HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-06; City Council; 5861-1; Master Plan of drainage for City of CarlsbadCITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL ^ ._^^^L^-^U^^^^^^^ Dept. "iiead_£
DATE: M£LiL_lM°L._ c- Atty
DEPARTMENT: ENGINEERING C- M9r-
SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN OF DRAINAGE FOR CITY OF CARLSBAD
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The Engineering Division, as authorized by the City Council, contracted with VTN Corpora-
tion for a revised master plan of drainage study. VTN has completed their study and
has recommended various financing alternatives.
EXHIBIT
Master Plan of Drainage
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council receive the Master Plan of Drainage for review and
comment and set a date for consideration at a workshop meeting on May 27 at 7:00 PM.
Council Action:
5-6-80 Council received the Master Plan of Drainage for review and set the matter to
workshop on May 27, 1980, at 7:00 P.M.
5-27-80 Council concurred with the recommendation of staff that a report be prepared
and returned to Council as to possible financing which could include:
storm drain improvement fee, developer construction, and improvement districts,
L
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS 484S RONSON COURT, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 (714) 292-1040
4845 Ronson Court
• ™ San Diego, California 92111
Engineers • Architects • Planners (714)292-1040
June 16, 1980
Honorable City Council
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Honorable Mayor and Councilmen:
VTN is pleased to submit herewith the results of the Master Drainage
Plan for the local drainage needs of the City of Carlsbad.
This report sets forth the comprehensive local drainage system
necessary to meet the long term needs of the City. Cost estimates, priorities
and financing recommendations have been prepared for proposed drainage facili-
ties required by existing deficiencies or new development. These backbone
systems are estimated to cost $24,083,109; $21,374,171 of which is required for
future development. Many of these facilities will be constructed or financed
by future development through impact fees or improvement district assessments.
A portion of the City is under the present jurisdiction of the San Diego
County Flood Control District. :Implementation and financing of facilities in
this area should be coordinated with the District.
Drainage districts are proposed which group facilities in defined basins.
These districts provide a framework for implementation of the Master Plan facil-
ities within each district.
We wish to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided by the
City staff during the preparation of this study. The opportunity to be of
service to the City of Carlsbad is sincerely appreciated and we lock forward
to being of assistance in the future.
Very truly yours,
VTN SAN DIEGO
Allan Cooper
Vice Preside
AC:jr
Enclosure
MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN
FOR THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
MARCH 17, 1980
Prepared by:
VTN Engineers, Architects, Planners
4845 Ronson Court
San Diego, CA 92111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
II INTRODUCTION
A. AUTHORIZATION H-l
B. SCOPE OF STUDY H-l
C. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA . H-3
D. BASIS OF STUDY I1-8
1. PREVIOUS STUDIES n-8
' 2. HYDROLOGY n~9
3. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION H-10
4. GENERAL PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS n-10
III HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC CRITERIA
A. STUDY APPROACH HI-l
B. HYDROLOGIC DESIGN CRITERIA HI-1
C. DESIGN RUNOFF METHOD 111-6
D. DESIGN PROCEDURE in-6
IV DRAINAGE FACILITIES PLAN
A. BUENA VISTA CREEK BASIN JV-l
(Facilities AA-AE)
B. AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK BASIN * IV'3
(Facilities BA-BN)
C. ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN IV'4
(Facilities CA-CM)
D. SAN MARCOS CREEK/BATIQUITOS LAGOON BASIN IV-4
(Facilities DA-DT)
V PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM AND MATRIX V-l
VI FINANCING ALTERNATIVES V1'1
VII RECOMMENDATIONS V11'1
VIII COST ESTIMATES VIII-l
APPENDIX
Model Erosion Control Ordinance A~'
Erosion Control Devices - Schematics and Criteria A~°
Checklist for Site Evaluation A-16
Design Limitations on Dams A~^7
Sediment Yield Charts A'30
Sediment Transport Chart A~3'
REFERENCES A"33
PAGE
FIGURES
A STUDY AREA AND UPSTREAM WATERSHED 11-4
1 VELOCITY IN NATURAL VALLEY CHANNELS ' I11-10
2 NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION 111-11
FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS
3 RAINFALL INTENSITY-DURATION-FREQUENCY CURVES FOR I11-12
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
4 GUTTER AND ROADWAY DISCHARGE-VELOCITY CHART 111-13
TABLES
B PROPOSED FACILITIES - COSTS AND PRIORITIES VII-7
1 MANNING ROUGHNESS "n" VALUES II1-3
2 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS III-3
3 PREVIOUS STUDIES ' HI-3
4 DESILTING BASIN CAPACITY III-5
5 UNIT PRICES A-5
6 COST ESTIMATES A-5
PLATES (1 THROUGH 4) - EXISTING
AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE FACILITIES
EXECUTJV.
LJjVJJvlARY
r1
1-1
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Master Drainage Plan for the City of Carlsbad proposes drainage
facilities costing an estimated $24,083,109 to be constructed in the study
area in the future. About $2,708,938 worth of drainage facilities will
remedy deficiencies in existing storm drain systems and developed areas lacking storm
drains. These proposed systems may be financed by redevelopment funds, 1911
Act assessments, and/or new development. These facilities are generally of
highest priority since they will reduce the potential for loss of life,
property damage, nuisance flooding, and excessive erosion.
The remaining about $21,374,171 worth of proposed drainage facilities are
required by future development. These will be financed by future development
in the following ways:
1. Proposed facilities located in a proposed development wtll
be constructed by the developer, and right of way will be
dedicated to the City.
2. Facilities offsite will be constructed by the developer or be
paid for in part by the development and in part by future develop-
ment. Right-of-way acquisition for offsite facilities will be
funded by developers.
3. In areas requiring substantial offsite drainage facilities, Drainage
Improvement Districts (or Multi-Purpose Assessment Districts where
other facilities are planned) should be formed under the 1911 Act
by property owners in each drainage district.
4. In lieu of districts, fees collected under the Subdivision Map Act
will be used to construct offsite facilities.
Based on the developable land minus open space, an average City-wide fee
would be approximately $1720 per acre. For individual basins, the fees range
from $44 to $8605 per acre .with an average fee of $2150 per acre.
1-2
The proposed Drainage Improvement Districts are shown on Plates 1 - 4
along with existing and proposed drainage facilities. Table B tabulates
priorities, costs and recommended methods of implementation. Priorities
have been set for drainage facilities in areas of future development.
These priorities are keyed to a growth management plan which directs near
future development to areas with existing utilities, and defers proposed
development in areas with no existing utilities.
In addition to this report, nineteen orthophoto contour maps at a scale
of 1" = 400' are provided to the City which show existing and proposed drainage
facilities and the hydrologic data computed in this study. These sheets are
intended to be updated by City staff as development occurs to maintain a
current inventory of drainage facilities.
Among the recommendations of this report is one to amend the grading
ordinance to include a model erosion control ordinance as provided in the
Appendix. This ordinance, along with a compatible City policy of enforcement
of erosion controls will be largely responsible for preservation of the Lagoons
from the impact of future development.
NTHODUCTJON
II-l
II. INTRODUCTION
A. Authorization
This Master Drainage Plan has been prepared for the City of Carlsbad
under a contract dated July 10, 1979 approved by the City Council of the
City of Carlsbad on June 5, 1979, Resolution No. 5792.
B. Scope of Study
The authorized scope of work involved the tasks outlined below.
1. General Investigation and Research
Previous hydrology studies, a 1971 Master Drainage Plan, the
various General Plan elements, and other relevant policy and design
documents were reviewed. The findings were analyzed and incorporated
into this report. Detailed descriptions of the various existing
documents and the results of review are set forth in Chapter II
Section D, Basis of Study.
2. Hydrologic Analysis
To determine the adequacy of existing storm drains and the need for
new storm drains, a detailed hydrologic analysis was performed on all
basins except for major watercourses where previous studies had de-
termined design flows. The methodology is described in Section III:
Hydrologic and Hydraulic Criteria. Flows were determined at appro-
priate places and storm drains were sized to match existing grades.
This data is displayed on nineteen orthophoto sheets with a scale
of 1" = 400'. The backup calculations were submitted to the City
Engineering Department.
3. Recommended Flood Control and Drainage Plan
Where there are deficiencies in existing facilities or future
development requires, storm drains are recommended as shown in
Plates 1 to 4.
3. CONT'D
Debris basins are indicated in appropriate locations to preserve the
lagoons. In addition to construction of facilities, methods of watershed
management are recommended which will mitigate the impact of future
development on the lagoons. These include requirements of developers
for on-site erosion control and checklists for evaluation of development
plans.
4. Preliminary Cost Estimates
Preliminary cost estimates were determined for the recommended facilities
based on approximate quantities and unit prices. These estimates are
tabulated in Chapter VIII.
5. Priorrty_Rating. System and Matrix
A system for prioritizing the implementation of the Master Plan was
developed and is described in Chapter V. The system is tailored to the
conditions existing in Carlsbad in terms of development policy and growth
management. Facilities have been prioritized and grouped accordingly.
Implementation of the Master Drainage Plan will therefore be in concert
with implementation of other elements of the General Plan.
6. Methods and Concepts of Financing and Management
Methods available to finance the construction of recommended facilities
are analyzed in Chapter VI.
7. Report Preparation
This report, the nineteen 1" = 400' scale orthophotos showing the hydrologic
analysis, and supporting maps, figures, tables, and reference is the product
of the Master Drainage Study. This study will undergo Environmental Impact
Assessment by the Carlsbad Planning Department. After approval, it would be
presented to the City Council as a policy item of the Engineering Division.
The Council would then enact a drainage and erosion control ordinance.
- 2 -
II-3
C. Description of Study Area
The study area includes all the area within the current corporate
boundary of the City of Carlsbad, and the unincorporated area which it
surrounds, i.e., the vicinity of Palomar Airport and the north shore of
Batiquitos Lagoon.
This area is bounded on the north by the City of Oceanside and Buena
Vista Creek, on the south by Batiquitos Lagoon, El Camino Real, and
Encinitas Creek, on the West by the Pacific Ocean, and on the East by the
Cities of Vista and San Marcos. The study area extends about eight miles
north-south and five miles inland from the coast. The City lies on the
coastal plain which rises to an elevation of 730 feet in the foothills to
the east. Four major watercourses have carved watersheds in the coastal
plain:
1. On the north is Buena Vista Creek. "Buena Vista Creek originates in
the San Marcos Mountains and flows westerly into Buena Vista Lagoon,
which empties into the Pacific Ocean. The entire watershed lies within
the County of San Diego and includes parts of the Cities of Vista,
Carlsbad, and Oceanside.
The Buena Vista Creek watershed is long and narrow in shape, with a
distance of about 11 miles from the ocean to the highest mountain peak
and an average width of about 2 miles. Total area for the watershed is
about 22 square miles. Elevations range from Mean Sea Level (m.s.l.) at
the Pacific Ocean to about 1,500 feet. Average slope is about 140 feet
per mile." (Ref. 2)
2. South of Buena Vista Creek is Agua Hedionda Creek. " AguaHedionda
Creek originates in the San Marcos Mountains and flows westerly into
Aqua Hedionda Lagoon which empties into the Pacific Ocean. The entire
watershed lies within the County of San Diego and includes parts of the
cities of San Marcos, Carlsbad, and Oceanside. The Agua Hedionda Creek
C. CONT'D H'5
watershed is long and narrow in shape, with a distance of about 13
miles from the ocean to the highest mountain peak and an average
width of about 3 miles. Total area for the watershed is about 30
square miles. Elevations range from Mean Sea Level (M.S.L.) at the
Pacific Ocean to about 1,700 feet. Average slope is about 130 feet
per mile." (Ref. 1) A major tributary flows out of Oceanside into
Calavera Lake, a manmade lake, and thence to the main creek.
3. The Canyon De Las Encinas watershed lies entirely with the study
area nested between Agua Hedionda and San Marcos Creek watersheds.
The creek extends easterly inland about 4 miles and drains about four
square miles. Elevations range from Mean Sea Level to about 450 feet
for an average slope of 110 feet per mile.
4. "San Marcos Creek originates in the coastal range of mountains
north and east of San Marcos and empties into the Batiquitos Lagoon
about 2.6 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Enci-nitas Creek, a major
tributary, originates in the mountains southwest of San Marcos and joins
San Marcos Creek as it empties into Batiquitos Lagoon. The East Branch
of San Marcos Creek originates in the mountains east of San Marcos and
joins San Marcos Creek in the City of San Marcos. The entire drainage
area totals 46 square miles and ranges in elevation from sea level to
slightly over 1700 feet in the Merriam Mountain range northeast of San
Marcos.
"The stream gradient ranges from an average of 10 feet per mile near
the mouth to about 600 feet per mile in headwaters. San Marcos Creek has a
small and not well defined channel upstream from Lake San Marcos. Below
that point, the channel is well defined, steep, and rocky to the La Costa
development where it becomes small and not well defined again to Batiquitos
Lagoon. The flood plain is broad upstream from Lake San Marcos. From
Lake San Marcos Dam to the La Costa development, there is virtually no
C. CONT'D H"6
flood plain due to the steep, well defined channel. Through the La
Costa development to the Batiquitos Lagoon, the flood plain is again
broad. During large floods, flows exceed the channel capacity and
inundate parts of the broad flood plain.
"Batiquitos Lagoon extends from the downstream limit of San Marcos
Creek, namely the Pacific Ocean, as far as El Camino Real Road, some
2.6 miles upstream. It comprises about 600 acres of area and would
provide considerable storage during large floods.
"The climate varies from warm summers to cool winters; extremes in
temperature are rare. Mean seasonal precipitation for the drainage area
ranges from about 10 inches near the coast to about 16 inches in higher
mountains and averages about 13.5 inches over the total drainage area.
Most of the precipitation occurs during the months of December through
March." (Ref. 4)
"Annual grasses dominate the coastal lowlands. Vegetation in the upper
areas consist mainly of annual grasses and open brush with some broadleaf and
narrowleaf chapparal in the San Marcos mountains and citrus and avocado
orchards in the lower hills.
"Soil particle sizes increase from fine sand and silt at the coast and low
gradient reaches to decomposed granite with clay content as onemoves inland."
(Ref. 1)
Less than 20% of Carlsbad is urbanized. The City of Carlsbad proper lies
between Buena Vista and Aqua Hedionda Lagoons extending from the coast to El
Camino Real. Small clusters of development straddle San Marcos Creek upstream
of Batiquitos Lagoon. The remainder of the study area is either undeveloped,
in agriculture, or occupied by small clusters of development.
II-7
C. CQNT'D
The topography contributes to Carlsbad's unique character. The coastal
plain extends inland several miles and gives way to foothills. Major water-
courses have wide valleys with steep walls. Tributaries have carved steep
side canyons in the alluvial sediments. Development occurs on the upper
terraces and hillsides. Drainage is conveyed to the main watercourses along
the tributary canyons.
The tributary canyons are particularly sensitive to erosion. As development
of the upper terraces occurs, impervious surfaces and concentration of flows
increase the storm runoff to the canyons and accelerates the erosion process.
This eroded material joins the silt generated by runoff from graded construction
sites and is carried to the lagoons and deposited. The accelerated siltation of
the lagoons is a matter of increasing concern to agencies responsible for pre-
servation of the crucial wildlife habitat provided by Lagoons.
With a few exceptions, development in Carlsbad has avoided areas of potential
inundation since suitable high ground is plentiful. With the commencement of the
Federal Flood Insurance Program, the subsequent mapping of the floodplains of
major waterways and the enactment of floodplain management ordinances by the City,
the floodplains of Buena Vista, Aqua Hedionda, and San Marcos Creeks have been
defined and development in the floodplains has been precluded.
These areas provide open space corridors between areas of potential develop-
ment. The City has developed a General Plan Land Use Element which connects these
east-west open space corridors with inter-connecting open space and park corridors
following north-south tributary canyons. Development in these areas will be
minimal and natural watercourses are desirable.
The Master Drainage Plan therefore focuses on drainage deficiences in exist-
ing development and on facilities in tributary canyons which will be developed
according to the Land Use Plan. Flood plain management eliminates the need
for channelization of the major watercourses.
C. CONT'D H"8
Tributary canyons in designated open spaces are left natural yet may
require drop structure stabilization to mitigate erosion. To protect lagoons
from accelerated siltation, sedimentation basins are proposed at strategic
locations.
D. Basis of Study '
This Master Drainage Plan is based upon information derived from previous
studies, existing topographical and soil data, the City's Land Use Plan, and
considerations of current policy of various agencies with jurisdiction in the
study area
1. Previous Studies (The Previous Studies are listed in Table 3)
a) A Master Drainage Plan was prepared in 1971 for Carlsbad by the
consulting firm of Shuirman and Simpson. (Ref. 5) This study compares
with the 1971 Shuirman and Simpson study as follows:
(i) This plan covers the entire present City plus unincorporated areas
which will probably be annexed. The Shuirman & Simpson study did not
cover portions of the La Costa and South Carlsbad areas;
(ii) This plan reflects land uses stipulated in the 1977 Land Use Element
of the General Plan. The 1977 General Plan calls for open space along
many of the major watercourses. Therefore, natural conditions were
assumed along alignments where Shuirman and Simpson proposed storm
drain pipes and channels;
(iii) The hydrologic design criteria has changed since 1971. The Federal
Flood insurance program mandates 100 year flood protection and most
municipalities and local governments conform to this criteria. This
Master Plan recommends facilities with 100 year runoff capacity whereas
Shuirman and Simpson used 50 and 10 year criteria; and
(iv) The hydrology method used in this report differs somewhat from that
used by Shuirman and Simpson. Although the Modified Rational Method was
II-9D. CONT'D
used in both studies, the time of concentration value was computed
differently. This study utilizes criteria for time of concentration
found in the San Diego County Flood Control District Design and
Procedure Manual. (Ref. 7)
b) Zone 1 of the San Diego County Flood Control District had Koebig, Inc.
prepare a Comprehensive Plan for Flood Control and Drainage (Ref. 6) which
covers the southern portion of Carlsbad and La Costa. Some of the proposed
facilities in the Plan are located along watercourses which are now in the
Carlsbad General Plan designated open spaces. These watercourses were
assumed to be left natural in this Master Drainage Plan.
c) Hydrology and Floodplain mapping studies have been completed by the
Corps of Engineers and/or the County of San Diego for Buena Vista, Aqua
Hedionda, and San Marcos Creeks. (Ref. 1, 2, 34) The hydrology has been
reviewed and is incorporated in this Master Plan. Since these streams are
zoned for floodplain, no channelization is proposed.
d) The inflow and outflow from Calavera Lake has been studied in the 1976
County Floodplain mapping hydrology study and the 1971 Shuirman and Simpson
Master Drainage Plan. Both studies determined the 100 year inflow to be
2300 cfs but the outflows calculated are very different, 900 cfs and
1440 cfs respectively. The difference is due to methodology. The
1440 cfs outflow was utilized in this report because the methodology
conforms to the Modified Rational Method used in this analysis.
2. Hydrology
The hydrologic analysis was performed using County of San Diego standard
criteria. This is detailed in Chapter III, Hydrologic and Hydraulic
Criteria. This criteria conforms to that used previously in the City of
Carlsbad for subdivision design and is appropriate for the study area.
11-10
D. CQNT'D
Topographic data was derived from 1" = 400' scale orthophotos with 5 foot
contour interval topography. These were reduced and composed from 1" = 200'
scale orthophotos provided by the County of San Diego.
Soil and ground cover information came from 1969 Soil Conversation Service
Soil Survey Maps updated with projected land uses.
3. Erosion and Sedimentation
As discussed previously, the erosion of tributary watercourses and the
subsequent accelerated siltation of the lagoons concerns various agencies.
The City of Carlsbad addresses this problem in the Land Use, Open Space and
Parks and Recreation Elements of the General Plan. The stated goals of the
City are to preserve these bodies of water for visual, recreational and
wildlife habitat resources. The Coastal Commission, in implementing the Coastal
Act, conditions developments adjacent to the lagoons to effect measures which
reduce siltation yet provide for beach replenishment. The State Fish and
Game Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service require mitigating efforts
from developments which impact water-oriented wildlife habitats.
The Environmental Protection Agency has sponsored preparation of the
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook by the State of California (Ref. 8).
This document provides techniques for analysis and design of erosion/siltation
controls.
This Master Drainage Plan is consistent with the intents and goals of the
various agencies with jurisdiction in the study area regarding preservation
of the lagoons and watercourses. Facilities and management policies are
proposed to mitigate the impact of development in these areas.
4. General Plan and Policy Considerations
To determine requirements for storm drains in areas of future development
the 1977 Land Use Element of the Carlsbad General Plan was utilized. The
type of ultimate land use designated for a particular area influenced
selection of hydrologic parameters. In addition, the type of facility was
n-n
D. CONT'D
selected to conform to the nature of development. For example, in open
space or low density residential areas, natural watercourses or grass-
lined channels are specified. In more dense development, storm drains and
rip-rap lined channels are specified.
5. History of Drainage Problems
The current City drainage complaint file was reviewed to determine chronic
nuisance drainage problems. In certain areas, facilities are proposed to up-
grade the existing system and should remedy the problems.
HYDHCL.OGJC
AND
•JYDHALLJCr.
CftJTEHJA
III. HYDROLOGIC CRITERIA III~1
A. STUDY APPROACH
The approach of this project was to utilize previous hydrology studies
for the major watercourses and to analyze tributary areas where storm drain
deficiencies occur. Storm drain facilities are recommended where existing
facilities are inadequate or where projected development will require drain-
age facilities.
B. HYDROLOGIC DESIGN CRITERIA
The design criteria, as found in the San Diego County Flood Control
District Design and Procedure Manual, specifies the 100 year frequency storm
for design runoff for facilities draining areas greater than one square mile.
For areas less than one square mile, the storm drain system must have 100
year flow capacity within the street up to right-of-way, 50 year flow capacity
to top of curb, and where storm drains are required, minimum 10 year capacity
in the drain.
For this study existing drainage systems were analyzed with respect
to the above criteria and recommendations made accordingly. In undeveloped
areas, where future street alignments and grades are unknown, the recommended
storm drain lines are sized for 100 year flow capacity, based on the grades-of
existing flowlines. However, when these areas are developed the drainage
system may actually carry the 10 year storm underground, the 50 year to top
of curb, and the 100 year to right-of-way. Drains at sumps should convey 100
year flows.
The design flows were computed based on the following assumptions
and data:
(1) Ground cover data was derived from S.C.S. 1969 Survey Maps updated
with ultimate development data corresponding to the 1977 Land Use
and Circulation Element Map of the General Plan, except as noted below.
III-2
(2) For the area generally southwest, west and northwest
of Palomar Airport, shown hatched on the City's Land
Use and Circulation Map the Land Use was assumed to
be industrial at the direction of City Planning staff.
(3) Hydrologic Soil Groups were determined from Soil Conservation
Service 2000 scale Soil Survey Maps published in 1969. The
soil types were derived from the "San Diego Soils Interpretation
Study for Hydrologic Soils Groups in San Diego County. Soil
Types were segregated into groups as a function of their probable
infiltration capacity. The group designations include:
Group A - Low Runoff Potential:
Soils having high infiltration rates even when thoroughly
wetted, consisting chiefly of deep, well to excessively
drained sand and/or gravel. These soils have a high rate
of water transmission and would result in a low runoff
potential.
Group B - Moderate Runoff Potential:
Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly
wetted, consisting chiefly of moderately deep to deep,
moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine
to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate
rate of water transmission.
Group C - High Runoff Potential:
Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly
wetted, consisting chiefly of (1) soils with a layer
that impedes the downward movement of water, or (2)
soils with moderately fine to fine texture and a slow
infiltration rate. These soils have a slow rate of
water transmission.
Group D - Very High Runoff Potential:
Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly
wetted, consisting chiefly of
(1) clay soils with a high swelling potential:
(2) soils with a high permanent water table;
(3) soils with clay pan or clay layer at or near the
surface; and (4) shallow soils over nearly impervious
materials. These soils have a very slow rate of water
transmission.
(4) The following coefficients were used:
III-3
Table 1
Manning Roughness
"n" Values
PIPES Dn"
Corrugated Metal Pipe 0.024
Reinforced Concrete Pipe 0.012
Cast in Place Concrete Pipe 0..015
Asbestos Concrete Pipe 0.011
OPEN CHANNELS
Revetment 0.040
Concrete lined 0.015
Natural Grass 0.035
Reinforced Concrete Box Culverts 0.015
LAND USE
Single Family
Multi Units
Rural
Commercial
Industrial
Table 2
Rational Method Runoff Coefficients
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
Medium, Low-Medium Density
Residential
High, Medium-High Density
Residential
Low density Residential,
Open Space
Commercial
Industrial, Government,
Schools
COEFFICIENT. C
SOIL GROUP
A i i i
.40 .45 .50 .55
.45 .50 .60 .70
.30 .35 .40 .45
.70 .75. .80 .85
.80 .85 .90 .95
III-4
(5) Rainfall intensities for the Rational Method hydrology
computations were taken from the San Diego County Flood
Control District Design and Procedure Manual, Appendix XI.
(6) Watershed boundaries and grades for proposed storm drains
were derived from 400 scale topography reduced from 200
scale orthophoto maps prepared by the County of San Diego.
(7) Flows for major watercourses have been determined by pre-
vious studies as shown in the following Table 3.
