HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 88-03; ARROYO LA COSTA UNIT 2; ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN; 1988-07-28:1
--I
-:1
I
I
'I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1'1
I
-'~
IOS'.>4-A
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN
CITY OF CARLSBAD
ZONES 11, 12, AND 2~
VOLUME "A"
July 28, 1988
Job Number 10554A
nis C. Bowlin:
RCE 32838; EXP.
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
5620 FRIARS ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 291-0707
!
\'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I'
I
I
,I
:1
.1
;1
111
!
. '~
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME A
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND
LOCATION
BASIN DESCRIPTION
SCOPE OF WORK
MASTER PLAN DATA BASE 4
HYDROLOGIC METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION 5
INTRODUCTION
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS
RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
HEC-1 MODEL HYDROLOGY REPORT
HEC-2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS-ENCINITAS CREEK 9
PREVIOUS COUNTY STUDY
DATA BASE
SUMMARY OF RESULTS-EXISTING CONDITIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
HEC-2 COMPARISON TABLE
EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS 12
ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STORM DRAIN FACILITIES
RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 14
INTRODUCTION
DESIGN CRITERIA
EL CAMINO REAL CULVERTS
PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENTS
DRAINAGE FACILITY TABLES DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FACILITIES COST ESTIMATES BY
PRIORITY 17
DRAINAGE FACILITY TABLES INDEX ~8
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES 27
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF UNIT PRICES USED 28
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES INDEX 29
REFERENCES 42
VOLUME B
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1-RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATiONS
APPENDIX 2-HEC-2 MODEL COMPUTER OUTPUT-EXISTING CONDITIONS
APPENDIX 3-HEC-2 MODEL COMPUTER OUTPUT-PROPOSED CONDITIONS
~,.;~~ ~~\.
~ fr..:.~ ":. J ~ .. ~ ~ IkF fi~
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
This report describes the Drainage l-Iaster Plan for the Encinitas
Creek watershed within the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California. The r~port identifies the hydrologic criteria used
for analysis and design of the drainage infrastructure of tne
watershed, the data base used in the analysis, the effects of th~
development in .the watershed on flood peaks, and the drainage
network to be used to convey the predicted flood peaks within the
watershed.
The Drainage Master Plan is developed to provide preliminary
design information on the drainage conveyance network of the
Encinitas Creek watershed. It is engineered following the
guidelines and regulations within the city of Cal;'lsbad standard
Design criteria Manual, Section 5.7 of the San. DiegoCourtty
standards, and the San Diego County Flood Control District Design
and Procedure Manual and Hydrology Manual. . It is prepared to'
fulfill the requirements by the City of Carlsbad for a Dra,inage
Master Plan for the Encinitas Creek watershed area aff.ecting
planning Zones 11, 12, and 23.
The Drainage Master Plan is intended to provide a guideline for
design of storm drainage improvements for the area. The Plan
addresses storm drains greater than or equal to thirty (30") inbh
diameter pipe size. storm drain collection systems ~ncluding
inlets, and storm drains less than thirty (g~ll) inches in size
will be provided as part of the individual devel.opments and
projects within the watershed. Capacities of existing systems
and sizing of proposed improvements where needed. to convey the
design flows are based upon approximate methods and engineering
judgment. Final design of any storm drain or open channel system
should be performed by a qualified engineer.
LOCATION
The Encinitas Creek watershed area is located within tbe south
portion of the City of Carlsbad, in north San D:j.ego County,
California (Vicinity Map). The watershed area stUdied i$bounded
by Olivenhain Road on the south. Tne wat~rshed is:traversed by
El Camino Real in its western portion, and Rancho Santa Fe Road
in its eastern portion. La Costa Avenue arid the Batiquitos
Lagoon lie at the north discharg~ point of the basin.
BASIN DESCRIPTION
The Encinitas Creek watershed is approxima1:ely 5. miles long and
approximately 7.3 square miles in size at its discharge point to
Batiquitos Lagoon. This study covers the northerly po~tion of
the watershed which is within the City of Carlsbad. The study
area is approximately 4.4 square miles in size.
1
--_ ... ---------- -- - -
~-- -
.~
I i __ L. L ___ .. ------I
ORANGE COUNTY , ............... RIVERSIDE COUNTY I
' r-'-1-.. y+ __ ,:._-I-~-__ =_ ___ ~,----•
A) ..,
"
t .., -
' ~ --_.-+-----
A\
" "
-Fallbrook
Viata
scond.do
,Warner Sprmgs
~
STUDY ~ I ~ ~ Julian o Rancho
("\ -Bernardo
tt'I
7 • -z. Poway
La Jolla
-Borrego
~
• ~.
Ocotillo Wells
r .
i \ ~ I 5
U
..J ~ 'a:
1--------4-----9 I Alpine Pacific Beach Pine Valley
I ~pnng Valley. '
: I ~ ,-
I
~i ~~. ~ ..... c.h"~v·'·1 T.i ~ t~
u • _ ~ -.-,~ ~ I.' •
ENCIN'ITAS CREEK 'MASTER
DRAINAGE PL'AN IN THE CITY
OF CA,R'LSBAO< JU~LY, 1988
VICINITY MAP
RICK ENGINEERING COMPAN'Y
civiL ENGINEERS: PLANNING CONSUL'mNTS : SURVEYORS
5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA' 9211 0 (619) 291'0707
3088 PIO PICO DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 (6.19) 7.29'4987
365' S. RANCHO SANTA FE RD. SAN MARCOS, CA. 92069 (619) 744'4800
I
I
I
.1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I'
I
1
I,
I
I
The upper portion of the study area .consists of two tributaries
which join at the intersection of Rancho santa Fe Rb~dand
Olivenhain Road. Encinitas Creek flows westerly from this
confluence on the south side of Olivenhain Road within the city
of Encinitas to EI Camino Real. The creek flows norther~y from
Olivenhain Road within the city of Carlsbad along the west side
of EI Camino Real to La Costa Avenue and Batiqui t.os Lagoon. The
lower portion of the study area drains to Encinitas Creek through
natural swales or road culverts.
Current land use in the study area includes single and multiple
family residential, parks, and undeveloped land .. Future l~nd use
plans in the study area include low and medium density single
family residential, multiple family :f:'esidential, commerc'ial
developments, industrial developments, schools, open space and a
golf course.
soils in the study area are predominately Hydrologic SQil Group
"0" but also include areas of Groups "A", "B", and "C".
Vegetation on the undeveloped areas east of EI Camino Real in the
study area is mostly native grasses which has been used for range
land. Ground cover on the hillsides is typically l;>roadleaf
chaparral. A portion of the area west of EI Camino Real is
currently used for farm land.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Number 060284 1050C for the County of San
Diego (June 15, 1984) and FIRM Panel Number 060285 0015C for the
City of Carlsbad (August 15, 1983) show areas of Zone "A"
floodplain in the study area. The Zone "A" areas are shown for
Encinitas Creek, the easterly tributary of the creek along the
east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road and t.he tributary east of El
Camino Real between Levante street and Olivenhain Road.
SCOPE OF WORK
This study addresses the following major topics related to the
drainage infrastructure:
1. Calculate 100-year design discharges for developed land use
conditions.
2. Evaluate the adequacy of existing drainage facilities to
safely convey the design flows.
3. Describe the drainage improvements recoIilmended in the
watershed study area to correct existing system inadequacies and
provide an adequate backbone drainage system for future
development.
4. Provide preliminary construction costs for recommended
improvements.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
1
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
5. Analyze the hydraulic conditions in Encinitas Creek west of,
EI Camino Real from Olivenhain Road north to La Costa Avenu~.
The analysis uses current topographic information and design
flows based on future land use.
The following sub-basins tributary to Encinitas Creek are covered
in this study (see Plate A):
* The Calle Barcelona Basin which. drains westerly to an
existing Dual 5' X 6' Reinforced Concrete Box culv~rt under
EI Camino Real.
