HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 88-03; Encinitas Creek Master Drainage Plan Zn 11,12,23; Encinitas Creek Master Drainage Plan Zn 11,12,23; 1988-07-28«l
m
m
m
m
cr 85-03-(
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN
CITY OP CARLSBAD
ZONES 11, 12, AND 23
VOLUME "A»«
July 28, 1988
Job Number 10554A
m
m
•I
4rt
Of Cl
J
Oeimis C. Bowliiigs^M,
RCE 32838; EXP. 6,
RICK ENGINEERING COUPANY
WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
5620 FRIARS ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CA 92110
(619) 291-0707
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME A
M PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND
"* LOCATION
BASIN DESCRIPTION
" SCOPE OF WORK
m MASTER PLAN DATA BASE 4
HYDROLOGIC METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION 5
INTRODUCTION
^ RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS
RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
^ HEC-1 MODEL HYDROLOGY REPORT
HEC-2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS- ENCINITAS CREEK 9
* PREVIOUS COUNTY STUDY
DATA BASE
SUMMARY OF RESULTS- EXISTING CONDITIONS
« RECOMMENDATIONS
HEC-2 COMPARISON TABLE
EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS 12
ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STORM DRAIN FACILITIES
* RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 14
INTRODUCTION
" DESIGN CRITERIA
mm EL CAMINO REAL CULVERTS
PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENTS
DRAINAGE FACILITY TABLES DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FACILITIES COST ESTIMATES BY
* PRIORITY 17
DRAINAGE FACILITY TABLES INDEX 18
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES 27
- INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF UNIT PRICES USED 28
- PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES INDEX 2 9
^ REFERENCES 42
- VOLUME B
APPENDICES
mm
APPENDIX 1- RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS
mm
m APPENDIX 2- HEC-2 MODEL COMPUTER OUTPUT- EXISTING CONDITIONS
- APPENDIX 3- HEC-2 MODEL COMPUTER OUTPUT- PROPOSED CONDITIONS
m
f^^-^. f^..
f
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
This report describes the Drainage Master Plan for the Encinitas
Creek watershed within the City of Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California. The report identifies the hydrologic criteria used
for analysis and design of the drainage infrastructure of the
watershed, the data base used in the analysis, the effects of the
development in the watershed on flood peaks, and the drainage
network to be used to convey the predicted flood peaks within the
watershed.
The Drainage Master Plan is developed to provide preliminary
design information on the drainage conveyance network of the
Encinitas Creek watershed. It is engineered following the
guidelines and regulations within the City of Carlsbad Standard
Design Criteria Manual, Section 5.7 of the San Diego County
Standards, and the San Diego County Flood Control District Design
and Procedure Manual and Hydrology Manual. It is prepared to
fulfill the requirements by the City of Carlsbad for a Drainage
Master Plan for the Encinitas Creek watershed area affecting
planning Zones 11, 12, and 23.
The Drainage Master Plan is intended to provide a guideline for
design of storm drainage improvements for the area. The Plan
addresses storm drains greater than or equal to thirty (30") inch
diameter pipe size. Storm drain collection systems including
inlets, and storm drains less than thirty (30") inches in size
will be provided as part of the individual developments and
projects within the watershed. Capacities of existing systems
and sizing of proposed improvements where needed to convey the
design flows are based upon approximate methods and engineering
judgment. Final design of any storm drain or open channel system
should be performed by a qualified engineer.
LOCATION
The Encinitas Creek watershed area is located within the south
portion of the city of Carlsbad, in north San Diego County,
California (Vicinity Map). The watershed area studied is bounded
by Olivenhain Road on the south. The watershed is traversed by
El Camino Real in its western portion, and Rancho Santa Fe Road
in its eastern portion. La Costa Avenue and the Batiquitos
Lagoon lie at the north discharge point of the basin.
BASIN DESCRIPTION
The Encinitas Creek watershed is approximately 5 miles long and
approximately 7.3 square miles in size at its discharge point to
Batiquitos Lagoon. This study covers the northerly portion of
the watershed which is within the City of Carlsbad. The study
area is approximately 4.4 square miles in size.
tl II II ki II li li il il lit 11 IJ fci fel fti tl ti il ij
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER
DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY
OF CARLSBAD: JULY, 1988
VICINITY MAP
RICK ENGINEERING COMMNY
CIVIL ENGINEERS : PLANNING CONSULTANTS : SURVEYORS
5620 FRIARS ROAD SAN DIEQO. CALIFORNIA 92110 C619) 291 0707
3088 PIO PICO DRIVE CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 t619] 729-4987
365 S. RANCHO SANTA FE RD. SAN MARCOS. CA. 92069 (619) 744-4600
m
m
The upper portion of the study area consists of two tributaries
which join at the intersection of Rancho Santa Fe Road and
Olivenhain Road. Encinitas Creek flows westerly from this
confluence on the south side of Olivenhain Road within the City
of Encinitas to El Camino Real. The creek flows northerly from
Olivenhain Road within the City of Carlsbad along the west side
of El Camino Real to La Costa Avenue and Baticjuitos Lagoon. The
lower portion of the study area drains to Encinitas Creek through
natural swales or road culverts.
Current land use in the study area includes single and multiple
family residential, parks, and undeveloped land. Future land use
plans in the study area include low and medium density single
family residential, multiple family residential, commercial
developments, industrial developments, schools, open space and a
golf course.
Soils in the study area are predominately Hydrologic Soil Group
"D" but also include areas of Groups "A", "B", and "C".
m Vegetation on the undeveloped areas east of El Camino Real in the
study area is mostly native grasses which has been used for range
* land. Ground cover on the hillsides is typically broadleaf
chaparral. A portion of the area west of El Camino Real is
currently used for farm land.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Number 060284 1050C for the County of San
Diego (June 15, 1984) and FIRM Panel Number 060285 0015C for the
City of Carlsbad (August 15, 1983) show areas of Zone "A"
floodplain in the study area. The Zone "A" areas are shown for
Encinitas Creek, the easterly tributary of the creek along the
east side of Rancho Santa Fe Road and the tributary east of El
Camino Real between Levante Street and Olivenhain Road.