IIL-5
STREAM
BUENA VISTA CREEK
CALAVERA LAKE INFLOW
and OUTFLOW
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
SAN MARCOS CREEK
SAN MARCOS CREEK,
ENCINITAS CREEK
TABLE 3
PREVIOUS STUDIES
STUDY
HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR BUENA
VISTA CREEK
DECEMBER 1976
FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION
JULY 1973
MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN
CITY OF CARLSBAD
APRIL 1971
HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
DECEMBER 1976
HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR
AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK
DECEMBER 1976
FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION
APRIL 1971
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE -
ZONE 1 SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD
CONTROL DISTRICT
JULY 1976
AUTHOR
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
SHUIRMAN SIMPSON,
CIVIL ENGINEERS
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
KOEBIG, INC.
III-6
C. DESIGN RUNOFF METHOD
The hydrologic analysis utilized for design of facilities recommended
in this report is the Rational Method.
The Rational Formula is Qp = CiA where:
Qp = The peak discharge in cubic feet/sec.*
* 1 Acre in/hr. = 1.008 cubic feet/sec.
C = Runoff Coefficient (Dimensionless)
i = Rainfall intensity (inches/hour)
A = Tributary drainage area (Acres)
If rainfall is applied at a uniform rate to an impervious area, the
runoff attributed to this area would eventually reach a rate equal to the
rate of precipitation. The time required to reach this equilibrium is term-
ed the time of concentration.
For small impervious areas one may assume that if precipitation persists
at a uniform rate for at least as long as the time of concentration the peak
discharge will equal the precipitation rate.
D. DESIGN PROCEDURE
The following procedure was used in calculating quantity of storm flow
at various locations along the route of the proposed storm drains. Whenever
the term "Manual" is used, it refers to the "DESIGN AND PROCEDURE MANUAL OF
SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT" dated December 1969. The general
procedure was developed by Los Angeles County Flood Control District and has
been modified herein for use in San Diego County.
1. On the drainage map divide the runoff area into subareas of from
20 to 100 acres. These divisions should, if possible, be based on the
topography, soil type, and the land development. The size of the initial
area should be chosen such that the length of travel for the water from the
III-7
most remote point to the point of concentration should not exceed 1,000 feet
and if possible be near 500 feet and be of a generally uniform slope.
2. Determine the quantity of water for the initial area.
a. Estimate the initial time of concentration. This can be
obtained from appendix X-A of the "Manual" (Figure 2).
b. Determine the type of soil from "Hydrologic Soil Groups -
Runoff Potential" maps of the County Soils interpretation
study.
c. Determine the ultimate land use from the Carlsbad General
Plan.
d. Obtain the runoff coefficient "C" from Table 2.
e. Obtain the intensity (i) from Appendix II "Rainfall Curves
for County of San Diego" of the "Manual" (Figure 3).
f. Calculate the quantity of water (Q) from the "Rational
Equation", Q = CiA.
«
3. Determine the quantity of water for subsequent subareas as follows:
a. Determine the water route from the point of concentration of
the previous subarea to the point of concentration of the
subarea in question.
b. Calculate the time necessary for the quantity of water arriving
at this subarea to pass through to its point of concentration
by the above route. The physical properties of this route must
be considered and the velocities obtained from the following:
(1) If traveling in a street the velocity can be figured
from Appendix X-D, "Gutter and Roadway Discharged -
Velocity Chart" of the "Manual" (Figure 4).
(2) If traveling in a ditch, pipe or other regular section
calculate the velocity from the actual section.
III-8
(3) If traveling in a natural watercourse the velocity
can be derived from Figure 1 , Velocity In Natural
Valley Channels.
c. Measure the length of flow to the point of inflow of the next
subarea downstream. From the velocity compute the time of flow
and add this time to the time for the first area to determine a
new time of concentration.
When determining the time of concentration (Tc), the ex-
pected future drainage facility and route is used to determine
velocity and travel time (TV). Wherever junctions occur, or
there is a change in slope or drainage facility, it is necessary
to calculate the velocity and travel time for the preceding
reach. The slope of the Hydraulic grade line is generally
assumed to be parallel to the grade slope.
d. Calculate Q for the second subarea, using the new time of con-
centration and continue downstream in similar fashion until a
junction with a lateral drain is reached.
e. Start at the upper end of the lateral and carry its Q down to
the junction with the main line.
4. Compute the peak Q at each junction. Let Q^, T^, 1^, corres-
ponding to the tributary area with the longer time of concen-
tration. Let Qg, Tg, Ig, correspond to the tributary area with
the shorter time of concentration and Qp, Tp correspond to the
peak Q and time of concentration when the peak flow occurs.
a. If the tributary areas have the same time of concentration,
the tributary q's are added to obtain the Peak Q.
QP
= QA + %
b. If the tributary areas have different times of concentration,
the smaller of the tributary Q's must be corrected as follows:
III-9
(1) The usual case is where the tributary area with the
longer time of concentration has the larger Q. In
this case, the samller Q is corrected by a ratio
the intensities and added to the larger Q to obtain
the peak Q. The tabling is then continued downstream
using the longer time of concentration
QA=QA + QB r TP = TAJB
(2) In some cases, the tributary area with the shorter
time of concentration has the larger Q. In this
case, the smaller Q is corrected by a ratio of the
times of concentration and added to the larger Q
to obtain the peak Q. The tabling is then continued
downstream using the shorter time of concentration.
«P ' «B * "A - T
P ' TB
T
111-10
IS
FIGURE 1
of
3000 c/fecfoe s/oa* ///ic (See Appendix. X-3)
L
c
'
/M//es
—2004
-
/O —— /oaa —
- 860 _
- 7OO _
- eoo \\ s—S00 \
- — 400 ^^, *~
~ -yj» J^c\
200 \v
21.\
- ''' \ ~"\ -\-
/0O / _
"" . —
— •
- . ' ~
fa Q-5 —
*•
— ¥0
—
• • • -
— 30
NOTES:
— 2£> 1 . ADO TEN MINUTES TO
COMPUTED TIME OF CON-
CENTRATION -
2. THIS NOMOGRAPH IS
INTENDED FOR USE PRI-
/0 MARILY IN NATURAL,
UNDEVELOPED WATER-
SHEDS.
—
*•<-,.{ //avss
4
J
2 —
/—
— 5£&)
'-4000
\— 3000 -^
\
\— 2000 \— /soo \
rr /£&/} "*-#00
— /20O
/OO£
— 9OO
— 800
— 700
— S0O
5#4
— 44O
— 300
^
— 200
Mi/jutes
— 24°
\-/80
—
—
— MO
— /oo** G/I— yv
"L-8O
— 7O
"-—SO
'—S0
-.
— 40
-
— 30
.
— 20
— J6
— /£
— /#
— /2
/o
— 9
o
— 7
— £
~~ *
-*
FIGURE 2
H £ ' 7c P- VII-7
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES
DESIGN MANUAL
APP ROVF. D O , // /^^^rt -^ULA^
NOMOGRAPH FOR DETERMINATION
OF TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc)
FOR NATURAL WATERSHEDS
DATF /# /tft-l APPFWDIX X-A
c
c
o
00
10
<n
cr
0
o
0 o
— <r
(-
< 0
O
tn -_^j
h-
Z
5
0
111-12
0
' '
1_.L
1
1
^
H
-
•
^
1 -
---
' i
--r
. , ,
I
, i|
•U- -
— —
^E-"^
c-!7
uT " }'•
L— -i
— M
— ' t
..
: : ,
; 1i ! :
brrtr
ffi!/
•h//o
ri
i n i
iiNtif
>i H^iii
ii
ll!
^^
^
o
cc
0
u
u.
UJ
''! '
, i
i ;
r " ;• -t-^-
^^r "7
JA^
, i-+
f: | .!
h4-
. ,-*- >.
•1 1
1 ,
fcrj.—
uitl'-L
I-i4-1 1
ttaitt
if'~itf
IL-dU-
±(~±±t
rr
tf'^t'h
!Mt[i
i
j ] '
;
"III-4 U
H
-i— i — i-- ^ .
i~u
^IF1
L
4 •; >
1
j
ii ,
II
!;.;
1
' •
'
1!!
4ii
ij!:!|:'i'
! i • - ! I |. -fii i}..i
f -"
_•_ ;-~
i ! '!'
-r-pr
iiiuL-'I,' Ml1
--~~-
! |
_^- —
1
* <i , t
! HfU!; fy\
4^
1
i 1 '
••• •// ;"i"! "-"•;•
/V *k. r ' ! 1 i i /, i i 1 /.
1 1 ' 7\* ' i™. S f ' :
t-.^
5::r^feg£— '
1 .
"
'•-^
. — .
-
' -
1
f—'— 1
—
• T'"-litJfir
1 ^ f 1 " ^ ' r* i'"; .jy/r :'f>l/l i • >
yUriff. ., .. ..^i/yf;.67/r-, >0y/^
. i > ; ; ,//T
i-^rttlTr--
?£t-• 1-7-
i, '!"' Tt i i • /
• ^i.^^^|U^j• 1
r •
i^J .j| 1 1 - 1
fff :f
! 1 1 • i•iff -a
' ' /;' ri
! M ' ' ' " f //f
U /y£tt£
^/
.1
'
L ; V-^yT•*i(.r.-\n/
• ; j [ \. '*'/ . •*-'/ '
M'
!
vT
^ .;
I:/
n.^j i f
M'l .•{;/
•Mii "uV
r '* !
• y^(iij;-Lt«
/i
/ ' y
•^TM-j-
— X*4-7*7 - >-
^rW-fr^te
^-4-
. . • /
i A
' / i
/ :/ ;
* — r4.t* ij
j -• •
Eft/
• • M
L ' /
//
4*jr
Vi/i' :i./ 'V-
/'•' ^ '::'
^
^_ .yL.
•V ' ' f
•l^.l '/
^•i-4
',
:
r-i-
:tp
-i-uyi1 yt ''^ ./" '
. i 1 ;
"I1
! |
i ! i
1
-r+H
I/~H-
'TT'iti
i
i i
^HJTlT-t1"ri i I1 i 1ii In L
^-
-^ ^j.-»-
!
- — -i-
i
i
— -r
r ti1/! | /[
— r-^
;• i/» -- 1
'M f •
-k=r^=
rrir
— 4— u
j (
! i :
r , ! .
. . :
r f -
/i / / •.* ; ./j '• :j '^IL:: ' > ' _i_ • l [
T
/
|V /} 1 j /t r-/
/, ; u /' .VI/ J.r^r Tf- '!• /'• •] i// ' ! -/ r^TTnti i7tr:
//[;!
^7t
^:
/ ' /
pU/lL
'.trrrrt
V ' V
/ /
jjiintj
A >
f I
j ;
/
=^4J
Tfpf5
tf\
fJ~-l-\
1 ~J ''/
- ' f\ '
' 1-^ J
'/
• Xf' —
y" I
|- "I
- -
•
^
^
~V - • ' '( ' )F - | f ! • i '" * ' l
r J*~lh~n~H
1
4 /t 4
l\
£2=^.-.
t l.l r-
-^— r-r -
« o o
... .
r-y
_frj ;
In
: i :
i
1' "i/l II ; , . ~
^~fr 1
A"4
(
M 1'
itsh^T-rr
'• (
!'
1 !
H
; ' '
' ' 1• • i •, ; !
.|ij
li'i
'•II• ! i . ' . '
j:;:!j:^.|;:'j|:'^
r^->
i«J
[JH^T
11 tr -}-,•
1 r " ! ' r fc't 4 ~
jii
- !
1 : I
1 j
1 f
; ;i
r t •-»
-*-f-r4'
i i ' 1 1 ! i ! i i ! i i 1 r
it' '
t ! *
: i I !
1 1 1
1
' ' 1
V- L^LirM :; p.
*"* 4 " t1""-"TTf^~f f"'".;— i-4^* ».ff ..i-u...
I^TTi
!
!J|
'. ' \
—H-
|, 1III
f !
j t
1TTij r
'(i
-^t^.i . iii ^. .,; .
TT-TTrlt
1 1• * :
i
i
1 i if — , — UI
•-?-» -rJ
1 U-
1 '1 '1 ,
t ' ,
I'M
, i
i
i !
• ; i i i i ,i rn
TT+r
^
1 '
j
™4___j' |_"*"~
=FT^
Oo» GO ^ <fi ^ ^ rt o^
a
<e
" OTcr* oo
•«40 50 i 2URATIONa
o
10
-5 10 20MINUTES10 ** — OoOOOOO.., O
anOH H3d S3HON! -
(093IQ NVS) AlfSN31NI FIGURE 3
RAINFALL
'lie INTENSITY-DURATION- F
C Q ^
§S5!22J5 |S: CURVES
slill correct>. "r ta
i f
= 0 *=
for
COUNTY OF SAN DIEd f r T 11 so o § o o „
O o O O Ul
«C m * »1 O
*
O 3.)- g p. VII-8
S.D.F.C.D.
APPENDIX 21
-2 %
,.5' H
111-13
r RESIDENTIAL STREET
ONE SIDE ONLY
C
05
0.4 —
1 I I I 'I I I 1 I '
2 3 4 56789 10
DISCHARGE (C. F S.)
\
EXAMPLE:
Given. Q= 10 S= 2.5%
Chart gives: Depth = 0.4, Velocity = 4.4 tpis.
I
20
I
30
I I
4O 50
FIGURE p. VII-9
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES
DESIGN MANUAL
APPROVED fi'tf
GUTTER AND ROADWAY
DISCHARGE-VELOCITY CHART
DATE APPENDIX X-D
DRAINAGE
^ACUTJES
IV-1
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITIES PLAN
The master drainage facilities required to remedy deficiencies in existing
development or required by future development are displayed on plates 1 - 4 and
are described below. Design criteria and the basis for selection of facility
types has been discussed in Chapters II and III while priorities and implementa-
tion recommendations are discussed in Chapters V and VII. This chapter describes
the proposed drainage facilities basin-by-basin.
The older city has an existing storm drain system which was designed for
low flow drainage and is inadequate for 50 or 100 year storms. A review of
drainage complaints revealed numerous instances of chronic street flooding
during major storms. Remedial facilities are proposed to upgrade the pro-
tection level and eliminate nuisances.
In the newer developments, storm drains exist which, in combination with
street capacity, provide adequate protection. Facilities are proposed to
complete the system through the areas of future development.
In undeveloped areas, future development may require storm drain facilities
on-site or downstream. Where the Land Use Plan designates open spaces on canyons,
the watercourses are assumed to be left natural with provision for grade
stabilization with drop structures. These areas may be managed by requiring the
areas of inundation by the 100-year flood to be determined during the engineer-
ing of new developments and by requiring that development be kept out of these
areas. If such open space areas are later proposed for development, appropriate
modifications of onsite and downstream facilities must be required of the
developer.
A. Buena Vista Creek Watershed (Facilities AA - AE)
Facilities AA, AA-1 , AA-2, AA-3
An existing storm drain system drains the Carlsbad downtown business
district along State Street, Washington Street, Laguna Drive and Grand
Avenue. Complaints of flooding along these streets have been received by the
City.
IV-2
A. CQNT'D
A storm drain system of adequate capacity is proposed as facilities AA,
AA-1, AA-2, and AA-3. The alignments are initially proposed within existing
street right-of-way. However, during final design, the costs of relocation of
utilities, disruption of business, or convenience may dictate an alternative
alignment of the State Street System, line AA. Such an alternate would
require acquisition of right-of-way through private property and along the
railroad right-of-way.
These facilities could be implemented during redevelopment of the
business district and thus be elegible for redevelopment funds or be
constructed by an improvement district.
Facility AB
Facility AB is a storm drain proposed to be constructed under Highland
Drive with an outfall from the cul-de-sac to Buena Vista Lagoon. The
street provides the only conveyance for drainage and is of inadequate
capacity by current standards. The upstream area is partially undeveloped
and higher density development will aggravate the drainage deficiency
unless a drain is constructed.
Facilities A C and AD
Facilities AC and AD will complete existing storm drain systems as future
development fills in. The existing systems are in newer development and
have adequate capacity.
Fjicility AE
The drainage area tributary to debris basin facility AE is undeveloped
and the watercourse is designated as open space. Future development in
the watershed may accelerate siltation of Buena Vista Lagoon. Therefore,
a debris basin is proposed in the location shown on Plate 1 to mitigate
this development impact.
- 2 -
IV-3
B. Agua Hedionda Creek Watershed
(Facilities BA - BN)
Facility BA
Line BA is a 60" diameter storm drain which parallels the railroad and
will intercept existing tributary storm drains. It replaces a ditch
from Walnut Avenue to Juniper Avenue and parallels an existing 60" RCP
from Juniper to Tamarack. Both 60" pipes are required due to the very
mild slopes. This improvement would alleviate nuisance ponding and reduce
the potential for mosquito breeding. It would connect to a 72" existing
pipe, thus completing a major system draining into Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
Facility BB
This proposed storm drain will complete a drainage system by connecting
upstream and downstream existing facilities. Drainage complaints have
been recorded along the existing watercourse. Severe erosion occurs on
downstream reaches of the existing gully and the resulting silt plugs
downstream storm drains and necessitates dredging of the Shelter Cove
Marina. The proposed facility will alleviate the nuisance flooding and
erosion problems. Continued residential and commercial development will
occur in the basin, and should bear a portion of the cost of improvement
through assessments or fees.
Facility BC
Storm drain line BC protects against erosion of the east side of El Camino
Real and will reduce siltation of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. This should be
constructed with road maintenance funds since the primary benefit is road
protection.
Facilities BD - BN
Facilities BD through BN are required by future development and will
be constructed by future development or be financed by assessments or impact
fees paid by new developments in the tributary areas. Five debris basins
are located to mitigate siltation of Agua Hedionda Lagoon accelerated by
- 3 -
IV-4
B. CQNT'D
new developments in these areas.
C. Canyon De Las Encinas Watershed
(Facilities CA - CM)
Storm drain lines CA through CM are required by future development. Line
CM also completes an existing storm drain system. No debris basins are
proposed on the premise that no lagoon is threatened and that transport
of silt to the beach is vital to beach sand replenishment. Several bridge
and culvert structures on Encinas Creek may require more frequent maintenance
due to siltation. These facilities will be constructed or financed by future
development through assessments or impact fees.
D. San Marcos Creek/Batiquitos Lagoon Watershed
Facilities DA - DU
Facilities DA through DU are required by future development.Line DA also
upgrades an existing system in certain reaches downstream of the railroad.
Lines DB and DG complete existing systems. Ten debris basins are proposed
at various locations to control siltation of Batiquitos Lagoon.
This basin is within Zone 1 of the San Diego County Flood Control District.
A Comprehensive Plan was prepared for Zone 1 in 1976 by Koebig, Inc. This
Master Plan differs from the Zone 1 Comprehensive Plan as follows:
1. The 1977 Carlsbad Land Use Element of the General Plan
designate many watercourses as future open space which
does not require pipe or channel storm drains.
2. Debris basins are proposed in this Master Plan as part
of the facilities for individual drainage areas. These
are required to mitigate the impact of siltation of the
- 4 -
IV-5
D. Cont'd
lagoon due to grading of new development.
- 5 -
PHJOHJTY
RATING
SYSTEM
AND
MATHJX
V-l
V. PRIORITY RATING SYSTEM AND MATRIX
A priority rating system and matrix has been developed to provide a schedule
for implementation of the Master Drainage Plan. The primary function of
drainage facilities is to protect public health. Additional functions may
be cited according to specific needs for a facility. For the City of Carlsbad,
the following priority list of functions has been identified:
Priority Rating Function of Drainage Facility
1 (Protects Life
(Protects Property
(Enhances Transportation Safety
2 (Reduces Vector Problems from Ponding
(Reduces Nuisance Flooding
(Reduces Erosion/Lagoon Sedimentation
3 (Upgrades Existing System to Higher Protection
(Completes Existing System
(Required By Future Development
4 ( a. Areas developing within 5 years
( b. Areas developing within 5 to 10 years
( c. Areas developing after 10 years
Priority 1. Protects Life and Property
As stated previously the primary function of a drainage facility is protection
of public health, and prevention of loss of life is of highest priority. Pro-
tection of property is another high priority function of storm drains. Property
damage may be caused by inundation of low areas by storm waters overflowing
existing drainage facilities; by erosion of banks which may undermine found-
ations or cause loss of cropland; by deposition of silt and mud by receding
floodwaters. If not floodproofed, buildings may suffer damage to walls and
floors with residual effects of rotting of timbers and fouled utilities.
Contents may be damaged by only flooding of floors. Businesses are particularly
hard hit by contents damage and loss of business due to repairs.
V-2
Priority 2 Enhances Transportation Safety, Reduces Vector Problems
from Ponding, Reduces Nuisance Flooding
These functions are grouped secondary to protection of life but are nevertheless
very important and provide a tangible basis for determining benefits versus costs
for a particular project.
Transportation safety is enhanced on heavily travelled roads when adequate catch
basins and storm drains provide lanes free from deep, flowing water and eliminate
the need for parallel ditches which may erode-shoulders.
Areas with poor drainage may pond water and create a breeding place for mosquitos
and other vectors. Nuisance flooding may occur in residential areas at poorly
drained sumps, or drains plugged with debris, for example. Downtown areas may
experience inadequate drainage which discourages auto and pedestrian traffic.
Priority 3 Reduces Erosion/Lagoon Sedimentation, Upgrades existing
System to Higher Protection, Completes Existing System
Facilities reducing erosion and lagoon sedimentation are measures designed to
implement the preservation of the lagoons as called for in the Carlsbad General
Plan and the/State Coastal Act.
Storm drain systems exist which were designed under different criteria and may
adequately handle annual storms but not 50 or 100-year storms. These systems
require upgraded facilities to provide protection up to current criteria. Some
proposed facilities connect upstream and downstream of existing facilities to
complete the system.
These functions are grouped in third priority due to a lesser degree of urgency
relative to the first two priorities.
V-3
Priority-4 Required by Future Development
Proposed facilities located in currently undeveloped areas will be required by
future development which was assumed will proceed in accordance with the current
land use plan.
These facilities will primarily constructed by developers or financed by
impact fees or improvement districts as development occurs in the drainage
basin. The priority of implementation in these areas is affected by the
available public facilities and growth management policies of the city.
Therefore, secondary priorities have been established as follows:
4a. Proposed storm drains located in areas expected to develop
in the near term, that is within 5 years will have higher
priority in implementation.
4b. Proposed storm drain located in areas of anticipated develop-
ment in the mid-term, that is within 5 to 10 years will have
next priority in implementation.
4c. Proposed storm drain located in areas where development is
not anticipated within 10 years will have least priority.
The recommended facilities have been prioritized based on primary functions,
need, and geographical location with respect to the criteria discussed
above. The results are displayed in Table B, Chapter VII.
FJNANCJNG
VI-1
VI. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
In this period of municipal financing of public works projects, there
is a significant amount of uncertainty and change. The passage of
Proposition 13 and the most recent passage of Proposition 4 have
seriously impacted both the financing options available to a community
and the extent of work which can be reasonably undertaken within legal
limitations.
Proposition 13 has had a strong negative impact on the use of ad valorem
methods of financing with special negative emphasis on the ability to
use tax investment financing or general obligation bonds to finance
public projects.
The passage of Proposition 4, which sets a limit on the amount of
appropriations by state and local governments and ties increases in
that amount to population and cost of living changes, has created
uncertainties which have yet to be resolved by the state legislature.
Until the state acts to define how Proposition 4 will be implemented,
the question regarding the viability of using multipurpose assessment
districts with 1911 Act financing, developer impact fees and user fees
wil 1 be unanswered.
Beyond the question of the current practicality of previous financing
methods, there is a growing awareness of the need to develop local
capital improvement plans which are designed to manage community growth
and development in a manner consistent with the wishes of the
citizenry. This philosophy takes the various service requirements of
VI-2
water, sewer and drainage and combines them into an all-encompassing
growth management policy which clearly defines how development will be
allowed, what will be required to provide the necessary infrastructure,
and how the financing of these improvements will be achieved.
An important aspect of this total plan is the determination of what
primary method should be used for financing capital facilities. The
HUD publication Local Capital Improvements and Development Management
lists the following available methods of pricing capital facilities:
1. Incremental Budget Pricing—in which a developer is charged
only for increases in the governmental budget directly
related to his development.
2. Incremental Budget Pricing with Payback—in which the de-
veloper is repaid for excess capacity as additional users
develop within his service area.
3. Average Incremental Pricing—in which capital costs associ-
ated 'with increased service are averaged over the total
expected number of service users and the developer pays the
costs associated with his development.
4. Average Incremental Zone Pricing—similar to item 3 above,
except that the costs of services are averaged over par-
ticular areas of a city permitting isolation of expensive
service areas.
VI-3
5. General Revenue Pricing--in which the costs of service
expansion are allocated across the entire community.
6. General Revenue Zone Pricing—in which the costs are allo-
cated to residents or property owners within zones drawn to
isolate high-cost (as well as low-cost) areas.
Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages, and each
system may be more appropriate for one particular capital facility than
another. Incremental budget pricing, for example, may work well and be
most fair where facilities are involved that will primarily serve one
development, such as short sewer extensions and on-site services;
average incremental pricing may best serve to finance a large facility
such as a fire station that will serve a whole area. Zone pricing
policies are best used to discourage development in high-cost areas.
In developing a comprehensive local capital improvement plan these
methods of pricing must be clearly incorporated into the management
strategy.
With these thoughts in mind, we present the following analysis of
financing methods.