* The Green Valley Basin which is west of EI Camino Real and
drains directly into Encinitas Creek within several natural
swales.
* The Olivenhain Road Basin which drains under Olivenhain
Road towards Encinitas Creek through several road culverts.
* The Levante street Basin which drains westerly to an
existing sixty (6011 ) inch C.M.P. under EI Camino Real.
* The Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin which is mostly
east of Rancho santa Fe Road and drains into two existing
detention basins constructed with the Vista Sc:mta Fe
development. An existing dual 4' X 9.3' Reinforced" Con.crete
Box culvert under Rancho santa Fe Road is 'the watershed
. discharge point.
* The Upper Encinitas Creek Basin which drains to an
existing dual 4' X 10' Concrete Box Culvert under Rancho
santa Fe Road.
The lower portion of the Encinitas Creek watershed which is
within the City of Encinitas is not addressed in detai~ by this
study. The design flows for the maj or drainage coUrses which
were calculated using the HEC-1 hydrologic model account for the
entire watershed. The HEC-1 analysis is described in a separate
HEC-1 report (Rick Engineering Company, July 1988) submitted to
the city of Carlsbad. '
3
8861 ' Alnr
:3.L"O
,oooz = III
:3'''~S
LOLO-162 (6IS) 01126 "tJ'J 'O€>310 N'VS
o 'V O~ Sti'Vl ti::l 02Sg
ANVdWO:> 9NIH33NI9N3 )I:) IH
X30NI NIS'\18 39'V'NI'V'~O
O\f8S'~\fO .:10 .k.lIO 3H.l Nt'
N'V"d 39\fNI\f~a ~3.lS"~ ~33~O S\fJ.INION3
\0
-m ~, <.)~; " ~ "
ct '" j' ' , __ '_ c6z"~\ \_ W ,
J--~ ',. ,1-.." ~ C-VJ \ r-,
W «' <t'" .. ,' •
..J a;l ~-l, .-r-~ I ' ..J--'\ \, A.' « / \' <.) -, W
./ ,,;' f " ,
" \ '_/".1 ./ ,. ~-''/ ', ... ".,-....~. ,-) '~ -_.
\
L&J I-<C
..J a.
<C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MASTER PLAN DATA BASE
Topographic information for development of the Encinitas Creek
Drainage Master Plan was derived from the current County of San
Diego 200 scale Orthophoto Topographic Survey maps for the area.
These maps were supplemented -by the USGS Quadrangle maps and a
detailed field investigation.
Existing drainage facilities in the watershed area were
identified using as-built storm drain plans obtained from the
city of Carlsbad's files and engineering consultants. Existing
facility discharge points and sizes were verified by field
reconnaissance. Existing flow characteristics and problem areas
were also noted by field investigation.
Developed land use for the Encinitas Creek watershed a,rea in the
City of Carlsbad was obtained from the latest General Plan Map
(April 1987).
Soil characteristics were identified using the Soil Conservation
Service's Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, California (1973).
Rainfall information for use in this study was obtained from the
San Diego County Hydrology Manual. The lOa-year frequency,
6-hour duration design storm was used.
The San Diego County "Hydrology Report for Encinitas Creek" was
used to identify major drainage basins and disch~rge points, The
County flood plain mapping and accompanying HEC-2 computer runs
for Encinitas Creek were used as a baseline for hyd,raulic
analysis.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers report "Floodplain Information
report for San Marcos Creek" (1971) was used for downstream
hydraulic control in the lOa-year storm event.
4
,
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
HYDROLOGIC METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
Hydrologic calculations for the major design points within t~e
watershed were completed using the HEC-l Model computer prQ.gram.
Tne results of the HEC-l analysis for the Encinitas Creek
watershed are used "for design of the major drainage facilities.
The HEC-1 Model analysis prepared for this study is discussed in
a separate report submitted to the City of Carl"~bad (Rick
Engineering Company, July 1988).
Hydrologic calculations for design of minor drainage tacilities
with tributary areas of less than approximately 0.5 square mile
were completed using the Rational Method.
/00 -{f:: Io-IM..
IS .:;~ I -h 3.0
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS
Rational Method calculations performed for this report are shown
in Appendix 1 of Master Plan, Volume "B". The Rational Met-hod,
runoff coefficients used assume developed.c(~mdIET6mi'-b9.~e~-'-iipon
the 'City of Carlsbad General Plan and previously submftt~d
planning studies for the area. The Rational Method '--runo-if
coefficients from thecount~-~~ San Diego Hydrology Manual are
shown on page 7 of this report. The 100-year design storm was
used in the calculations. The County of San Diego Intensity
Duration design chart is shown following page 7 of this report.
The results of the Rational Method analysis were us~d for'
preliminary design of the recommended drainage facilities with a
tributary area of less than approximately 0.5 square mile.
The Rational Method calculations for the 100-year st.orm were
performed using a Rational Method program. This program is a
computer aided design program where the user develops a node-link,
model of the watershed. The program can estimate the conduit and
channel sizes needed to accommodate the design storm discharge.
The node-link model is developed by creating independent
node-link models of each interior sub-basin and' linking these
sub-models together at confluence points. The program allows up
to five streams to be confluenced at each node.
The program has capability to perform calculations for eight
hydrologic processes. These processes are assigned code nUiTlbers
which appear in the printed results. The code numbers and their
significance are as follows:
CODE 1:
CODE 2 :
CODE 3 :
CODE 4 :
CODE 5:
CODE 6:
CODE 7:
CODE 8:
Confluence analysis at a node
Initial sub-area analysis
Pipeflow travel time (computer estimated pipe siz.e)
Pipeflow travel time (user specified pipe size)
Trapezoidal channel travel time
Street flow analysis through a sub-area
User specified information at a node
Addition of sub~area runoff to main line
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
LAND USE
Residential:
Single Family
Multi-units
Mobile homes
Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre)
Commercial
80% impervious
Industrial
90% impervious
Source: San Diego County Hydrology Manual
7
COEFFICIENT', C
Soil Group
A B C D
.40 .45 .50 .55
.45 .50 .60 .70
.45 .50 .55 .65
.30 .35 .40 .. 45
.70 .75 .80 .85
.80 .85 .90 .95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! I
I
I
-a:: =>
RATIONAL METHOD· RAIN.FALL INTENSITY
DURATION CURVE
~k---I----+----t Equation: 1= 7.44 P60-·645
1 = Intensity (In/Hr.)
Ps= 6 Hr. Precipitation (In.) 6.~Ik--+3IIIII~~:---+-Ps = 3.5 for 100yr Storm
5.~~~---I-'~~r---+-Event in This Report.
o = Duration (Min.) 4.1------"'I~~...3IIIIIio;::---~---;p~+--......--=-=-=~r=_:.._--!...:.;~~-"r___i
~ 2.1---+_---+~-+__-..::p1lk-~~,..__~---..;""'"""-+___.__f.-+___I
-(/) UJ
::I:
(,)
Z
, Z
(/) 0
UJ ~ ~ ~ z 1.1---+---+..3Ik--+--__+--I--~--______::lIIII~~~__+~+__.:I!6.0-9 . ~
-'8 5.0 (3 . UJ
>-.7 4.0 g:
..... 6 3.5
(J) .5 3;0 a:: z ~ UJ 0 .... ~ ::I:
z .. 2.0 U)
.31---+----+--+----t-+--+-----r-"~-+---t-+--1
.IL-----....1..-----'--....I...-------L_-'---'--___ L--_0...1....0------1_..L..,-..-J
10 15 20 30 40 50 I 2 3 45 6
MINUTES HOURS
DURATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
1
I
I
I
I
HEC-l MODEL HYDROLOGY REPORT
The u.s. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-l flood :hydrograph program
was used for the hydrologic analysis at the major design points
in "the Encinitas Creek watershed. The development of the HEC-l
Model and a summary of the results of the analysis are dis¢ussed
the previously mentioned report submitted to the City of Carlsbad
(Rick Engineering Company, 1988).