SCOPE OF WORK
This study addresses the following major topics related to the
drainage infrastructure:
1. Calculate lOO-year design discharges for developed land use
conditions.
2. Evaluate the adequacy of existing drainage facilities to
safely convey the design flows.
3. Describe the drainage improvements recommended in the
watershed study area to correct existing system inadequacies and
provide an adequate backbone drainage system for future
development.
4. Provide preliminary construction costs for recommended
improvements.
5. Analyze the hydraulic conditions in Encinitas Creek west of
El Camino Real from Olivenhain Road north to La Costa Avenue.
m The analysis uses current topographic information and design
flows based on future land use.
The following sub-basins tributary to Encinitas Creek are covered
in this study (see Plate A) :
•m
* The Calle Barcelona Basin which drains westerly to an
H existing Dual 5' X 6' Reinforced Concrete Box culvert under
El Camino Real.
M
^ * The Green Valley Basin which is west of El Camino Real and
drains directly into Encinitas Creek within several natural
^ swales.
* * The Olivenhain Road Basin which drains under Olivenhain
Road towards Encinitas Creek through several road culverts.
4 * The Levante Street Basin which drains westerly to an
existing sixty (60") inch CM.P. under El Camino Real.
m
* The Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin which is mostly
east of Rancho Santa Fe Road and drains into two existing
detention basins constructed with the Vista Santa Fe
development. An existing dual 4' X 9.3' Reinforced Concrete
« Box culvert under Rancho Santa Fe Road is the watershed
discharge point.
m
^ * The Upper Encinitas Creek Basin which drains to an
existing dual 4' X 10' Concrete Box Culvert under Rancho
^ Santa Fe Road.
*• The lower portion of the Encinitas Creek watershed which is
within the City of Encinitas is not addressed in detail by this
study. The design flows for the major drainage courses which
^ were calculated using the HEC-1 hydrologic model account for the
entire watershed. The HEC-1 analysis is described in a separate
— HEC-1 report (Rick Engineering Company, July 1988) submitted to
the City of Carlsbad.
[
Lagoon
\
\
\
\
- • \
\
IT
\
_>»-•. •. '\ -•.\:.-\
pL WER ENCINITAS CREE
3NB\H wiTHtf^ Grrr-OF
llHIS
-7 /
o CO
o CO
o CJ
UJ
-J
II
Ul
<
o <
CO o
-Ui<
>-
z o PA 1-07 s 1-07 o a>
CM o 0>
o z S Q g
Ul < CM
Ul O
z cr < NGI ARS o
m.
o Ui cc
U-UJ
Q
o o
CJ (£>
z
MM
o
CJ (£> < to to
PLATE
HASTER PLAN DATA BASE
Topographic information for development of the Encinitas Creek
Drainage Master Plan was derived from the current County of San
Diego 2 00 scale Orthophoto Topographic Survey maps for the area.
These maps were supplemented by the USGS Quadrangle maps and a
detailed field investigation.
Existing drainage facilities in the watershed area were
identified using as-built storm drain plans obtained from the
City of Carlsbad's files and engineering consultants. Existing
facility discharge points and sizes were verified by field
reconnaissance. Existing flow characteristics and problem areas
were also noted by field investigation.
Developed land use for the Encinitas Creek watershed area in the
City of Carlsbad was obtained from the latest General Plan Map
(April 1987).
Soil characteristics were identified using the Soil Conservation
Service's Soil Survey for the San Diego Area, California (1973).
Rainfall information for use in this study was obtained from the
San Diego County Hydrology Manual. The 100-year frequency,
6-hour duration design storm was used.
The San Diego County "Hydrology Report for Encinitas Creek" was
used to identify major drainage basins and discharge points. The
County flood plain mapping and accompanying HEC-2 computer runs
for Encinitas Creek were used as a baseline for hydraulic
analysis.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report "Floodplain Information
report for San Marcos Creek" (1971) was used for downstream
hydraulic control in the lOO-year storm event.
m
m
HYDROLOGIC METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
Hydrologic calculations for the major design points within the
watershed were completed using the HEC-1 Model computer program.
The results of the HEC-1 analysis for the Encinitas Creek
watershed are used for design of the major drainage facilities.
The HEC-1 Model analysis prepared for this study is discussed in
a separate report submitted to the City of Carlsbad (Rick
Engineering Company, July 1988).
Hydrologic calculations for design of minor drainage facilities
with tributary areas of less than approximately 0.5 square mile
were completed using the Rational Method.
m
RATIONAL METHOD CALCULATIONS
Rational Method calculations performed for this report are shown
in Appendix 1 of Master Plan, Volume "B". The Rational Methcxi
runoff coefficients used assume developed conditions based upon
the City of Carlsbad General Plan and previously submitted
planning studies for the area. The Rational Method runoff
coefficients from the County "of San Diego Hydrology Manual are
shown on page 7 of this report. The lOO-year design storm was
used in the calculations. The County of San Diego Intensity
Duration design chart is shown following page 7 of this report.
The results of the Rational Method analysis were used for
preliminary design of the recommended drainage facilities with a
tributary area of less than approximately 0,5 square mile.
The Rational Method calculations for the lOO-year storm were
performed using a Rational Method program. This program is a
computer aided design program where the user develops a node-link
model of the watershed. The program can estimate the conduit and
channel sizes needed to accommodate the design storm discharge.
The node-link model is developed by creating independent
node-link models of each interior sub-basin and linking these
sub-models together at confluence points. The program allows up
to five streams to be confluenced at each node.
