The city needs more money and the ELLD serves as a slush fund for them.
No on ANY increase in fees or assessments for this city - live within your means.
DeletePlease notify all groups about the ELLD fees increase ballot that the council will approve on June 10 if no property owner objects to the renewal of the ELLD. By law, Encinitas property owners shouldn't be assessed for general city improvements that don't specifically benefit, which means next to or close to private property.
DeleteGlenn Pruim, the public works director, is telling the council that zone A assessments is short almost $10 million for capital reserves.
If enough property owners protest, the renewal of the landscape and lighting district can be stopped along with fees increases.
Jeez- you think someone would write about this in the coast news to alert the public- not anymore
Deletetoday Encinitas has he said she said reporting from Jared, Aaron and Tom Arnold
I miss the days when Adam Kaye and Wetannah Tucker were alerting the public and keep city leaders accountable
“The mismanagement at this construction site was really unexpected given the level of experience of both the contractor and the city of Encinitas,” said Chiara Clemente, the Water Board’s enforcement coordinator.
ReplyDeleteOther contractors who bid for the work pointed out in letters after the award was made that USS Cal Builders did not have the experience nor the credentials to do this job. Now the city is suing USS Cal Builders to try to recover some of the funds when it was disclosed by both the contractor and other bidders that they were not qualified to do the work.
Winners this round,,,Sabine and Morrison. Glenn gets to take it to court and will get paid regardless of whether he wins or not. Cal Builders will have to spend money on a legal defense, citizens will have to spend money on a case that should never be tried since Cal Builders shouldn't have been awarded the contract in the first place.
DeleteAnd so it goes at the City of Encinitas. I think that praise for staff members is in order!
Residents went to city hall and pointed out to Stocks and Barth, Gaspar and Muir that Cal Builders lacked the proper certifications to do the work at the time of the award
DeleteJeez- think Carlsbad resident Tom Arnold will write about the mismanagment- not a chance, Arnold is a high density Harwood water boy-
Residents also pointed it out to Shaffer, Barth and Kranz- who also took no action
Now Shaffer, Muir, Gaspar, Kranz and Blakespear point out how great city staff is -
just a few weeks ago when Rudloff put forth raising fees and taxes on residents some speaker pointed out that voting to give city staff more money was giving money to the very same people who caused this fine-
City leaders are to blame- the non-sustainable council more concerned with beefsteak then being responsible financial leaders
The irony:
ReplyDeleteWe taxpayers end up paying a half million dollars because sand was discharged about a hundred yards from the beach--the same beach where we are paying big bucks for . . .
(waiit for it)
. . . sand replenishment.
--FP.
FP- Whoever you are, get your facts straight. The runoff was toxic dirt that flowed into Rossini Creek. It was not beach sand, and it was toxic. The City knew, and it was not John Frenken who was responsible, although it is true he is retired. Chris Hazeltine (now the Parks and Rec. Director in Carlsbad) and Lisa Rudloff are the two Parks and Rec. Directors when this park was being built.
DeleteA few days ago in geologic time scales, Encinitas was ocean floor. Our Kimball sandy loam soil is nothing but compacted sand with a small dose of clay particles that partially cement the grains together. Decomposition and erosion of our soil creates plain old sand. Go for a walk in the dry wash in Indian Head Canyon to see for yourself.
DeleteI agree that there was probably residual pesticide, amendments and fertilizer from the old green house business, and they should have done a better job controlling that stuff. But I doubt it's very toxic, or there would be excavation and remediation needed through Rossini Creek. In fact the money will be used to restore habitat in other parts of the lagoon. The sand that washed out from the construction site will mostly stay put.
--FP.
Not quite all true but I have no wish to argue about it.
Delete11:02 AM
DeleteArgue with the water board.
He probably tried. If he doesn't work for the city, he sure does a good imitation of someone who does.
DeleteWhy? The water board didn't do anything wrong.
DeleteDon't make assumptions just because I don't share your schadenfreude each time the city gets poked in the eye.
--FP.
We've got your number, FP. You're not as good at it as you think you are.
DeleteHazeltine? Oh, the guy who had the wrong tree cut down in Leucadia Park when he went to Beacons to watch the surf.
ReplyDelete11:32- Didn't know about that one, but not surprised. He did some crazy things, but compared to Rudloff he seems pretty good right about now.
DeleteIsn't park construction under Public Works and Glenn Pruim?
DeleteRudloff and Hazeltine wouldn't oversee construction, would they?
EU- There were a lot of folks at City Hall who had a part in the construction. The irony is that the Parks and Rec. Commission was never allowed to have any say so in any part of the park's construction or even it's design. When the Commission tried to get involved they were told NO by the City, especially Rudloff. Public works was involved, as were a few other people at the city, including the Council, which at the time was Stocks and Bond. They really wanted the park and ignored much of what we are now seeing.
Delete$tock$ and Bond - the Dark Legacy of failed leadership....
ReplyDeleteSo many unqualified experts here on this blog making uninformed declarations about something they really don't know anything about as a profession.
ReplyDeleteIf you're all so perfect why aren't you applying and working for the city? Certainly you could all pass the interview and qualifications to get the top positions or better yet why not run for office?