The recommended values from the HEC-l report account for the
effects of the existing detention basins in the Vista Santa Fe
development on the lOO-year flood hydrograph. The recommended
HEC-l Model peak flows are used in the hydraulic analysis of
Encinitas Creek. The HEC-l design flows are ~l~o used for
evaluation of existing major drainage facilities at the design
points in the model and preliminary sizing of any facilities
found to be inadequate.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HEC-2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS-ENCINITAS CREEK
PREVIOUS COUNTY STUDY
The previous County of San Diego HEC-2 computer an~lysis for
Encinitas Creek was completed in 1981. The study was completed
for several reaches of the creek and tributaries. The County
study includes the reach west of EI Camino Real which ~s of
interest in this study.
The County HEC-2 study uses the design flows from the County of
San Diego Hydrology Report for Encinitas Creek (~980).
A field topography check completed in June 1988 a$ part of this
study showed sUbstantial variations in the ~ncinitas Creek
geometry and invert elevation between the county HEC-2 study anq
existing conditions. The invert of the creek has beeri filled
with a sUbstantial amount of silt which causes concern about the
100-year water surface in the creek relative to the EI Camino
Real roadway. The 100-year water surface in the creek must also
be considered in the analysis of the capacity of the existing
crossings under EI Camino Real.
A revised HEC-2 analysis was completed for this study to evaluate
the effects of the changes in the creek's geometry and invert on
the 100;"year water surface elevation. The HEC-2 study reach is.
the 1.5-mile reach of Encinitas Creek in the city of Carlsbad
which is on the west side of EI Camino Real and flows north~rly
from Olivenhain Road to the Batiquitos Lagoon at La Costa Avenue.
DATA BASE
The input data for the revised HEC-2 analysis cf the creek is
based on current topography and developed land use design flows.
The cross section locations used in the HEC-2 analysi~ are th~
same as in the San Diego County analysis. The Manning "n"
roughness values used for the creek are also from the County
analysis. Addi tional cross sections were added between the
County sections when additional detail was needed.
The starting water surface for the HEC-2 analysis downstream of
La Costa Avenue in the Batiquitos Lagoon was derived from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report "Flood Plain Information San
Marcos Creek" (USACOE, 1971). This report shows the 100-year
water surface in the lagoon from the ocean upstream to the
discharge point of San Marcos Creek. The water ~Urf·ace in
Batiqui tos Lagoon downstream of San Marcos Cre.ek is the
downstream control of Encinitas Creek at its discharge point into·
the lagoon.
The cross sections used in the analysis are derived
photogrammetrically from aerial photography dated May 3, 1988.
The accuracy of the digitized cross sections exceeds FEMA
standards. The cross section end point coordinates were
9
o
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
·1
I
I.
I
digitized from the County Floodplain Maps for Encinitas Creek to
accurately reproduce the section locations. The cross sect~bn of
the bridge at La Costa Avenue was measured in the field.
The 100-year design flows were
hydrologic analysis described
Engineering Company·, 1988).
taken from the HEC-l
in a separate report
SUMMARY OF RESULTS-EXISTING CONDITIONS
Model
(Rick
The HEC-2 computer model output for Encinitas Creek for the
100-year storm under existing conditions is shown in Appendix 2
of Master Plan, Volume "B". .
The analysis of the existing creek shows that the existing triple
8' X 12' R.C.B. crossing at La Costa Avenue is inadequate fqr the
design flows given the existing headwater available on the La
Costa Avenue and EI Camino Real roadways near the culv~rt.
The HEC-2 analysis of the existing conditions also shows that the
100-year water surface in Encinitas Creek is below the EI Camino
Real roadway for the study reach except near the Olivenhairt Road
intersection. The backwater caused by the silt downstream of the
EI Camino Real culvert near Olivenhain Road res-qlts in the
flooding of the roadway in this area. The capacity of the EI
Camino Real cuI vert also is impact.ed by the creek backwater.
The results of the HEC-2 hydraulic analysis of Encinitas Creek
under existing conditions are summarized in the HEC-2 comparison
Table on page 11 of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following improvements are recommended to mitigate the
existing inadequacies in Encinitas Creek from La costa Avenue to
Olivenhain Road:
* Improve the existing triple 8' X 12' Reinforced Concrete Box
(R.C.B.) under La Costa Avenue. We recommend adc;ling an
addi tional dual 8' X 12' R. C. B. and adding a berm along La Cos·ta
Avenue and EI Camino Real to increase the availabl.e headwater at
the culvert. The top of berm is proposed to elevation 19 .. 7 (the
top of the bridge above the culverts is at elevation 20 .. 8) to
provide 0.5 foot of freeboard.
* Improve the existing Encinitas Creek channel immediat.elY
downstream of the EI Camino Real culvert near Olivenhain Road~
The proposed improvements consist of an 1100-foot long
trapezoidal channel which is 100 feet wide on the main pal;t·of
the creek and 50 feet wide on the creek directly downst'ream of
the culvert. The trapezoidal channel depth is proposed to vary
from approximately 3 feet to 5 feet.
The HEC-2 computer model output for the 100-year storm with the
proposed improvements in place is shown in Appendix 3 of Master
Plan Volume B. The results of the HEC-2 analysis consid~ring the
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
recommended improvements are shown in the HEC-2 Compari$on Tap1e
below. The results of the recommended improvements analysis are
also compared to the edge of pavement elevation on the E1 camino
Real roadway and the available freeboard height is shown •.
HEC-2 COMPARISON TABLE
Comparison of 100-year Water Surface in Encini ta's Creek between
San Diego County (1981) and Rick Engineering Company (1988) HEC-2
Runs (values in feet)
section
No.
100-yr.
WSEL
County
100-year
WSEL (REC)
Existing
100-year
WSEL (REC)
Proposed
/
Approx.
Rd. edge
.E1ev.
Freeboard
To Road-
Prop. run
~Q q 0.098 18.2 19.6 19.2 20.1 . ~ I 1~-2 (.. ~'-' ---'-;; 0.129 18.0 19.8 19.5 25.3 0.::: ,. ?3··)
0.202 27.2 28.7 28.8 42.4 r:L6
0.-310 36.5 38.7 38.7 50.1 11.4
0.451 44.7 45.4 45.4 58.3 12.9
0.522 46.4 48.2 48.2 56.3 8.1
0.615 50.5 51. 9 51.9 69.1 17.2
0.678 55.5 55.2 55.2 78.6 23.4
0.780 59.8 60.1 60.1 80.0 19·.9
0.834 62.0 62.3 62.3 74.4 12.1
0.918 63.4 65.2 65.2 66.6 1.4
0.998 64.9 66.6 66.6 69.6 3'.0
1. 096 67.5 67.6 67.6 79.2 11. 6
1.164 69.3 69.4 69.4 85.7 16 .• 3
1.236 72.0 76.5 72.4 89.6 l.7.2
1. 313 74.0 78.4 74.9 83.6 8.7
1. 365 81.4 76.9 80.2 3.3
11
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STORM DRAIN FACILITIES
The existing storm drain and culvert facilities were evaluated
for their adequacy for the 100-year design flows. The capacity
of the facil i ties was based upon approxi1lrate m~thods and
engineering judgment. The existing culvert capacities were based
upon inlet control unless specific downstream control was known.
The only instance where downstream control is known to be
significant is west of EI Camino Real in Encinitas Creek.
The existing storm drain facilities within the watershed study
area are, in general, adequate to convey thelOO-year design
storm. Most of the development in the basin has occurred
recently and the drainage facilities associated with the
developments were adequately designed.