The program has capability to perform calculations for eight
hydrologic processes. These processes are assigned code numbers
which appear in the printed results. The code numbers and their
significance are as follows:
CODE 1: Confluence analysis at a node
CODE 2; Initial sub-area analysis
CODE 3: Pipeflow travel time (computer estimated pipe size)
CODE 4: Pipeflow travel time (user specified pipe size)
CODE 5: Trapezoidal channel travel time
CODE 6: Street flow analysis through a sub-area
CODE 7: User specified information at a node
CODE 8: Addition of sub-area runoff to main line
m
RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS
LAND USE COEFFICIENT. C
Soil Group
mm
m Residential:
A B C D
mm Single Family .40 .45 .50 .55
mm Multi-units ,45 .50 .60 .70
mm Mobile homes .45 .50 .55 .65
m Rural (lots greater than 1/2 acre) .30 . 35 .40 .45
mm
mt
Commercial
80% impervious
.70 .75 .80 .85
m Industrial ,80 .85 .90 .95
90% impervious
Source: San Diego County Hydrology Manual
RATIONAL METHOD RAINFALL INTENSITY
DURATION CURVE
QC
O X
CO
UJ
X
u
CO
z
UJ
<0
UJ
X
o
I-
o
UJ
Q:
CL
oc
O
iO
15 20
MINUTES
DURATION
HEC-1 MODEL HYDROLOGY REPORT
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1 flood hydrograph program
was used for the hydrologic analysis at the major design points
in the Encinitas Creek watershed. The development of the HEC-1
Model and a summary of the results of the analysis are discussed
the previously mentioned report submitted to the City of Carlsbad
(Rick Engineering Company, 1988).
The recommended values from the HEC-1 report account for the
effects of the existing detention basins in the Vista Santa Fe
development on the 100-year flood hydrograph. The recommended
HEC-1 Model peak flows are used in the hydraulic analysis of
Encinitas Creek. The HEC-1 design flows are also used for
evaluation of existing major drainage facilities at the design
points in the model and preliminary sizing of any facilities
found to be inadequate.
Ml
m
HEC-2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS- ENCINITAS CREEK
PREVIOUS COUNTY STUDY
The previous County of San Diego HEC-2 computer analysis for
Encinitas Creek was completed in 1981, The study was completed
for several reaches of the creek and tributaries. The County
study includes the reach west of El Camino Real which is of
interest in this study.
The County HEC-2 study uses the design flows from the County of
San Diego Hydrology Report for Encinitas Creek (1980),
A field topography check completed in June 1988 as part of this
study showed substantial variations in the Encinitas Creek
geometry and invert elevation between the County HEC-2 study and
existing conditions. The invert of the creek has been filled
with a substantial amount of silt which causes concern about the
100-year water surface in the creek relative to the El Camino
Real roadway. The lOO-year water surface in the creek must also
be considered in the analysis of the capacity of the existing
crossings under El Camino Real,
A revised HEC-2 analysis was completed for this study to evaluate
the effects of the changes in the creek's geometry and invert on
the lOO-year water surface elevation. The HEC-2 study reach is
the 1,5-mile reach of Encinitas Creek in the City of Carlsbad
which is on the west side of El Camino Real and flows northerly
from Olivenhain Road to the Batiquitos Lagoon at La Costa Avenue,
DATA BASE
The input data for the revised HEC-2 analysis of the creek is
based on current topography and developed land use design flows.
The cross section locations used in the HEC-2 analysis are the
same as in the San Diego County analysis. The Manning "n"
roughness values used for the creek are also from the County
analysis. Additional cross sections were added between the
County sections when additional detail was needed.
The starting water surface for the HEC-2 analysis downstream of
La Costa Avenue in the Batiquitos Lagoon was derived from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report "Flood Plain Information San
Marcos Creek" (USACOE, 1971). This report shows the lOO-year
water surface in the lagoon from the ocean upstream to the
discharge point of San Marcos Creek. The water surface in
Batiquitos Lagoon downstream of San Marcos Creek is the
downstream control of Encinitas Creek at its discharge point into
the lagoon.
The cross sections used in the analysis are derived
photogrammetrically from aerial photography dated May 3, 1988.
The accuracy of the digitized cross sections exceeds FEMA
standards. The cross section end point coordinates were
^ digitized from the County Floodplain Maps for Encinitas Creek to
accurately reproduce the section locations. The cross section of
m the bridge at La Costa Avenue was measured in the field.
The lOO-year design flows were taken from the HEC-1 Model
^ hydrologic analysis described in a separate report (Rick
Engineering Company, 1988).
** SUMMARY OF RESULTS- EXISTING CONDITIONS m
The HEC-2 computer model output for Encinitas Creek for the
lOO-year storm under existing conditions is shown in Appendix 2
m of Master Plan, Volume "B".
« The analysis of the existing creek shows that the existing triple
8' X 12' R.C.B. crossing at La Costa Avenue is inadequate for the
* design flows given the existing headwater available on the La
^ Costa Avenue and El Camino Real roadways near the culvert,
m The HEC-2 analysis of the existing conditions also shows that the
lOO-year water surface in Encinitas Creek is below the El Camino
Ml Real roadway for the study reach except near the Olivenhain Road
intersection. The backwater caused by the silt downstream of the
El Camino Real culvert near Olivenhain Road results in the
flooding of the roadway in this area. The capacity of the El
Camino Real culvert also is impacted by the creek backwater.
The results of the HEC-2 hydraulic analysis of Encinitas Creek
under existing conditions are summarized in the HEC-2 Comparison
Table on page 11 of this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following improvements are recommended to mitigate the
existing inadequacies in Encinitas Creek from La Costa Avenue to
Olivenhain Road:
* Improve the existing triple 8' X 12' Reinforced Concrete Box
(R,C.B,) under La Costa Avenue. We recommend adding an
additional dual 8' X 12' R.C.B. and adding a berm along La Costa
Avenue and El Camino Real to increase the available headwater at
the culvert. The top of berm is proposed to elevation 19.7 (the
top of the bridge above the culverts is at elevation 20.8) to
provide 0,5 foot of freeboard.
* Improve the existing Encinitas Creek channel immediately
downstream of the El Camino Real culvert near Olivenhain Road.
The proposed improvements consist of an 1100-foot long
trapezoidal channel which is 100 feet wide on the main part of
the creek and 50 feet wide on the creek directly downstream of
the culvert. The trapezoidal channel depth is proposed to vary
from approximately 3 feet to 5 feet.