Financing methods which were considered are:
A. Improvement Districts
B. Development Impact Fees
C. Corps of Engineers Project Funding
VI-5
Proposition 13 has caused confusion regarding formation of improvement
districts. Prior to oassage of Proposition 13, use of the Improvement
Bond Act of 1915 appears to be the most desirable form of financing for
multi-purpose assessment district. However, the 1915 Act requires
assumption of a limited liability by the City in the event of default
(equivalent to $.10 on the property tax rate). Mow that cities no
longer are in a position to commit property taxes, 1915 Act bonds
cannot be sold unless the bond market will accept other revenue sources
as sufficient guarantee. Development impact fees held in reserve are a
possible source.
The Improvement Act of 1911 provides for issuance of bonds that are a
direct lien on each parcel within an assessment district instead of the
district as a whole as in the 1915 Act. Either the bonds must be paid
off prior to subdivision, or the holders of the bonds must agree to
permit bond splits. If the bonds are split, the bond still would have
to be paid at the time of sale unless the institution providing take-
out financing is willing to make loans with an existing assessment
lien. Even if a home buyer could leave a 1911 Act bond against his
property, it may be to his advantage to pay it off and assume the cost
as part of the mortgage. Because 1911 Act bonds usually mature in 10
to 15 years and have equal annual installments of principal, the annual
bond service is high and is approximately twice the amount in the first
year as in the last year. Inclusion in the home loan would result in a
higher rate of interest but lower monthly payments.
VI-4
D. User Fees
E. Flood Control District
/
F. General Obligation
G. EDA/HUD Funding
A. Improvement Districts
Improvement Districts are established by local ordinance through 1911
or 1913 Act proceedings and provide for the implementation of master
facilities plans which benefit the district. An advantage is the
flexibility provided in cost distribution, i.e., areas directly bene-
fitted ma- pay proportionately more than other areas within the district.
Bonds are sold through 1911 or 1915 Act proceedings for construction and
acquisition and are retired by assessment revenues collected on the pro-
perty tax bill.
The 1911 Act enables property owners to establish a local improvement
district to issue bonds, assessing themselves for the costs. The
1913 Act provides a modified assessment procedure. The 1915 Act
modifies the bonding procedures. Generally, the 1911 Act is used along
or in combination since each provides only part of the funding procedures.
Typically, improvement cost estimates and designs are prepared by the
City or County staff and, after public hearings, the district forma-
tion and assessments are approved or disapproved by the affected owners.
If approved, the contractor bonds for the improvements and the improvement
district retires the bonds in 5 to 40 year periods.
VI-6
Pending definitive outcome of test cases, many municipalities, such as
the City of San Diego, are pursuing 1911 Act district formations in
belief that such beneficial special assessments are not included in the
intent of the vaguely-worded proposition. Bond opinions and ratings are
jeopardized in the meantime. Additionally, until the enabling legislation
for Proposition 4 is developed the area of financing is further confused.
B. Development Impact Fees
The Subdivision Map Act (Section 66483) provides the authority to collect
fees for "Planned Local Drainage Facilities" from developers as conditions
of approval. The Act requires that a Master Plan exists which estimates
the costs of proposed facilities and that a local ordinance be passed which
provides for collection of such fees. The fees are apportioned on a uniform
cost per acre basis, thus precluding any other cost distribution based on
degree of benefit within the fee area. Fees are collected in the subdivision
map and permit approval process and are not considered subject to Proposition
13 restrictions. However, Proposition 4 looks at user type fees as an
offset against other sources of revenue. Funds for construction or
acquisition may be advanced from the City general fund and reimbursed by
fees. Only new facilities are eligible for funding by fees. The Fees
collected are spent for facilities in the benefiting area, and related
administrative and engineering expenses.
Fees are commonly used by the County and most municipalities in the County
to provide for public capital facilities such as drainage improvements.
VI-7
C. Corps of Engineers Project Funding
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers h,as constructed numerous flood control
projects throughout the nation. The projects are typically financed
through a combination of Federal and local funding. A proposed project
must have a favorable benefit/cost ratio justifying Corps funding.
100% construction costs are borne by the Corps except in areas which
are removed from the Federal Insurance Administration-designated
floodv/ay. These areas can then be developed and must therefore pay a
portion of the directly benefitting construction cost.
Right of way acquisition and utility relocation costs are borne by
local government. Typically, up to 75% of right of way costs and up to
90% of utility relocation costs are reimbursed by the State.
Implementation of project proposals may take up to ten years from
conception. "Large" projects require congressional approval and take
10 years from authorization study to construction funding. "Small"
projects with less than S3 million Federal Share require approval only within
the Corps, and may be implemented within the three years of inception.
The Environmental Impact Review, economic analysis, design approval,
and budgeting processes are time consuming at the Federal level.
0. User Fees
The user fee concept until recently provided a viable alternative to
property assessment to generate revenue for construction acquisition,
VI-8
and maintenance of public works facilities. However, the passage of
Proposition 4 has clouded the extent to which user fees may be imple-
mented and the City may require State legislative clarification to
establish the extent user fees may be utilized.
The 1976 "Benefit Charge Study for San.Diego Flood Control District,
Zones 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5," Stone & Youngberg Municipal Financing Consul-
tants analyzed the user fee concept and its application in Boulder,
Colorado and Bellevue, Washington. Their conclusions were as follows:
"It is our conclusion that drainage fee systems work best in those
communities in which several conditions are present. First, there must
be a broad-based concensus in the community that the levy of ad valorem
property taxes for financing flood control and drainage is inequitable.
Secondly, there must be an awareness among local residents of the poss-
ibility of flood damage to their property. Thirdly, if flood hazards
are not present, then there should be strong community support for and
the willingness to pay for the maintenance of natural flood control
channels to preserve or restore the "natural" environment. Lastly, the
drainage fee system must be coupled with an effective method for collect-
ing and enforcing payment of fees."
Fees for drainage were collected on the water and sewer bill. For
Carlsbad, in areas the City provides water and/or sewer, collection
of fees for drainage facility maintenance could be feasible if
Proposition 4 does not preclude it and the political realities support
it.
VI-9
E. Flood Control District
The San Diego County Flood Control District is a special purpose
district formed to construct and finance drainage and flood control
facilities within five zones. Significant portions of Carlsbad
are not currently within the Flood Control District. The District
finances facilities as follows. Bond issues approved by 2/3 majority
within the District Zones are retired through ad valorem property
taxes and development impact fees. The District Act has authorization
to do work or improvements under 1911, 1913 and 1915 Acts, and to
charge user fees. The County Board of Supervisors directed District
Staff to implement an annual drainage charge for FY 79-80, however,
public opposition forced postponement of the implementation for an
indefinite period.
The Flood Control District is pursuing State legislation to form a
new Zone in the North County watersheds presently excluded. Annex-
ations to the new zone require elections if protests are received
from over 25% of the population. If formed, cities such as Carlsbad
could annex by popular vote as subzones under the City inclusion
alternative. Revenues raised by the subzone would be spent entirely
within the subzone for implementing a capital facilities plan and for
District services. Subzone taxes would be received as an allocation
of the 1% tax revenue in the county. Upon completion of the imple-
mentation, the subzone could dissolve, ceasing its obligations to
the District. Services such as maintenance could be assumed by the
City or contracted to the District.
VI-10
Advantages to joining the District as a subzone include the use of user
fees for financing capital projects, bonding capability of the District,
the possibility of the District loaning improvement funding with later
reimbursement by fees or assessment, the availability of maintenance
service, and the potential for a city to exert planning influence over
neighboring unincorporated areas. Additionally, the expansion of the
Flood Control District in Carlsbad would increase the District's pop-
ulation service area and should allow for a District budget increase
under Proposition 4 beyond the allowable cost of living increase.
This budget increase could allow the District to finance facilities
in Carlsbad and/or increase the level of maintenance for Carlsbad's
storm drain system.
F. General Obligation Bonds
Capital projects improving services or benefitting the municipality
as a whole are commonly financed through General Obligation bonds,
retired through ad valorem property taxes. Storm drain and flood con-
trol projects funded in such a manner are subject of the budget priori -
tizatton along with the police, fire and other municipal services. In
the past the likelihood of budget cut survival for drainage projects
depended upon the intensity of concern for flood control. Proposition
13 has reduced property tax revenues an average of 60%. Services will
probably remain the high priority budget items while funding for capital
projects will diminish. Unless a project can offer very attractive
benefits, such as greatly increased tax base, revenues, and/or jobs,
general obligation bond funding for drainage improvements is unlikely.
vi-n
G. EDA/HUD Financing
Qualifications for Economic Development Administration (EDA) and
Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) are constantly changing,
becoming more restrictive and in the case of EDA regulations have still
not been enacted. However, because of the increasing restrictions or
uncertainties placed on other local financing options, federal funding
for capital improvements must not be overlooked. There are four major
programs which may be of benefit to Carlsbad.
1. Title I Public Works Program
The Public Works Program (Title I) of the Economic Development Ad-
ministration (EDA), through the PUblic Works Impact Program (PWIP),
funds projects that create short-term and construction jobs. Con-
struction assisted under the impact program must be completed in 12
months, and most of the PWIP grant funds must be spent in the project
area.
States, cities or organizations representing an EDA-designated area are
eligible for Title I grants and loans, which may be used to buy,
contruct, or improve land, buildings and equipment. (Funds for land
acquisition are usually a small part of a larger construction grant.)
Forty percent of the current regular Title I grants are funding indus-
trial projects, such as renovating buildings or constructing sewers
and access roads for industrial parks. Assistance is also available
for downtown revitalization projects, including the construction of
pedestrian malls, and for port and cargo handling facilities and skill
training centers.
VI-12
Title I funding will pay up to 50 percent of the cost of a project,
although severely distressed areas may receive an additional 30 percent:
in supplementary grants. (Local matching funds may be waived com-
pletely if the locality proves it cannot supply its share.)( Local
bond or budget authority, cash on hand, regional commission funds or
Community Development Block Grant (CDGB) funds may be used to provide
the local match. )
Title IX Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance :
EDA's Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance (Title IX)
program is designed to create jobs in areas of very high unemployment.
The Title IX program is divided into two parts; one funds projects
combating long-term economic deterioration, while the other supports
activities countering sudden and severe economic dislocation (sudden
changes in the economy, such as those caused by the closing of a major
employer). The Title IX program allows EDA to fund a wide range of
economic development activities under a single grant.
Title IX grants may be used to improve public facilities by providing
money to acquire, develop or improve land, buildings or related equip-
ment. Localities have used grants to restore and enlarge water sys-
tems, develop industrial parks, rejuvenate industrial areas, and
renovate buildings for attractive retail and residential space.
VI-13
Community Development Block Grants
The largest source of funding for publicly financed physical development
is the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, administered
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Communities
with a population of 50,000 or more and central cities of Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) are entitled to CDBG assistance
upon application to HUD, although-^ smaller communities may receive
block grant funds at the agency's discretion. The amount of assistance
is determined by a formula.
CDBG funds may be used to buy and improve real property; to acquire or
rehabilitate certain public facilities (including those needed to
implement neighborhood or economic development strategies) ; to clear
away unwanted buildings; and to acquire or rehabilitate commercial or
industrial buildings and equipment. CDBG funds may also be used for
the local matching share of any federal program which will fund activi-
ties otherwise eligible for CDBG assistance.
It is our understanding that Carlsbad is receiving CDBG funding through
the County and that a portion of this money is being used for funding
activities in the Downtown Redevelopment Project. In this instance the
funds could be appropriately used for the storm drain construction in
the downtown area.
302(a) State Technical Assistance
These are EDA funds administered through the State of California's
Office of Local Economic Development. They can be used for the
VI-14
construction of public facilities and may be of benefit in those areas
of Carlsbad which have industrial or commerical potential and currently
have insufficient public facilities.
Summary
Currently, because of the uncertainties created by the passage of
Proposition 4, all the financing alternative, with the exceptions of
Corps of Engineers and EDA/HUD funding, have some unresolved questions
to the extent of their applicability. Once the state legislature acts
to define how Proposition 4 will be implemented multi-purpose assess-
ment districts, development impact fees, and user fees may still be
realistic methods for financing capital improvements.
Corps of Engineers funding is not likely since no flood hazard exists
to development on the scale that the Corps is involved in.
The expansion of the Flood Control District into more of Carlsbad may
provide means of financing improvements. This expansion would increase
the District's Population Service Area and would allow the District to
increase its appropriations beyond limitations of inflation indexes
imposed by Proposition 4.
Finally, General Obligation Bonds as a financing method are greatly
restricted because of the Proposition 4 and 13 limitations.
HECQMMENDATIQN O
VII-1
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations set forth in this Master Plan are intended
to complete a storm drain system of adequate capacity by current stand-
ards, to provide facilities and policies to mitigate the impact of
future development on natural watercourses and the lagoons, and to
establish the best means to implement the Plan and policies.
VII-2
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) This report should be adopted as the Master Drainage Plan by the City
Council of Carlsbad, replacing the 1971 Master Drainage Plan.
DISCUSSION
Adoption of this report as the Master Drainage Plan is required for the
City to collect development impact fees from new development, under the Sub-
division Map Act, to finance construction of the drainage facilities proposed in
this plan.
(2) The drainage and erosion control facilities tabulated in Table B and
shown in Plates 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be constructed according to the Priority
Matrix established in Table B.
DISCUSSION
This study has identified the facilities recommended herein to provide the
necessary flood protection, to existing and new development, eliminate nuisance
drainage problems, and mitigate erosion and sedimentation impact on the lagoons.
Priorities for implementation have been established reflecting the urgency of the
drainage deficiency, the method of financing, and the growth management policies
of the City.
(3) The grading ordinance should be amended to include concepts put forth in
the Model Erosion Control Ordinance found in the Appendix.
DISCUSSION
The primary causes of siltation of the lagoons are a) sediment generated
by runoff of supstream developments under construction; and b) sediment generated
by the erosive velocities in natural channels produced by concentrated and increas-
ed runoff from urban development. An amended grading ordinance would provide for
mandatory onsite containment of erosion and sedimentation of caused by grading.
VII-3
(4) Drainage facilities required by new development should be financed by
new development. As conditions of approval of a final Subdivision Map or
building permits, the City should require the developer to construct all
Master Plan facilities located on site at the developers expense, with possible
partial reimbursement from fees collected previously from other developers in
the watershed.
In addition, the developer should fulfill one of the following alternatives
to finance offsite drainage facilities:
a) Pay development impact fees for planned local drainage facilities
established by local ordinance under the Subdivision Map Act, and
bond for construction of facilities to serve his project and connect
to existing adequate facilities. The fees may be credited against
assessments if an improvedment district is formed. The bonds may be
released if an improvement district is formed.
b) Participate in formation of an improvement district conforming to
the recommendations of the Master Plan.
c) The developer may construct, at his expense, all those facilities
required to serve his project and connect to any existing adequate
facilities. Portions of these expenses may be reimbursed later if
an improvement district is formed.
DISCUSSION
To avoid an excessive financial burden on the City, the policy of
requiring new development to pay for new public utilities and facilities it
requires is endorsed by this report. The methods available are somewhat clouded
by Propositions 13 and 4. However, these methods will probably continue to be
the most attractive to developer and City Staff alike.
Construction of onsite facilities where required, should be a condition
of a grading permit final map approval. Where a major facility exists, the cost
VII-4
might be shared by other tributary development through fees collected under the
Subdivision Map Act.
Offsite facilities required may be very expensive to construct for a
specific development. If the development creates a major impact on the drainage
basin, it should be required to construct major facilities offsite downstream
to an adequate point of discharge. This would probably include any planned
debris basins. The expense may be great enough to encourage the developer to
join other property owners in the basin in forming an improvement district to
construct such facilities.
If a drainage basin will be significantly impacted by proposed develop-
ments, within a short time span debris basins should be constructed prior to
issuance of advance grading permits. The maintenance of such debris basins
should also be paid for by the developers during construction of the development.
This payment could be in the form of a bond or fees, or the contractors could be
required to maintain the debris basins during construction.
If the impact of a particular development is minor on a basin where there
are Master Plan facilities, the City may then require the developer to pay fees
under the Subdivision Map Act on a per acre basis for the developments contribu-
tion to drainage into the facilities.
The City policy maintain flexibility and- consider developments case by
case. The conditions of approval should reflect the magnitude of impact on a
basin and its receiving water, the likelihood of imminent development elsewhere
in the basin, the urgency of the need for drainage facilities, and the financial
ability of the developer to implement the planned facilities through the
recommended methods.
The timing of the construction of the Master Plan facilities should
reflect the need for the facilities as well as the growth management policies
of the City. It is recommended that Master Plan debris basins be in place
prior to commencement of major grading operations, and that Master Plan storm
drains be constructed during grading.
VII-5
(5) Fees collected from new development for Master Plan facilities should
be charged on a cost per acre basis uniformly throughout a particular drainage
zone.
DISCUSSION
Drainage zones are shown on Plates 1 through 4. The areas covered by
the zones are tributary to Master Plan facilities required by new and/or
existing development. The costs to construct proposed facilities have been
estimated in this report and are to be contributed uniformly throughout each
zone from tributary development. Table B summarizes the cost per acre for
each zone. These costs may be interpreted as the fees to be charged developers
under the Subdivision Map Act, or as preliminary assessments under a 1911 Act
Improvement District. The fees would have to be adjusted for inflation at
the time they are collected.
(6) Storm drain lines AA, AA-1, AA-2, AA-3 and BA located in the downtown
area of Carlsbad should be financed by Redevelopment funds allocated by the
City Council. In lieu of this method of funding, a 1911 Act Drainage Improve-
ment District or General Fund monies should be utilized to provide financing.
DISCUSSION
A source of financing drainage improvements unique to the downtown area
is Redevelopment funding. Priorities for funding expenditures are set by the
City Council. It is recommended that the storm drain improvements be allocated
redevelopment monies to provide an adequate drainage system, free from nuisance
flooding. Funds from a 1911 Act Improvement District and/or City General Funds
are possible sources to augment redevelopment funds.
(7) Where a developing basin is to be drained by natural watercourses, the
developers should implement measures to mitigate erosion due to concentration
VI1-6
and increase of runoff caused by urbanization.
DISCUSSION
The development engineers should determine the anticipated increase
in erosion potential of the watercourse due to upstream development and
provide improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer which will
reduce the erosion impact to acceptable levels. The mitigating measures may
include runoff detention facilities, hydraulic drop structures, energy
dissipators, or other means in addition to Master Plan facilities, debris
basins, and onsite erosion control.
Table 8 summarizes the costs for proposed drainage facilities de-
tailed in Chapter VIII. A distribution of the costs is tabulated for two
cases. Facilities are grouped into "Districts" generally delineated with
major watersheds. Columns 1 through 5 tabulate the gross areas of the
District, the developable area based on gross area minus existing develop-
ment and proposed open space, total cost of facilities within the district,
and an average fee per developable acre within the district.
Columns 6 through 10 detail each storm drain line priority, cost, net
drainage area minus open space based on an average fraction of 16% open space,
and a fee per acre assuming costs born only by the areas tributary to a storm
drain facilities, that is, a subzone.
Areas within Zone 1 of the San Diego County Flood Control District
are shown with the detailed subzone fees only. Since a Comprehensive Plan
(ref. 6) already exists for this area, the City and District staff should
resolve differences in the Plans and fee assessments on new development.
VII-7
en
• i«
co
H
Q
cn
co
LO
OO
CM
1 i 1 fV
Z LU LU
O CL. 0£rvi cj
CQ LU <C
IO LU
OO Ll_
LU
LU CD
2£ ^C ^C
1— O Z LU
z CQ < «c
oo o
•
H" t—00 00
LU OCJ
1—
11 Oi— i Z
CJ
u_
AilcJOIcJd
LU
LU o: CQ
CD LU <C LU<CO-Q.ce:c2 o o
LU LU 1 <C
> LU LU
<C U_ >I i i
O
Q
LU— 1 1 —«l-I— 2: oo
O •— Oh- 1— CJ
OO
LU
LU
CQ
c? <:
O LU O
_1 OH <
LU <
LU
O
0000 •=£
O LU CJQ£ OS eC
CD «C
CJ
Q£
00
3
en oo o ^" LO
r~— LO CO CO ^"r*. LO co CM i —
OO OO CM CM
•fa* OO 00 OO OO
OO OO ^f CO LOco LO oo en' o
OO r~™ r~~ OO
O LOLO CO CM CM O Ocn co co LO LO CM oo LOi — i — r-. LO co CM oo . —
oo LocnLOCOLOcO'3-o cn oo co co r^. f— ^i-
O CM i — OO «f
^^^.^.^^.^.^
r- CM OO<: i i i CQ cj a LU^c ^c ^c ^c ^c ^c ^c ^c«:<
(O
CO
^J
CSJ
**
VO
p~
.
**
LO
"**
CM
COoocr»
p^»^f
A
CM
<
VO ^ OO ^ OO LO OO LO O^ CM OO LOoo r^» CD ^3 yD ^^ oo ^^ oo ^^ r**** ooG3 LO OO ^^ LO f™* OO *«O f^ f"« LO ^i"
CMi — i — CMCM^-i — CO OOi — i — LO^^^^
^^* ^cj* co f^" oo co CM LO CM r^* u^ ^^
CO LO P*^ r^^ O^ CO CO LO C3 vO CO OO
CMCMLOLOCMLOLO-^CnCOOLOCM
^Cj" CD CO CD CT* O^ C7"> ^" CO ^^ CO OO COp^r^cor^LOLOLO^j-cncncni — p^
O^-CMO^I— OLOCMcn^-<d-^d-CQ r— oo r*1* o^ r** LO oo o^ co co oo co
OO r^* CM r— -zf r*+ r— CM i— OO OO ^— r—
^.^^.^^^^.^.^.^^^^
CCCQCJQLUU.CDI: ii— •'-3^2:CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ "*"" CQ CQ CO CQ
CO
-ai««3.£5.tj«.a.a-acjI~
o
CM•*
•—
fa*
cn
LO^_
M
OOp-x
^r-b*
cno
*
cnLO
A
^
CQ
co oocn oo
CM CM
~
O 00
r- 0
CO **
LO O LO "^ CM CO OLO co i— oo r-. co coLO LO oo r~- LO •=}• oo
i— Cn CM LO r— CO ^3-oo «d- LO LO r-. -!j- oLO i — «^- i — i — i —
CM
i — i — CM OO «3"
— 1 1 Z 1 I 1 1CQ _I CQ Z Z Z Zrf\ fffi /"]Q >*y) i**f^
rt3 fO (T3 O O <"O <T3
o
Moo
-fa*
LOr-.oo
LO
CM
noo•fa*
COcn
A
'
0
oo
<~~
CQ
i
OO
-LU
ICQ<C
VII-8
01
• I *
oo"
II
o
LU 0£2: uj ujO D. Qi
r-J O
CO LU «£r> LU
OO Lt_
ur> co co en rs~Cr>Oi — U3 COi — i-~ co vo ^o en
co co i— i— i— CM co CM i— CM co i—
1^3 co oi — r~.ro o r-. i — •si- o cr> LT> CM * — <^3 cr> o LOLr>oOcOr--ior--aiioo<£>Lnr-~vo
COi — en i-~- i — CM *o- «a-en CM CM ro
ro CM CM CM i CM i— i—
LU <L3
2= «I— o z LU
LU-M i— i 0£
OO
i— CM
i — i — coCMCMCO rocMi — co i —CMI£>I — r —
CM
ooi— lococooocMoicMCO'— oocooococoooi— oooLOCOCOCMOII— P~. i— i— cnOi— oror-^coi— co«d-i— CMCM
CO oo o
LU O
^- i— <3- CM CM r— CM
co i — OLor~."CM P»-COCO«S-IOOi — i — CMi
CMCMI — r^.cnococnco'd-CMOroocMCM
COCOIT). — I — i — LDOCMi — i — i — OOCMi — , —
<c co o i aLuu_e33:i—lO^-JSZoo-crQiooi—^^ l*""^ f™^ ^_J f^*\ f^ f*""j ^""^ f^^l ^^ ^S i^) f~] £~*1 f^\ (^^ ^^ (^j f**^ p^ f*^
u_
uo AlliiOIcJd
a:LU Q-oo
a. oo
as oooLU <_>LO
LU Qi CQo LU <;< Q. a.Q£ OLU LU —I O> LU LU<C LJ_ >
LUO
in
oLU_i h-«=C < I—I— S ooO i—" O(—1—0oo
CM
CMLf)
M
03
00CTi
CM
i-O«a-co
CTl
CO
CQ«a:
Q. <=CO LU_i os
LU <£.
i—CMcn
OOOO <CO LU CJ oo•=r
CM
O
Ol U
00
a -u T3 i. s_
C O •!-> +->C 3 O £= ui
fO O r~• O *^™(^ C_> LL, CJ Q
VII-9
Following is a proposed ordinance for City Council adoption implementing
Master Plan proposed policies to require new development to pay for storm
drain facilities required by new development as is allowed by the Subdivision
Map Act:
SECTION 1: Potential storm drain improvement districts may be
established by resolution of the City Council after a recommendation therefor
is made by the City Engineer. Storm drain system improvement fees based upon
the City Engineer's estimated cost shall be established in said resolution
for each area and may be adjusted as necessary to reflect changing costs.
Each potential district shall be established by separate resolution of the
City Council which shall accurately designate by title and accompanying map
the district boundary and principal major facilities to be constructed.