Some of the existing road culverts constructed with the major
roadways were found to be inadequate for the 100-year design
flows. Some of these culverts may have been sized for historic'
flows rather than developed flows.
The following existing road crossings were found to be inadequate
for the 100-year design flows:
1. The bridge crossing of Encinitas Creek at EI Camino Real is
silted and will not pass the design flow without over-topping the
roadway.
2. The existing 60" C.M.P. under EI Camino Real north of Levante
Street is inadequate for the 100-year design flow.
3. The existing 24" R.C.P. under EI Camino Real north of'
Olivenhain is inadequate for future developed flows.
4. The existing dual 24" C.M.P under OlivenhainRoad is
inadequate for the 100-year design flow.
5. The existing dual 4' X 10' Concrete Box Culvert crossipg of
Encinitas Creek under Rancho Santa Fe Road is inadequate for the
100-year design flow.
6. The existing triple 8' X 12' R.C.B. culvert under La Costa
Avenue is inadequate for the design flow due to the 'limited
available headwater on the roadways.
Several of the existing road culverts have collected silt which
reduces their capacity. The existing silt volume in the majority
of the culverts will be flushed out during any major storm. As
the remainder of the watershed is developed, smaller voltim~s of
silt will be delivered to the culverts and the future problems
should be minimized.
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Two of the existing major crossings which are presentiy silted
will require special attention during final design to m~nimize
the effects of the existing silt on the facility capacity. The
crossings affected are:
1. The Encinitas Creek crossing of El Camino Real south -of
Olivenhain Road which is almost entirely filled with silt. The
downstream creek bed has also collected silt.
2. The dual 5' X 6' Concrete Box Culvert under El Camino Real
near the proposed Calle Barcelona intersection (Facility Number
11) is silted about 2'. Downstream silt conditions in Encinitas
Creek cause the culvert to collect silt.
The preliminary design for these crossings are discussed in the
"Recommended Dr<;linage Infrastructure Improvements" section of
this report.
13
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The recommended facility improvements for the Encinitas Creek
watershed area in the City of Carlsbad is intended to provide a
guideline for design of the storm drainage infrastructure for the
area. The analysis addresses storm drains greater than or equal
to thirty (30") inch diameter pipe size. storm drain collection
systems including inlets, and storm drains less than thirty p·O''')
inches in size will be provided as part of the individual
developments and projects within the watershed.
Sizing of the recommended facilities are based upon approximate
methods and engineering judgment. Final design of any storm
drain or open channel should be performed by a qualified
engineer.
The existing and recommended drainage facilities are tabulated in
the Drainage Facility Tables beginning on page 18 of this report.
The location of the drainage facilities referenced in the tables
are shown on Plates Band C following the tables.
DES1GN CRITERIA
The 100-year frequency storm was used as the basis for design of
the recommended improvements in the watershed. Hydrologic
methodology is discussed in the "Hydrologic Methodology and.
Descript.i,on" section of this report.
Closed conduits are recommended in most ca.ses fol;" systems
fourty-eight (48") inches or less. Closed conduits l.arger than
48-inch are used if a channel is impractical in the reach. Storm
drains are designed to connect into existing sys.tems found
adequate for the ultimate capacity as defined by this study.
Reinforced concrete pipe (R.C.P.) is assumed for closed conduit
design. For road crossings, either R.C.P. or reinforced concrete
box culverts are used. R.C.P. sizes from 30-inch to 78-inch
diameter in increments of 6-inches are used in the study. A
Manning's roughness coefficient (n value) of 0.012 is uped for
R.C.P. storm drain design.
Pipe slopes are based on the existing ground slope where
applicable with a minimum gradient of 0.5 percent.
Box culvert sizing is based on a minimum 3 foot height for ease
of maintenance. Height sizing is based on one foot vertic'al
increments and width on two foot horizontal increments. A
Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.014 is used for design~
Where existing pipes were found to be inadequate, they were
assumed removed if metal and removed or paralleled depending on
the situation for concrete pipes.
14
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
{J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
Floodplain management including natural channels and vegetation
lined graded channels is used for open channel reaGhes of the
drainage system in lieu of lined channels. Natural channels
which are narrowed to accommodate development and graded channels
'will be designed to meet allowable velocity criteria. The
finished floor of structures shall be built a minimum of one foot
above the lOO-year water surface in the channel. All chanrte~s
shall be in compliance with current flood plain criteria.
EL CAMINO REAL CULVERTS
Desilting basins are recommended at the upstream side of the two
cuI verts under El Camino Real draining towards Encinitas Cree'k
These culverts have collected a significant amount of silt. We
also recommend that the culverts be cleaned out and, the creek
downstream of the culverts be dredged to provide positive outflow
fo+ the culverts under all flow conditions. .
We propose to clean out the dual 5' X 6' R.C.B. under ElCamino
Real near the proposed Calle Barcelona Intersection-to its
invert. It is also recommended that a 15-foot wide trapezoidal
channel be constructed from the cuI vert invert draining. to the
creek flowline to provide an outfall. The depth of excavation
needed to implement this recommended solution is approximately 2
feet to 3 feet.
We propose to lower the invert of the existing bridge under El
camino Real south of Olivenhain Road to provide adequate capacity
and positive drainage. The invert is proposed to be lowered to
elevation 72 at the downstream side of the bridge from the
existing invert elevation of approximately 75. The_propo:sed
channel improvement downstream of the bridge is discussed in the
"HEC-2 Hydraulic Analysis -Encinitas Creek" section of this r·eport. --.-------..... -.----.. -. -
The land for the desilting basin at the dual 5' X q' R.C.B. is a
part of the development upstream and is zoned as open space. The
iand upstream of the bridge crossing south of Olivenhairi Roaq is
within the City of Encinitas and will need to be coordinated with
Encinitas. The land acquisition cost is not inc.luded in" the
preliminary cost estimates.
The proposed desil ting basins and channel dreqging should solve
the problem since the upstream drainage areas are .being developed
. and silt volumes delivered to the culverts will be reduced in the
f~ture under developed conditions. The proposed solutions to the
silt problem in the culverts will, however, need to monitored
periodically after completion to insure that the def;;ign is
maintained.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended improvements as outlined in this Plan have been
giv~n a priority rating in the Drainage Facilities Tables. The
ratings vary from 1 as the highest priority to 3 as the lowest
priority. criteria for determining the ratings ar,e:
1. Improvement is needed due to an endangerment to life or
public health and safety.
2. Improvement is needed to mitigate potential damage to
existing property or structures.
3. Improvements will be needed to protect future development.
A summary of the total cost of improvements broken out b'y
p.riority rating is shown on page 17. Refer to the cost estimate
portion of this study for total cost of improvements in each
study sub-basin.
DRAINAGE FACILITY TABLE DESCRIPTION
The existing and recommended drainage facilities in the Encinitas
Creek watershed study area are shown on the Drainage Fability
Tables. These tables list preliminary facility location,
tributary drainage area, size, length, capacity, 100-y~ar deSign
flow and recommended improvements (where applicable).
The location of the drainage facilities are shown on Plates Band
C included with the tables. Confluence points of storm drains
shown on the plates are approximate. Location and size of inlets
and lateral storm drains smaller than 30 inch diameter pipe $ize
will be designed and provided as part of the individual
developments within the watershed.