The HEC-2 computer model output for the lOO-year storm with the
proposed improvements in place is shown in Appendix 3 of Master
Plan Volume B. The results of the HEC-2 analysis considering the
10
recommended improvements are shown in the HEC-2 Comparison Table
below. The results of the recommended improvements analysis are
also compared to the edge of pavement elevation on the El Camino
Real roadway and the available freeboard height is shown.
HEC-2 COMPARISON TABLE
Comparison of lOO-year Water Surface in Encinitas Creek between
San Diego County (1981) and Rick Engineering Company (1988) HEC-2
Runs (values in feet)
m
Section 100-yr, 100-year 100-year Approx, Freeboard
No. WSEL WSEL (REC) WSEL (REC) Rd, edge To Road-
m County Existing Proposed Elev, Prop . run
mm
m 0.098 18,2 19.6 19.2 20.1 dri . 1. 2
0.129 18. 0 19,8 19.5 25.3 - . '5,9
-mi 0.202 27.2 28,7 28.8 42,4 r3T6
0. 310 36.5 38,7 38.7 50.1 11.4
-Hi 0.451 44 ,7 45.4 45.4 58.3 12.9
0,522 46.4 48.2 48,2 56.3 8.1
0.615 50.5 51.9 51,9 69.1 17.2
m 0.678 55, 5 55.2 55,2 78.6 23.4
0.780 59.8 60.1 60,1 80.0 19,9
mm 0.834 62, 0 62.3 62. 3 74 ,4 12.1
m 0.918 63.4 65,2 65.2 66,6 1,4
0.998 64.9 66. 6 66.6 69, 6 3.0
mm 1.096 67.5 67.6 67,6 79.2 11.6
1.164 69.3 69.4 69,4 85.7 16.3
m 1.236 72.0 76.5 72.4 89.6 17.2
1. 313 74 ,0 78,4 74.9 83.6 8.7
1. 365 — 81.4 76.9 80.2 3 , 3
11
EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS
- ADEQUACY OF EXISTING STORM DRAIN FACILITIES
The existing storm drain and culvert facilities were evaluated
^ for their adequacy for the lOO-year design flows. The capacity
of the facilities was based upon approximate methods and
^ engineering judgment. The existing culvert capacities were based
upon inlet control unless specific downstream control was known.
* The only instance where downstream control is known to be
significant is west of El Camino Real in Encinitas Creek.
Ml
m The existing storm drain facilities within the watershed study
area are, in general, adequate to convey the lOO-year design
-m storm. Most of the development in the basin has occurred
recently and the drainage facilities associated with the
'* developments were adequately designed.
*" Some of the existing road culverts constructed with the major
« roadways were found to be inadequate for the lOO-year design
flows. Some of these culverts may have been sized for historic
« flows rather than developed flows.
* The following existing road crossings were found to be inadequate
^ for the lOO-year design flows:
* 1. The bridge crossing of Encinitas Creek at El Camino Real is
silted and will not pass the design flow without over-topping the
roadway.
m
2. The existing 60" CM.P. under El Camino Real north of Levante
— Street is inadequate for the lOO-year design flow.
•** 3. The existing 24" R, C P. under El Camino Real north of
^ Olivenhain is inadequate for future developed flows.
« 4. The existing dual 24" C.M.P under Olivenhain Road is
inadequate for the lOO-year design flow,
•ivta
5. The existing dual 4' X 10' Concrete Box Culvert crossing of
Encinitas Creek under Rancho Santa Fe Road is inadequate for the
^ lOO-year design flow.
* 6. The existing triple 8' X 12' R.C.B. culvert under La Costa
Avenue is inadequate for the design flow due to the limited
available headwater on the roadways.
m
Several of the existing road culverts have collected silt which
m reduces their capacity. The existing silt volume in the majority
of the culverts will be flushed out during any major storm. As
* the remainder of the watershed is developed, smaller volumes of
silt will be delivered to the culverts and the future problems
should be minimized.
12
Two of the existing major crossings which are presently silted
will require special attention during final design to minimize
the effects of the existing silt on the facility capacity. The
crossings affected are:
1. The Encinitas Creek crossing of El Camino Real south of
•M Olivenhain Road which is almost entirely filled with silt. The
downstream creek bed has also collected silt.
Ml
2, The dual 5' X 6' Concrete Box Culvert under El Camino Real
near the proposed Calle Barcelona intersection (Facility Number
^ 11) is silted about 2'. Downstream silt conditions in Encinitas
Creek cause the culvert to collect silt.
MW
The preliminary design for these crossings are discussed in the
"Recommended Drainage Infrastructure Improvements" section of
^ this report.
13
RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
The recommended facility improvements for the Encinitas Creek
watershed area in the City of Carlsbad is intended to provide a
guideline for design of the storm drainage infrastructure for the
area. The analysis addresses storm drains greater than or equal
to thirty (30") inch diameter pipe size. Storm drain collection
systems including inlets, and storm drains less than thirty (30")
inches in size will be provided as part of the individual
developments and projects within the watershed.
Sizing of the recommended facilities are based upon approximate
methods and engineering judgment. Final design of any storm
drain or open channel should be performed by a qualified
engineer.
The existing and recommended drainage facilities are tabulated in
the Drainage Facility Tables beginning on page 18 of this report.
The location of the drainage facilities referenced in the tables
are shown on Plates B and C following the tables.
DESIGN CRITERIA
The lOO-year frequency storm was used as the basis for design of
the recommended improvements in the watershed, Hydrologic
methodology is discussed in the "Hydrologic Methodology and
Description" section of this report.
Closed conduits are recommended in most cases for systems
fourty-eight (48") inches or less. Closed conduits larger than
48-inch are used if a channel is impractical in the reach. Storm
drains are designed to connect into existing systems found
adequate for the ultimate capacity as defined by this study.