SECTION 2: When the owner of property lying within an area design-
ated by the City as a potential storm drain improvement district proposes to
develop, improve, change or revise the existing use of all or a portion of the
property in such a manner as to require downstream storm drain facilities, the
owner shall deposit the storm drain improvement fee established by the City for
the affected property prior to:
(a) Filing a final subdivision or parcel map.
(b) Obtaining a development plan or conditional use permit.
(c) Obtaining a permit for construction of residential,
commercial or industrial buildings or other sturctures.
Said storm drain improvement fee shall not be required for the construc-
tion of a single family residence and/or appurtenant structures on an existing
parcel unless one or more of the other above conditions are also applicable.
SECTION 3: Storm drain facilities of district-wide benefit previously
constructed by developers or property owners shall be credited toward the fee on
VII-10
the basis of verified original costs.
SECTION 4: Fees collected shall be used only for the design,
construction or purchase of storm drains specifically of benefit to the
particular district.
SECTION 5: The City, shall designate a separate account for
each potential storm drain improvement district created hereby into which
all fees collected shall be deposited. Expenditures from each account
shall be made only upon authorization of the City Council in accordance
with the provision set forth herein.
The City Manager shall be responsible for properly administering
the provisions of this ordinance and making reports and recommendations
to the City Council relative thereto, including an annual report for each
fiscal year for each district.
SECTION 6: Upon formation of a 1911 Act or 1913 Act Improvement
District for the construction of all of the remaining major storm drain
system improvements of specific benefit to a district hereby designated
and defined, the balance of funds remaining in the particular potential
improvement district' account shall be credited to the newly formed
improvement district account to be used for construction, administration,
and engineering costs of said storm drain facilities.
COST
^"^""^ f~^~^*E^>TJJvJATE
VIII-1
VIII COST ESTIMATES
A. GENERAL
Preliminary cost estimates have been made for storm drain facilities
recommended in Chapter VIII. These estimates are intended to be used for
planning purposes to establish drainage acreage fees for drainage areas.
These fees can be applied as assessments in proposed improvement districts or
development impact fees. -
B. UNIT PRICES
• Unit prices for pipe conduit, catch basins, cleanouts, headwalls, concrete
channels, and junction structures reflect January iggn prices as determined by
comparison of bonding unit price estimates of various localities and other
studies.
Included in prices for pipe conduit are excavation, sharing and replacement
of overlying pavement, if necessary. Unit prices for catch basins assume 14 foot
curb inlet openings and include laterals to main lines. Box culverts are
estimated based on concrete volume and typical unit prices for structural
concrete work at $350 per cubic yard.
Concrete channels are estimated based on required excavation at $10
per cubic yard, 4 inch concrete lining at $200 per cubic yard, chain link
fence each side and decomposed granite-surfaced acess road at an additional
$22 per lineal foot.
Unit prices are given in Table 5.
VIII-2
C. COST ESTIMATES
Table 6 provides a listing of required storm drains and appurtenances for
each facility. Quantities and unit prices are listed and totaled. Construction
contingencies of 15% of construction cost are added to provide for utility
relocations and miscellaneous items not considered in estimated unit prices.
Inflation is not included in the contingencies. It is recommended that prior
to formation of assessment districts, these cost estimates should be updated
to current prices from this study's January 1980 datum. The Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index may be utilized for this purpose.
Engineering, administration, inspection and materials testing are included
at 20% above the subtotal of construction cost.
Right-of-Way costs for acquisition, damages, legal and administrative
expenses are included for recommended facilities in existing developed areas.
It is assumed that right-of-way dedications will be obtained as conditions of
approval for development. Right-of-Way not obtainable by dedication must be
purchased prior to construction.
Right-of-Way area requirements can be estimated at this time, however,
the final designs will determine exact right-of-way needs. Cost estimates
for right-of-way depend on land values, zoning, value of remainder land, which,
along with final alignments, are not included in the scope of this study.
Table 7 provides a summary of costs grouped by major facility drainage
area. Several areas are grouped together into proposed improvement districts
and drainage acreage fees computed and listed in Table B, Chapter VII.
TABLE 5
UNIT PRICES
CITY r
IfEi'Ji
] 7
27
30
33
36
42
43
48
53
54
60
66
72
7 n•-J
34
96
100
) P C A R L
• c 0 \
OE3R
1 7 0 C
•jc_L)i\
2700
30"
33"
36"
42"
ut-BR
if300
4 fa"
DtSR
5300
54"
oO"
o&"
72"
ye"
.•i<4»
96"
L E B R
S 3 A J
r1 C.
0 £
IS J A
C. Y .
IS DA
C.Y.
RCP
RCP
RCP
PCP
IS 6A
C.Y.
,R C P
IS j/,
C.Y.
RCP
RCP
RCP
RCP
RCP
:?CP
RCP
IS •j/'.
" A S T L R P L A h
T C O ^• ^ 1 o J r
', C r< 1 P T
; I i.
SEG. VOLUME
•', I .'J
St-D. VCLJivE
SIN
S£D. VOLUME
k
S I fJ
SED. VOLUME
oil!
VIII-3
DRAINAGE PAGE 1
DAT£ 04/U3/SO
I T E M FILE
0 r>; UNIT --PRICE
EA 20UUG.OO
E.A 320UO.OO
LF 52.00
LF bfa.OO
LF 59.00
LF 64.00
EA 360UO.OO
LF 75.00
EA 50000.00
LF 66.00
LF 93.00
LF 102.00
LF 112.00
LF 130.00
LF 14-7.00
LF 193.00
EA 550UU.OO
1UOOQC.Y. SEj.VOLUME
130 jC"RCP .L/.AC PV^iT LF 62.00
133 J5"RCP */:\C f;V'vT LF bb.OO
136 ob"RcP v/-,C PV:'-1T LF 69.00
142 ^"RC3 /./..C ?V:
J1T LF 74.00
1*8 ^i"RCP -,/.C PV>iT LF B 5.0 0
154 54"RCP ,,/.— PV'IT LF 98.00
CITY nF CARLSdAj LAfi uF QRAl'JAGE
VIII-4
irrw
160
1S6
172
176
14H
196
210
530
t>'fO
650
2S12
2 3 1 1
8012
S U 1 8
3020
3120
C C \| T i
- --- J c.
T S OF ITEM
C K I P T I 0 n ----
PAGE 2
DATE 04/03/80
FILE
UNIT --PRICE
PlUOJOC .Y . Si-O.
CLEA iQJTS (Of"
CLEA ^QUTS ( i><v"
CATC,! BASI'iS (14- FT)
'iu LATERALS
;(LAJ.vAL._S { 1 5 " - 5 '4 " )
nEAGWALuS ( 5 7" -11^"
tA^T-i T.-^AP.
r3 = 1 2 0 + F '? - a 2 = 2
E A R T - i T K A r . C n A :•.! ,\| E L
^ = 14. D + 'f •? = v Z = 2
£ART-i T.-<dr. CHA;,,\JEL
El -•'< ^ T ' H T ;;-: /•, -> . C, H £ ;''. :'-l E L
-i = lb« 'l+F ' = 7ii.-2
r.;-.R!M TI<-,P. ChA;',vJEL
0 = 20 0 + r :• = o Z = 2
CO,\,C. Tri-\r- . CnAI',.MEL
Ll-
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EA
EACH
EACH
EACH
LF
LF
LF
Lf-
103.00
112.00
122.00
1^0.00
157.00
203.00
76000.00
2000.00
2500.00
2500.00
EACH 3500.00
EACH 3000.00
EACH 3000.00
EACH 3500.00
LF 155.00
160.00
14-0.00
145.00
150.00
LF 115.00
LF 185.00
VIII-5CITY r,f cAHLSSAj • A^TLr; PLAM OF QRAIMAGE PAGE 3
DATE 04/03/60
------ C C /J F L , T is OF I T E >! FILE --------
jrrV; ---- ,j ._ ; L ^ i p T I 0 M ---- UNIT --P
9000 iMGhr OF ,, 4 r REC,Ji"L'U .1AC 30UO.OO
"7T
TABLE 6
COST ESTIMATES
VIII-6
D',< H J.
ITL.I"
i
2
3
4
o
7
9
10
11
1JAGE A"\£/>. A,
i n:r
iTOR!v: DRAIi\ LINE AA
42"><cP WAG pv^r
4o"RCP ift/AC PV^T
5H":;'CP rt/AC PV'^IT
7,;" cCP .-/AC ?VV:T
tH" TCP rt/AC PVI-IT
CLEVTJuTS (3b"-b6")
CLE'MiOjTS <=,9"-
Jjf'CT10,-j ST-1UC"
( i-ji'-jV )
Ju-MCTI'jN STRUCTURES
(57"-9A")
CATCn L^SI'JS C
(i^'CL'J^l.-IG LATERALS
Hc.^ j^aLLS ( o?"-
RiG ?T OF irAf Kt
DM.AI'JASL Ak^;\ A A
ITEiV! TIE'
i\i). JE2i;.'UPTIC-\i
1 3o".\CP '../AC PVMT
2 C, Ev\UL'TS ( 3b"-66" )
'6 Jj;\cTiC"'<i STRUCTURES
( Ob"-34 " )
4 CATjn *ASI:x!S C
( I .'•;cL'Jt3l;-J6 LATERALS
")" )
ES
ES
FT)i_s
4" )
I3E
STORM
11 )
ES
FT)
LS
ESl'Iiv/"-TEU
SUAMIITY UNIT
600 LF
750 LF
450 LF
500 LF
2,200 LF
8 EACH
3 EACH
i EACH
2 EACH
23 EACH
1 EACH
11 .1AC
SUBTOTAL
CCIMTIlMGE!MCIt.S
SUBTOTAL
•
EiNGR. Af\iQ AOil!
TCTAL CONSTRUC
ORAIi\ LINE AA 1
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
800 LF
3 EACH
1 EACH
2 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CCNTINGE.MCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AMQ AOMI
TCTAL CONSTRUC
UNIT
PRICE
74.00
a 5 . o o
98.03
122. Ou
157.00
2.0UO.OO
2.500.00
2.5UO.OC
3 , 5 C 0 . 0 0
3,000.00
3,500.00
3, QUO. 00
+ 15K
M +2 Q%
TION COST
UNIT
PRICE
B3.00
2, 000.00
2.5UO.OO
3,000 .00
+ 159o
M +20?o
TION COSI
TOTAL
COST
59.200
63 .750
44.100
61.000
345.400
16, 000
22.500
2.500
7.000
69.000
3.500
33.00C
726.950
109.042
835.992
167.193
1 ,003.190
TOTAL
COST
55.200
6.000
2.500
6.000
69. 700
10.455
80. 155
16. 031
96.186
D R A I \l A G L A ."-• :. A A A
-
Mu
3 CL£
<+ J<j "••;<' T H;i
ORAHN LINE AA 2
VIII-7
OMAIMAGE ARE
I TEN IT^V.
['JO- OESr}
Jj.iC 1
ESTIMATED UNIT
PMG\J aUANFlTY UNIT HKICE
w/AC PVf-U 850 LF 62.00
A/AC PV>"ir 900 LF tib.OO
UTS Mfo"-b6") 6 EACH 2. QUO. 00
ui\; STRUCTjRES 1 EACH 2.500.00
/<i| t'+ /
BASICS (14 FT) 1U EACH 3,000.00
OIMG LATERALS
SUBTOTAL
CCMTINGEMCILS +15%
SUBTOTAL
EI\GR. AND AOMIN +2o?6
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STORM ORAIlN LINE AA 3
A A
ESTIMATED ' Ui\HT
PI'IOJ QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
W/AC PV'-IT 750 LF fe2.00
UTS (36"-b6") 2 EACH 2 . ° ° ^ • 0 0
GiM STRUCTURES 1 EACH 2.5UO.OO
LL M \1 *T J
PASHMS (It FT) 3 EACH 3,000.00
IL'I.'-JC LATERALS
SUBTOTAL
CCNTINGENCIES +15%
SUBTOTAL
EAiGR. AMD ACMIM +20?c
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
52.700
76.500
12.000
2.500
30. 000
173.700
26«055
199.755
39.951
239.706
TOTAL
COST
1+6.500
t. 000
2.50C
9.000
62.000
9.300
71 .300
14-1200
85.560
STORM DRAliN LINE AB VIII-8
D i •' A I •'' ' AGE A r- c. A A 3
ITE."! if- ESTlivATEU UN if
'•C- DLSCrUPTICM QUANTITY UNIT PKICE
i 3o" \LP 500 LF 59.00
2 3,. "^p vj/AC PVi'U 3bO LF bfa.OO
5 3j".-CP A/AC PVMT 750 LF 6^.00
4 C^F.-,frJuTS C56"-o6») 6 EACH 2,000.00
5 Jj-rri.J\ STRUCTURES 1 EACH 2,500.00
( "-i o 1 1 -.-"•> i+ " )\ _) CJ -J T^ /
^ CATCH C AS IMS (14 FT) 5 EACH 3,000.00
( T •' '• C i i r •, i ."• i f - 1 A T J-" ^ A i ^Cv i ' i L L ^ :- i 1 • 'J v.~ 1— ^ 1 c. r\ M u j
7 HEA -WMLLS (!5"-54") 1 EACH 3,000.00 •
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15=5
SUBTOTAL
Ei\GR. Ar;D AOMIN +20?,
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STORi"1 DRAIN Hl\i£ ACD,;AI-VAGE AI-EA AC
ITEf»! ITE', ESTIMATED UNIT
ijO- DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 3u" RCP 1,500 LF b2.00
2 4^" ^CP 2,100 LF 6H.OO
5 CLEA,;0«jT3 (36"-66") 12 EACH 2,000.00
M Jj;-ICTICf» STRuCTuRES 1 EACH 2,500.00
/ ' M t-. ; II \\ Jl C -• J 4 /
5 CATCri i/.ASIMS (14 FT) 9 EACH 3,000.00
( i . ' L i_ U 7. i M o LATERALS
& H.AO.-.ALLS (i5"-b4") 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15$
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. ANQ ADMIN +20?o
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
29»5CO
23,100
51,7bC
12,000
2,500
15,000
3,000
136i6bO
20i527
157,377
31'475
183*852
TOTAL
COST
78,000
134,400
24, 000
2,500
27,000
6,000
271t900
40,765
312,665
62'537
375,222
STORM DRAIN LINE AO
VIII-9
DRAINAGE A n E A AD
ITfc-F ITE> ESTIMATED
i-JO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
1 3b" RCP 600 LF
? 4-2" 3CP 1,050 LF
3 bo" RCP 1,200 LF
4 CLfV-ViOuTS <36"-66") 10 EACH
5 Ju^CTlOi'u STRUCT jRES 2 EACH
( _ 7 ii ^5 ,: ii \X w ' > O /
6 CATCH RASIMS ( 1 4 FT) lb EACH
(i^CLUOIMG LATERALS'
7 HF^UAALLS (15"-54") 1 EACH
6 HLA;,V.,ALLS <57"-144") 1 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CCMTINGEi\lCIES
SUBTOTAL
EI\GR. AMD AUMIM
TOTAL COfVJSTKUCTl
STORM DRAli\ LINE AE
D R A I I%J ;\ G E A h E A A E
ITEiv: ITT, ESTl^ATEu
ho- Dc.S-= 1PTIO,XJ QUANTITY UNIT
1 DEr-;lb DAblM 1 EA
27il;- C.Y. SED. VOLUME
SUBTOTAL
CCMTINGEiMCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. «^D AOr'ilM
TOTAL COMSTRUCTI
UNIT
PK1CE
59.00
64.00
1U2.00
2,000.00
3,500.00
3,000.00
3, 000. CO
3,500.00
+ 15?o
+ 20?6
0(\j COST
UNIT
PKICE
32. 000.00
+ 155o
+ 20?o
0(\j COST
TUTAL
COST
35.400
67.200
122.400
20 . 000
7.000
45.000
3,000
3.500
303.500
45,525
349.025
6 9 . 8 0 5
418.830
TUTAL
COST
32.000
32.000
4.600
36«800
7 . 360
44. 160
•3T
STORM ORAHV. LINE 3A VIII-10
L' ;-. A I V A c E :\ , £ A 6 A
1TE.'" ITT. ESTIMATED
>irJ. OL -:•;; '-UFT i G;.I QUANTITY UNIT
1 bu" -<CP 2,300 LF
2 CuL-.',uijTS (3b"-o6") 8 EACH 2
o U^'i'TlGM STRUCTURES 1 EACH 3
( j?» --Jo" )
') CATCh r.ASI -IS (If FT) 6 EACH 3
( i.'CL.J-l'!G LATERALS
b -tc*1 ;iJALL5 ( 57"-14.'4" ) 1 EACH 3
C- ' ^if-.T JF «AY KEdUIRE 7 .1AC 3
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15
SUBTOTAL
EI^GR. AND AOMIN +20
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
STORM DRAH\ LINE RB
DRAINA3L A,-EA bd
ITEF IT"'; ESTIMATEDr,o. OtSc^iPTicN QUANTITY UNIT
1 '+2" -<CP 950 LF
2 to" RCP . 2,550 • LF
3 '4d"-CP W/AC PVMT 250 LF
4 5t".-CP «/AC PVMT 700 LF
5 6^":-Cr- */AC PV>1T 250 i_F
b CLE.vjOjTS (3b"-06") 16 EACH 2
7 CL'.-.-jO'ji b (oy"-^3M) 1 EACH 2
fa JJ.'iCTION STRUCTURES 2 EACH . ?
/ X " 1 1 K i \ 1 1 )\ ^ cj; • — O - f J
9 CATC.-i BASINS (It FT) 22 EACH 3
( I: CLUL'1:J3 LATEKAL.S
10 HL/V;,,,ALLS (57"-ltt") 1 EACH 3
11 RiG-iT cH «AY REQUIRE 13 .1AC 3
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15
SUBTOTAL
E^GK. AND ADMIN +20
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
UNIT
PKICE
93.CO
, 0 0 C . 0 0
, 5UU.UO
, 0 0 U . f) 0
,5UU .00
, OUO.GO
%
<k
COST
UNIT
PRICE
64.00
'f b . 0 0
U5.00
98. On
112.D3
, QUO. 00
,503.00
,5UO.OO
, 0 U 0 . 0 0
,5UO..)0
, 0 0 u . 0 0
°ii
9o
cos r
TOTAL
COST
213,900
16, 000
3.5UO
18,000
3,500
21.000
275.900
tl .365
317,285
63»!457
380.742
TOTAL
COST
60,800
191.250
21.250
68.600
28, OOC
32.000
2,500
5. 000
66, 000
3.500
39.000
517.900
77.665
595.565
119,117
714,702
^ ORAIi\ LINE 3C
viii-n
D K A I i\i A G L
ITE^> irE>; ESTIMATED UNIT
HU. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 3b",^CP "/AC PVFiT 1,800 LF b9.QO
2 CLLiiModTS (3b"-66") 6 EACH 2, QUO. 00
3 J.iHCTlON STRUCTURES 1 EACH 2,500.00
( 3b» -54" )
4 CATrH BASINS (14 FT) B EACH 3,000.00
( liiCLUOlrJG LATERALS
5 HEAf'^ALLS (15"-34"J 2 EACH 3,OUO.OO
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +1554
SUBTOTAL
E^GR. AND ADMIN +20?o
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STORM DRAIN LINE BO
C R A I M A G L A 1 E M 3 0
ir^i" ITE"-! ESrilvATEO UNIT
MO. DESCRIPTION QUANflTY UNIT PRICE
1 3o" RCP 500 LF 59.00
2 42" RCP 1,050 LF b^.uO
3 Ci_E">.-;OUTS (36"-66») b EACH 2, QUO. 00
4 CMTrh BASINS (14- FT) 3 EACH 3, QUO. 00
( iMcLUL-lMG LATERALS5 HLA_'A.ALLS (15"-D4"> 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +3.5?;
SUBTOTAL
Ei\GR. AMJ AOMIN +20%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
124,200
12.000
2.500
24, 000
b, OUO
168.700
25,305
194,005
38.801
232.806
TOTAL
LOST
29.500
67,200
12.000
9,000
6.000
123,700
13,555
142.255
23.451
170.706
STORM ORAliS LIN VIII-12
GK/'. I'JAGE A'-;E^ j.L
ITLT-1 1TL" ESTIVA TEU
r-.u« DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
1 '^" TLP ' 2,350 LF
2 4d" -:CP 600 LF
5 DEL^lS bAilH 1 EA
5 Ju , C . Y . SED. VOLUME
H Ci_F..V-iJUrS (3S"-b6") 10 EACH
5 ^Tr-t 'jASIMS (14 FT) 7 EACH
< i:':CLu?Ii'Ju LATERALS
& HEr.j,,ALLS (l5"-34») 2 EACH
7 XiG-if OF ...AY REQUIRE 22 . 1AC
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. ANQ AQMIN
TGTAL CONSTRUCTI
STORM QRATI\ LINE BFCRAI^AGE A.^EA BF
ITc-h ITF'-i ESTli^ATEU
:xj:j. OuSrRIPTICM 3UAfJTlTY UNIT
1 DE^XiS B AS !••.! 1 EA
2700 C. Y . 5EO. VOLUME
2 3,j» 3.CP 1,000 LF
4 3->" ^LP 1,200 LF
'* ^J't" :<CP 1,500 L.F
5 7^" iCP 1,200 LF
b C, C ^IGuTS (3b"-D6") 16 EACH
7 JJiCTIf/N STRUCTURES 1 EACH
( S7 ii _ '-><,-, " )i ^J ' -/ O /
6 C.ATCH LiASlNS (1-r FT) 16 EACH
( i'lLLUiU.'IG LATEKALS
9 H_.v.),,ALL3 (15"-D4") 2 EACH
10 Hc:^.;,,/^ i_S (57"-l44") 1 EACH
11 RiG ,T JF iAAY REQUIRE 15 . 1AC
SUBTOTAL
CCMTlNGEMCItS
SUBTOTAL
E;\GR. A, MO AOMIN
UNIT
PRICE
C>4.f)0
7b.OO
50, QUO. 00
2, 0<Ju . 00
3 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
3 , 0 (i 0 . 0 0
3 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
+ 15?6
+ 20?o
ON COST
UNIT
PRICE
32, 000.00
S2.00
09.00
38.00
112.00
2,000.00
3 .50 0.00
3,000.00
3 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
3,500.00
3, QUO. 00
+ 15?o
+ 20?6
TOTAL
COST
150 ,400
45, 000
50,000
20,000
21.00U
6, 000
6 6- , 0 0 0
353,400
53.760
412.160
32,432
494,592
TOTAL
COST
32,000
52,000
70,300
132,000
134,400
32,000
3,500
43.000
6, OOu
3,500
45,000
559.200
83.83Q
643, 03Q
123, bib
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
UK A i:\i.\3E MK£A do
bTQRM ORAIIN. LINE BG VIII-13
ITEM I IE-; ESTIMATED UNIT
NU. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
-i- (*2" RCP 1,300 LF b4-.QO
2 CuEAMOUTS {3b"-66") 4 EACH 2,000.00
3 CATCn BASINS (14 FT) 4. EACH 3, QUO. DO
( i i '•' C L ^ u 1 M G LATERALS
4- HEA-j^ALLS (15"-54-") 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15%
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND AOMIN +202,5
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STORM DRAIN LINE BH
OP A I .MAGE AREA 3H
IT£iv: HE1: ESTIMATED UNIT
;V'j. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 3o" RCP 1,000 LF b9.0Q
2 td» RCP 1,250 LF 75. JO
3 DL3-US 3ASIM 1 EA 55, QUO. 00
lOll.'jOC.ir . SEO. VOLUME
4 Ci_E/',r.jOuTS (36"-b6") 8 EACH 2,000.00
5 Jj-lcriON STRUCTURES 1 EACH 2.5UO.OO
f • C \) _ --, _i II iV , v-J •" -J T" /
fc CATJ--, -ASINS (I '4 FT) 7 EACH 3, QUO. 00
( J.,-!CL'J[iI;'JG LATERALS
7 H£3\.jALLS (15"-i)4") 1 EACH 3,000.00
-' CJ ;•:,-. T^AP. CHANNEL 3,000 LF 135.00
3 = 2 0 » -j + F 3 = -3 , Z = ii
9 Rl'?r.T OF wAY REQUIRE 30 .1AC 3,OUO.OO
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15?^
SUBTOTAL
Ei\GR. AND ADMIT.! +205K
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
83,200
8, 000
12.000
6.000
109.200
16.330
125.580
25.116
150.696
TOTAL
COST
59.0UO
93,750
55,000
16,000
2.500
21.000
3,000
555,000
90,000
895.250
134.237
1 .029.537
205.907
1 ,235.444-
7T
J U
M QRAII\ LINE BH 1 VIII-14
IT£<W ire
f<,0« DCSc UF'TIG;\i
1 3 . " KCP
2 CuLA.MiiuTS ( 3b"-bo
5 CnTilr! BASINS I 14 FT
( i^CLJL I.'JG LAFEXAuS
4 HtAj A-M LS ( 15"-54" )
U R A i i\i /\ G £ A * E A 31
ITEM HEM
M 0 • 0 E S C R i P T I u" j
1 3u" RCP
2 3o" 3CP
3 Ot_i3RiS bASl'.j
550 il C.r. SEO.VOLUME
4 CLE,,'-jUUlS (3b"-fab")
5 CATCH BASIMS (14 FT)
( ir:CLUOIiv-Jb LATERALS
6 HEAj^ALLS (15"-54")
7 RIGHT OF UAY REQUIRE
3" )
FT)
\LS
h" )
STORM
U M F• *-* • ' C.