Conveyance of flow in streets was neglected for pr~liminary
design of storm drains. In final design, street conveyance
capacity should be considered in the analysis. '
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FACILITIES COST ESTIMATES BY
(Thousands of Dollars)
Priority 1 2 3
Sub-basin
Calle Barcelona 5.3 0 875.3
(Zone 12)
Green Valley 413.5 0 719.4
(Zone 23)
Levante Street 66.7 0 0
(Zone 12)
Upper Tributary to 0 0 229.7
Encinitas Creek
(Zone 12)
Olivenhain Road 165.4 0 25.5
(Zone 12)
Upper Tributary to 0 0 3,010.1
En9initas Creek
(Zone 11)
Upper Encinitas 343.9 347.2 669.2
Creek
(Zone 11)
Totals 994.8 347.2 5,529.2
17
PRIORITY
Total
880.6
1,132.9
66.7
229.7
190.9
3,0;1.0.7
1,360.3
6,871 • .2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAINAGE FACILITY TABLES INDEX
Calle Barcelona Basin -Zone 12
Green Valley Basin -Zone 23
Levante street Basin -Zone 12
Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin -Zone 12
Olivenhain Road Basin -Zone 12
Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin -Zone 11
Upper Encinitas Creek Basin -Zone 11
18
PAGE
19
20
21
21
22
23
25
------.----- ---- ---_.-
PRELIMINARY FACILITY RECOMMENDATION TABLES
CALLE BARCELONA BASIN, ZONE 12
RATIONAL DRAINAGE APPROX. CAPACITY ~CFSl IMPROVEMENT
FACILITY METHOD LOCATION! AREA LENGTH EXISTING 100-YR RECOMMENDED COST
PLATE NUMBER NOOE DESCRIPTION (ACRESl FEET CONDITION EXISTING DESIGN f!:QH IMPROVEMENTS Qi $1,000) PRIORITY
NORTH OF
CALLE
B 109-BARCELONA 36 320 NO 79 30" RCP 41.7 3
110 FACI L ITY
B 2 143-" " 49 330 36" RCP TO 97 36" RCP 51.5 3
110 NATURAL EXTENDED
S\.IALE
B 3 110-" " 101 1220 NO 195 42" RCP 213.1 3
112 FACILITY
~
\D B 4 106-" " 62 120 NATURAL 104 48" RCP 30.5 3
112 S\.IALE
B 5 152-" " 53 800 NATURAL 104 30" RCP 100.3 3
154 S\.IALE
B 6 154-" " 53 350 NATURAL 104 36" RCP 58.1 3
155 S\.IALE
B 7 166-" " 55 600 NATURAL 104 36" RCP 95.0 3
156 S\.IALE
B 8 123-" " 42' 350 NO 80 30" RCP 44.9 3
124 FACILITY
B 9 142-" II' 42 300 NO 80 36"' RCP 5.1.5 3
12p FACILITY
B 9A 184 " II 412 NO DESIL TING 13.2 3
FACILITY BAS'IN
- ------ --------. ---. -
PRELIMINARY FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION TABLES
CALLE BARCELONA BASIN, ZONE 12 (CONHNUED)
RATIONAL DRAINAGE APPROX. CAPACITY iilll IMPROVEMENT
FACI L ITY METHOD LOCATlO~1 AREA LENGTH EXISTING 100-YR RECOMMENDED COST
PLATE lli!!1ill NODE DESCRIPTION (ACRES) FEET CONDITION EXISTING DESIGN .E!:QH IMPROVEMENTS iii $1,000) PRIORITY
B 10 184 ROAD 412 150 NATURAL 602 2-5'X6' 175.6 3
CROSSING SWALE RCB
B 11 EL CAMINO 446 100 2-5'X6' RCB 602 RIVER 5.3
REAL CROSSING DREDGING
GREEN VALLEY BASIN, ZONE 23
B 12 652-WEST OF 66 1000 NATURAL 106 36" RCP 155.8 3
654 EL CAMINO SWALE
REAL
tv
0 B 13 640-" " 53 1000 " " 95 30" RCP 125.4 3
636
B 14 636-" " 35 700 " " 162 36" RCP 112.2 3
648
B 15 624-" " 57 900 " " ·106 30" RCP 114.8 3
630
B 16 610-" " 50 200 " " 73 30" RCP 25.1 3
618
B 17 610-" " 75 300 " " 163 36" RCP 47.5 ·3
618
B 18. " " 109 750 " " 252 4·2" RCP 138.6 3
B 18A LA COSTA 120 3-8'X12' RCB 2016 4231 2-8'X12'RCB 413.5 ·1
AYE. & BERM
-.---- -- ------ -- - --.-
PRELIMINARY FACILITY RECOMMENDATION TABLES
LEVANTE' STREET BASI-N, ZONE 12
RATIONAL DRAINAGE APPROX. CAPACITY illll IMPROVEMENT
FACILITY METHOD LOCATION/ AREA LENGTH EXISTING 100·YR RECOMMENDED COST
PLATE ~ !:!QQE. DESCR I PTI ON (ACRES) FEET CONDITION EXISTING DESIGN FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Q ~1.000) PRIORITY
B 19 308 EAST OF 110 1075 42" RCP 167 189 NONE
EL CAMINO REAL
(LEVANTE ST.)
B 20 310 " " 131 440 54" RCP 193 225 NONE
B 21 312 CROSSING AT 163 160 60" CMP 240 280 72" 66.7
EL CAMINO CULVERT RCP CULVERT
REAL
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN, ZONE 12
N ....
B 22 472-WEST SIDE OF 31 250 30" RCP 80 71 NONE
474 RANCHO SANTA
FE ROAD
B 23 472-" " 46 350 36" RCP 125 109 NONE
474
B 24 474-" II 56 850 NATURAL 135 4211 Rep 150.5 3
476 SWALE
B 25 47.4-II " 67 300 NATURAL 160 -48" RCP 59.4 3
476 SWALE
B '26 460.-CALLE 41 100 42" RCP 103 a~ I;XTEND 100' 19.8 3
462 BARCELONA
B 27. 462 CULVERT UNDER 4,. 113 2-30" RCP-81 81 NONE
RANCHO, SANTA CULVERT
FE ROAQ
_.------' _.--------- --. --.
PRELIMINARY FACILITY .RECOMMENDPtTIONS
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN, ZONE 12 (CONTINUED)
RATIONAL DRAINAGE APPROX. CAPAC ITY i£.Ell I,MPROVEMENT
FACILITY METHOD LOCATION! AREA LENGTH EXISTING 100-YR RECOMMENDED COST
PLATE ~ NODE DESCRIPTION (ACRES) FEET CONDITION EXISTING DESIGN f!:QH IMPROVEMENTS ~ $1.000) PRIORITY
B 28 450 " " 12 89 2-24" RCP 52 37 NONE
CULVERT
B 29 442-\.lEST OF 36 650 30" RCP 79 79 NONE
444 RANCHO SANTA
FE ROAD
B 30 444 " " 60 350 36" RCP 129 98 NONE
B 31 444 CULVERT UNDER 60 75 2'X4,' RCB 129 98 NONE
RANCHO SANTA
FE ROAD
I'V
I'V OLIVENHAIN ROAD BASIN, ZONE 12
B 32 436 OLIVENHAIN 20 120 36" CMP 36 36 NONE
CULVERT CULVERT
B 33 416-,I, " 24 370 30" RCP 45 45 NONE
410
B 34 410 " " 48 160 2-24" CMP 50 ~O 48" Rep 36.0
B 35 402 'CUL VERT UNDER 13 160 24" RCP ~O 45 30" RCP. 25.5 3
E~ CAMINO REAL
B 35A ENCINITAS 120 BRIDGE 1400 DREDGE RIVER, 129.4
CREEK UNDER LO\.IER BRIDGE
'El CAMINO REAL INVERT ELEV.