Reinforced concrete pipe (R,CP.) is assumed for closed conduit
design. For road crossings, either R.C.P. or reinforced concrete
box culverts are used, R.C.P. sizes from 3 0-inch to 78-inch
diameter in increments of 6-inches are used in the study. A
Manning's roughness coefficient (n value) of 0.012 is used for
R.C.P. storm drain design.
Pipe slopes are based on the existing ground slope where
applicable with a minimum gradient of 0,5 percent.
Box culvert sizing is based on a minimum 3 foot height for ease
of maintenance. Height sizing is based on one foot vertical
increments and width on two foot horizontal increments. A
Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.014 is used for design.
Where existing pipes were found to be inadequate, they were
assumed removed if metal and removed or paralleled depending on
the situation for concrete pipes.
14
mt
Floodplain management including natural channels and vegetation
lined graded channels is used for open channel reaches of the
drainage system in lieu of lined channels. Natural channels
which are narrowed to accommodate development and graded channels
will be designed to meet allowable velocity criteria. The
finished floor of structures shall be built a minimum of one foot
above the lOO-year water surface in the channel. All channels
shall be in compliance with current flood plain criteria.
EL CAMINO REAL CULVERTS
^ Desilting basins are recommended at the upstream side of the two
culverts under El Camino Real draining towards Encinitas Creek
^ These culverts have collected a significant amount of silt. We
also recommend that the culverts be cleaned out and the creek
downstream of the culverts be dredged to provide positive outflow
for the culverts under all flow conditions.
Ml
M We propose to clean out the dual 5' X 6' R.C.B, under El Camino
Real near the proposed Calle Barcelona Intersection to its
« invert. It is also recommended that a 15-foot wide trapezoidal
channel be constructed from the culvert invert draining to the
* creek flowline to provide an outfall. The depth of excavation
needed to implement this recommended solution is approximately 2
feet to 3 feet.
m
We propose to lower the invert of the existing bridge under El
Camino Real south of Olivenhain Road to provide adequate capacity
and positive drainage. The invert is proposed to be lowered to
elevation 72 at the downstream side of the bridge from the
_ existing invert elevation of approximately 75. The..proposed
channel improvement downstream of the bridge is discussed in the
-* "HEC-2 Hydraulic Analysis - Encinitas Creek" section of this
report.
„ The land for the desilting basin at the dual 5' X 6' R.C.B. is a
part of the development upstream and is zoned as open space. The
— land upstream of the bridge crossing south of Olivenhain Road is
within the City of Encinitas and will need to be coordinated with
Encinitas. The land acquisition cost is not included in the
^ preliminary cost estimates.
m The proposed desilting basins and channel dredging should solve
the problem since the upstream drainage areas are being developed
•m and silt volumes delivered to the culverts will be reduced in the
future under developed conditions. The proposed solutions to the
silt problem in the culverts will, however, need to monitored
periodically after completion to insure that the design is
maintained.
m
15
m
Ml
PRIORITY OF IMPROVEMENTS
The recommended improvements as outlined in this Plan have been
given a priority rating in the Drainage Facilities Tables. The
ratings vary from 1 as the highest priority to 3 as the lowest
priority. Criteria for determining the ratings are:
1. Improvement is needed due to an endangerment to life or
public health and safety.
2. Improvement is needed to mitigate potential damage to
existing property or structures.
3. Improvements will be needed to protect future development.
A summary of the total cost of improvements broken out by
priority rating is shown on page 17. Refer to the cost estimate
portion of this study for total cost of improvements in each
study sub-basin,
DRAINAGE FACILITY TABLE DESCRIPTION
The existing and recommended drainage facilities in the Encinitas
Creek watershed study area are shown on the Drainage Facility
Tables. These tables iist preliminary facility location,
tributary drainage area, size, length, capacity, lOO-year design
flow and recommended improvements (where applicable),
The location of the drainage facilities are shown on Plates B and
C included with the tables. Confluence points of storm drains
shown on the plates are approximate. Location and size of inlets
and lateral storm drains smaller than 30 inch diameter pipe size
will be designed and provided as part of the individual
developments within the watershed.
Conveyance of flow in streets was neglected for preliminary
design of storm drains. In final design, street conveyance
capacity should be considered in the analysis.
16
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FACILITIES COST ESTIMATES BY PRIORITY
(Thousands of Dollars)
Prioritv
Sub-basin
Total
Calle Barcelona
(Zone 12)
Green Valley
(Zone 23)
Levante Street
(Zone 12)
Upper Tributary to
Encinitas Creek
(Zone 12)
Olivenhain Road
(Zone 12)
Upper Tributary to
Encinitas Creek
(Zone 11)
Upper Encinitas
Creek
(Zone 11)
Totals
5,3
413,5
66.7
165,4
343.9 347.2
875.3
719.4
229.7
25.5
880.6
1,132.9
66,7
229.7
190.9
3,010,1 3,010,7
669.2 1,360.3
994.8 347.2 5,529.2 6,871.2
17
DRAINAGE FACILITY TABLES INDEX
PAGE
Calle Barcelona Basin - Zone 12 19
Green Valley Basin - Zone 23 20
Levante Street Basin - Zone 12 21
Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin - Zone 12 21
Olivenhain Road Basin - Zone 12 22
Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin - Zone 11 23
Upper Encinitas Creek Basin - Zone 11 25
m
m
18
I 8 51
5 ° LU <
a CD
UJ
< ^
0£ OC \U < <
Of Ui Q: LU
I- < l-S
< 3 < 3 V)
<
Of LU
< 3
4i
o o
X UJ
8
^ NO
... m
< 3
19
£ S 51 -
• U
KJ •-
CO CD
(rt ^
S o
< ^
<
Qf UJ
3 -1
O
O
O Irt z O — oe
< o
o oe
8 S in in O CO to -» o O CO O CO
%o
» CO
< 3
20
51 i
o o
1
a o.