.'")
FT)
i_S
" )
!IRE
ESTIMATED
SUANflTY UNIT
l.tilO LF
6 EACH
6 EACH
1 EACH
SUBTOTAL .
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. A!\;O AOMIN
TGTAL CONSTKUCTI
ORAIlX LINE BI
ESTIMATED
3D AM [ IT Y UNIT
950 LF
800 LF
1 EA
6 EACH
5 EACH
2 EACH
15 ,1AC
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
EIMGK. AMD AOMIN
TOTAL COMSTRUCTI
UNIT
PKICE
59.00
2,OUO.OO
3 , U 0 0 . 0 0
3,000.00
+ 15?,;
+ 20?;
Oj\j CUbT
UNIT
PRICE
52.UO
39.00
50, 000.00
2 , 0 0 0 . 1 1 0
3 , 0 0 0 . i.l 0
3 , 0 0 0 . U G
3, QUO. 00
+ 15>o
+ 20%
ON COST
TOTAL
COST
106,790
1 2 t 0 0 0
13,000
3,000
139,790
20 ,966
160,756
32.151
192,909
TOTAL
COST
49,400
47,200
50,000
12, 000
15, noo
6,000
45,000
224,600
33i690
256,290
51,606
309.943
STORM DRAIN LIi\iE 3J VIII-15
I'JO
1
2
3
U a 1 1 ^ C P
CLEa \jOuTS (36 "-06
C M T c .-i o A S I ;\J S (14 FT)
C)F '.--AY
NAGE Ar-VEA BK
I IE"'
D.-SrSiPTICN
54" -vCP
CLL Ai'.UuTS ( 36"-o6'
CATCH SAS INS (14 FT)
<MG LATERALS
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY JNiT
1,800 LF
'") 7 EACH
FT) 7 EACH
,LS
•") 2 EACH
IIRE 15 .1AC
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +1
SUBTOTAL
EixGR. AND ADMIN +2
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
STORf ORAHV LINE BK
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
900 LF
") 3 EACH
FT) 2 EACH
LS
" ) 2 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +1
SUBTOTAL
EIMGR. AMD AOMIN +2
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
UNIT
PRICE
75.00
2,000.00
3 , 0 U 0 . U 0
3,000.1)0
3,OUO.OO
5?6
0?6
COST
UNIT
PRICE
H8.0Q
2, QUO. JO
3,OOC.,)0
3, QUO. DO
5?o
0!?o
COST
TOTAL
COST
135,000
11,000
21,000
6, 000
45,000
2 2 1 t 0 0 0
33,150
254,150
50,830
301»9dO-
TUTAL
COST
79,200
6, 000
6 » 000
6,000
97^200
14.500
111, 76Q
22,356
134.136
STORM DRAHV LI We 3L VIII-16
DRAINAGE AKEA bL
ITL?" Iii-l."
P ' 0 « 0 L S ^ ,t I P T I U M
1 D E ::< r\ 1 S b A S I N
27Qu C.Y. SET). VOLUME
2 3u" RCP
3 4<;» 9CP
4 bu" r-P
5 6b" -~<Ch
b CLEvMOUTS (3b"-b6")
7 CuEA'.iJurs (o9"-93")
JUNCTION STRUCTURES
{ 56 " -54" )
9 CATCH PAS IMS 114 FT>
( I'MCLUr IM& LATERALS
1C HEA U'ALLS (l5"-b4")
11 HEA J wALLS (57" -144")
STORM
OR A I 'MAGE AKEA dL
ITEM JTrvi
f-jO. DESCRIPTION
1 3j" RCp
2 CLFa-NiCUTS (36"-fa6»)
5 CATCH L:ASirJS (14 FT)
( V >'• i r i ii ". T -.1 1- i n T t" j A i o
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
1 EA
650 LF
650 LF
1,050 LF
1,300 LF
7 EACH
4 EACH
1 EACH
29 EACH
1 EACH
1 EACH
• SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND ADM i
TOTAL COMSTKUC
DRAIN LINE 8L 1
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
500 LF
1 EACH
1 EACH
UNIT
PRICE
32,000.1)0
52.00
bH.OO
93.00
102.00
2 , 0 U 0 . U 0
2 , 5 U 0 . ,j o
2 , 5 0 0 . o 0
3,000.00
3,000.00
3,500.00
+ 15?;
W +20%
TION COST
UNIT
PRICE
bfa.uo
2, uuo.no
3,000.00
TOTAL
COST
32,000
33,800
41,600
97,650
132,600
14,000
10,000
2,500
87,000
3,000
3,500
457,6'JO-
68,647
526,297
105, 239
631i556
TOTAL
COST
23, 000
2, 000
3,000
i EACH 3,ono.i)o
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15?fl
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND AUi^IM +20?6
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
3,000
36tOOC
5,400
8 ,260
49,680
DP A I A] AGE A>-EA
STORM DRAIN LINE 3M VIII-17
ITE^i
i\iQ.
1
2
3
4
5
DKAli'Mi
ITEM
N0«
1
<:
3
4
5
-fa
7
£
9
10
11
12
13
14
ITEr:
OLS,:RiPTIOiM
3b" KCP
3b"RCP w/AC PViv1T
CLEA.\iCujTS (3b"-bb")
CATCH BASINS (14 FT>
(lorLuDING LATERALS
HEAU^ALLS (i5"-54")
STORM
3E AREA 3N
ITEi-r
DESCRIPTION
3,." RCp
42" RCP
6(j" RCP
72" RCP
DEBRIS BASIN
10000C.Y. SED. VOLUME
CLCA\iOUTS (36"-66")
CL£,\,vCUTS {&9"-93")
JUNCTION STRUCTURES
( 3b»-b4" )
JUNCTION STRUCTURES
( 57 ii -9 A" }* sj / ™ J U /
CATCH BASINS <i4 FT>
( INCLUDING LATERALS
HcAnwALLS (15" -b4")
EARrH TRAP. CHANNEL
B=12, D+FB=7,Z=2
EAPfH TRAP. CHANNEL
3 = 1 4 , U + F3 = 7,Z = 2
EARTH TRAP. CHANNEL
B=ld, u+F3=7,Z=2
ESTIMATED
3UANTITY UNIT
750 LF
850 LF
b EACH 2
5 EACH 3
2 EACH 3
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15
SUBTOTAL
E!\GR. AND AOMIN +20
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
DRAH\ LINE 8N
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
1,000 LF
800 LF
450 LF
5,5bO LF
1 EA 55
8 EACH 2
16 EACH 2
1 EACH 2
2 EACH 3
49 EACH 3
1 EACH 3
1,600 LF
1,300 LF
700 LK
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15
SUBTOTAL
UNiT
PRICE
b9.f)0
fa9.{)0
,000.00
,000.00
,000.00
?6
/o
COST-
UNIT
PRICE
52. UO
6^.00
93.00
112.00
,000.00
, ouo.oo
,500.00
,500.00
,5UO.OO
,OUO .00
,000.00
I40.no
145.00
IbO .00
£
Ei^GR. A|\ig ADMIN + 20%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
44,2b"0
58,6bO
10 , 000
15,000
6,000
133.900
20.085
153,965
30.797
184.782
TOTAL
COST
52,000
51.200
41.850
621.600
55,000
16,000
45.000
2.500
7.000
147.000
3, 000
224,000
lafl.soo
105,000
1 ,559«6bG
233,947
] ,793.597
353.719
2, 152.316
STORM DRAII\ LINE VIII-18
DRAIMAGE ARE.A 3rJ
ITET: IfE.; ESTIMATED
iXO. OtScKlMIOM QUANTITY UNIT
1 30" RCP 500 LF
2 33" ACP 6bO LF
3 3b" SCP 1,250 LF
4 5<4" ^cp 1,450 LF
5 CLE.ViOLiTS (36"-66") 12 EACH
fa JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH
( "s A u - R a " i\ s*> rj ^ ^ T /
7 CATCH RASI.MS (14 FT) Ib EACH
(INCLUDING LATERALS
B HEAOUALLS d5"-b4") i EACH
SUBTOTAL
CCNTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND ADMIN
TCTAL CONSTRUCT
STORM DRAIN LINE BN 2
DRAINAGE AREA 6M
ITEM ITE-: ESTIMATED
NO- DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
1 3b" RCP 1,600 LF
2 CLEAtoOUTS (36"-66") b EACH
3 CATCH BASINS (14 FT) 5 EACH
(INCLUDING LATERALS
4 H.AjwALLS (l5"-54") 1 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CCNTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
UNiT
PRICE
b2.00
bfo.DO
b9.00oa.tio
2 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
2, 5U 0.00
3,000.1)0
3 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
+ 15?i
+ 20?6
ION COST
UNIT
PRICE
b9.no
2,000.00
3 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
3,000.00
+ 15?;
TOTAL
COST
26, QUO
36,400
73,750
127,600
24,000
2,500
45 i 000
3,000
338,250
50,737
388,967
77,797
466, 7at*
TOTAL
COST
94,400
12,000
15,000
3,000
124,400
13,660
113 , ObO
ENGR. AND AOMIN +20*.
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 171,672
VIII-19
DRAIMAGL
I TEW
T4 0 »
1
2
3
ITE"
DESCRIPTION
30" RCP
42" F?CP
CL.EAMOUTS (36"-66"CATCH BASINS (14 FT>
( INCLUDING LATERALS
DRAINAGE. AREA 3N
ITEM I-tTi
NO. DESCRIPTION
1 3," RCP
2 CuEOlOUTS (36"-b6")
3 CMCd BASINS (It FT)
(INCLUDING LATLKAL
4 HLAOWALLS (15"-04")
STORM
>")
FT)
I_Q> W «J• ")
STORM
11 )
FT)
LS
11 )
DRAIi\ LINE 3N 3
ESTIMATED UNIT
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
900 LF 52.00
450 LF 64.00
4 EACH 2.0UO.OO
7 EACH 3,OUO.<)0
1 EACH 3,OOO.iJO
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES + 15J6
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND ADMIN +20%
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
DRAIIX LINE BN 4
ESTIMATED UNITQUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1,000 LF S6.no
4 EACH 2, ^0 0.00
3 LACH 3, QUO. 00
1 EACH 3,000.110
SUBTOTAL
CCNTINGEMCILS + 15^
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AMD AOfUN +20?o
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
46,800
23,800
8,000
21, 000
3'000
107,600
16,140
123,740
24,748
148,488
TOTAL
COST
5b» 000
3,000
9,000
3, 000
76» 000
11»4UO
87,400
I7,4d0
104,380
o u
CI-: A I
STORMIMAGE A-/EA Co
iW I i E>:
O^SC^IPTIOM
1 4^" -<Cr
2 to" rrCP
3 CLEAMUurS (36" -66")
4 C.ATCH 5ASINS (14 FT)
< i.'lrLUDIfJG LATERALS
5 H/AOrtALLS (15"-34")
DRAH\ LINE {
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
1,100
2,650
13
15
2
SUBTOTAL
:8 VIII-20
UNIT
UNI f I-'KICE
LF <-Jt.no
LF f3.'W
EACH 2,0'JO.JO
LACH 3, QUO. '10
EACH 3, 000. HO
CONTINGENCIES +1505
SUBTO fAL
Fj\GR. AM[3 AD'IIN +20%
TOTAL
COST
70,400
198, 7 jQ
26 , OGO
45, 000
6 , 0 J 0
346, 130
51 ,9i2
398,072
79,614
TCTAL COiMSTRUuTIOM
STORM
ITE
CC
LINE CC
rl I TE -!
JuSc^iPTION
i 4^" qCP
2 CL-EnMUjTS (36 "-60")
3 C.\TCH 5ASliM3 (It FT)
( iflCL'J.jI'JS LATERALS
4 HE A j A ALLS (15" -54")
ESTTIVATED UNCT
QUANTITY UNIT ^'KiCE
3,faOO t_F jt.jo
12 EACil 2, Oil 0.00
13 E-ACM 3, QUO. 00
2 CACH 3,OUO.')0
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15%
SUBTOTAL
EiMGR. AND AOHCN +2Q*
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
230,400
24,OuO
39,0 JO
6 ,000
299,400
44,910
344,310
68,862
413,172
DRAINAGE AREA CD
STORM DRAIN LINE CD viri-21
ITEM
MO.
1
2
3
4
5
DRAI
ITEM
NO.
1
2
3
4
I FEw
DESCRIPTION
30" RCP
4>}» RCP
CLEANOUT5 (36"-66")CATCH BASINS (14 FT>
( INCLUDING LATEKALS
HrAjwALLS (15"-54")
STORM
NA3E AREA CE
I rEx1
DESCRIPTION
33" RCP
CLEANOUTS (36"-66")
CATrH BASINS (14 FT)
(INCLUDING LATEKALS
HEAQWALLS (i5"-54")
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
700 LF
150 LF
3 EACH
9 EACH
2 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AMD A Oil I
TOTAL COMSTRUC
DRAIN LINE CE
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
1,100 LF
4 EACH
2 EACH
2 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
UNCT
PRIUE
52.00
75.00
2 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
3,000.00
3,OUO.!)0
^15?o
N +20?6
TION COST
UNIT
PRICE
5&.i)0
2,0f)0.i)0
3,000.i)0
3, QUO. 00
+ 15SS
ENGR. AND AOMIN +20%
TOTAL COMSTRUC TION cosi
TOTAL
COST
36,400
11,250
6»000
27,000
6,000
86,650
12,997
99,647
19,929
119,576'
TOTAL
COST
61,600
8,000
6»000
6,000
81,600
12*240
93,840
18,768
112,608
D R A I r-l AGE A R E A C F
ITErl I IT'-
MO. DESCRIPTION
STORM DRAIIN LINE CF VIII-22
1
2
3
4
5
6
RCP
RCP
30
3o
4<i
4b" RCP
Ci EA.MOliTS ( 36"-b6
CATCH
( ii'-ICLUDIiMb LATLKALS
(15"-54
DRAINAGE. Ar?EA CO
ITEM IFE-"!
NO DESCRIPTION
12
3
30"
CLEA.-JOUTS {.5fa"-6b"
CATCH BASINS
( INCLUDING LATERALS
ESTIMATED UNET
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
650 LF b2.uO
8bO LF by.. JO
1,050 LF H4.<)0
1,000 LF 75.00
'"> 12 EACH 2,000.;)0
FT) m EACH 3.0UO.OO
iLS
•") 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15",,
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND ADMIN + 20?6
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STORM DRAIN LINE CG
ESTIMATED UNIT
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
650 LF 52.00
•"> 2 EACH 2,OUO.!)0
FT) 3 EACH 3,OOO.DO
LS
") 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15$
SUBTOTAL
EJMGR. AMD ADMIN +205o
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
33,«00
50,130
67,2UO
75,000
24,000
42,000
6,000
298,150
44,722
342,872
66,574
411,446
TOTAL
COST
33,800
4,000
9,000
6,000
52iSOO
7,920
60,720
12, 144
72,364
D R A IMAGE A.-} E A C H
ITE;W ITE-1
1
2
3
STORM DRAIN LINE CH VIII-23
30" *CP
4 2 " * C P
CuE.A MOUTS (3b"-66"
CATCH nASI:\IS (
LAT
{ l5"-5t
DRAINAGE AHEA CI
ITEM ITE;1
MO. DESCRIPTION
1 36" RCP
2 42" RCP
3 CLE/VviCuTS (36"-fa6")
<+ CATCH BASINS (
MG LATEKALS
'")
FT)
1 ^U o
"»
STORM
11 )
FT,
LS
")
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
1,000 LF
1,200 LF
3 EACHa EACH
2 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AMD AOMIN
TOTAL CONSTRUCTI
DRAIN LINE Cl
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
750 LF
1,100 LF
7 EACH
7 EACH
2 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
UNIT
PRICE
52.00
b4.00
2, QUO. 1)0
3 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
3 , o u o . n o
+ 15K
+ 20?5
ON COST
UNIT
PKILE
b9.no
b4.00
2,OUO.DO
3, 000.1)0
3,000.00
+ 15?o
TOTAL
COST
52, QUO
76,800
16,000
24 '000
6, 000
174,800
26.220
201.020
40 .204
241.224
TOTAL
COST
44,250
70,400
14.000
21. 000
6,000
155. 6bQ
23,347
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND. AUMIN
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
35*739
Of;AlrlAoE Ar, EA CJ
ORAII\ LINE VIII-24
IT tin HE,' ESTIMATED UNIT
MO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 3u" qCP 250 LF b2.i)0
2 ^" 3CP 850 LF t39.no
3 CLh ivjO'lTS (3b"-bfa") 4, EACH 2,000.00
4 CATCH nAsius (it FT) 7 EACH 3,000.00
<i 'CLJ'ir'iu LATERALS
5 H,..A.jA.MLLS (!5"-b4") 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES + 15?6
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND AOMIN +20?o
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STORM ORAIK LINE CK
U^AINA&E AivEA CK
ITEr'l JIL'1 ESTIMATED UNiT
MO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY ' UNIT PRICE
1 3u» RCf fo50 LF b2.;)0
2 4-j" r(CP 600 LF b4..JO
^ 4o" RLP 750 LF /b.-JO
4 CuF •-., i\il>UTS (36"-fab") 8 EACH 2, QUO. 00
5 JU'ICTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 2,500.00
( Ah u _ cjq. M )V ^ ' J " ^ , _) *T /
6 CATCH j AS IMS (i«* FT> 11 EACH 3,000.00
(irULUUlMG LATERALS
7 Ht-Af^iALLS (l5"-b4") 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CCNTINGEMCIES +15%
SUBTOTAL
EIMGR. AMD AOMIN +20 %
TGTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
13,000
50,lbO
8, 000
21 1 000
6, 000
98,150
14,722
112,872
22,574
135,446
TOTAL
COST
33,800
51,200
5b,25o
16, 000
?. , 5 0 0
33,000
6,000
198,750
29,612
22B,5b2
45,712
274,274
STORM DRAIN LINE VIII-25
DRAINAGE A - E A C L
ITE."! ITE-<
NO- DESCRIPTION
1 30" RCP
2 Ci_E;\ \iOUTS (3b"-66")
3 C,\TC-f BASINS (14 FT)
( I.ICLUDIM& LATERALS
4 HEAu/JALuS (l5"-54")
STORM
f~. il A 1 \1 f\ '^ f- A J ta" l\ f '^\U n i- -» i M A J u / \ .-< £. /.i U '
ITEM HE ;
NO. DESr--UPTICN
1 3o" -^CP
2 54" RCP
3 6 : " H? C P
4 CLE-'. NOu rs ( 3fa"-b6" )
5 JJNCT I ;}<•<! STRUCTURES
f *rtii ^LLHI\ j o '' — j "+ ;
b CaTrH HASIMS (14 FT)
( i-'l.'Lub I'-lb LATERALS
7 HC-A-I>;ALLS ( i5"-5'+" >
6 HE A-;;,] ALLS (5 7" -144")
ESTI^ATEU
QUANTITY UNIT
700 LF
2 EACH 2
4 EACH 3
2 EACH 3
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15
SUBTOTAL
EIMGK. AND ADMIN +20
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION
DRAIN LINE C^
ESTIMATED
3UANTITY UNIT
1,200 LF
650 LF
1,050 LF
10 EACH 2
1 EACH 2
17 EACH 3
1 EACH 3
1 EACH 3
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15
SUBTOTAL
EiNiGK. A NO ALT'IIN +20
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
UN.CT
PRICE
b2.HO
,000.00
,000.00
,000.00
?c
%
COST
UNIT
PRICE
39.00
38.00
102.00
,000.00
,500.00
,000.00
, 0 U 0 . J 0
, "5 0 u . 0 0
:v'U
5c
CUST
TOTAL
COST
36,400
4*000
12*000
6* 000
58 ,400
fl, 760
67,loO
13,432
80*592
TOTAL
COST
70 ,300
57.200
107,100
20*000
2*500
51*000
3*000
3.500
315*100
47*265
362«3fe)5
72*4/3
434*838
STORM DRAIN LINE QA VIII-26
iTE-'-i i;-.-: ESTIMATED
r-ic- OC.SCRIPTICIN QUANTITY UNIT
1 oj" RCP 750 LF
2 4>" XCK 700 LF
i 4j" -tCP 700 LF
4 3't" 1CP 4,250 LF
5 Ci_~,4'-'iUUrS' (36"-bb") 21 EACH
•3 JJ'JCTI'^J STRUCTURES 1 EACH
( 36 "-5 4" )
7 CATCH HASiMS (14 FT) 13 EACH
( if!CLUOl'JG LATERALS
•3 HEA iviALLS (15"-L>4") i EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND ADMIN
TOTAL CONSTRUCT
STORM DRAIN LINE 08
DrtAIf-JAoC. A. '.EM J-l
ITE:vl ITE i ESTIMATEDno. OLSCJ-UPTIG.'-J QUANTITY UNIT
1 OL.^HlS 3/\SI:| 1 EA
IvOO C.Y. SED. VOLUME
2 3o" -;CP 1,000 LF
5 CLEM-'jO'JTS {36"-b6'') 3 EACH
4 Uj'XTiON STRUCTURES 1 EACH
( 47 " -SP> " )V «J ( "• y n /
5 C:-TCH RASliMS (14 FT) 2 EACH
( IHCLUOING LATERALSh H,.AJ-,,ALLS (i5''-34") i EACH
7 KiGHT OF UAf REQUIRE y .1AC
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AMD AOHIN
TOTAL CONSTRUCT
UNIT
PRICE
b^.OQ
t>4.00
/b.OO
fib. oo
2,000.00
2,500.00
3,000.00
3 , 0 0 U . 0 0
+ 15?i
+ 209,
ION COST
UNIT
PRICE
2 0 , (1 U 0 . 0 0
39.00
2,000.00
3 t 500.. 10
3 , 0 U 0 . J 0
3, QUO. JO
3,000.00
+ 15?6
+ 20?i
ION COST
TUTAL
COST
39, 000
44,800
52»500
374,000
42'OOQ
2«500
39i 000
3»000
596i800
89.520
686.320
137.264
823.584
TOTAL
COST
20, QUO
59.000
6.000
3.500
6,000
3,000
27.000
124.500
13.675
143.175
28.635
171.810
D K A 1 .M A 3 E A >
i 'i 0
DC
DRAIN LINE OC
VIII-27
EK irt>
DESCRIPTION
1 3j" ^CP
2 4c_>" ->CP
3 OE'T^iS 3ASIN
4-j,] i C.Y. SEO. VOLUME
4 54-" ^CP
5 Su" -^CP
6 bu'1 '-tCP
7 C^F.VN,j!iTS (36»-0fa")
6 Ju;.iC FlCiM STRUCTURES
( X K II _ S U " )\ _y C7 — »J -^ 1
9 CATCH JASIMS (14 FT)
( I'lCLU'DI NiG LATERALS
10 Hc./\ -.!•,., ALLS ( l5"-:>4" )
11 HEA '.NALLS t 57"-m4.» j
12 "'iC-HT OF '.vAY KEJUIRE
STORM
A I vj A o E A : E A DC
fjvi IVV"
DESCRIPTION
1 3j" KLI-
2 CLF./.'.rjiiTS (36"-66")
3 CATC-I 'JASIMS (1M- FT)
( I'^CuJDl^ib LATERALS
t+ ^ r • . i • • A i L ^ ( 1 c- " - "> 4- " >' •_. • '• ^ . j : ' i L-- L, ><-• V i -~s ^-* i /
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
1,100 LF
JLi450 LF
1 EA
550 LF
1,000 LF
3,25.0 LF
26 EACH
1 EACH
17 EACH
1 EACH
1 EACH
18 . lAC
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGK. AMD AD. "UN
TOTAL CONSTRUCT
DRAIN LINE QC 1
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT
900 LF
3 EACH
2 EACH
i t~ A r \4J. c. ALn
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AMQ AOMiN
TGTAL CONSTRUCT
UNIT
PRICE
56. JO
o4-. 00
36, 000. JO
'38.DO
93. JQ
1U2. JO
2, OUO. JO
2,500. JO
3 , 0 U 0 . J 0
3 , 0 0 0 . J 0
3,51)0.00
3 , 0 U 0 . J 0
+ 15%
+ 20i
ION COST
UNIT
PRICE
52. JO
2 , 0 " 0 . Q 0
3 , 0 U 0 . J 0
3 fi 1 1 n on, U U 0 . 00
+ 15fc
+ 20?c
ION COST
TOTAL
COST
61,600
92,300
36,000
74,300
93,000
331,500
52, 000
2,500
5 1 » 0 0 0
3,000
3,500
54,000
055,700
128,355
984,055
196i811
1 , 130 » *6b
TOTAL
COST
46,800
6 , 0 J 0
6,00fl
3 , 0 J 0
6 1 1 8 0 C
9,270
71,0^0
14,214
d 5 , 2 f 3 4
STORM DRAIN LINE QO
VIII-28
G K A i iV A o E (• . • c. M 'J U
IFE^ I,i- ESTIMATED
;••!(.•. DES :..;••-; i»r i L---I QUANTITY
1 33" HU' 2,250
2 .3b" ;'CP 300
3 CLL,\r,OurS <3b"-bb") 9
<+ C,, VCH -JASli'JS (14 FT) 4
( Nri_uUI-!G LATERALS
5 HEA'n.jALLS (15" -34") 2
SUBTOTAL
UiJIT
LF
LF
EACH
EACH
EACH
U
PR
bb
b9
2,000
3,000
3,000
f^JlT
ICE
.DC
.00
.00
. 0 0
.00
CONTINGENCIES +15?£
SUBTOTAL
EINGR. AND ADMIN
TCTAL CONSTRUCT
STORM DRAIN LINEOR A i MAGE AVEA DE
ITEM IFF-i ESTIMATED
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
1 5;-" 3LP 1,600
2 42" -<CF' 1,150
3 OECV-IS BAS-I'i i
430 G C.t. SEO. VOLUME
4 4d" RCP 2,000
b bn." RCK 2,700
6 60" RCP 400
7 CLE;\ \iOuTS (36"-66") 2b
8 CATCH HASINS (14 FT) 24
(ip;CLuPlNG LATERALS
9 HEAj-Ai'ALLS ( 15"-D4" ) 1
10 H^AO^ALLS (57"-144") 1
11 RlG-iT OF i-.-AY REQUIRE 18
SUBTOTAL
DE
+ 20X,
ION COST
UNIT
UNIT
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
LF
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
.1AC
PR
bb
fa 4.