& DESILT BASIN
v --v " v
------
-----. .....--
(
..--------"'--. )
/' '
~ I
I
L/j ( I , \
\'
\I)
) \ V /
)
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE SCALE:.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
" FACILITY INDEX FOR:CALLE BARCELONA, GREEN VALLEY, r LEVANTE STREET AND OUVENHAIN RD. ~ ~--------------------------.. --------------------~------------~ -I
fTI LEGEND
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT ~////h
FACILITY NUMBER' @) JULY '19·88 5620 FRIARS ROAD
DRAINAGE SYSTEM ~
DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY-
SAN DIEGO, CA. 92110 (619) 291 -0707
- ---.--- ---. ----- ----
PRELiMINARY FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN, ZONE 11
RATIONAL DRAINAGE APPROX. CAPACITY i£ill IMPROVEMENT
FACILITY METHOD LOCATION/ AREA LENGTH EXISTING 100-YR RECOMMENDED COST
E!:lli. NUMBER HQQE. DESCR I PTI ON (ACRES) fllI CONDITION EXISTING QI§lill! F LO\J IMPROVEMENTS S! $1.000) PRIORITY
C 36 203-NORTHERN 38 2650 NATURAL 59 36" RCP 399.3 3
209 RANCHO SANTA S\.IALE
FE ROAD
C 37 204-" " 46 1000 " " 96 30" RCP 125.4 3
205
C 38 205-" " 73 1200 " " 149 36" RCP 182.2 3
209
C 39 207-" " 79 1450 " " 133 36" RCP 235.0 3
N 211.5 w
C 40 214-" " 39 1500 " " 70 30" RCP 196.0 3
213
C 41 216-" " 112 1700 " " 187 42" RCP 310.9 3
213
C 42 2~2.5-" " 31 650 " " 55 30" RCP 86.5 3
221.5
C 43 209-NORTHE~N 110 400 NATURAL 202 48" RCP 76.6 3
211,5 RANCHO SANTA SWALE
FE ROAD
C 43A 211 ;5-" " 193 600 " " 339 60" RCP 154.4 3
213
C 43B 213-" " 372 950 " " 640 72" RCP . 266.6 3
221
-.---.--------- ----.--
PRELIMINARY FACILITY ,RECOMMENDATIONS
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN, ZONE 11 (CONTINUED)
RATIONAL DRAINAGE APPROX. CAPACITY 1fill IMPROVEMENT
FACILITY METHOD LOCATION! AREA L~EXISTING 100-YR RECOMMENDED COST DESIG~PROVEM~$1 ,000) <'::Y PLATE ~ NODE DESCRIPTION (ACRES) lliI. CONDITION EXISTING
C 43C 221-" " 455 1050 " " 672 78" RCP 324.7 3
226
C 44 228-PARALLEL TO 31 700 " " 91 30" RCP 89.8 3
226 MISION ESTAN.
C 45 234-SOUTHEAST OF 15 300 30" RCP TO 190 72 NONE
235 RANCHO SANTA THE NORTH OF
FE ROAD LA COSTA AVE.
C 46 226-TRIBUTARY 455 150 2-72" RCP 700+ G2? NONE
235 CULVERT
I'V CROSSING MISION """ ESTANCIA
C 47 231-TRIBUTARY 51 450 NATURAL 101 30" RCP 59.4 3
232 MISION SWALE
ESTANCIA
C 48 241-TRIBUTARY 30 720 36" RCP 143 EXT. 36" RCP 106.9 3
242 UNDER CULVERT
LA COSTA
AVENUE
C 49 242-TRIBVTARY 67 1020 NATURAL 263 42" RCP 181.4 3
244 EAST OF RANCHO SWALE
SANTA FE ROAD
C 50 245-TRIBUTARY 671.$ 150 3-66" RCP 1230 1229 NONE
245.5 CULVERT UNQER
MISION EsTANCIA
C 5-1 265 TRiBUTARY 984 45 2-4'X9.3' 651 591 EXTEND 215.2 3
RCB 2-4'X9.3'
- --- --- -- ----------
PRELIMINARY FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
UPPER .ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN, ZONE 11
RATIONAL DRAINAGE APPROX. CAPACITY ~ IMPROVEMENT
FACILITY METHOD LOCATIONI AREA LENGTH EXISTING 100-YR RECOMMENDED COST
fblli. ~ !!QQE DESCRIPTION (ACRES) FEET CONDITION EXISTING ~FLOW IMPROVEMENTS Qi $1,000) PRIORITY
C 52 500-ENCINITAS 70 200 NATURAL 114 48" RCP 44.2 3
501 CREEK SIJALE
C 53 507-NORTH OF 33.8 600 " " 84 30" RCP 75.2 3
508 ENCINITAS
CREEK
C 54 508-" " 54 480 " " 135 36" RCP 75.2 3
511
~ C 55 515-" " 19 300 " " 72 30" RCP 39.8 3 U1 515.5
C 56 514-ENCINITAS 410 220 " " 604 2-72" RCP 133.3 3
523 CREEK UNDER
CAllE ACERVO
C 57 517-TRIBUTARY 63 250 " " 70 42" RCP 49.5 3
514.5 UNDER CAllE
ACERVO
C 58 543-SOUTH OF 23 400 " " 48 30" R~P 54.1 3
544 ENCINITAS
CREEK
C 59 540-NORTH OF 25 500 " " 52. 30" RCP 64.7 3
S34 ENCINITAS
CR'EEK,
-I11III ----'---.-.------------
PRELIMINARY FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
UPPER EtlCINITAS CREEK BASIN, ZONE 11 (CONTINUED)
RATIONAL DRAINAGE APPROX. CAPACITY ill§l IMPROVEMENT
FACILITY METHOD LOCATIONI AREA LENGTH EXISTING 100-YR RECOMMENDED COST
PLATE NUMBER !!QQf DESCRIPTION (ACRES) FEET CONDITION EXISTING DESIGN f.b.QH IMPROVEMENTS Q $1,000) PRIORITY
C 60 549-SOUTHEAST 33 350 NO 67 30" RCP 44.9 3
550 END OF RANCHO FACILITIES
SANTA FE ROAD
C 61 550-" " 43 725 " II 87 30" RCP 88.4 3
567
C 62 567-" " 139 1400 2-36" RCP 229 48" RCP 268.0 2
547 UNDER RANCHO
SANTA FE ROAD
N m
C 63 702-ENCINITAS 36 330 NO 76 30" RCP 42.8 2
703 CREEK WEST OF, • 'FACllITlES
RANCHO SANTA
FE ROAD
C 64 703-II II 38 270 " " 80 30" RCP 36.4 2
704
C 65 704 ENCINITAS 804 150 2-4'X10' RCB 700 1155 DUAL 6'X10' 343.9
RCB
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE SCALE:
CITY OF CARLSBAD UPPER ENCINITAS CREEK TRIBUTARY
~ FACILITY INDEX FOR: UPPER ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN
>~ ______________________ ~ ____ ------------~~~~-------1 rri LEGEND DATE:
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT W//h': JULY, 1988
5620 FRIARS ROAD FACILITY NUMBER @
SAN' DIEGO, CA. 92110 (619) 291 -0707 g~!:~~~~ ~~~~E~OUNDARY 0-0
III = 1000·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, I
I
I
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
INTRODUCTION
The preliminary cost estimates used in this study were derived
from the city of San Diego unit Prices for' Checking Subdivisions
,alid ,Permits (March 1, 1985) . These unit prices are also
currently used for cost estimates in the City of Carlsb,d. Costs
are broken out by sub-basin in the Preliminary Cost Estimate
Tables which begin on page 29. The costs' are given as, unit
prices in terms of linear feet (l.f.), cubic yards (c.y.),or·
each (ea.).
The preliminary cost estimates are based on anticipated'
construction costs including materials and installation. ~he
estimates include 10 percent contingency for possible relocation
of util i ties and 20 percent contingency for engineering,
administration and legal expenses.
Proposed facility improvements are assumed to pe constructed
wi thin public rights-of-way or easements. No additional cost, is
included for land or easement acquisition in the preliminary cost
estimates.
It should be recognized that actual construction costs may vary
from the prel iminary costs shown in this report. Possible
reasons for construction cost variations include changes during
final design, unforeseen field or soil conditions, variable costs
of labor and materials, costs of traffic control, costs Qf street
or curb and gutter cuts, costs of landscaping replacement andl or
excess costs of utility relocation.