The site runoff was not "toxic". It was deemed contaminated and then buried, sealed and covered with tested topsoil and graded when it "rained" if you wish to call it that. Neither storm that winter provided much precipitation. It was a silted over catch basin that overflowed. If look at Google Earth you would see that the runoff would have had to travel a very long way to make it to the lagoon. You all act like there was copious amounts of water washing like a raging river to the lagoon. Not! The fine is automatic when reported and it does not mean it made it to the lagoon, it just has to make it to the watershed tributary that could carry it to the lagoon to qualify as a violation.
Please get a life and stop trying to be so judgmental on issues you really have no facts about.
The amount of the fine was not automatic.
DeleteIt was large because of the city's repeated and extended gross negligence.
6:34, people in this city who have excellent credentials from top-tier universities, and/or excellent work experience HAVE applied for applied for jobs and don't even get an interview in favor of those who will "fit in" with the culture at the city.
DeleteThey are looking for people who will lie. That is what is meant by being a team player at the City of Encinitas.
7:39- That is interesting. Do you know anyone from a top tiered University that has attempted to get a job at the City and didn't get an interview. If so, I would love to hear their story.
Delete12:00,
DeleteHear that?
Crickets chirping.
Oh please, like names will be named. Suffice to say we are SO not getting what we are paying for. Do you take issue with that, 7:39 and 12:00 (who I assume is the same person having a conversation with himself)?
Deleteamen to that. With the projects lack of management heads should role. First is the project manager that let this project get so so so out of whack.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the fake number people throw around for the cost of the park (including interest over time, but not inflation over time)? 40 million?
ReplyDeleteHere's where that silly number works against you: the cost of the fine only added about 1% to the cost of the park.
It doesn't matter if it is only 1% or the cost of the park. This is a half-million dollars that should have been avoided if staff would not have insisted on going with a contractor who could not do the work and disclosed as much in their bid. This went though layers of staff and managers and was approved by the council. It is shameful.
DeleteSounds like Stocks math above.
DeleteLet me get this straight.. So when a state law passed by taxpayers that makes municipalities take the lowest bid on prevailing wage projects, it's the city's fault that they chose the so called non credentialed contractor for the project.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that the onus should and must fall on the contractor and code enforcement for not following site BMP's established by state code. City storm water and building divisions should have some accountability for this but it is the contractor who ultimately failed here. It is somewhat unfair to lay all of the blame at the P&R department heads.
The city has insurance in place for the fine and also will hold the contractor accountable for the lack of proper protocols that caused the spill resulting in a fine. A lawsuit has been filed and all of us should reserve judgment until it has been completed and the facts are ruled on by the court.
State law does not say that the City has to take the lowest bid if the Contractor is not qualified, as was the case with Cal Builders. Many citizens, as well as other contractors, pointed out to the CIty Council at the time that they didn't have the qualifications to deal with the issues related to the Park. And, as far as insurance, this is the first I've heard about it. It would be one thing if the City didn't know. It's quite another when they knew not once, but twice before they turned themselves in. Seems as if the City has the responsibility and if I were an insurance company I would say just that. When it is as blatant as this was, I don't think the insurance will pay, but I don't work in risk management so perhaps you are right.
DeleteTo WC's point at 8:39, there where many, many opportunities when the city could have taken action to avoid this situation starting with reading the background of the bidders before awarding the contract. They could have read the protest letters from other contractors or listened to citizens who pointed out that USS Cal Builders was unqualified. Instead of going with a different contractor, they allowed the builder to go forward an cause two cases of illegal run off. Then there was the stand off with Sabine facing off with the Water Boards. Now he is suing Cal Builders to try to recover the fine. Sabine is, as usual, benefiting for mistakes that he could have prevented had he advised to go with a qualified contractor instead of Cal Builders.
DeleteDoes Sabine pursue this as part of his city attorney appointment or does he farm it out to his private law firm at considerable additional cost? Seems that he has a repetitive pattern for milking the system. Why is he still employed at the city????
ReplyDeleteBecause he has, according to Barth: "institutional knowledge" that the council cannot do without.
DeleteApparently knows how to skate around conflict of interest issues.
DeleteWith a willing council.
ReplyDeleteLisa Shaffer as a candidate said that her first move would be to replace Glenn Sabine. Catherine Blakespear talked tough and said that she would be watching him as an attorney herself. What happened?
DeleteLet's see - Sabine is City Attorney and is supposed to scrutinize contracts and other city business. Bonding, liability insurance and deficits in performance should all be addressed as part of this original process. Suddenly, a major deficiency arises and nobody seems to know how to address it, short of a lawsuit. So Sabine should be partially culpable for this mess to this point. Yet, incredulously, he sues the contractor and then may outsource it to his private law firm?? Sounds like the double whammy! No city litigation issues should be redirected to his private practice, as one would wonder what incentive then exists for him to function efficiently as city attorney? It seems the city needs to define how many hats the City Attorney can wear at one time.
ReplyDeleteThe CA has been a disaster from day one for anyone looking clearly into his record. Needs to be replaced.
ReplyDeleteLook at Wednesday's Closed Session agenda and look at the number of lawsuits--including the ACLU's case against the illegal sign ordinance that we paid Sabine and Morrison to write. There are three lawsuits that will be addressed at the 4:00 closed session.
ReplyDeletehttp://encinitas.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=7&event_id=689
Please don't tell me that Sabine and Morrison will be give the green light to fight the ACLU when the problem was with what they wrote in the first place!
Sabine and Morrison create their own business thru their ineptitude.
DeleteAmazing!!!