36. QUO
fb
86
93
2,000
. 3 , 0 U 0
3,000
3,500
3,000
ICE
.DO
.no
.00
.00
.00
. DO
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
CONTINGENCIES +155;
SUBTOTAL
E IX G R . A f\,D AUMiri
TCTAL CONSTRUCT
+ 20?o
ION COST
TOTAL
126
17
18
12
6
179
26
206
41
247
COST
1 000
.700
. 000
. 000
.000
.700
.955
.655
.331
,936
TOTAL
39
73
36
150
237
37
52
72
3
3
54
808
121
929
ISb
1 » 115
COST
.600
.600
.000
.000
.600
»200
.000
.000
. 000
.500
. 000
.500
.275
.775
.955
.730
STORf'i ORAII\ LINE QF VIII-29
ITL,V I |-(-_ : ESTIMATED
NO. J, ,sc?iPTiOiM QUANTITY UNIT
1 DC.- US jASI'-i 1 EA
27 ^j C.Y. SED. VOLUME
2 So" :^CP 1,000 LF
•3 3o" .}Cp 700 LF
4 .M-^'t PCP 500 LF
5 4s" RCP 1,650 LF
fc 54" :<CP 1,050 LF
7 &o" -<CP 700 LF
t- CuE.1 'iL.L'T S (36"-e>6'<) 13 "EACH
9 CATCH HASINS (14 FT> 22 EACH
( INCLUDING LATERALS
10 HEA"> A/ALLS < 15" -3^ " ) 1 EACH
11 HE/UJ^ALLS (:37"-i44") i EACH
12 RiOr'T JF A'AY REuUIRE 15 ,1AC
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. A^ia AQM1N
TOTAL CONSTRUCT!
STORM DRA^ LINE DG
0 h: A I N A G E i\ n E. ;\ C G
ITEM Iir- ESTTf'ATEUNO. yc SCRIPT i ON QUANTITY UNIT
1 Oc.:.V-iS bASI'i 1 tA
170- C.Y. SEC. VOLUME
2 3L" -;CP 500 LF
3 co" RCP 1,300 LF
4 Ci_L.V:CuTS (T6"-bfe"> 5 EACH
5 CI\TL-* ^MSINS (14 FT) 5 EACH
( !"• >:LU^I'JG LATERALS
f- HLV',>.ALLS (l5"-34") 1 EACH
7 H,-.-1 ./.ALLS (57"-x4H") 1 EACH
o R!I;:T OF i/jAr KEuiUIRE 9 . 1AC
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND AOMIN
TOTAL CONSTRUCT!
UNIT
PKICE
32, 000. DO
52.00
59.nO
64.00
'5.00
65.00
102.1)0
2,000 .00
3,000.00
3,OOO.HO
3,500.00
3,000.00
+ 15?6
+ 20?o
ON COST
UNIT
PRICE
20 ,OOU .GO
52. UG
102. UO
2 , 0 0 0 . C 0
3,000.00
3 , QUO . 00
3,500.003,000.00
+ 15?o
+ 20?6
QK COST
TOTAL
COST
32, 000
52,000
41,300
32,000
123,750
92,400
71,400
36,000
66,000
3,000
3,500
45,000
598,350
89,752
688,102
137, 62U
825,722
TOTAL
COST
20 ,000
26,000
132,600
10 , OGO
15,000
3, 000
3,500
27, 000
237, IOC
35,565
272, 6u5
54,533
327, 196
J I.
VIII-30
ORAIIX Lint QH
O<M 1 'N-i AGE /i ; -_!\ CM
ITE,V I lfv ESTIMATED UMIT
f-'O. OE^C* IPTIGM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 4-:" KCP 650 LF 61.00
2 1o" RCP 2,200 LF fb.OO
3 Su" RCP 300 LF 93.00
i =6" ^CF 750 LF 102.00
5 Ci_E\:MOuT3 (36"-o6") 12 EACH 2,0^0.00
o JUNCTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH 2.5^0.00
( •; _i it _ c~, n M \1 *J O "• J ^ /
7 J,, ACTION STRUCTURES 1 EACH' 3,5UO.QO
( -i7 ii _ C; i, M tV J ' > O /
b CATrH bASlNS (14- FT) 11 EACH 3, QUO. 00
(Ir!CLUulMG LATERALS
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15?6
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND AOMIN +20?o
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STQRM DRAIN LINE 01
DRAINAGE A -EA 01
1TE;"' I IF- ESTliXATEO UNIT
NO. DEScRIPTIC.M QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 '-+2" <cc 1,550 LF bt.QO
2 CLEV\;0!.'TS (3t>"-o6") b EACH 2.000.00
5 Jj 1,-riOi1; STRUCTURES 1 EACH 2,500.00
f 7. _i it -, a it 1I J O •" J r /
i CAtCri ;;ASiNS (H FT) b EACH 3,OUU.OO
( , "CLUL-r'-iG LATERALS
5 HE. .'.'.. ',;<iLLS (15"-Q1") 1 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15?c
SUBTOTAL
E^MGR. A NO AUI-llM +20?c
TOTAL
COST
11,600
165,000
27.900
76.500
21. 000
2.500
3.500
33.000
371.000
56.100
130 . 100
86. 020
516.120
TOTAL
COST
99.200
10,000
2.500
1 5 . 0 1] 0
3,000
129,700
19,155
119,155
29,831
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STQKM QRAIi\ LllME DJ
VIII-31
A 1 si :\ be. A .•-<. c A rj J
E'"-I iu:-: ESTIMATED
'DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
1 33" Rij'P 1,800 LF
2 54" RCI' 700 LF
3 6u" r,.Cp 600 LF
4 be" ^CP 1,300 LF
5 7>" RCP 900 LF
6 CLL.', '-OUTS (36"-bb") 15 EACH
7 CLH>. VJUTS (^9"-93") 3 EACH
6 Ju^CTIOiM STRUCTURES 1 EACH
( < .-., ii _ Su " )» J ' "J ~ '
9 C^Trn oASiNS (14 FT) 13 EACH
( F * " i 1 1 H T i'-i f~ i A T I-" r? A 1 <;* A. • L- L_ J i- ' -L ' •* \.T L, ^ i C_ r\ •* 1 1_ o
10 HE A 0,,ALLS (15"-34") 1 EACH
11 H£M ;,,/\LL.S (57"-m'4»j 1 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
E^GR. AND ADM I
TCTAL CONSTRUC
STQRM ORAIK LINE n><
AlNAGt- ;',-EA iJ1^
E^; ITE- ESTlfATEu)DL?^.:UPTION QUANTITY UNIT
1 3b" ^CP 950 LF
2 Ci_C;V:GuTS (56"-b6") 3 EACH
5 CATC-, -AS INS (14 FT) 2 EACH
( i .\' ,: L 'J H I N b LATERALS
4 HL;\ •; ;-,-; ALL3 ( 15" - J4" ) 2 EACH
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
E^GR. AND ADMI
TCTAL COMSTi<UC
UNI r
PKICE
D9.00
88.00
9^.00
102.00
112.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
2,500.QO
3,000.00
3,000.00
3 , 5 U 0 . 0 0
+ 15?6
M >20?o
TION cosr
UNIT
PrUCE
59.00
2,000.00
3,000.00
3, 000.00
+ 15%
N 4-20^0
now COST
TOTAL
COST
106,200
6 1 i 6 0 0
74,4uG
132,600
100,800
30 , 000
7,500
2,500
54, 000
3,000
3,500
576,100
86,415
662,515
132,503
795,018
TOTAL
COST
56 , ObQ
6,000
6 i 0 0 0
6, 000
7 4 , n 5 0
lltlJ?
85, 157
17,031
102.136
OKAlAiAGc.. A.:-iEA JL
STORM ORAIi\. LINE DL VIII-32
'-i! lie1'! ESTIMATED UNIT
•
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
6
9
10
DE
30
4-2
to
54-
&J
So
CL
CA
( i
HL
HE
o
M
II
M
II
II
II
rr
T
^ i
,T,\
A
C R I P T I
RCP
R C P
RCP
RCP
RCF
RCP
.•KOUT3
CH EAS
C L U G I i'j
J,vMLLS
JWALLS
ON
(36
INS
"-bb" )
(It FT)
3UANf ITr
1,050
600too
250
i,tOO
600
15
13
UNIT
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
LF
EACH
EACH
PK
52
64
75
8d
96
1U2
2,000
3, QUO
ICE
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
G LATERALS
( 15
(57
"-bt" )
"-Itt" )
1
1
EACH
EACH
3,000
3,500
.00
.00
TUTAL
bt
51
30
22
130
61
30
39
3
3
COST
,600
i200
» 000
, 000
,200
«200
,000
,000
• 000
,500
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
+ 15%63,705
EiMGR. AND AOMI
TOTAL CONSTRUC
STORI"! DRAIPv LINE Dil1
DRAINAGE AREA Oil
ITEM IT;-:-. ESTIMATED
(••id. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
1 3u" RCP 650 LF
2 t2" RCP 650 LF
3 to" s.CP 500 LF
t CLE.-ivOl'TS (3fo"-b6") b EACH
5 CHTC.H F-.A3i.MS (It FT) 7 EACH
( i ' J L L U P I •"' ' b LATERALS
b HE;VJv,,AL.LS (l?"-bt") 2 EACH
7 EAJ'Tn TRAP. CHANNEL '1,000 LF
R - •] o n+e^rfl 7 — ~?J- C . ..rf ~ 1 •- J . J i!.. ^ t,
H E/*.-< rM TRAP. CHAi'-jMLL 2,000 LF
3 = li.}. ; i + F r* = -'3 Z = 2
V EA!<TH TRAP. CHAiJHLL i,100 LF
•3 = 1.::, 'j+Ft; = 7,i: = 2
SUBTOTAL
CGMT1NGEMCILS
SUR70 FAL
EKGK. AMD A DM I
TOTAL CONSTRUC
N +2 OSS
riON COST
u i\i i r
PRICE
52.00
o4.00
7b.OO
2, 000.00
3,000.03
3 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
lbb.00
160 .00
ito.oo
+ 15$
'"•-' +20;b
TION COST
97,681
536,066
TOTAL
COST
33,300
5 1 , 1 0 0
37,500
1 2 , 0 0 U
21,000
6,000
155« 000
320 ,000
15t,000
793« 700
119, Ob5
9l2i755
162i55l
1,095,306,
STORM DRAHN LINE DN VIII-33
D!! A I .\iA3E ;'•.•:£ A U'l
!!"£>' IT- ESTIMATED UNIT
fv<). o^c-i IPI TUN QUANTITY UNIT P:«ICI-:
1 3b" ^CiJ 900 LF 59.00
2 4i" <C° 1,150 LF B4.00
3 CttM-iJUTS (36"-66") 7 EACH 2,000.00
4 .CATCH RAS1MS (14 FT) 9 EACH 3, QUO. 00
( r.CLUDl MG LATERALS
5 H-;.iiJ,,;«LLS (1.5"-54") 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES ^15?o
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND ADIW!IN +20?u
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STQRM DRAIN LINE QO
DRAIMAGE A,(EA DO
ITE^ ITF-. ESTIMATED UNI f
i\jQ. TES:-II,JTIC:M QUANflTY UNIT PKICE
i 3C" «LP 1,450 LF 52.00
?. CLEVMOUTS (36"-6fa") D EACH 2,000.00
3 CATCH ^Asr.js d4 FT» 5 EACH 3,000.00
( • l!~l_UL)I'-J6 LATERALS
4 HEAJUALL3 (15"-D4") 2 EACH 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES , -1-150-
SUBTOTAL
E^GR. AMD ADMlri +20*.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
53, 100
73,600
14,000
27,000
6, 000
173,700
26,055
199,755
39,951
239,706
TOTAL
COST
75,400
10,000
15,000
6,000
106,400
15,960
122,360
24,472
146,832
I TE'i
i\iO.
STORM 3RAIIX LINE QP VIII-34
ITF-:
QESc-UPTI JM
to" tCP
CLEV'iOLirS (3b»-b6")
CATCH DASLMS (if I-T>
( INCLUDING LATERALS
QF-AP'ASE A-<EA QG
ITEiM I]-c-'
i\ 0 • 0 E S C 'i l r> T I (
OE^,I6 3ASI-I
2i 0 ^ G OC . Y . 3E9 .VOLUME
ESTIMATED UNIT
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
900 LF 75.00
'" ) 3 EACH 2 1 QUO. 00
i-'T) 3 EACH 3*000.00
LS
") 2 EACH 3,OUO.OO
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15?6
SUBTOTAL
EIMGR. AMO ADM IN +2o?o
TCTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
STORM DRAIIX LINE QQ
ESTIMATED UNIT
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
i EA 76,ouo.oo
UME
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
COST
67*500
6*000
9*000
6*000
36*500
13*275
101*775
20*355
122*130
TOTAL
COST
76*000
76*000
CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL
ENGR. AND
87
+20%
TGTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
!M DRAIi\ LIiME OR VIII-35
ITL.^ Ilf;-; ESTIMATED U.JIT
i'iu. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 3 E !-; -. I o> d A S I M 1 £ A 3 6 , 0 U 0 . 0 0
4^0;. C.Y. SED.VULU^E
'± EA^n TRAP. CHAAiMEL 4,450 LF lib. 00
3 = < {j j 4. F ; j = 5 2 = 2
3 Rirv-iT CF 'WAY REQUIRE 16 .1AC 3, QUO. 00
SUBTOTAL
CCNTlNGEiMCILS +15?0
SUBTOTAL
ElMGR. A^o AD^IN +20?,'
TCTAL COMSTRUCTION COST
STORM DRAIN LINE OS
DR A IMAGE A:<EA DS
ITE.,5" IU.;- ESTIMATED UNIT
f-JL" Dt.SC;Uf-'riO:%J QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1 DE'^-'iS BASIM 1 £ft 55,000.00
U.Oi-«OC.Y. SEO. VOLUME
2 RiPriT OF i-jAY REQUIRE 30 .1AC 3, QUO. GO
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES +15?,
SUBTOTAL
EKGR. Ar.iQ AU^IN +20?«
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
TOTAL
COST
36,000
511. 750
54, 000
601.750
90.26?.
692,012
133.4-02
830 .414
TOTAL
COST
55,000
90.000
145. 000
21.750
166.750
33.350
200,100
VIII-36DRAH\ LINE: QT
QF.:AI":.'\GL A-EA OT
ITE.iv ITF ESTIMATED UMIT TOTAL
'JLCv.-MPTj.Ci*! QUANTITY UMIT PRICE LOST
OE"?Ib BrtSlM 1 £A 36,000.00 36.000
<4-30e C.Y. SED.VOLUME
RitHT OF riAY REQUIRE 16 .1AC 3<OUO.OO SftOCO
SUBTOTAL 90,000
CCMTINGEMCILS +15% 13.500
SUBTOTAL 103.5UO
EJNiGR. A(\;D ADMIN +20?6 20.700
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 12^.200
STORM DRAIK LINE QUORAI MAGE A,<EA ou
ITE" ESTIMATED UiJIT TOTAL
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST
OE-klS BASIM 1 EA 36,000.00 36,000'460(i C.Y. SEO.VOLUME
RiGtiT OF i^AY RLUUIRE 16 .1AC 3,000.00 54,000
SUBTOTAL 90,000
CONTINGENCIES +15?.', 13.500
SUBTOTAL 103.500
Ei'MGR. AMD ADMIN +20% 20.700
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST 124.200
fT./Mi'(AbL A:-.c.A
•\ 1; f"i BE:-? AA
STORi*
AA
AA l
AA P
A A 3
LINE
VIII-37
ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST
1,003,190
TOTAL COST
>.*************
Bb
259,706
'Jb,560
1, (+24, 64
* * * * * > •*»•*****
iU'ibElR Aj 1U8,852
ld8, 8b?.TOTAL COST
*************************** *#
375,222
3^,222TOTAL COST
416,330
418,830TOTAL COST
*;*****. ***^* + **
44,160
44,160TOTAL COST
********* ********************** •**
TOTAL COST
300,742
3HO,742
714,70?
714, 702TOTAL COST
* ********* 4. ****** ****************************************
TOTAL COST
fM!.l''"ic3E.-{ -Jc.
Bu
TOTAL COST
****-|r*t:*************** *
BE
TOTAL COST
2.32,306
252, Q06
170,706
170,706
4^4,592
4^4,592
*-t* * + ****.****lt *******
STORM
BF
LINE
TOTAL COST
VIII-38
ESTIMATEDCONSTRUCTION COST
771,69ft
Bb
* ********* , * * * * * * * * :
TOTAL COST
:***********
ISC,696
Bh
8H l
****** ***.+..****************;,;.£*.
iMuMBER 31 BI
**********•)(*******************;
NUiv'tiErt 3J BJ
TOTAL COST
**********f******************************,
NUMBER BIN BK
192,909
TOTAL COST 1,428,353
r**********************
309,
TOTAL COST
K********
TOTAL COST
*****•**************************.*;
8L
BL 1
* fc* * * K * * * * . * :n * * * * * k***********;
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST
*********** *****•**************.
3 r i l
3N 2
3N 3
B N 4
304-.980
304,980
134,136
134,136
:****+*****
631,556
49,680
681,236
;*************
184,782
18-4,782
r**
2.152,316
466,734
1/1,672
TOTAL COST
10<+,860
3. 0^4,140
* + * * ^ *
Co
TOTAL COST
477,686
477,636
VIII-39
ESTIMATEDLmAl'iAbt. ,»;--_j.; STOR-"] J^AiN LllVt. CONSTRUCTION COST
***.**+.**-H* f.
iVj'-'b-P CC CC 415,172
TOTAL COST 415,172
,V.WOER Cu CU 119,576
TOTAL COST 119,576
CE 112,608
TOTAL COST 112,608
••***
MU^ER CF CF mi
TOTAL COST 411
CG 72,864
TOTAL COST 72,364
C.-l CH 241,224
TOTAL COST 241,224
CI 214,796
TOTAL COST 214,796
r'itjEP. Co CJ 155,446
TOTAL COST 15b,446
.*** 4. *******
CK 2^4,274
TOTAL COST 2/^4,274
CL 80,592
TOTAL COST 30,592
Nij^GE:x C.M CM ^^<4,35e
TOTAL COST
STORM 1R{\LN LINE
VIII-40
ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCUON COST
325,
823,584TOTAL COST
**********+****************
171,fllO
171,810TOTAL COST
********** T ************************
1,180,366
65,284
1,266,150TOTAL COST
247,966
247,986TOTAL COST
1,115,730
1, lib, 730TOTAL COST
*****k****
825,722
825,722TOTAL COST
327,196
327,198TOTAL COST
* ***********
516,120
516, 12CTOTAL COST
176,986
178,986TOTAL COST
rjj^BEH OJ 795,018
795, C18TOTAL COST
******«*. ******* *
102,188
102,188TOTAL COST
»•*******. t ********************
A-'IA
i'.iii!j!6£;< DL
* * * * * f * * * * It * *
i\iijiv![j£R DM
STQRf-"
DL
LilMt
VIII-41
ESTIMATED
COIMSTRUCI ION COST
******-;**
TOTAL COST
****** **** :
tSb,Q86
TOTAL COST
11' •"! b L ^OU
-4; •*; +;.+:.* ^ +-. 4. * 4, +. ^ ^ .»:
************•**+***************•****; n*
121,200
12^,200
TOTAL COST
124,200
;*********
APPENDIX
A-l
EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
Preservation of the lagoons is a prominent goal of the Land Use,
Open Space, Parks and Recreation, and Geologic and Seismic Safety Elements
of the Carlsbad General Plan. Urbanization has already adversely impacted
other lagoons in Southern California, reducing habitat for flora and fauna
and impairing their esthetic aspects. Siltation of lagoons by erosion
of upstream grading sites has greatly accelerated the filling of the lagoons
and threatens habitat for endangered species.
As the City urbanizes, construction of new development will expose
large areas to erosion. If uncontrolled, the eroded material (debris)
will be transported during storms along existing watercourses and storm
drains until the transport capacity of the watercourse is reduced, such
as at entrances to lagoons.
A large portion of debris can be prevented from entering the
drainage system by controlling it on the grading site. On-site erosion
control can be achieved by means of appropriate grading techniques, on-site
debris basins, sediment filters, drainage diversion, etc. A city policy
should be established to enforce such erosion control with the grading
ordinance amended to provide for specific measures. A model erosion
control ordinance, developed by the California Division of Mines and
Geology, will be provided in the Master Plan.
A-2
Accelerated erosion of existing watercourses may occur due to
increased and concentrated runoff from new development, which may be more
impervious than natural terrain. This off-site erosion must be handled
on a basin-wide approach. Check dams, detention and debris basins may be
necessary to mitigate erosion from this source. Such facilities require
right-of-way, construction funding, and maintenance.
An alternative to construction of debris control facilities is
periodic lagoon dredging. However, dredging would probably not be acceptable
to California Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and Coastal Commission
authorities.
At this time, the preferred approaches to erosion control are as
follows:
(1) Amend the grading ordinace to include provisions for
controlling erosion and sedimentation on-and off-site.
The amendment would require that erosion control plans,
specifications be submitted by the developer, and would
include provisions for enforcement of the ordinance; and
(2) Prior to approval of grading plans for a specific develop-
ment, Master Plan erosion control facilities should be
constructed within that basin. These facilities may
include channel stabilization, check dams, debris basins,
or detention basins.
-2-
A-3
To protect the Lagoons from siltation generated by new development,
this Master Plan proposes construction of seventeen sedimentation basins
located to intercept silt-laden runoff prior to draining into the lagoons.
Ideally, these basins should be in place and operative prior to grading
operations within the drainage area.
These basins have been sized for cost estimate purposes using the
Flaxman Method to predict annual sediment yield. Soil types in Carlsbad
fall into four general categories:
(1) Marina - Chesterton Association:
Loamy coarse sands and fine sandy loams with a
subsoil of sandy clay over hardpun with 2 to 15%
slopes - Coastal strip.
(2) Diablo - Las Flores Association:
Clays and loamy fine sands over a subsoil of
sandy clays; 9 to 30% slopes - inland from Coast.
(3) Cienaba - Fallbrook Association:
Very rocky, coarse sandy loams with a sandy clay
loam subsoil over decomposed granodiorite; 9 to
75% slopes - inland hills.
(4) Salinas - Corralitos Association:
Clays, clay loams, and loamy sands on alleviated
fans; 0-9 percent slopes - Buena Vista Creek,
San Marcos Creek and Encinitas Creek floodplains.
Based on the soil characteristics of the above soil types, the topo-
graphy, the experience of grading operations for typical developments, and
the intensities of storms experienced in 1978, 1979 and 1980, an average
sediment yield value of 3.5 acre-feet per year per square mile was derived.
This value assumes the basins will be cleaned out annually. The City may
elect to require the maintenance to be performed by the developer's con-
A-4
struction contractors during construction or have the maintenance paid
for by the developers, as needed. Otherwise, it would be the City's
responsibility to maintain the basins.
Criteria for sizing debris basins has been established by the City
Los Angeles, based on street slopes and graded areas. These values,
shown in Table 4 apply to smaller areas ranging from less than 10 acres
up to 200 acres. The sediment yields range from 10.7 to 19.8 AF/S.M.
These higher values reflect smaller tributary areas and the fact that a
smaller graded area will produce a higher yield per acre than a large
basin with some areas graded and other areas impervious, landscaped, or
with original vegetation intact. These values should be used as guides
for controlling silt generated by developments in the grading phase.
Actual basin sizings will depend on sites available, frequency of anti-
cipated maintenance, whether the structure is temporary or permanent in
nature, and the duration of the construction upstream of the basin.
Outlet works and emergency spillway should be designed to convey 100-year
flows with no reduction due to retention, and with adequate freeboard.
«96i 'Jo nviitna A-5
o-oa* c
Zo
o Z.
II
nrm
rr-CT -*
NJ
O
O
OO 00o Ul
f f| ll
» --^ ° ? or- or- or- or- or- or or or•:^ s: §§ i§ i§ is i§ ii i| i|5-Q.c Np41 -o <» -oto -afo -Qfo -o« -a^ "am ?ra
"i's S no So So So So So So So
|3£ 5-y S.S S.| 3-1 3.3 3.3 S.3 3.3 3.3
<"§- i"0
0 « 3- ™ S£"ai •" g 33 » ai S S.'"^^ ^ -0 ? < ^3-r. (fl Q. 3
0-3- 5'2iS ft 3- ^ «
i»- ™T '* _3 C « 01VI O ~~~ ^ u* t~
§§E I3«— 5? _,cr «•
01T
o LTI
01•^
£k
OI•^
— .\J
01
^
o .