27
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
a
I'
II
I
I
SUMMARY OF UNIT PRICES USED (REF. CITY OF SAN DIEGO)
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Box culvert
Box culvert
Box culvert
Box culvert
Inlet
Cleanout
Headwall wi wingwall
Headwall wi wingwall
River dredging
Berm construction
Riprap dissipator
Riprap @ uls side
Desilting basin
DESCRIPTION
30" R.C.P.
36" R.C.P.
42" R.C.P.
48" R.C.P.
54" R.C.P.
60" R.C.P.
66" R.C.P.
72" R.C.P.
78" R.C.P.
2-4'X9.3'
2-6'X10'
2-5'X6'
2-8'X12'
Type "B"
Type "A"
R.C.P.
R.C.B.
Export
Import
Culverts
Culverts
Structure
28
l.f.
l.f.
l.f.
l.f.
1. f.
l.f.
l.f.
l.f.
l.f.
l.f.
l.f.
l.f.
l.f.
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
c.y.
c.y.
ea.
ea.
ea.
PRICE
$80
$100
$120
$130
$150
$180
$190
$200
"$2.2 0'
$1,500
$1.,650
$800
. $2 ;350
$3,00.0
$3,000
$3,50Q
$4,500
$4
$7.5
$3,000
$1,000
$1.0,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES INDEX
Calle Barcelona Basin -Zone 12
Green Valley Basin -Zone 23
~evante street Basin -Zone 12
Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin -Zone 1~
Olivenhain Road Basin -Zone 12
Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin -Zone 11
Upper Encinitas Creek Basin -Zone 11
29
PAGE-
30
32
34
3;>
36
37
4:0
I -'~
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
I RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABt,ES
CALLE BARCELONA BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 1 of 2
I Facility Estimated Unit Facility
I Number Description Quantity unit Cost Cbst
I 1 30" R.C.P. 320 1. f. $80 $25,600
1 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
2 Extend 36" R.C.P 330 l.f. $100 $33,000
I 2 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
3 42" R.C.P. 1,220 l.f. $120 $146,400
I 3 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $14,000
3 Riprap dissipat~r 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
I 4 48" R.C.P. 120 l.f. $130 $15,600'
4 Headwall wi wingwall 1 ea. $3,50Q $3,500
4 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $:j.,000
I 4 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3, 00-0
5 30" R.C.P. 800 l.f. $80 $64,00,0
I' 5 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
6 36" R.C.P. 350 l.f. $100 $:35,000
I 6 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
6 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
,I 7 36" R.C.P. 600 l.f. $100 $60,000
7 Cleanout 3 ea. $3,000 $9jOOO
7 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,0,00 $3,000
I 8 30" R.C.P. 350 l.f. $80 $28,00-0
8 Cleanout . 2 ea • $3,000 $6,000
I 9 36" R.C.P. 300 l.f. $100 $3O,000
9 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
I 9 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3;000
9A Desilt basin struct. 1 ea. $10,000 $10,,000
I 10 2-5'X6' R.C.B. 150 l.f. $800 $120,000
10 Headwall wi wingwall 2 ea. $4,500 $9,O00
10 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. ,$1,000 $1,00-0
I 10 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
11 River dredging 1,000 c.y. $4 $4,000
I 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
CALLE BARCELONA BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 2 of 2
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST
31
$667,100
66,710
$733,8'10
$146,762
$880,572,
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY Of Cl\RLSBAD I RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
GREEN VALLEY BASIN (ZONE 23) WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL Page lof 2
I Facility Estimated unit Facility
I Number Description Quantity unit Cost Cost
12 36" R.C.P. 1,000 l.f. $100 $100,000 I 12 Cleanout 5 ea. $3,000 $15,0.00
12 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
I 13 30" R.C.P. 1,000 l.f. $,80 $80,000
13 Cleanout 5 ea. $3,000 $15,000
I 14 36" R.C.P. 700 l.f. $100 $70,000
14 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
I 14 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,00.0
15 30" R.C.P. 900 l.f. $80 $72,000
15 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000 I 15 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,00'0
16 30" R.C.P. 200 l.f. $80 $16,00'0,
I 16 Cleanout 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
17 36" R.C.P. 300 l.f. $100 $30,000
'I 17 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $'6,000
18 42" R.C.P. 750 l.f. $120 ,$90,000
I 18 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
18 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 '$3:,000
18A 2-8'X12' R.C.B. 125 l.f. $2,350 $293,750 I 18A Headwall ~/ wingwall 2 ea. $4,500 $9,000
18A Berm construction 1,400 c.y. $7.5 $10;500
I
I TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST '$858,250
I Contingencies including possible relocation.
of utilities @ 10% $85,825
I
I 32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• •
I
II
I
i I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
GREEN VALLEY BASIN (ZONE 23) WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL Pag~ 2 of 2
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST
33
$944,075
$188,815
$1,i32,890
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
LEVANTE STREET BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 1 of 1
Facility Estimated unit
Number Description Quantity unit Cost
21 72" R.C.P. 160 l.f. $200
21 Cleanout 1 ea. $3,000
21 TYPE "B" INLET 3 ea. $3,000
21 Headwall wi wingwall 1 ea. $3,500
21 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST
contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST
34
Facility
Cost -
$32,000
$3,000
$9-,000
$3 5'00 .,
$3,000
. $-$0,500
$5,050
$55,550
$11,1:1.0
$66,660
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 12) Page
Facility Estimated unit
Number Description Quantity unit Cost
24 42" R.C.P. 850 l.f. $120 .
24 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000
25 48" R.C.P. 300 l.f. $130
25 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000
26 Extend 42" R.C.P. 100 l.f. $,1.20
26 Cleanout 1 ea. $;3,000.
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST
contingencies including possible relocation·
of utilities @ 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST
35
l·of 1
F~cility
Cost
$1.02,000
$1.2,000
$39,00O
$6,000
$12,00O
$3,O00
$1.74,000
$17,400
$191,400
$38,280
$229,68:0
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
OLIVENHAIN ROAD BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 1 of 1
Facility Estimated unit
Number Description Quantity unit Cost
34 48" R.C.P. 160 l.f. $130
34 Headwall wi wingwall 1 ea. $3,,500
34 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000
35 30" R.C.P. 160 l.f. $80
35 Headwall wi wingwall 1 ea. $3,500
35 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000
~5A River dredging 22,000 c.y. $4
35A Desilt basin struct. 1 ea. $10,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST
contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST
36
Facility
Cost
$20,~OO
$3,500
$3,000
$12,800
$3,500
$3-,000
$-88,000
$1'0,000
$'144,600
$14,460
$159,060
$31,81~
$19.0,872
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAP
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 1 of 3
Facility
Number
36
36
36
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
39
39
39
39
40
40
40
40
40
41
41
41
41
41
42
42
42
42
42
Description
Estimated
Quantity unit
unit
Cost
36" R.C.P.
Headwall wi wingwall
Riprap @ u/s side
Cleanout
Riprap dissipator
30" R.C.P.
Cleanout
36" R.C.P.
Cleanout
36" R.C.P.
Headwall wi wingwall
Riprap @ u/s side
Cleanout
Riprap dissipator
30" R.C.P.
Headwall wi wingwall
Riprap @ u/s side
Cleanout
Riprap dissipator
42" R.C.P.
Headwall wi wingwall
Riprap @ u/s side
Cleanout
Riprap dissipator
30" R. C .'P.