oc
•- (NJ
a. a. oe u < < u Of
oe oe LU Ot UJ e>e ~ LU 3 _l 3 o > " 1-«t 1— < ~ IO _l
< 3 < (M 3 (rt 2 (rt >» (NJ U
3: O
8 O tM
O •-
21
UJ UJ > QC
o
51
(rt 'Ji z
£ UJ I
S o
CO -I
UJ iD oc oc i/) Q LU UJ LU LU S > o
O _l H 00
O O < cc o
t— CJ (K
:3 < (rt (— o: O
> >
-1 3
-J ER EA EA o oc oc z LU 3 O (rt o O z z z 1— 3 .... oc X LU < «t > u t LU u —1 o LU 3 z oe _J U LU lU u UJ
22
o
o o
II
*•
Ul
<
00
00
"3
m
51 8:
m
LU
Z
o _i
O u.
z (rt z z (rt O (rt (J lU
*-< z. o •s CD
>-z
LU EK *— ta RE o u z
u a. z »— CJ «t ^ o lU CJ Q: CJ X
t— • LU
>-».* X F-z UJ
-J LJ Z Z
u LU IE o < >— .—. u. o 1—
t— z •—I
>-LU a AR RY NO z < (J
1—
z 3
CO X
_) o LU oe oc t—
QC 1-o. lu UJ oe < li. PPE «r
UJ
3 ,GE oe < tr.
OC UJ
< 3
o 3
z O
z oe u.
Kl
= ro
i °
O I-M 0> O O (M CM o o
(M N
in > o o (M ro (M fM fM 1- fM (NJ fM fM (M (M O
ro f\j
Kl •-•I- (M (M fM
23
LU O
(rt ^
Kl
o (^
z X
LU -(- >t X I tu fM
3 ^
i o
U. UJ o > o <
3 -J
^ 3
Q. >-u oe oc LU > 3 ~l
LU oe
LU O < z z O t- O ne
3 < UJ
(rt QC u.
O
2 a (J < z o < o: >->->->-oe >-oe u < o: < oe LW oe
< z < «t < u. u. < t— oe (J z (J t— (rt UJ t— O t—
3 LU (rt z 3 o z 3 oe o 3 3 < 3 CO > lrt < CD < CO lU u z CD »— 1— CD _• O 1— Ml a UJ •.^ (rt Z oe 3 oe (rt OC (rt oe z < > oe < < OC t— CJ (J UJ X UJ 3 J < (— UJ (rt »—
i °
-o ro (M
IM (M
(0 >o (M ro
fM (M
^ in ro Kl
(M <M
^ (M Kl Kl
ry fM
^ CM
ro ro
fM ^ -* (M (M
m in
(M ru
24
51
fM fM
Ml
(rt 1
-I (J
CJ CO «t < Li. t—
>- z
Of » < t-> z z
— LU
z z ^
— LU
s ^ ^
(rt o LU < 2 u
t; ^ *
Z ^ UJ " UJ _J (J lU ^ g u lu z oe (rt lu <J
z z ^ lu o: u LU O z oe z UJ (J
CO —
o ^
in in
in in
Kl
in in
25
LU UJ
5j
Ml
m
< u. lU u-Z O < »— g O Z
z <
(rt LU (rt
» UJ (J (J LU Z z oe < UJ CJ oe
8 O Ni
in ^ in m
1^ r>-o -.a m m
26
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
«• INTRODUCTION
** The preliminary cost estimates used in this study were derived
^ from the City of San Diego Unit Prices for Checking Subdivisions
and Permits (March 1, 1985), These unit prices are also
^ currently used for cost estimates in the City of Carlsbad. Costs
are broken out by sub-basin in the Preliminary Cost Estimate
• Tables which begin on page 29. The costs are given as unit
prices in terms of linear feet (I.f.) , cubic yards (cy.) , or
^ each (ea.).
The preliminary cost estimates are based on anticipated
-M construction costs including materials and installation. The
estimates include 10 percent contingency for possible relocation
* of utilities and 2 0 percent contingency for engineering,
^ administration and legal expenses.
« Proposed facility improvements are assumed to be constructed
within public rights-of-way or easements. No additional cost is
included for land or easement acquisition in the preliminary cost
^ estimates,
^ It should be recognized that actual construction costs may vary
from the preliminary costs shown in this report. Possible
reasons for construction cost variations include changes during
final design, unforeseen field or soil conditions, variable costs
of labor and materials, costs of traffic control, costs of street
^ or curb and gutter cuts, costs of landscaping replacement and/ or
excess costs of utility relocation.
Ml
27
SUMMARY OF UNIT PRICES USED (REF. CITY OF SAN DIEGO)
Mi
ITEM
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
Culvert
DESCRIPTION
30" R.C.P.
36" R.C.P.
42" R.CP,
48" R.CP,
54" R.C.P,
60" R.CP.
66" R.C.P.
72" R.C.P.
78" R.C.P,
UNIT
I.f.
I.f,
I.f,
l,f.
I.f,
I.f.
I.f.
I.f.
I.f.
PRICE
$80
$100
$120
$130
$150
$180
$190
$200
$220
•Ml
Box culvert
Box culvert
Box culvert
Box culvert
2- 4'X9.3'
2- 6'XIO'
2- 5'X6'
2- 8'X12'
I.f
I.f
l,f
I.f,
$1,500
$1,650
$800
$2,350
Inlet Type "B"
Cleanout Type "A"
Headwall w/ wingwall R.C.P.
Headwall w/ wingwall R.C.B.
River dredging Export
Berm construction Import
Riprap dissipator Culverts
Riprap @ u/s side Culverts
Desilting basin Structure
ea.
ea.
ea.
ea.
cy,
cy.
ea.
ea.
ea.