OI•1
_
OJ
^
Ol
^
01"^
"3- y OA.' UiO Ovi 00— A.O WUi — *• -;fO:r«5- m oo oo oo oo oco o^k mo ovi
SLw -0 00 00 00 00. 00 00 00 00w N' * 3TT <D -n ^J 1» y — •Q) — (TJ= 2." "
1
w
^3«^
en
O
I""1
n
za~™H
O
Zvt
.» ai
•9 0.2.
t ffl — *Si.?.-
-* ~ "*Ko5->
* * (O
J ?* OP«« ?*
r.5'f
1'g"U/ J— * nj -.S.^3
< o-a
o « oc"-. ~"
3 « —3 Q.3-* c <o
2,8 o-Q.OI-, Ul
K-5; n 3"
5"
5i"
fOo.
3Q.
?A
C
^^
x"
•"t(S '
3rv3-(13vt
at
<5
=
Ul v|
A-O00oo
A. vi
O A.
OO00
A. COouo00oo
NJ A.
(JTNJ
U1O
00
OJ 4k
OOoooo
wooo00oo
— OJ
VI Uloooo
MOJO v)oooo
NJ A.
A.OOOoo
— MCklOOOOoo
— NJO --OO OOO
— •<*>
-ONJM O00
O A.
03OOO
00 A.O OO
00
.
o ooooo
OJ vi NJ A..6. O (J1 NJo o mo
A. VI CJ A.
O A. O Oo o o o
.BkOO tJOooo 2:2o o o o
— OJ <^
VI Ul
00
^o •0^
NJCk)Ovi O9
^9oo °
.
NJ A.
A>O .oo ?tf^
>'
fn
33>om
b»HJB
pnm
H
v>
0•om
HI
3
mO
/OC>
n H
§• H« m
-< **
! Oui *n
t/i
am
Ornco
CO>CO
Z
n>
"O>
O
H
-<
>cor—m
S-C 3-y n oi
3 S
s°(0 ui
(Ho
g
.6k O
A-O O v|
OO OUiOO OO
vl Oi
00
OO
kjCO __
— o ooo
O O OOO
OO OO
NJ Ak IMo o ooi oo
a. n3 fl>
S?A 3 <B
3
A. •
OO _
OO OO
OO OO
OJ UlOOOO
OO
S) .tk —-NJ
A. O NJO
OO OO
OO OO
OOOOOO
Ul Ul OO
A-6
MODEL EROSION CONTROL ORDINANCE
ARTICLE I
TITLE, PURPOSE, AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
101.00 Title. This ordinance shall be known as
the "(City/County) Erosion Control Ordi-
nance."
101.01 Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is
to control erosion and production of sedi-
ment, and related environmental damage by
establishing minimum standards and pro-
viding regulations for the construction and
maintenance of land fills, excavations, cut
and clearing of vegetation, revegetation of
cleared areas, drainage control, as well as
for the protection of exposed soil surfaces in
order to promote the safety, public health,
convenience, and general welfare of the
community.
101.02 Rules Applying to Text For the purpose
of this ordinance, certain rules of word us-
age apply to the text as follows:
1. Words used in the present tense include
the future tense, and the singular in-
cludes the plural unless the context
clearly indicates the contrary.
2. The term "shall" is always mandatory
and not discretionary; the word "may"
is permissive.
3. The word or term not interpreted or
defined by this article shall be used
with a meaning of common or standard
utilization.
101.03 Definitions. The definitions as stated in
the "GLOSSARY" of the EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK
maintained by the permit-issuing authority
shall apply to the interpretation and en-
forcement of this ordinance.
101.04 Appeals. Appeals from decisions under
this ordinance may be made to the permit-
issuing authority in writing within ten days
from the date of such decision. The appel-
lant shall be entitled to a hearing before the
permit-issuing authority within thirty days
from the date of appeal.
101.05 Validity and Severability. If any part of
this ordinance is found not valid, the re-
mainder of this ordinance shall remain in
effect
101.06 Fees. A schedule of reasonable fees shall
be established that will reimburse the per-
mit-issuing authority for costs incurred in
the review and approval of the application.
101.07 Review and Approval. Applications for
grading permits shall be reviewed by the
permit-issuing authority and approved
when in conformance with this ordinance.
•References used: [10][221 [44][47][57] Bibliography of Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook. :
A-7
ARTICLE II
PROCEDURE
102.01
102.011
102.02
Grading Permit. Except as indicated be-
low, no person shall commence or perform
any grading or filling or clearing of vegeta-
tion without having first obtained a grad-
ing permit from the permit-issuing
authority.
Exceptions. A permit shall not be re-
quired if the work meets any of the follow-
ing conditions:
1. The excavation does not exceed four
(4) feet in vertical depth at its deepest
point, measured from the original sur-
face, and does not exceed 200 square
feet in area.
2. The fill does not exceed three feet in
vertical height at its highest point,
measured from the natural ground
surface, and does not cover more than
200 square feet
3. Exploratory excavations do not ex-
ceed an aggregate area of 200 square
feet.
4. An excavation below finished grade
for basements and footings of a build-
ing if authorized by a valid building
permit This exception does not affect
the requirement of a grading permit
for any fill made with the material
from such excavation.
5. Clearing of vegetation does not exceed
1,000 square feet in area.
6. Use of land is for gardening primarily
for home consumption.
7. Agricultural use of land that is oper-
ated in accordance with a farm con-
servation plan approved by the
Resource Conservation District or
when it is determined by the Resource
Conservation District that such
will not cause excessive erosion of
sediment losses. j
Application for a Grading Permit. The ap-
plication for a grading permit shall in-
clude:
1. a site map.
102.021
2. a grading plan.
3. an assessment of the site.
4. an erosion and sediment control plan
except where an assessment of the site
shows that a plan is not necessary.
Site Map. The site map shall include the
following:
1. The exterior boundaries of the prop-
erty on which the grading is to be per-
formed.
2. Contour line which shall conform to
minimum intervals as follows:
a. 2-foot contours for slopes less
than 16%.
b. 5-foot contours for slopes over
16%.
c. 15-foot contours for topography
of adjacent areas.
3. Soil description including:
a. soil type
b. soil depth
c. credibility
d. capability for establishing vegeta-
tion.
e. coefficient of runoff. (Appendix
11C, Determining Rate of Rain-
fall runoff.)*
4. Evaluation of subsurface information
(as described in part 5 below) where
the stability will be lessened by
proposed grading or filling, or where
any of the following conditions are
discovered or proposed:
a. At locations where a fill slope is to
be placed above a cut slope.
* References are to permit-issuing authority's Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control Handbook
A-8
b. At proposed cuts exceeding
twenty feet in height unless in
competent rock as determined by
an engineering geologist.
c. Locations of proposed fills ex-
ceeding twenty feet in height
d. Where side hill fills are to be
placed on existing slopes steeper
—• - than 16%.
e. Wherever groundwater from ei-
ther the grading project or adjoin-
-:.- - ing properties is likely to reduce
the stability.
f. At zones of trapped water or high
water table.
g. Where the topography is indica-
tive of landslides, as determined
;z-r: by engineering geologist.
5. Where any of the particular condi-
..:_-_: _ . tions listed above or other weaknesses
are found, subsurface investigations
, shall consist of drilling, excavations,
_ .or observations of naturally exposed
soil and bedrock exposures at suffi-
cient intervals and depths to indicate
-... the type of material or condition to be
encountered at final grading. The per-
-.-^,--- son or firm making the investigation
-••— - - shall submit a written report of their
findings and recommendations.
,102.022 Grading Plan. The grading plan shall in-
clude the following information which
may be shown on the site map:
,~»~-~- ~. - lr Elevations, dimensions, including
quantity, location, and extent of
_- -r—- - proposed grading.
:=.__. ,c_-^_: 2.;-_A_ report showing extent and manner
of tree cutting and vegetation clearing,
—- including..a plan for disposing of cut
trees and vegetation.
3. Provision for stockpiling topsoil and
using it to topdress exposed areas to be
revegetated or a statement that this
provision is not applicable.
102.023 Assessment of the Site. The assessment
of the site shall determine the need for an
erosion and sediment control plan by con-
sidering the detrimental effects of con-
struction of the site as it pertains to:
1. erosion and loss of sediments
2. slope stability
3. water quality
4. plant communities
5. aquatic life
102.024 Erosion and Sediment Control Plans
1. The plan shall be prepared by a person
or firm qualified by training and expe-
rience to have expert knowledge of
erosion and sediment control meth-
ods.
2. The permit-issuing authority shall de-
termine the adequacy of the plan and
may require the submission of further
information when necessary to judge
the adequacy of the planned erosion
and sediment control measures.
3. Formulation of the implementation of
the proposed measures may be adopt-
ed from recommendations contained
in the permit-issuing authority's Ero-
sion and Sediment Control Hand-
book. The plan shall contain a
description of the following:
a. Vegetative measures
b. Drainage protection and control
measures
c. Erosion and sediment control
d. Cut and fill construction
e. Disposal of spoil materials
f. Stockpiling of materials
g. Dust control measures
h. A construction schedule
ARTICLE HI
CONTENT OF EROSION
AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL PLANS
A-9
103.01 Requirements. The erosion and sediment
control plan shall contain appropriate in-
formation according to this article. The
plan shall also conform to the requirements
in the sections on "Standards" and "Im-
plementation" of Articles IV and V, respec-
tively.
103.02 Protection of Native Vegetation. In order
to protect native vegetation from construc-
tion activities the following information
shall be provided;
1. Location of native vegetation whose
root zone will be affected by compac-
tion, fills, trenches, and changes in the
groundwater table.
2. Measures which will prevent condi-
tions damaging to vegetation shall be
specified. (Section 10 - Tree Protec-
tion)*.
103.03 Removal of Native Vegetation. When na-
tive vegetation is to be removed, the follow-
ing information shall be provided:
1. Descriptions of the native vegetation.
2. A list of the vegetation to be removed
and the criteria used to determine re-
moval. (Section 10).
3. The methods for removing and dispos-
ing of the vegetation. (Section 10).
103.04 Establishment of Vegetation. Where the
establishment of vegetation is required on
slopes of cut and fill, graded areas, and
watercourses, the following information
shall be provided on the:
1. Location and area to be vegetated.
2. An indication of whether vegetation is
temporary or permanent.
* References are to permit-issuing authority's Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control Handbook
3. Type and quantity of seeds or plants.
(Section 20 - Establishment of Protec-
tive Vegetation).
4. Ground conditions:
a. Surface condition of soil.
b. Soil pH.
c. Permeability.
d. Soil size distribution.
e. Slope angle, slope length, and as-
pect.
f. Nutrients in soil *
5. Type and quantity of mulch. (Section
30 - Surface Protection with Mulches
and Other Materials).
6. Type and quantity of fertilizer. (Sec-
tion 20).
7. Method and schedule of seeding,
mulching, planting, and fertilizing.
(Section 20).
8. Schedule of irrigation. (Section 20).
103.05 Drainageway Protection and Control
Measures. Where it is necessary to reduce
the increased rate and volume of rainfall
runoff due to the alteration of the runoff
pattern, the following data shall be pro-
vided:
1. The runoff to be expected during and
after the proposed development. (Ap-
pendix II - Climate, Runoff, Allowable
Velocities).
2. The location of natural and man-made
drainageways.
3. The size of drainage areas above cuts
and slopes.
A-10
4. The methods to be used to reduce ero-
sion of drainageways. (Section 60 -
Channel Protection; Section 70 -
Grade Control and Realignment of
Channels).
5. The procedures used to trap sediment
in order to protect drainage control
measures. (Section 90 - Sediment
Traps and Detention Basins).
6. The methods to control the rate and
direction of runoff on roadways during
and after development. (Section 50 -
Roadway Protection).
7. The methods used to control runoff
across the slopes of cuts and fills and
graded areas during and after construc-
tion. (Section 40 - Protection of Slopes
and other Graded Areas from Runoff).
8. The construction schedule for drainage
protection and control measures. (Ar-
ticle m, 103.12 Construction Sched-
ule).
9. The method and schedule of construc-
tion of waterway crossings. (Section 80
- Installation of Culverts, Paved Fords,
Bridges).
103.06 Sediment Detention Measures. Informa-
tion on the design criteria of sediment ba-
sins shall include the following:
1. The location and dimensions of" the
sediment basins. (Section 90).
2. The hydrologic and sediment transport
data used to determine the proper
capacity of the needed basin. (Appen-
dix I, Estimating Erosion and Sediment
Losses; Appendix II, Climate, Runoff,
Allowable Velocities).
3. The construction procedure and sched-
ule. (Section 90).
4. The source of borrow material
5. The maintenance schedule.
6. The type and manner of vegetating the
credible slopes as described in item
103.04, Establishment of Vegetation.
103.07 FW Slopes. Where fill slopes are to be
constructed, the following information shall
be included:
1. Location of fill area.
2. Slope and height of filL
3. Slope and condition of original
ground.
4. The number and dimensions of
benches.
5. Source of fill material.
6. Ability of fill to support vegetation.
7. Percent organic content of filL
8. Maximum size of rock in fill.
9. Maximum thickness of layers of fill to
be compacted.
10. Percent Compaction.
11. Methods of protecting the slope sur-
face of the fill.
12. Number and width of drainage ter-
races to be installed.
103.08 Cut Slopes. Where slopes are to be formed
from cuts, the following information shall
be included:
1. Location of cuts.
2. Slope and height of cuts.
3. Identification of cuts to be vegetated or
not subject to erosion.
4. Number and width of drainage terraces
provided.
5. The ability of the ground to support
vegetation. (Section 20).
103.09 Disposal of Spoil Material. The informa-
tion concerning the disposal of spoil materi-
al shall include the following:
1. Type of spoil material.
2. Location of disposal area.
A-n
3. Method of processing and disposing of
spoil material.
4. Procedures to prevent soil loss to adja-
cent watercourses.
5. Burning procedure for flammable spoil
material and its schedule.
103.10 Stockpile. Stockpiled material shall be
identified according to:
1. Source of material.
2. Location, slope, and height of stock-
pile.
3. Duration that the material is to be
stockpiled.
4. Provisions to prevent erosion and sedi-
ment loss from rain and wind action.
103.11 Dust Control. The following provisions
for dust control shall be included:
1. Measures to keep dust to a minimum
during equipment operation.
2. Measures to prevent wind erosion of
exposed soil. (Sections 20 and 30).
103.12 Construction Schedule. A construction
schedule shall be provided by the contrac-
tor. No work shall be permitted on the site
until the schedule has been approved in
writing by the permit-issuing authority.
The permit-issuing authority shall check
the adequacy of the schedule with respect to
the factors that could contribute to both
short-term and long-term erosion on the
project site.
The construction schedule shall be checked
for prompt establishment of protective
vegetation with full recognition of climatic
and other factors that influence its estab-
lishment
A-12
ARTICLE IV
STANDARDS
104.01 General. The grading plans and erosion
control plans shall conform to the standards
set forth in this Article.
104.02 Sediment Control.
1. Sediment shall be retained on the site.
(Section 90 - Sediment Traps and De-
tention Basins).*
2. Sediment basins, sediment traps, or
similar sediment control measures shall
be installed before extensive clearing
and grading operations begin.
104.03 Native Vegetation.
1. Native vegetation shall be retained,
protected, and supplemented wherever
. possible. (Section 10-TreeProtection;
Section 20 - Establishment of Protec-
tive Vegetation).
2. When vegetation must be removed, the
method shall be one that will minimize
the erosive effects from the removal.
(Section 10; Section 30 - Surface Pro-
tection with Mulches and Other
Materials).
. ' 3. Exposure of soil to erosion by removing
vegetation shall be limited to the area
required for immediate construction
operations.
104.04 Grading Practices.
1. Grading operations shall be conducted
so as to prevent damaging effects of
sediment production and dust on the
site and on adjoining properties.
2. In no event shall the native vegetative
ground cover be destroyed, removed,
or disturbed more than 15 days prior to
grading unless otherwise approved by
the engineer representing the permit-
issuing authority.
* References are to permit-issuing authority's Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control Handbook
104.05 Control of Runoff.
1. Provisions shall be made to control the
increased runoff caused by changed soil
and surface conditions during and after
development (Sections 40 through
100).
2. To prevent excess runoff the rate of sur-
face water runoff shall be structurally
retarded. (Sections 90 and 100).
3. Each applicant requesting permission
. to make any surface changes shall be
, ... required to:
a. Collect on-site surface runoff and
dispose of it at nonerosive velocities
to the point of discharge into the
common natural watercourse of
the drainage area.
b. Handle existing and potential off-
site runoff through his develop-
ment by designing to handle ade-
quately storm runoff from a fully
developed area upstream.
c. Pay his proportionate share of the
total cost of off-site erosion and
sediment control improvements to
the common natural watercourse,
based on a fully developed drainage
area.
'-'••• d. Provide and install, at his expense,1 all drainage, erosion, and sediment
control practices (temporary and
- -• - -' "- permanent) required by the Ero-
sion and Sediment Control Hand-
book.
e. Retain sediment being transported
by runoff water on-site through the
use of sediment basins, silt traps, or
similar measures.
4. Concentration of surface water runoff
shall only be permitted in swales or
watercourses.
A-13
5. In order to prevent polluting discharges
from occurring, approved erosion and
sediment control devices shall be re-
quired for all grading and filling. Con-
trol devices and measures which may
be required include, but are not limited
to, the following:
a. Energy absorbing devices to reduce
the velocity of runoff water. (Sec-
tion 100 - Dissipating the Energy
of Rimoff Water).
b. Sedimentation controls such as
sediment debris basins and sedi-
ment traps. Any trapped sediment
shall be removed to a disposal site
approved by the permit-issuing au-
thority. (Section 90).
c. Dispersal of water runoff from de-
veloped areas over large undis-
turbed areas.
d. Multiple discharge points to
reduce the volume of runoff over
localized areas.
104.06 Slope Construction
1. Slopes, both cut and fill, shall not be
steeper than 2:1 unless a thorough geo-
logical and engineering analysis indi-
cates that steeper slopes are safe and
erosion control measures are specified.
2. Slopes shall not be constructed so as to
endanger or disturb adjoining property.
104.07 Slope Surface Stabilization.
1. Temporary mulching, seeding, or other
suitable stabilization measures shall be
used to protect exposed critical areas
during construction or other land dis-
turbance. (Sections 20 and 30).
2. Earth or paved interceptors and diver-
sions shall be installed at the top of cut
or fill slopes where there is a potential
for surface runoff. (Section 40 - Pro-
tection of Slopes and Other Graded
Areas from Runoff).
104.08 Grading.
1. All land within a development shall be
graded to drain and dispose of surface
water without ponding, except where
approved by the permit-issuing author-
ity.
2. Where drainage swales are used to di-
vert surface waters, they shall be vege-
tated or protected as required. (Section
60 - Channel Protection)
104.09 Protection of Watercourses.
1. Fills shall not encroach on natural
watercourses or constructed channels.
2. Fills placed against watercourses shall
have suitable protection against erosion
during flooding.
3. Grading equipment shall not cross or
disturb live stream channels.
4. Excavated materials shall not be depos-
ited or stored in or alongside the river
or watercourses where the materials
can be washed away by high water or
storm runoff.
104.10 Disposal of Cleared Vegetation.
Vegetation removed during clearing opera-
tions shall be disposed of as follows:
1. Chipping all or some of the cleared
vegetation for use as mulch or compost
on the site. (Section 30).
2. Burning all or some of the cleared vege-
tation. Material to be burned shall be
piled in a manner and in such locations
as will cause the least fire risk and least
damage to adjacent trees by insect in-
festation.
3. Burning so thorough that the materials
are reduced to ashes. No logs,
branches, or charred pieces shall be
permitted to remain. Burning shall
comply with local air pollution regula-
tions.
A-14
4. Disposing the balance of the material in
a manner and at a location approved by
the permit-issuing authority.
104.11 Disposal of Excavated Materials. Ex-
cavated materials removed during grading
operations shall be disposed of as follows:
1. Stockpiling all or some of the topsoil on
the site for use on areas to be revegetat-
ed.
2. Locating stockpiled soil so that if ero-
sion occurs, it would not become a
source for off-site sediment damage.
3. Stockpiling soil far enough from
streams or drainageways that surface
runoff cannot carry sediment down-
stream.
4. Stockpiling material from trenches and
pits on the upslope side of the excava-
tions.
5. Promptly backfilling and compacting
stockpiled soil into trenches and pits to
reduce the risk of erosion.
6. Applying mulch or other protective
coverings on stockpiled material which
will be exposed through the winter sea-
son or which faces a high risk of inten-
sive summer rains. (Section 30).
7. Excavated material not to be used at
... the site to a location approved by the
permit-issuing authority.
A-15
ARTICLE V
IMPLEMENTATION
105.01 Enforcement and Inspection. The provi-
sions of this ordinance shall be enforced by
the permit-issuing authority who shall re-
view project plans and approve them if
found to be in compliance with the ordi-
nance, and by the engineer who shall in-
spect work and require compliance with all
the provisions of the ordinance.
105.02 Authority and Responsibilities. The con-
tractor shall install all soil erosion and sedi-
ment control measures in strict compliance
with the ordinance and in accordance with
the approved erosion control plan.
All soil erosion and sediment control meas-
ures shall be adequately maintained by the
contractor for a period of three years or
until such measures are stabilized as deter-
mined by the engineer.
Upon application by the contractor, the en-
gineer shall give the contractor a certificate
of completion indicating the date on which
the measures in the approved plan were
completed.
The engineer shall prohibit further work to
be done if it is determined by him that the
work does not comply with the provisions
of the approved erosion control plan or with
the provisions of the ordinance until such
time as compliance with the ordinance is
assured.
The engineer may allow a new or modified
erosion and sediment control technique to
be used provided there is mutual agreement
between the engineer and contractor that
the technique meets the intent of the erosion
control plan.
The engineer may cause remedial work to
be done if he determines that it is necessary
to protect completed work or to prevent
damage. The cost of such remedial work
shall be deducted from the amount due the
contractor under the terms of his contract.
105.03 Performance Bond. A performance bond
shall be posted by the contractor. The
amount of bond shall be the full cost of the
installed erosion and sediment control
measures. The bond shall not be released
until the erosion and sediment control
measures have performed satisfactorily as
determined by the engineer for a period of
three years. The bond may be used to pro-
vide for the installation of the control meas-
ures if not done by the contractor and
sediment runoff is occurring as a result
105.04 Penalties for Violations. Penalties for viola-
tions of the ordinance may be assessed by
proper authority on recommendation of the
engineer. The kind of penalty and severity
of penalty shall be specified and may consist
of:
1. Fines
2. Stop orders
3. Corrective action order
-END-
A-16
t ?
k I
1 I
i I
s
if
hd i
' \e i
y
it
Plan Showing Erosion and Sediment Contrd M«aiur«. [48]
Side Swate or Channel-
Rear Drainage Swale;
•Protective Slopes-
[-Front Drainage Swale
Drainage Divide
Possible locations of rear drainageeasements to proper outfall
Drainage Divides-
•Protective Slopes
Rear Slopes toDrainage Ea3ement7\ .
Rear Drainage Easement
to proper outfall
•Protective Slopes —, side Swale or Channet-
-Rear Drainage Swales-
Figur» 3. Examples of Providing Proper Drainage Location. [50]
A-17
Storm sewer structure
Open throat ^ f
Straw bales
Gutter
^J?" Anchor with two stakes
driven into the ground
Temporary barrier of hay bales to prevent sediment-laden water from entering
incomplete storm sewer system.
Flow
Bales of straw staked down Provide sand and gravel filter ouf'*'
at lower area along with' straw b«'»*
- *l
Front view
Semi-pervious barrier of hay bales with more pervious embankment of sand and
gravel for spillway.
Figure 34. Temporary Sorrier of Straw Boles to Prevent Sediment-laden Water from Entering Incomplete Storm Sewer. [57]
s
j.
A-18
Plywood top
Building block laid in throat-
web horizontal
Sand & gravel filter
-Building block
-Gutter section
figure 33. Sand and Gravel Filter Protecting Intake Area of Incomplete Storm S«war System. [56]
A-19
-S€
i?tvi^
.
1[I!<Ms «
d o. <iK- Q,
10 $
-T3
?01
5
-j
4.
fr-
A-20
51.00 INTERCEPTOR DIKE [41]
An interceptor dike is a temporary ridge of
compacted soil constructed normal to the
slope or graded right-of-way and is used to
intercept and convey surface, water at
nonerosive velocities to an adequate and sta-
ble outlet (Figure 21).
It is a temporary structure which may be
designed for construction traffic to cross. It
should be inspected after each rain and re-
paired before the next storm.
51.10 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. Minimum ridge height: 1.5 feet.
2. Minimum top width: 2 feet
3. Maximum side slopes: 2.1 (Horizontal:-
Vertical).
4. Maximum allowable spacing between
dikes ranges from 200 to 300 feet S'pac-
ings may also be determined by Tables
21 and 22 on cross drain spacings.
5. Dike material shall consist of compacted
soil.
6. Interceptor dikes should have a positive
grade draining to a stabilized outlet.