Headwall wi wingwall
Riprap @ u/s side
Cleanout
Riprap dissipator
2,650
1
1
10
1
1,000
5
1,200
6
1,450
2
2
7
1
1,500
1
1
7
1
1,700
1
1
8
1
650
1
1
2
1
37
l.f. $100
ea. $3,500 ..
ea. $1,000
ea. $3,000
ea. $3,000
1.f. $80
ea. $3,000
l.f. $100
ea. $3,000
l.f. $100
ea. $3,500
ea. $1,000
ea. $3,000
ea. $3,000
1. f. $~O
ea. $3,500
ea. $1,000,
ea. $3,000
ea., $3,000
l .. f. $120
ea. $3,500
ea. $1,000
ea. $3,000
ea. $3,000
1. f. ' $8'0
ea. $3,500
ea. $1,000
ea. $3,.000
ea. $3,000
Facility
c~st
$26·5,000
$3,500
$1,000
$30,000
$3,000
$8Q,000
$15,000
$120,000
$18;0'00
$145,000
$7,000
$2,000
$2.1,0QO
$3,000
$120,000
$3,500
$1,000
$21,000'
$3,000
$204,000
$3,500
$1,000
$24,000
$3,000
$52,000
$3{500
$l,OOO
$6,000
$3,000
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD .
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 2 of 3
Facility
Number Description
Estimated
Quantity
43
43
43A
48" R.C.P.
Cleanout
60" R.C.P.
43A Cleanout
43B 72" R.C.P.
43B Cleanout
43C 78" R.C.P.
43C Cleanout
44 30" R.C.P.
44 Cleanout
44 Riprap dissipator
47 Extend 30" R.C.P
47 Cleanout
47 Riprap dissipator
48 Extend 36" R.C.P
48 Cleanout
49 42" R.C.P.
49 Cleanout
49 Riprap dissipat~r
51 Ext. 2-4'X9.3' RCB
51 Headwall wI wingwall
51 Riprap @ u/s side
51 Riprap dissipat~r
400
2
600
3
950
4
1,050
5
700
3
1
450
2
1
720
3
1,020
4
1
100
2
1
1
Unit
Unit Cost
l.f.· $130
ea. $3,000
l.f. $180
ea.
l.f.
ea.
l.f.
ea.
l.f.
ea.
ea.
l.f.
ea.
ea.
l.f.
ea.
1. f.
ea.
ea.
1. f.
ea.
ea.
ea.
$3',000
$200
$3,000
$220
$3,000
$80
$3,000
$3,000
$80
$3,000
$3,000
$100
$3,000
$120
$3,000
$3,000
$],.,50.0
$4,500
$1,000
$3,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10%
38
Facd,li ty.
Cost
$52,000
$6,000
$108,000
$9;000
$190,000
$12,000
$231,000
$15,000
$56,000
$9,000
$3,000
$36,000
$6,000
$3,000'
$72,000
$9,000
1$122,400
$12,'000
$3, .00·0
$150,000
$9,000
$1,000
$3,000
$2.,280,400
$228,040
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 3 ·of 3
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, administration and leg.al
expenses @ 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST
39
$.2,508,440
$501,688
$3,010,128
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I,
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 1 of 2
Facility
Number Description
Estimated
Quantity
52
52
52
52
53
53
54
54
54
55
55
56
56
56
56
57
57
57
57
58
58
58
59
59
59
60
60
61
61
62
48" R.C.P. 200
Headwall wi wingwall 1
Riprap @ u/s side 1
Riprap dissipator 1
30" R.C.P. 600
Cleanout 3
36" R.C.P. 480
Cleanout 2
Riprap dissipator 1
30" R.C.P. 300
Cleanout 2
2-72" R.C.P. 440
Headwall w/ wingwall 2
Riprap @ u/s side 1
Riprap dissipat~r 1
42" R.C.P. 250
Headwall w/ wingwall 1
Riprap @ u/s ~ide 1
Riprap dissipat~r 1
30" R.C.P. 400
Cleanout 2
Riprap dissipator 1
30" R.C.P. 500
Cleanout 2
Riprap dissipator 1
30" R.C.P. 350
Cleanout 2
30" R.C.P. 725
Cleanout 3
48" R.C.P. 1,400
40
unit
Cost
l.f. $130
ea. $3,500
ea. $1,000
ea. $3,000
l.f. $80
ea. $3,000
l.f. $100
ea. $3,000
ea. $3,000
l.f. $80
ea. $3,000
l.f. $200
ea. $4,500
ea. $1,000
ea. $3,000
l.f. $120
ea. $3,500
ea. $1, ood
ea. $3,000
l.f. $80
ea. $3,000
ea. $3,000
l.f. $80
ea. $3,000
ea. $3,000
l.f. $80
ea. $3,000
l.f. $80
ea. $3,000
l.f. $130
Facility
Cost
$26,90,0
$3',500.
'$1, 00'0
$3,000
$48,000
$9,000
$48 ,,000
$6,,000
$3,000
$2'4,000
$6,000
$8'8, 000
$9,000
$1,000
$3,000
$30,000
$3,500
$1,000
$3,000
, $32,000
$6 000 , ,
$3,000
$49,000
$6 t 060
$3,000
$28,000
$6,090
$'58,00
$9,000
$182,000
,C l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 2 of 2
Facility Estimated
Number Description Quantity unit
62 Cleanout 6 ea.
62 Riprap dissipator 1 ear
63 30" R.C.P. 330 l.f.
63 Cleanout 2 ea.
64 30" R.C.P. 270 l.f.
unit
Cost
$3,000
$3,'000'
$80
$3,000
$80
64
64
65
65
65
65
Cleanout
Riprap dissipator
2-6' X 10' R.C.B.
1
1
ea. $3,000
ea. $3,000
Headwall wi wingwall
Riprap @ u/s side
Riprap dissipator
150
2
1
1
l.f~ $1,650
ea. $4,500
ea. $1,000
ea. $3,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10%
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20%
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST
41
,
Facility
Cost.
$1?,,000
$3;000
$26,400
$6,000
$21,600
$3,.'000
$~,OOO
$247,50'0
$9,000
$1,.000
$3,000
$1,030,500
. $'103,050
$i, ,133,55-0
$226,710
$1,360,2,60
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I'
I
I
i
i
I
I
REFERENCES
1. City of Carlsbad, 1984; standard Designcri ter.ia fo·r the
Design of Public Works Improvements in the city of Carlsbad.
2. San Diego County Department of Public Works, 1985; Public
Road Standards.
3. San Diego County Design Policy Committee, 1985; Design,Policy
for Flood Control and Drainage.
4. County of San Diego Department of Public Works Flood Control
Division, 1985; Hydrology Manual.
5. San Diego County Regional Standards Committee r 19-86; Regional
Standard Drawings.
6. Rick Engineering Company, 1988; Encinitas Creek Wate'r'shed
HEC-l Model Analysis Hydrology Report.
7. San Diego County Flood Plain Mapping, 1981; Encinitas, Creek
HEC-2 Computer Output.
8. San Diego County Department of Public Works, 1982; Encinita$
Creek Floodplain Mapping.
9. San Diego County Engineer I (latest revision), 200 scale
Orthophoto Topographic Survey maps.
10. city of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1987; General flan Map.
11. Soil Cons"ervation Service, 1974; Soil Survey of the San Diego
Area, California.
12. city of Carlsbad Engineering Department; Storm Drain As-Built
Plans (files).
13. u.s. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971; Flood Plain Inform?ttibn,
San Marcos Creek.
14 . City of San Diego,
Subdivisions and Permits.
1985 ; unit Pr ices for Checking
15. Mission Aerial Photo, May 3, 1988; Aeri?tl Phqtogr?tphy for
Mello Roos District.
16. San Diego County, 1980; Hydrology Report for Encinitas
Creek.
17. CH2M Hill, 1988 (Draft); Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement
Project.
18. Koebig, Inc., 1976; Comprehensive Plan for Flood Control
and Drainage Zone 1, San Diego County Flood Control District.
42