$3,000
$3,000
$3,500
$4,500
$4
$7.5
$3,000
$1,000
$10,000
28
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES INDEX
PAGE
30 i. Calle Barcelona Basin - Zone 12
M Green Valley Basin - Zone 23 32
Levante Street Basin - Zone 12 34
Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin - Zone 12 3 5
Olivenhain Road Basin - Zone 12 36
Upper Encinitas Creek Tributary Basin - Zone 11 37
Upper Encinitas Creek Basin - Zone 11 40
29
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
CALLE BARCELONA BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 1 of 2
m Facility Estimated Unit Facility
m
im
Number Description Ouantitv Unit Cost Cost
•m
m
1 30" R.CP. 320 I.f. $80 $25,600
m 1 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
2 Extend 36" R.CP 330 I.f. $100 $33,000
2 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
M> 3 42" R.CP. 1,220 I.f. $120 $146,400
m 3 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
m 3 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
m 4 48" R.C.P. 120 I.f, $130 $15,600
m 4 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
4 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
Ml
4 Riprap dissipator 1 ea, $3,000 $3,000
5 30" R.CP, 800 I.f. $80 $64,000
5 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
6 36" R.C.P. 350 I.f, $100 $35,000
6 Cleanout 2 ea, $3,000 $6,000
mm 6 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
-~ 7 36" R.C.P. 600 I.f, $100 $60,000
mm 7 Cleanout 3 ea. $3,000 $9,000
7 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
mm 8 30" R.C.P. 350 I.f. $80 $28,000
8 Cleanout . 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
mt 9 36" R.CP. 300 I.f. $100 $30,000
m 9 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
9 Riprap dissipator 1 ea, $3,000 $3,000
m» 9A Desilt basin struct. 1 ea. $10,000 $10,000
M« 10 2- 5'X6' R,C,B, 150 I.f. $800 $120,000
m 10 Headwall w/ wingwall 2 ea, $4,500 $9,000
10 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
10 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000 «• 11 River dredging 1, 000 cy. $4 $4,000
30
Ml
m
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
CALLE BARCELONA BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 2 of 2
31
^ TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST $667,100
M Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10% 66,710
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $733,810
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20% $146,762
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST $880,572
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
GREEN VALLEY BASIN (ZONE 23) WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL Page 1 of 2
411
Facility
Number
Estimated
Description Quantity Unit
Unit
Cost
Facility
Cost
mi
12 36" R.CP. 1, 000 I.f. $100 $100,000
Mi
12 Cleanout 5 ea. $3,000 $15,000
12 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
m 13 30" R.CP. 1, 000 I.f. $80 $80,000
m 13 Cleanout 5 ea. $3,000 $15,000
m 14 36" R.CP. 700 I.f. $100 $70,000
M 14 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
m 14 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
m 15 30" R.CP. 900 I.f. $80 $72,000
15 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
m 15 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
Ml 16 30" R.CP. 200 I.f. $80 $16,000
Ml 16 Cleanout 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
Ml 17 36" R.CP. 300 I.f, $100 $30,000
mm 17 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
NM 18 42" R.C.P. 750 I.f, $120 $90,000
imim
18 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
18 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
ISA 2- 8'X12' R.CB. 125 I.f, $2,350 $293,750
18A Headwall w/ wingwall 2 ea. $4,500 $9,000
mm ISA Berm construction 1,400 cy. $7.5 $10,500
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST $858,250
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10% $85,825
32
m
m
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
GREEN VALLEY BASIN (ZONE.23) WEST OF EL CAMINO REAL Page 2 of 2
33
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $944,075
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20% $188,815
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST $1,132,890
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
LEVANTE STREET BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 1 of 1
Ml Facility Estimated Unit Facility
Ml Number Descriotion Quantity Unit Cost Cost
21 72" R.CP, 160 I.f, $200 $32,000
m 21 Cleanout 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
21 TYPE "B" INLET 3 ea. $3,000 $9,000
"Ml 21 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
21 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
34
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST $50,500
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10% $5,050
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $55,550
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses !§ 20% $11,110
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST $66,660
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 1 of 1
M Facility Estimated Unit Facility
m
MM
Number Descriotion Quantity Unit Cost Cost
r^m
•m 24 42" R.CP. 850 l,f, $120 $102,000
24 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
Mk
25 48" R.CP. 300 l,f. $130 $39,000
Mk 25 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
4il 26 Extend 42" R.CP. 100 l,f, $120 $12,000
m 26 Cleanout 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST $174,000
Ml
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10% $17,400
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $191,400
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20% $38,280
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST $229,680
35
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
m
OLIVENHAIN ROAD BASIN (ZONE 12) Page 1 i Of 1
^* Facility Estimated Unit Facility
mm
M
Number Description Quantity Unit Cost Cost
m 34 48" R.CP, 160 I.f, $130 $20,800
m 34 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
34 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
mt
mm 35 30" R.C.P. 160 I.f. $80 $12,800
35 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
•m 35 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
m [5 5 A River dredging 22,000 cy. $4 $88,000
m i35A Desilt basin struct. 1 ea. $10,000 $10,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST $144,600
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10% $14,460
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $159,060
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20% $31,812
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST $190,872
36
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 1 of 3
Facility Estimated Unit Facility
m
Number Descriotion Quantity Unit Cost Cost
Ml 36 36" R.C.P. 2,650 l,f. $100 $265,000
m 36 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
MK
36 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
36 Cleanout 10 ea. $3,000 $30,000
36 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
37 30" R.C.P. 1,000 I.f. $80 $80,000