7. Diverted runoff shall outlet to a stabil-
ized undisturbed area, a prepared level
spreader, or into a slope protection
structure (culvert, down drain, etc.)
8. Interceptor dikes can be installed by a
road grader or angle blade dozer.
Figure 21. Interceptor Dike. [41]
A-21
1
I
71.00 CHANNEL GRADE CONTROL
Grade control measures are structures which
reduce and maintain the channel gradients.
By reducing the channel gradient, the runoff
velocities decrease, thus preventing erosion
. at higher flows. Such structures include
check dams, drop structures, and erosion
stops (erosion checks).
'1.10 CHECK DAMS-[57]
1. General
a. Check dams are structures used to
stabilize the grade and control head
cutting in natural or artificial chan-
nels (Photos 38 and 39).
b. Check dams prevent excessive ero-
sion by reducing flow velocities in
watercourses and by providing par-
tial lined channel sections or struc-
tures that can withstand high flow
velocities.
c. Formal design is generally required.
2. Specification
a. Overfall structures of concrete, met-
al, rock, gabions, wood, etc., may be
used in the construction of check
b. Site should be in a reasonable
straight channel section.
c. Site and foundation conditions and
aesthetic considerations are impor-
tant factors in material selection.
d. Channel grade above and below the
structure should be evaluated to de-
termine if erosion, sediment deposi-
tion or flooding will be a problem.
A-22
,i SEDIMENT TRAPS_ <•<
Sediment traps are vegetative or structural
measures which trap sediment at on-site
construction areas to prevent clogging of
drainage control structures and reduce sedi-
ment runoff. Types of sediment traps include
filter berms, sandbag or straw-bale barriers,
filter inlet, vegetative filter strip, culvert ris-
er. Photo 44 shows the need for sediment
traps.
!0 FILTER BERM [57]
1. General
a. The filter berm is a temporary sedi-
ment trap and consists of a ridge of
gravel or crushed rock constructed
across a graded right-of-way. See
Figure 33.
b. Filter berms retain sediment on-site
/ by retarding and filtering runoff
while at the same time allowing con-
struction traffic to proceed along the
right-of-way. I
c. Filter berms are also applicable for
use in drainage ditches prior to road-
way paving and establishment of
permanent ground cover.
d. After each storm remove trapped
sediment and clean out or replace
' clogged filter material.
2. Specifications
a. Height 1.5 to 2.0 feet (uniform top
elevation)
b. Top Width: 3 to 5 feet
c. Side Slopes: 3:1 or flatter.
d. Spacing: 200 to 300 feet (steeper
-lopes require closer spacing.)
e. Material: Coarse (3/4" to 3"), well
graded gravel or crushed rock. Fines
less than 5 percent.
91.20 SANDBAG OR STRAW BALE BARRI-
ERS [57]
1. General
a. Sandbag or straw bale barriers are
temporary sediment traps which re-
tain sediment on-site by retarding
and filtering storm runoff and are
used at storm drain inlets, drainage-
ways, and across rights-of-way. See
Figure 34.
—~ b. Dikes of sandbags or straw bales
constructed across a right-of-way
or immediately below the site of con-
struction activities should have a
low spillway—embankment section
of sand and gravel filter that serves
as a filter outlet.
c. The barriers must be installed so
that runoff cannot escape freely un-
der the straw bales or sandbags.
2. Specifications
a. Straw bales bound with nylon or
wire are more durable than twine-
bound bales.
b. Straw bales should be anchored to
the ground with steel rods, fence
posts, rebars, wood pickets, etc. Two
anchors per bale are required.
Graded R. O.W. ;:
3'-5'
slopes•'^T
,*..
Figure 33. Filter Barm. {57]
A-23
c. Sandbags exceeding two bags in
height may require anchoring with
steel rods, rebars, etc.
91.30 FILTER INLET [57]
1. General
a. A filter inlet is a temporary sediment
trap consisting of gravel or crushed
rock placed at storm sewer curb in-
let structures. See Figure 35.
b. Filter inlets retain sediment on-site
by retarding and filtering storm run-
off before it enters the storm or sew-
er system.
c. Trapped sediment should be
removed and the clogged filter
material cleaned out or replaced af-
ter each storm.
2. Specifications
;
a. Concrete building blocks placed in
throat of inlet Filter material placed
between blocks and street in the gut-
ter section. See Figure 35.
b. All filter material should be coarse
(3/4* to 3"), well graded gravel or
crushed rock. Fines less thaa five
percent.
91.40 VEGETATIVE FILTER STRIP
1. General
a. A vegetative filter strip is a tempo-
rary or permanent sediment trap
which consists of an area of vegeta-
tive cover through which storm wa-
ter must flow before it enters
streams, storm sewers, conduits, etc.
b. As the water containing suspended
solids flows through the vegetative
filter strip, some of the sediment is
removed by "filtering" and by depo-
sition as the flow velocity is reduced.
c. Vegetative filter strips are naturally
occurring or man-made.
d. Tall, dense stands of grasses form
the best sediment traps.
2. Specifications
a. Naturally occurring vegetation may
suffice. Light fertilizing may en-
hance the growth.
b. Man-made grasses may be provided
by sod or by planting.
c. Minimum width of vegetative filter
strios:
Above Diversions: 15' plus 1/2 of
channel width. [21]
Along Live Streams: 100' minimum
(Recommended by California De-
partment of Fish and Game in log-
ging areas.)
91.50 CULVERT RISER
1. The culvert riser is described in the
chapter on culverts.
2. The chapter on sediment detention ba-
sins should help in the safe storage de-
sign of culvert risers.
92.00 SEDIMENT DETENTION BASIN
A sediment detention basin is a reservoir
which retains high flows sufficiently to cause
deposition of transported sediment. Sedi-
ment basins may be either temporary or per-
manent structures which prevent off-site
transportation of sediment generated from
construction activities. See Photos 45,46 and
Figure 36.
92.10 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. The design of the sediment basin shall be
based on the total drainage area lying
upstream and on the future use of such
lands.
2. The spillway overflow from a debris ba-
sin should not increase the down stream
sediment loads.
3. Vegetation should be planted on slopes
of embankments composed of credible
soil.
A-24
4. Beyond certain limitations on the height
of the dam and the storage capacity of
the reservoir, the design of the sediment
basin will come under the jurisdiction of
the California Division of Safety of
Dams (See Table 23).
5. For basins which also serve as perma-
nent water storage consideration should
be given to the prevention of "algae
bloom" which is aesthetically unsightly.
92.11 STORAGE [57]
1. The site should be selected to provide
adequate storage.
2. Storage capacity shall be the volume be-
low the pipe spillway crest or emergency
spillway crest.
3. Consideration should be given to plan
for periodic cleanout in order to main-
tain the capacity requirements.
4. The maximum allowable level of depos-
ited sediment before cleanout shall be
determined and given in the design data
as a distance below the top of the riser.
92.12 PIPE SPILLWAY [20] [57]
1. The combined capacity of the pipe and
emergency spillways will be designed to
handle the design flood.
2. Runoff will be figured by an acceptable
hydrologic procedure, and should be
based on drainage area conditions ex-
pected to prevail during the anticipated
effective life of the structure.
3. The pipe spillway will consist of a per-
forated vertical pipe or box-type riser
joined to a horizontal pipe conduit
(barrel) which will extend beyond the
downstream toe of the embankment.
4. The horizontal pipe conduit (barrel)
will be a minimum of 12 inches in di-
ameter.
5. The riser is a minimum of 30 inches in
diameter and has a cross-sectional area
of at least 1.5 times the cross-sectional
area of the horizontal pipe conduit.
6. The crest elevation of the riser shall be
such that full flow will be generated
before there is discharge through emer-
gency spillway and at least one foot be-
low crest of emergency spillway.
7. If no emergency spillway is provided,
the crest elevation of riser must be at
least three feet below crest of emer-
gency spillway.
8. The upper 1/2 to 2/3 of the riser shall
be perforated with 1-1/2 to 4 inch
holes, 10 to 12 inches on center and
staggered.
9. The antivortex device can increase vol-
ume of discharge by as much as 50 per-
cent
10. An approved antivortex device is a
thin, vertical plate normal to the cen-
terline of the dam and firmly attached
to the top of the riser. The plate dimen-
sions are:
Height = diameter of barrel
Length = diameter of riser plus 12
inches
11. The riser shall have a base attached
with a watertight connection and shall
have sufficient weight to prevent flota-
tion of the riser. Three recommended
methods are:
a. A square concrete base 18 inches
thick with the riser embedded six
inches in the base. Each side of base
will be diameter of standpipe plus
24 inches.
b. A 1/4 inch minimum thickness
steel plate welded all around the
base of the riser to form a water-
tight connection. The plate shall be
square with each side equal to two
times the riser diameter. The plate
shall have two feet of stone, gravel,
or tamped earth placed on it to pre-
vent flotation.
c. Properly anchored guy wires may
be substituted for the anchor block.
—I
A-25
12. The trash rack consisting of #4 bars, 6
inches on center shall be welded across
the top of riser.
13. At least one seepage ring is required
and each ring shall be rectangular with
each side a minimum of barrel diameter
plus 24 inches.
92.13 EMERGENCY SPILLWAY [20] [57]
1.The emergency spillway should be de-
signed for 1.5 maximum design flow.
Two recommended designs are:
b.
Discharge over top of dfttp or em-
bankment Spillway must be lined
with 3 inch thick gunite or 4 inch
concrete reinforced with 6x6-
10/10 wire mesh, extending to a
minimum of 3 feet down the up-
stream face of embankment. Spill-
way will be minimum of 18 inches
deep with 1 1/2:1 side slopes.
Earth spillways must be installed on
undisturbed soil (not on fill) by
grading. Side slopes will not be
steeper than 2:1. Embankment and
spillway channel must be protected
by vegetation, rock riprap, etc. The
maximum allowable velocity in exit
channel shall be 6 feet per second.
92.14 FREEBOARD [49]
1. Freeboard is the vertical distance
between the elevation of the water sur-
face in the pond when spillway is dis-
charging at designed depth and the
elevation of the top of the dam after all
settlement has taken place.
2. Minimum freeboard shall be 1.0 foot for
sediment basins where the maximum
length of pond is less than 660 feet
92.15 EMBANKMENT [49]
1. The embankment shall have top widths
based on the following:
Height Top
of dams width
under 10' 8'
10-15' 10'
15-20' 12'
20'-25' 14'
2. Side slopes shall be no steeper than 2:1.
92.20 CONSTRUCTION [23] [20]
92.21 SITE PREPARATION
1. The foundation area reservoir area shall
be cleared of all trees, stumps, roots,
brush, boulders, sod, and debris.
2. All topsoil containing excessive amounts
of organic matter shall be removed.
92.22 BORROW AREAS
1. All borrow areas outside the pool shall
be graded, seeded, and left in such a
manner that they are well drained and
protected from erosion.
92.23 EMBANKMENT
1 . The embankment material shall be taken
from borrow areas as stated on plans.
2. The material shall be free of all sod,
roots, woody vegetation, large rock (ex-
ceeding 6 inches in diameter,) and other
debris.
3. The embankment should be constructed
to an elevation which provides for an-
ticipated settlement to design elevation
(allow 10% for settlement).
4. The foundations for embankment shall
be scarified prior to placement of fill.
5. Placement of fill material shall be started
at the lowest point of the foundation and
shall be placed in 6 inch maximum lifts
which are to be continuous over entire
length of fill and approximately horizon-
tal.
6. The satisfactory compaction is usually
achieved when the entire surface of the
fill is traversed by at least one pass of the
loaded hauling equipment or through
use of a roller.
92.24 PIPE SPILLWAY
1. The barrel shall be placed on a
foundation to the lines and grades sho*3
on the plans.
•I^I
*
<r
2. Backfill material shall be placed around
the barrel in 4 inch layers and each layer
shall be thoroughly compacted with suit-
able hand-operated equipment to at
least 2 feet above the top of the pipe and
seepage rings before heavy equipment is
operated over it.
92.25 VEGETATIVE PROTECTION
1. A protective vegetative cover shall be es-
tablished on all exposed surfaces of the
embankment, spillway, and borrow area
to the extent practical.
92.26 PROTECTION OF SPILLWAY DIS-
CHARGE AREA
1. All areas subject to discharges from pipe
spillway and emergency spillway must
A-26
be protected with vegetation, rock, rip-
rap, etc.
92.30 SEDIMENT CLEANOUT AND DIS-
POSAL
1. The sediment should be removed when-
ever the storage capacity has been re-
duced to unsafe, improperly functioning
levels.
2. The sediment must be disposed of in
such a manner that will prevent its re-
turn to the sediment basin or movement
into downstream areas during subse-
quent runoff.
USDA Soil Conservation S*rrfe»
w *m v, •"*t^.'TC'-f?.^?r.' '-st*.--""**-"-
•^;'Mtewrr:
il
•: .^
>>.«•• ^^asffl^^^ 4''^f^^mm^ ***£^ai^a..iiilij»B= "it-^-.ii.ifesr^r'-"
...... —v t i ii '• ••! l^r '"I'^YTI
"*'.^v ^^L^^J»^SKV ;i^MBP^^:^u«
Photo A4. A S»dim«fit Trap Would Hav« Allowed Thii Storm S«wer System to Collect Runoff Without Excessive Sediment Load.
TobU 1. Owcklut for Sit* Evaluation.
A-27
DEVELOPMENT SITE CONDITIONS
POTENTIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECTSATING OF DETRIMEMTAL EFFECTS£i
1. Are there ar«as where soil conditions Indicate that
eroaioa is a possibility?
2. Will erosion occur as a result of any or all proposed
alternatives?
3. Will adjacent and nearby streams, ponds, and lakes be
affected by project construction?
4-. Is there the potential for flooding in natural and
matanade waterways and' channels from the increased
runoff caused by changed soil and surface conditions?
5. Will the development disturb areas in or near stream
channels?
S. Do the proposed roads have long stretches of excessive
grade?
7. Will the drainage to streets and from streets to storm
sewers or other runoff disposal systems cause water to
erode the land or flood property further down gradient?
1. Can areas of exposed soil be protected from erosion
by the establishment of vegetative cover and by the
diversion of runoff?
2. Can sediment from construction activities be contained
on or near the project?
3. Will special erosion control and sediment collection
measures be required to protect adjacent properties?
4. Will construction sequence, method of operations or
season of work have an effect on control measures?
5. Does the adjoining property require special erosion
control or sediment collection methods?
6. Can lots be graded without mass grading techniques?
7. Are underground utilities provided for?
8. Can trees and other vegetation be protected?
9. Are paved and other impervious areas held to the
m"i rh miTT^
10. Are onsite temporary storage of rainfall included?
11. Is fire protection included with sufficient and proper
ingress and agress?
12. Can the maintenance of all erosion control practices
be adequately provided?
13. Is the design storm frequency adequate?
14. Can vegetation be allowed to remain in some areas?
YES
*
NO
-
A-28
Tab!* 2. Factor* in th« A*M**aMtrt of a Sit*.
List of Factors
Soil and Geology
• Soil - Physical & Chemical Character-
• Geologic Conditions istics
• Groundwater Occurrence & Movement
• Slope stability
« Seismic Factor
Climate and Precipitation
Start and End of Hainy Season
Intensity and Duration of Storms
Occurrence of Summer Storms
Seasonal Temperature
Frost-Free Period
Wind Erosion
Snow Melt Runoff
Rainfall Runoff Before and After
Development
Topography
Slope Angle
Slope Aspect - — - •
Slope Length
Density and Capacity of Drainageways
Suitability of Sites for SedimentBasins
Vegetative Cover
• Type and Location of Native Plants
• Fire Hazard
• Establishing Vegetative Cover
• Adequacy of Existing Erosion Control
Features
Type of Development
« Cluster or High Density Structures
« Single Eamily or Low Density Structures
• Percent Open Space and Impervious
Surfaces
Manner of Development
• Percent Grade and Layout of Roads
• Density of Roads
• Distribution of Open Space
• Structures Affecting Erodible
Areas
• Number of Culverts, Stream Crossings
• Size of areas, duration and time of
year that are left bare
Assessment of Impact
.of Factors on the Site
(Statement Needed)
A-29
ToM« 3. Relating Sources of Sediment or Cauie* of Accelerated Erotion to Ero»ion Control Practice*.
i !
4
5
Section
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
"X^Sources of Sediment or^***^auses of Accelerated
^"""•N^^ Erosion
Erosion ^^"^x^^
and Sediment ^^^^^^^
Control Practices ^^^>»w.
Protection of Trees
Vegetative Measure
Protective Covering of
Mulch and Other Materials
Temporary Diversion Dike
Permanent Diversion Dike
Interceptor Ditch
Slope Drain
Diversion
Interceptor Dike
Drainage Dip
Side Ditch
Open-Top Culvert
Vegetative T.-in-ing
Flexible Lining
Rigid Lining
Grade Control Structure
Channel Realignment
Culvert
Paved Ford
Bridge
Sediment Trap
Sediment Detention Basin
Energy Dissipator
Loss of
Trees
P
BareCut and
Fill Slopes
and Graded
Areas
T,P
T
T
P
P
T,P
T,P
Unpro-
tected
Road
Surfaces
T
T
T
T
T,P
T,P
Sensi-
tive
Water-
courses
T,P
T
P
P
P
P
P
T,P
P
T,P
T,P
T,P
T,P
Hbte: T: temporary erosion control practices which would prevent
erosion during construction or before construction is
completed.
P: permanent erosion control practices which would permanently
stay on the project area for erosion control.
A-30
ToW* 23.UmitaHom and Jurixfictfam <rf Dam in California. [39]
M
Cond-
ition
1
2
J>
4
5
DESIGN
HEIGHT
(ft)
<_6
No limit
<15
>25
ffo limit
STORAGE
(acre-ft)
Ho limit
115
No limit
>15
>50
USE OP DAM
Impound or divert
water .
Impound or divert
water.
Underground per-
colation.
Impound or divert
water.
Impound or divert
water.
Jurisdiction by the
California Division
of Safety of Dams
No (sec. 6003)
No (sec. 6003)
No (sec. 6004)
Yes (sec. 6002a)
Yes (sec. 6002b)
A-31
£
I
u.
a
UJ
UJ(O
21
i O -
E PE <
9 -
~ Ul
** 3
W <— K<o uiQLUJ 2d • j-— • ^
<r '
< z
°- o
_i >-
o ;• f.<a —0.
» ^
•:
•
.* .•
r I0° ei o.
- 90
'
-so :• a
•,•-70 :
- 60 ;
- so :• «
1 40 f.j
* •
- 30 / :
*• * _
-20/ ;
• *
r- 10 J
• *«•
- 0.0 •.
*
:- o.i
•
;-0.2 /
» *
- 0.3
• •-0.4
t
j-0.5
- 0.6
- 0.7
^-0.8
1-0.9
-1.0
-0
# ™
* ' •;i
* «M
" "
* *
* ~
'•. :
*,-;
EXAMPLE N
Ys|.l4 T
«
- 5.0
- 4.0
- 3.0
r 2.0
--J.O
! \
• *
*
. *
- o.o
- - --.-*- -
*7j
i
J?
l
ua.
~^ 5s2
x us §
Z K
.-' .- _ - S"
s 5
p g5 y
3 1o: 2s * *
100 -a
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
5O -3W .
40 4
30 4
20 -1
jH
-to •;» •
_.-* -20-
.•*" -30 ~.
-40 ^
* *
• ^
-50 -
* "
-60 -
0 -j
B *
- I0 ~.
^ •
?<»'-•
"•* 30 —
- 40 •:
: -so -
• *
: 80 -
r 70 -•
r so ^
. 90 -
" 100 -
• •*
1 •
;
" '
'_
I :
_
Ii•?
u1 <
- \^
i *
; BL • f
: *- 3
115
SEDIMENT PREDICTIVE YIELD EQ:
log {Y-f-100) ^6.63792-2.13712 log (X,f IOO) ;
1
i •
',
•f 0.06284 log (Xjl-100) -0.01616 log (Xj-r- 100) ! J
4-0.04 07 3 log ( X4+ 1 OO *
Equation by E. M. Flatmon, U-S.D A. Soil Conservation Service 2_2/ !
Nomograph by K. M. Smith, U.S.O.A. Soil Conservation Service (
•Figure 38. Sediment Predictive YwW. [81
<
A-32 183
,
i!ipJ «!
e
<
«
§
i
-j
M i
u
*
u
—
*
aS
s
1 ^
• ^
, s s
Jjlsl
4 to M 4liiil
(10)«. Ho 14 than SOXcultivatedfa. AlBOtt All Of|r*t«dc. All of •re* r*-c*atly burned•* •
4 « 'J4 » 4
'S & S
!'«3 '3 S S 2° -
"I' SS2 2-
Jl J = 3 j S
• 4
•
4 *•• M
* 4
a. • o -4
«* v X Q 19
•
x a
M 4 « -M
o 4 — 2 *s" .*,
•— 4 4 ••* to
* .*'
« d to -. " a
-• "o 5 a e M^W*- -a .c « s * i?4 M « U 4- a - a •» -
O >* *• ~* 4 C 4M 4 <* <M 4 to 0 to
4 .* l>
4
•- • -t Tt U 44
: ij i : 2 1
s:- ;s : "*
w _ ^ « — «.
d 4 n 'i 3 e -5
•.4 49 ~ « 4
.15
ilsl
— — *" S S
i ;::
^
:
tt«! *•
C * 4 4-I 4 ^
4
^t M to to O4^^
M »* 4 44
v> 4 O to 4 M
>^M-Mo-*M'Maw
4 ^ U ^
^f to: s «„,
: \ 111
s!sl ill
^-Isii
4 A
m a
1\ S 14 4•* 4 « -fl
M 4 C 4 ?
*•» M ** -4
to 4 to ^4 &«-« 4 O W
12I Isi
4 ' .4
-. I1
*•» 4 4MM W •
to • to -H
1.1,.
il i,
a'HII•-'434 <T tm ^ a 4 **
w u « e 4
<• ^
to O to
2 ! 3^S 5 1 1 -g
•9 «« u « x*f 2 ^~<3
i S
s.s :2 :,
4 A U
U
i
•m
T. — T
Ajiilii!l
4 ^ W
i
4 4
4
(-10)a. Mu cuiclVBtt<Mfc. Ha r«c**t loU^Mc. taw lnt*fttltr«r*Ki»«1 M M
Ik 4 M • 4-4 » « 3 ** 4
M ». W 2 to *4 22^2 -t^S»-. tt-« 4 tt<M •a • 4 » ** o « S —
i! 1
a o — » ** 4
O 4 •* M tt
O 4 4 1
s?s Jissii 1 JJ i 5 3 t
« ^ V
•^ • • • « I
•*"«-" 1 " !•J2: S S3 22JS2£JJ24J
. S i u?J 2 tS? " 1
« i « i- toO O 4 4
4 1 W
\ \\
4 U
!~
1
i I a a --ass s Hs s•j * . 2
r.
l!9 H 3 : = Pj;^- is -4
3 |1 1 4i|5iih:s H i*
| J| 1 jisijls--j^|j:. -^
3 li I irrfilsrr
S Si
u s:
s ;;
41U ii?
o ^ *t
2 Is
til! i
^ i
B8 =
;« 3
if!ii
ij
MM wta3 .u g
S- 2i- -
Hiii =ii a
S! :
« i
&
J3
xI •:
}}
31 sTT ,7
:i AS2S°
i s• I8 :
• *w *»a; j
24 i
J'S •
51 a
S 31
3 £<3
23
ll
A-33
10,000
Assumptions
Qio'l.Qmrn
Dm1 .5mm
.4 .5 .6 .7 .* .9 I. Z.
DEPTH OF FLOW (d) IN FEET
3.
Meyer-Peter ond Muller Equation: g.= l.6O6 §.3O6 (^) (^f dS-0£27oJ5
9. ft. 7. «. 9. 10.
COMPUTER ANALYSIS AND
CHART BY PERKY Y.AMIMOTO
DIVISION OF MINES AND CEOuxrr
20.
Figura 43. Meyer-Peter and MoHer Method.
EFEtfE NC
REFERENCES
1. HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR AGUA HEDIONDA CREEK. DECEMBER 1976, County of San
Diego, Department of Sanitation and Flood Control.
2. HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR BUENA VISTA CREEK, DECEMBER 1976, County of San
Diego, Department of Sanitation and Flood Control.
3. FLQODPLAIN INFORMATION, BUENA VISTA CREEK
Department of the Army, Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers, Los
Angeles, California, July 1973.
4. FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION, SAN MARCOS CREEK
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, Los Angeles District, California, April 1971
5. MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN, CITY OF CARLSBAD
Shuirman and Simpson, Civil Engineers, Newport Beach, California, April 1971
6. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE - ZONE 1 SAN DIEGO COUNTY
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, Koebig, Inc., July 1976.
7. DESIGN AND PROCEDURE MANUAL, SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT,
DECEMBER 1969, REVISED 1976
8. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION RESOURCES
AGENCY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EPA 440/3-78003, MAY 1978.
9. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS,
JANUARY 1979
10. GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, 1977
11. BENEFIT CHARGE STUDY - SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ZONES 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5, PREPARED BY STONE & YOUNGBERG MUNICIPAL FINANCING CONSULTANTS, INC.
LOS ANGELES, 1976
PLATE 1 PLATE 2
INSET
PLATE 3 PLATE 4
PLATE INDEX
PL ATE S