m 37 Cleanout 5 ea. $3,000 $15,000
38 36" R.C.P. 1,200 I.f. $100 $120,000
m 38 Cleanout 6 ea. $3,000 $18,000
39 36" R.C.P. 1,450 I.f. $100 $145,000
m 39 Headwall w/ wingwall 2 ea. $3,500 $7,000
39 Riprap @ u/s side 2 ea. $1,000 $2,000
mm 39 Cleanout 7 ea. $3,000 $21,000
39 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
mm 40 30" R.CP, 1, 500 I.f. $80 $120,000
40 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
mm 40 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
mm 40 Cleanout 7 ea, $3,000 $21,000
mm 40 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
mm 41 42" R.C.P. 1,700 I.f. $120 $204,000
41 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
m 41 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
m 41 Cleanout 8 ea. $3,000 $24,000
m 41 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
m 42 30" R.CP, 650 I.f, $80 $52,000
m 42 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
m 42 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
m 42 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
Ml 42 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
37
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 2 of 3
m Facility Estimated Unit Facility
m
m
Number Descriotion Ouantitv Unit Cost Cost
m 43 48" R.C.P, 400 I.f, $130 $52,000
43 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
Ml 43A 60" R.CP. 600 I.f. $180 $108,000
m 43A Cleanout 3 ea. $3,000 $9,000
43B 72" R.CP. 950 I.f. $200 $190,000
mt 43B Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
M 43C 78" R.CP, 1, 050 I.f. $220 $231,000
mm 43C Cleanout 5 ea. $3,000 $15,000
m 44 30" R.C.P, 700 I.f. $80 $56,000
mm 44 Cleanout 3 ea. $3,000 $9,000
m 44 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
47 Extend 30" R.C.P 450 I.f. $80 $36,000
47 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
47 Riprap dissipator 1 ea, $3,000 $3,000
mim 48 Extend 36" R.CP 720 I.f. $100 $72,000
mm 48 Cleanout 3 ea. $3,000 $9,000
-rm 49 42" R.C.P. 1, 020 I.f. $120 $122,400
mm 49 Cleanout 4 ea. $3,000 $12,000
m~ 49 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
Mf 51 Ext. 2- 4'X9.3' RCB 100 I.f. $1,500 $150,000
mm 51 Headwall w/ wingwall 2 ea. $4,500 $9,000
51 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
51 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,280,400
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10% $228,040
38
Ml
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER TRIBUTARY TO ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 3 of 3
39
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $2,508,440
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20% $501,688
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST $3,010,128
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 1 of 2
Facility Estimated Unit Facility
m
m
Number Description Ouantitv Unit Cost Cost
m 52 48" R.CP. 200 I.f. $130 $26,000
m 52 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
mm 52 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
m 52 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
mm
53 30" R,C,P. 600 I.f. $80 $48,000
53 Cleanout 3 ea. $3,000 $9,000
54 36" R.CP, 480 I.f. $100 $48,000
-Ml 54 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
Ml 54 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
Ml 55 30" R.C.P. 300 I.f. $80 $24,000
Mi 55 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
-mm 56 2- 72" R.C.P, 440 I.f. $200 $88,000
m 56 Headwall w/ wingwall 2 ea. $4,500 $9,000
56 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
56 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
•W 57 42" R.C.P. 250 I.f. $120 $30,000
nub 57 Headwall w/ wingwall 1 ea. $3,500 $3,500
•mm 57 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
mm 57 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
m 58 30" R.C.P. 400 I.f. $80 $32,000
mm 5S Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
58 Riprap dissipator 1 ea, $3,000 $3,000
59 30" R.C.P. 500 I.f. $80 $40,000
mm 59 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
mi 59 Riprap dissipator 1 ea, $3,000 $3,000
Ml 60 30" R.C.P. 350 l,f. $80 $28,000
Ml 60 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
-61 30" R.CP. 725 I.f, $80 $58,00
m 61 Cleanout 3 ea. $3,000 $9,000
m 62 48" R.C.P. 1, 400 I.f. $130 $182,000
40
ENCINITAS CREEK MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
RECOMMENDED FACILITIES PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE TABLES
UPPER ENCINITAS CREEK BASIN (ZONE 11) Page 2 of 2
Facility Estimated Unit Facility
•m
-JMI
Number Description Quantity Unit Cost Cost
t^m
mm 62 Cleanout 6 ea. $3,000 $18,000
m 62 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
63 30" R.C.P. 330 I.f, $80 $26,400
63 Cleanout 2 ea. $3,000 $6,000
Ml 64 30" R.C.P. 270 I.f. $80 $21,600
m 64 Cleanout 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
m 64 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
m 65 2- 6' X 10' R.C.B. 150 I.f. $1,650 $247,500
m 65 Headwall w/ wingwall 2 ea. $4,500 $9,000
MB 65 Riprap @ u/s side 1 ea. $1,000 $1,000
mm 65 Riprap dissipator 1 ea. $3,000 $3,000
Ml TOTAL ESTIMATED ITEMIZED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,030,500
Contingencies including possible relocation
of utilities @ 10% $103,050
Ml
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, administration and legal
expenses @ 20%
$1,133,550
$226,710
TOTAL ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST $1,360,260
41
Ml
m
REFERENCES
1. City of Carlsbad, 1984; Standard Design Criteria for the
Design of Public Works Improvements in the City of Carlsbad,
2. San Diego County Department of Public Works, 1985; Public
Road Standards,
3. San Diego County Design Policy Committee, 1985; Design Policy
for Flood Control and Drainage,
4. County of San Diego Department of Public Works Flood Control
Division, 1985; Hydrology Manual.
5. San Diego County Regional Standards Committee, 1986; Regional
Standard Drawings.
6. Rick Engineering Company, 1988; Encinitas Creek Watershed
HEC-1 Model Analysis Hydrology Report.
7. San Diego County Flood Plain Mapping, 1981; Encinitas Creek
HEC-2 Computer Output.
8. San Diego County Department of Public Works, 1982; Encinitas
Creek Floodplain Mapping.
9. San Diego County Engineer, (latest revision), 200 scale
Orthophoto Topographic Survey maps.
10. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, 1987; General Plan Map.
11. Soil Conservation Service, 1974; Soil Survey of the San Diego
Area, California.
12. City of Carlsbad Engineering Department; Storm Drain As-Built
Plans (files) .
13. U,S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971; Flood Plain Information,
San Marcos Creek,
14. City of San Diego, 1985; Unit Prices for Checking
Subdivisions and Permits.
15. Mission Aerial Photo, May 3, 1988; Aerial Photography for
Mello Roos District.
16. San Diego County, 1980; Hydrology Report for Encinitas
Creek.
17. CH2M Hill, 1988 (Draft); Batiquitos Lagoon Enhancement
Project.
18. Koebig, Inc., 1976; Comprehensive Plan for Flood Control
and Drainage Zone 1, San Diego County Flood Control District.
42